I think God wants this reunion.  Both sides are absolutely seeking the Truth through the same Triune God.  With Mary holding the hands of both sides…how can it fail?

May the Holy Spirit direct this reunion for the glory of Our Lord.

The response of the SSPX is an excellant one. For years we have been asking the Leaders of the Church to speak in this manner. Most of our Bishops cannot speak in such a manner, as they lack faith and love for Christ’s Church. By what I have read on what Bishop Fellay has stated this past week, for over 30 years we have been demanding and hoping against hope for a Bishop of the Church to speak with this type of Authority. Seminarians have those responsible for their formation. I suggest something new, someone like Bishop Fellay should be appointed by the Holy Father to be responsible for the formation of Bishops or for the reformation of Bishops. Enough is enough, its time for ALL the Bishops of the Church to return to Tradition.

I’m confused by Bishop Fellay’s statement.  He recognizes the authority of the pope, yet apparently persists in schism.  That doesn’t make sense to me.  Did I miss something?  Certainly, I hope unity can be achieved.

Some day when Rome finally releases the 3rd. Secret and consecrates Russia we will also be blessed with a denouncing of the errors of Vatican II and a return to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, turning forever away from The Celebration of eucharist, and all of the impious actions of that celebration.  In the end Mary ‘s Immaculate Heart will triumph!

What a bunch of words saying nothing!!  These so-called ‘traditionalists’ that still condemn the Jewish people and non-catholic Christians to hell, need to learn about the True Teachings of Jesus, Mary and the Roman Catholic Church. To be outside of the Church as they are, is a very grave and dangerous sin; at least, this group of outsiders still recognise the Pope as a True Pope of the Church, much unlike the rest of the ‘traditionalists’ that deny the existence of the Popes since the ‘60s (they can’t even agree on which Pope was the ‘last’.  +JMJ+

...“To be OUTSIDE of the Church as they are, is a very grave and dangerous sin; at least, this group of outsiders STILL RECOGNIZE THE POPE as a True Pope of the Church”...
Huh?? Unusual situation this society is in. Schism is a word that takes on different meanings to different people. Some prelates state the society is in schism and others are silent. I don’t think even the vatican truly knows, they can’t really define it- we are left with opinions. I think those who scream ‘schism’ are definitely afraid of something.

There is no salvation outside the Church.  This is an infallible doctrine that was twice confirmed by Doctrinal Councils.  Vatican II no longer recognizes this doctrine.  Vat. II was a complete disaster, which the Pius X group will not recognize.  Vat. II had 6 protestant ministers who were “observers” on the Liturgical Commission, which changed the mass into its present form.  You wonder why the present mass looks like a Protestant service?  Ecumenism was the cause.  Ecumenism went too far.  I can see where you would want to join forces with Christians denominations with whom you agree on certain points, but the Church went too far.

“The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.” Self-contradictory? Not really, because SSPX believes “the constant Magisterium of the Church” closed up shop on October 9, 1958, the morning Pius XII died—and has not operated since. Once you understand that, you can properly translate what would otherwise seem like confusing language in Society pronouncements. I do NOT expect that SSPX will EVER agree to reunite with Rome unless the pope agrees either to repudiate the documents of Vatican II or to allow SSPX priests and bishops to, without facing punishment, freely and openly declare the Council to have been heretical. This no pope will ever agree to do.

I am hopeful that the open wound that has festered over the past 24 years will be finally healed. Remember Archbishop Lefebvre himself did not want this break to occur, He once said,“If a Bishop breaks with Rome, it will not be me—-remember even though this sounds ungrammatical it is perfectly correct in French!!!

“There is no salvation outside the Church”?  Some understand that to mean that only Catholics go to heaven.  We Catholics recognize that there are non-Catholics in heaven.  Certainly all Old Testament prophets fall into that category.  We can’t limit God’s mercy or possibly know the condition of a soul at the instant of death.  And there are innocent, good people who have never heard of Christ.  I believe that statement means that through the facilities of the Catholic faith, heaven’s doors are opened.  The Eucharist primarily, and all the prayers and beliefs of the Catholic Church maintain humankind’s receptive relationship with God’s mercy - which extends beyond each of us.  The Catholic Church is saving the world.

As for the “disaster” (sic) of Vatican II… Yes, there have been misinterpretations and abuses, but this Church is led by the Holy Spirit and is not in error.  (Matt 16:18, Matt 28:20)

Vatican ll did in fact confirm the Dogma, “no salavation outside the Church.” The Council states something like this, Anyone knowing that Christ founded the Catholic Church for salvation and refuses to enter it or remain in it, has no salvation whatsoever. Even if he shed his blood for Christ. As for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, It was done by Bl. John Paul ll, on March 25, 1984. And it was confirmed by Sister Lucia who said Heaven accepted it. Our Lady had said that the consecration would be made but that it would be late. The evil from hell has sowed the seeds of conspiracy theories, the kidnapping of the real Sister Lucia, Sister Lucia locked in her cell under lock and key, Sister Lucia forced by the Holy Father to say lies under obedience ect…ect…ect… hell is intent on destroying the purity of the Fatima message. Rome is at the last stage of the formal excommunication of Fr. Nicholas Gruner who according to Sister Lucia herself, “Fr. Gruner has caused great damage to Our Lady’s message.”

These messages from www.holylove.org

HOLY MESSAGE

July 20, 2012

Public

Blessed Mother says:  “Praise be to Jesus.”

“Today, dear children, I am calling each and all of you to unity of heart.  Be of one mind and one heart.  Work towards the conversion of as many souls as possible before My Son’s return.  This is why I am here in your midst seeking the Consecration of the Heart of the World to Our United Hearts.  This Consecration will increase the Remnant Faithful and strengthen it in what is to come.  In many cases, it will unravel the lies Satan has woven into the fabric of society today.”

“At Fatima My request was for the conversion of Russia; but today the need is for worldwide conversion of heart.  Do not think that a global government is the answer.  The world today does not need a human solution but a spiritual solution - a spiritual correction of heart.*  This is why I come to you.  I seek the spiritual renewal of the heart of the world through Our United Hearts.”

Read Philippians 2:1-4

*Note:  A spiritual correction refers to repentance and conversion of heart.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Two of the messages from Blessed Mother on the Consecration of the Heart of the World are below with the Consecration Prayer

May 10, 2012

Public

Blessed Mother says:  “Praise be to Jesus.”

“These days, when sin has become a political choice, it is of even greater importance that hearts be consecrated to Our United Hearts.  For with this consecration is the soul’s resolve to live a holy life, and to support only Holy Truth.”

“Soon I will dictate to you a consecration of the heart of the world to Our United Hearts*.  The more souls that make this consecration, the more the heart of the world will be saturated with the Truth.  This is an all-important effort in these times before the impetus of the final tribulation.”

* To the Children of the United Hearts Association:

Please note the importance of spreading this consecration of the heart of the world to the United Hearts throughout the world.

————————————————————————————-

May 10, 2012

Public

Blessed Mother says:  “Praise be to Jesus.”

“This is My Mother’s Day gift to the world - the Consecration of the Heart of the World to the United Hearts.”

“Most Compassionate United Hearts of the Most Holy Trinity and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, accept this, my prayer, on behalf of the heart of the world.  Awaken the heart of the world to the Truth of the difference between good and evil.”

“Inspire each soul to consecrate their hearts and their lives to the United Hearts; thereby strengthening the heart of the world in this resolve.”

“We beg You, dear United Hearts, pour the grace of Your inspiration into the heart of the world, strengthening it in Truth and in Holy Love.  In this heavenly inspiration, draw the heart of the world into union with the Will of God.  Amen.”

————————————————————————————————————————

Of course non-Catholics may be saved.

The first Pope to express the true doctrine was Pope St Clement I who wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” [“Catholic Apologetics Today”, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145]. [As in “Lumen Gentium” #16, of Vatican II].

Vatican II merely confirmed that without the Church there is no salvation.

ANGELO————-In order to prove fidelity to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church these bishops would need to openly renounce any attachment to the illegitimacies of the Vatican Council.  The Vatican II Council changed the concept of Sacred Tradition to be a “living Tradition” which is a heresy.  The bishops would need to renounce involvement in the protestant/Lutheranized novus ordo missae.  They would need to stop all their current duties,  be re-educated to the dogmas and doctrines of Holy Mother the Church,  and prove submission to the infallible Magisterial Teachings.  Furthermore, they will need to be ordained by a legitimate bishop who uses the correct matter and form. There is a huge amount of clean up.  Bishop Fellay has his own problems he needs to come to terms with.  For instance, how could he claim one is a true pope yet refuse to follow that pope in his errors?  All it takes is one false position to be outside the True Church of Christ.

The SSPX maintains that they have a true devotion to the Church and the pope, but they pick and choose the teachings. 
This is a very important question, “IS THAT A CORRECT CATHOLIC ATTITUDE?”

ANGELO’S denunciations of Vatican II are a rejection of Christ who mandated:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

The arrogance displayed here is typical of those who don’t understand the infallibility in faith and morals which Christ gave His Church, but live in a myopic world of fantasy.

Thomas, You state, “Vatican ll merely confirmed that without the Church there is no salvation.”. What you state is to my understanding the correct interpretation of no salvation outside the Church. Some would have others believe that unless one is an official member of the Church, he has no salvation. The Church has never taught this false interpretation. The Church teaches that many through no fault of their own are not Catholic, but if they truly love and serve God according to the way they do know him, when they die, they in fact die Catholic through the merits of the passion and death of our Lord. Some Saints have asked God about those who do not know Christ and his Church. God has answered that he has given each man a conscience, knowing between good and evil. If they choose good and avoid evil then they are saved. This was no new Dogma from the Council, it has always been believed in the Tradition of the Church.

Joe, Your question is a good one, but there is also a good answer. The SSPX as anyone else, see’s how the Church has been ravaged by the misinterpretations of the Council. They have the courage to ask the Holy Father, “Why has this happened and why was it allowed and why has it not been stopped?”. Bl. John Paul ll and Benedict XVl have obviously asked the same question. Which is why they have called for the reform of the reforms. The Servant of God Pope Paul Vl did all he could to stop the madness, to the point of saying, “I detect the smoke of satan has entered the very house of God.” I remember the reaction of many to Paul Vl, “He’s senile, he should step down and allow for a pope who would be more up-to-date.” The SSPX has made mistakes on their path to “restore all things in Christ” But they have the humility to fix their mistakes. That I believe is a “Correct Catholic Attitude”.

Thomist, Wow! You really put me in my place. Only I have never denounced Vatican Council ll. Perhaps you misread my comments. All that you point out, I accept and would rather prefer death than to live without these truths. Either I confused you or you did’nt fully read my comments and so jumped to rash conclusions. I accept all that the Church teaches, I believe in blind obedience to the Supreme Pontiff on matters of faith and morals. I was once an adherent of the SSPX until 1988, I believe God has chosen the SSPX for a great mission, that of restoring the Church to Tradition. I believe that if the SSPX succeeds we will see the new springtime envisioned by Bl. John XXlll (The way the SSPX practices the Catholic faith, is IDENTICAL to the way Bl. John XXlll practiced it). And along with that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as the Consecration has already been made by Bl. John Paul ll on March 25, 1984 Feast of the Incarnation. And accepted by Heaven, according to Sister Lucia.

Public, You are citing from private revelations. Do they have the approval of the Church. In my opinion what is said in these messages sounds okay, but are they truly the words of Our Lord and Our Lady. A priest who was very devoted to our Lady was asked his opinion about a certain allegded Marian Apparition. He stated, “a child knows the voice of its Mother”. Then said that he did not believe in the authenticity of the allegded apparitions. “Someone is putting words in Our Lady’s mouth, this is not Our Lady speaking.” I am of the same opinion in regards to the “Holy Love” private revelations.

Joe, What exactly is “Tradition”? What does the Church teach about it? If the world had a beginning, then Tradition also had a beginning, meaning at one point it was something new to man. So my opinion is that Tradition is not something stuck in its tracks, it lives! It lives to be preserved. So if V2 said Tradition is “a living Tradition”, Please point out the heresy in what V2 allegedly said. The Council did not, could not, err. This is a Tradition held by the Church on all the 21 Ecumenical Councils. Vatican Council ll is part of the living Tradition of the Church.

While the SSPX in their attempt to maintain the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional Catholic Faith, they must oppose the novus ordo missae and the false ecumenism and religious liberty of Vatican Council II. 
The SSPX is not canonically approved by Rome and have no jurisdictional connection with Rome.  The SSPX publicly disobeys Rome as they administer the Sacraments.  They have no approval to set up churches nor dispense the Sacraments.  If the Conciliar Church of Vatican II is the Catholic Church as they say it is, then how can they not consider themselves schismatics?  They (and comments in this column) maintain theologically confused positions.

Angelo -you said,  “God has answered that he has given each man a conscience, knowing between good and evil.  If they choose good and avoid evil then they are saved. This was no new Dogma from the Council, it has always been believed in the Tradition of the Church.”  No one is saved according to their own conscience.  That’s heresy.  Only a soul with sanctifying grace is saved.  A soul condemns itself with sin.  Sin exists.  Hell does exist.  God is not mocked.  Justice is served to all.  Yes, we are saved by the merits of Christ only if we choose to be cleansed from sin by making a sound confession and receiving absolution by a legitimate priest.

Joe, What is the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? It is a Divine act, not a human act. It is Calvary repeated, God offering himself to God in atonement for our sins. The SSPX as well as Pope B16 and many other greats in the Church are not happy with the Novus Ordo Missae but none, not even the SSPX reject its validity. There are 27 different Rites in the Church, that is 27 different ways of offering the Holy Sacrifice, to reject the validity of even one is heresy at its worst. As for the SSPX all their sacraments are valid. The SSPX has entered to what Tradition calls “Holy Disobedience”. They have no intention of separation from Rome and no intention of looking upon V2 through the eyes of modernists. Looking at V2 through the eyes of modernists is the horrifying catastrophe that the SSPX is battling against. Are they in Schism? We await for the Holy Father to make that decision, its not ours to make.

Joe, What I stated is the traditional teaching of the Church. I did not state that one is saved by merely having a conscience. But that having a conscience which gives us knowledge between good and evil, if we follow what is good then it is pleasing to God. We must be very careful about putting limits on God’s salvific power. You have taken the truths of the Church and sort of scrambled them around. I am positive that the SSPX would point to this as a heresy. As it is an act of Protestinism in which one scrambles the truth and creates his own little church of his own. As there is the error of “private interpretation of scripture” by which one can lose his soul. So there is “private interpretation” of what the Church actually teaches, which can also cause our eternal loss. Remember the warnings, “You hold your soul in a fragile vase, be careful lest you shatter it.” Also, “Those of you who think you stand firm take heed lest you fall.” and, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” Lets continue my Brother with humility and great caution.

If the society was incorporated into the church at this time, I think the modernist rot would engulf and destroy it. Right now, I think the society is doing the church much good in trying to make public how much heresy and modernism infects the church. I’m not sure if a personal prelature would work right now. My understanding is they would still need “permission” from the local ordinary. The rot in the church has to be revealed firstly before things change.

ANGELO——-You said that I have taken the truths of the Church and sort of scrambled them around and that you are positive that the SSPX would point to this as a heresy.” 
As you know the conciliar church has been called the church “with all its faults and defects”!  Compare that with the quote that I accept from a sermon of Pope Pius IX in 1862.  He said, “The Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of truth.  She has neither spot nor wrinkle, but is holy and without sin.  She is the One with whom Christ has promised to remain all days even to the end of time.”  So the question is, which Church do we want to believe in:        the one with all her faults and defects or the one without spot and wrinkle? 
Do we want to believe in the One that is the pillar and ground of truth?  Do we want to believe in the One that will get us to heaven and not be our obstacle to getting to heaven?  Of course you do and all of us must stop the willful blindness.
Are you denying infallibility?  The pope’s duty is to watch over the teachings of the church.  He condemns errors when they arise and so when something is taught universally in error throughout the church, we cannot think that it is done in ignorance.  The Apostolic Church is protected by infallibility.  Christ has endowed His Church with infallibility.  The SSPX, the conciliarists and non-catholics deny this protection promised by the Holy Spirit.
Infallibility belongs exclusively to the teaching authority of the pope according to the Vatican Council of 1869-1870.

Matters relating to papal infallibility was established at the First Vatican Council.  This infallible spirit protects the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Seven Sacraments and the revelations of the Catholic Church because they were established by Christ.  Even the pope cannot substantially change these essential elements of the Catholic Faith.  The pope cannot modify, contradict or deny what Christ established for His Church.  The pope is protected by papal infallibility from ever teaching anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith.  Paster Aeternus, July 1870 is the decree on papal infallibility.  The First Vatican Council also used the papal bull Laetentur Caeli, by Pope Eugene IV.    The Shepherd and Teacher of the Apostolic Church does not need the Church’s expressed concurrence when he proclaims an article on faith and morals.  This is Sacred Tradition that Catholics are bound to accept.

Tom, the rot in the Church was foreseen.  Pontiffs have written warnings about it.    It’s called ‘modernism’, the heresy of all heresies. Popes direct us to renounce error and to not patronize with it.
1. PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS -
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907 ... It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present ...
2. THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM -
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
Was to be sworn by all clergy, preachers, religious superiors, and seminary professors. Issued 1 September, 1910.
3. LAMENTABILI SANE -
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS. Pius X July 3, 1907. With truly lamentable results, our age, casting ...

Good posts, Joe.
Angelo, I apologise for misreading some of your comments. However the SSPX are in error in denigrating Vatiacn II’s teaching on religious liberty.
Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger places Vatican II in its rightful place and wrote in The Ratzinger Report:
“I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” [The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points….” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28). Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

Angelo, You quoted this statement, “Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent.”
Let us take a look at the decree Dignitatis Humanae (D.H.) on Religious Liberty promulgated by Paul VI on Dec. 1965.  Religious Liberty is a major topic of today.  Conservative Council Fathers at the Vatican II Council opposed D.H.’s doctrinal errors.—— Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI, Quanta Cura by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, by Pope Pius IX,  Libertas by Pope Leo XIII……,  are some of the Supreme teachings that taught error and false religions cannot be the object of a natural right.  Popes condemned what the periti legislated at Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae.  If there was space I would give you the information in the Pontiff’s words .  D. H. teaches that those in error have the right to promote their error publicly and to be recognized by governments. 
An example of the disastrous effects of this Vat. II document is that of Catholic Spain.  The country was forced to update their laws with the Vatican II decree.  Any religious sect was to have freedom to proselytize.  Because of the circulation of all manner of opinions and beliefs, Spain eventually legalized pornography, contraceptives, divorce, sodomy and abortion.  Another example of disaster for souls was Brazil.  Thousands of Catholics left the Catholic Church to join false religions.  One good answer to the loss of Catholic faith by millions is found in the encyclical Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI:
“This is the most contagious of errors…..which prepares the way for that absolute and totally unrestrained liberty of opinions…….’What more disastrous death for souls than the liberty of error’, said St. Augustine.  …the removal from men of restraint …led to their ruin by a natural inclination to evil.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors #78 condemned public exercises of any form of worship.
Shall we continue?
Unitatis redintegratio #3 “….separated churches…though we believe them deficient..can be used for means of salvation.” 
That is a blatant rejection of the Dogma, “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.”  Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #9 states: “The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection …..and it alone supplies those means of salvation..”

Joe you have now shown your true colours in dissent.

Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council of AD 1215, Unam Sanctam, the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, and Pope Eugene IV’s Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 all refer to those who have rejected the true gospel. Pope Eugene IV makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc., so this classifies them like the Arians, Monophysites, Ebionites, who heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not heard the gospel. The ones that these decrees are considering are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they cannot be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.”

In order for the dissenting Feeneyite EENS view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. After hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, so those who stay a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed in danger of hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.). They are thus condemned unless they physically become members of the Church. This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.
There has been a legitimate development of doctrine that is in no way contradictory to what was stated in these decrees.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 defined that “The universal Church of the faithful is one, outside of which no one is saved.”  The Council of Trent, 1545—1563, defined the dogma of baptism by desire thus completing what Vatican II expressed thus: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.” (Lumen Gentium, 14).  Here we have a typical development of doctrine.

“Thus the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man’s salvation…as a divinely instituted means, provided a person knows that he must use this means to be saved.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, SJ, 1974, p 236).  Thus, just as without Christ there is no salvation, so without the Church there is no salvation. [CCC # 846 _ # 848].

If we as true Catholics believe that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church, how can anyone living outside in their own separated body ever see salvation, as Jesus taught us, no one can come to the Father except through me for the Father and I are one.  Why do the Saints tell us that more souls are condemned than those who gain eternal salvation.  One Saint even returned to warn us stating that on the day he died 27,000 souls went to hell, two went to purgatory and one to heaven.  Only the self saved proclaim that almost every one is saved.  Last note, remember the Church just corrected the words spoken at Holy Mass and changed the phrases from “all” to “many” meaning Not All

Thomist, you chastise me for presenting what is written in the Vatican II documents.  I’m stating facts and no personal opinion.
The revised church of Vatican II no longer is the church of the return, that is the members of other churches are told they will be saved just where they are and that includes the Jews.  Prayers for the conversion of the Jews and the Muslims have been eliminated.  Thomist, have you read the documents of Vatican II Council?  Are you aware of what it proposes in regards to ecumenism and what has been previously handed on?  Are you aware that the documents teach that there is not one church that has the fullness of the truth and that the conciliar church “susbsists in” along with other denominations?  Are you aware the Vatican II documents no longer maintain the infallible Authority of the Vicar of Christ?

Jon, the Mytical Body of Christ are the people in the Roman Catholic Church who never used the word “all” in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  No correction was necessary.

Thomist, Joe has a good point, even though I am not a sede. The pope has some odd views and are dangerous as well ,esp. in re to the jews. “The Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the jews”.  Statements such as this is definitely a head turner and not in the tradition of the church. He appears to not so much want to save tradition but to save vatican ii.
He claims to believe in the “true” council but does little to correct the “false” council. And he does not appear to say what is the true council, and allowing the false one to continue on its merry way.
http://www.cfnews.org/b16-significantsilence.htm
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page35/vatican_synagogue_agreement.html

There are many changes brought about by Vatican 2 that I do not like and that were unnecessary!  The Mass is no longer what it used to be.  To me, it has strong Protestant overtones and I, like MANY Catholics no longer enjoy going to Mass!  It has become too casual, almost disrespectful in its presentation!  I deplore the use of a piano at Mass, and the songs, etc. have a Protestant ring to them.  The last Mass I went to, the priest came out before Mass, and placed a chalice with a crinkled up purificator stuffed in it on the altar.  There is no respect shown for the sacredness of the Mass!  Vatican 2 did more to harm the Church, than help it!

Just pointing that out to those who follow the Movies Peso tradition that began in the late 1960s early 1970s.  Thank you though, all comments are welcome!

Ric Dykstra - a new denomination humanly designed was the purposed intent of the Council of Vatican II.  Who can deny the facts?  Millions of Catholics left, but then that was the plan.  Traditional clergy were persecuted.

Today I came to my computer just to read the comments on this thread. It seems your all saying what must be said. Is this the “Great Debate” that Bishop Fellay was refering to as what he “awaits”. You have made what I consider some great points. This year starting in October, the Church will be celebrating the 50th anniverseray of Vatican Council ll. I think maybe its going to be the intellectual war in the Church as fortold by our Lady to St. Don Bosco. I hope it will be the end of the “Great Apostacy”. Pope Benedict XVl has repeatedly called for the reinterpretaion of Vatican ll in the light of Tradition. A few years ago, he called on the SSPX to reconcile with Rome as he would like their theologians to take part in this.

Dear Friends,We know that the Vatican Council was NOT the work of the Holy Ghost.The Council was hi-jacked by leftist Bishops of Germany, France, Holland, Denmark and the US. The excellent preparatory work of the Council, performed in part by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr DeLaurier, and others, was destroyed and tossed into the trash.Montini allowed the leftists to submit new schemas, introduce Marxist idealogy,(Read the “Alta Vendita”,Catholic Family News) and prevent the faithful Catholic fathers the time and facilities to counter these proposals. Reams of liberal tainted “studies” were given to the 3,000 bishops, supposedly supporting the schema,(Read Archbishop Lefebvre’s ‘I accuse the Council’) and the discussions were manipulated so the traditionalists could not present.
Schillenbeeckx himself admitted that they deliberatly made the Council documents vague and imprecise, so they could later manipulate their meaning.
  Lurking behind the scenes to this whole tragedy of Vatican Council II was the horrific reality that so many imposters(eg Card. Lustiger"A jew I was born, a jew I am, and a jew I will die!”), many perverts recruited by the Communists and Masonic Order,to destroy the Church. These perverts rose to Seminary Directors, University Professors and Bishops, and promoted sodomy and pedephelia, laying the foundation for the destruction of the faith to occur during the 1990’s, as these cases were all exposed.(“Read Goodbye,Good Men”)
  While there are many faithful Catholics still in the pews, raising their prayers to Almighty God, they do not have the help of the graces from the true sacraments, except through the Traditional Mass locations.
www.sossaveoursspx.

Ric Dykstra, While the disasters you mention certainly happened and are happening, it was not the fault of Vatican Council ll. Many in the Church in the past 40 years have done things in the name of the “spirit of vatican ll”. Bl. John Paul ll condemned the “spirit of vatican ll” idea. Pope Benedict XVl as Cardinal Ratzinger said firmly, “What was said at Vatican ll and what was done after it, are two totaly different things.” He was asked to elaborate and he answered, “Take the Communion Rails. I was a periti for my BIshop at the Council and I attended all the sessions. Not once did the Council even as much as mention the Communion Rails. Then after the Council, in the Name of the Council, priests all over the world began to remove the Communion Rails.” Bl.JP2 and B16 both have condemned all the false changes done in the name of the Council. Many falsley claimed that V2 called for this and that. It was a scourge of modernism run wild. I’d like to mention a few things NEVER called for by the Council and yet were done in its name.

Hugh Dolan, You recommend reading catholic family news. I’d like to give my opinion of it, I was given a gift subscription and have read alot of it. It is the crafty work of the evil one. satan it is said, allows some good with the bad for his evil intentions. Catholic Family News has some great articles on the lives of the Saints and also on the Spiritual life. But when it comes to the Church and the Holy Father, what they write is diabolical poison. A poison that will only lead one away from God while pretending to belong to God. Its contents are filled with lies, half truths, heresy and schism. I have read enough of it, when it comes in the mail it goes straight to the trash. It is on par with jack chic publications.

>>>...
A poison that will only lead one away from God while pretending to belong to God. Its contents are filled with lies, half truths, heresy and schism. I have read enough of it, when it comes in the mail it goes straight to the trash. It is on par with jack chic publications.”

Angelo,
Any examples that you could provide us with in re to CFNews “lies, half truths, heresy and schism”?  I provided 2 links to CFN above. Any ideas as to why they are untrue? Or is it because the pope is always right and both sides of the aisle are always misinterpreting?

Mainly because the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, The visible head of the Church, Christ the invisible head of the Church. The newsletter Catholic Family News is filled with attacks and hatred against the Holy Father. According to this newsletter the Pope is always wrong. Who are they to be judges of Christ’s appointed Vicar? I have never read them saying anything good about the Pope. There is a section “The Pope Speaks” and they never quote the present Vicar of Christ, only past Popes. Are they sedevantists? They have misled so many people. Its diehard readers spend a great deal of time attacking Christ’s voice on earth. There is a photo of Bl. John Paul ll making google eyes. This newsletter officialy proclaimed that in this picture Bl. John Paul ll was as a matter of fact making fun of the Papacy. They went into detail how the Pope despised the Papacy. A blatant lie. I know the story behind this photo, a jouranlist with seriousness asked Bl. John Paul ll if a Pope was allowed to have a sense of humor. This photo shows the response of His Holiness. Take the fact about the photo and then take what CFN invented about it. This is just one example of their diabolical poisonous lies.

Blind Freddie should know that the crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in”Christ Denied” TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers “The SIECUS Circle?, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The ‘60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See”The Emperor’s New Clothes” by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae, notwithstanding the magnificent Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI in 1930 against the surrendering Anglican sect which sundered the Protestant fidelity against contraception (including Luther);  the dissent by Karl Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians; Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors); the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak—coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

How many Catholics know this? Some, in ignorance,  choose to rail against the facts.

The great papal teaching and guidance of popes Bl John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.

Vatican statistics show Catholic growth:
Vatican City, Mar 12, 2012 / 12:25 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Catholic Church added 15 million new faithful in 2010 and the number of priests continued to steadily increase for the tenth straight year, according to the latest edition of the pontifical yearbook.

  My opinion on this is that both sides are to blame for this continuing issue. Pope Paul VI could of and maybe should have allowed the SSPX to have the 1962 Mass by indult as Padre Pio was allowed to do, and he should have admitted to the “novels and abuses ” that had taken place since 1965. I also thing that all of the Council Documents need to be clarified; What did the Fathers mean? But on the other hand the Society should not have called Pope Paul VI a Modernist publicly and speak of “eternal Rome” I also think they should accept the Pope’s offer because if they don not, I fear they may not get this chance to reunite with a sympathetic Pope. I also think that things are improving greatly under the present Pope. I also think there is a false “spirit of Vatican II” that is slowly fading away do the younger generation but not just exclusively to them I am 50 and I taught myself the Faith using my mother’s 1954 “Father Smith Instructs Jackson” and St.Joseph’s Missal.

Joannie, “Fr Smith Instructs Jackson” is very good.

Vatican II is clear.
The Falsification of Vatican II takes several forms, but the two most prevalent are:
1) A false “spirit of Vatican II” employed by some dissenters and those they corrupt.
2) A gambit that treats the Council as false along with any teaching the individual dislikes, incriminating some Popes, and associated with SSPX followers.

Fr William Most examined ten legitimate changes at Vatican II and found not one was a reverse of doctrine.  All gave answers to previously debated points.  Fr Most concludes: “It is obvious then that Vatican II did not create a revolution in theology.  There are no reversals of teaching at all, and some…are only a little different or stronger than previous teachings, but all are in the same direction.”  [Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers To Modern Critics, Fr William G Most, TAN, 1986, p 200].

On the continuity of Vatican II, it is vital to know that Pope John XXIII declared in opening Vatican II: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling.  One thing is the deposit of Faith which consists of the truth contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and the same sense.” [Pope John XXIII in his opening address to the Council Fathers at Vatican II, “Creed and Catechetics”, Msgr E Kevane P 60, 221-222]. The Pope here uses the very words of Vatican I, which in turn came from St Vincent of Lerins.

Angelo, you still are generalizing your statements without proving anything.  It has been said don’t let the facts get in the way.  Yes, facts can be mean and disturbing.  Read no further if you don’t want to know that the main doctrinal errors promulgated by the Second Vatican Council and previously condemned by the Catholic Church are: Religious Indifferentism, False Ecumenism, and Religious Liberty.  Now I could take the time to show you in the Vat. II documents where they are contrary to Sacred Tradition and the infallible Magisterium, but if I did then you would no longer be able to hang onto your holy innocence of not knowing.  Or, you could read the book “No Crisis in the Church?” by Simon Galloway which is a comparison of Catholic Church teachings before and after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).  Another good book to read loaded with facts is “Animus Delendi-1 (Desire to Destroy)” by Atila Sinke Guimaraes.  I recommend you start with the first to wet your appetite for more knowledge.  Angelo, “truth can never contradict truth” per Pope Leo X, in “Apostolici Regiminis” December 19, 1513.  Councils never contradict previous councils nor do popes correct or contradict promulgated doctrines by their predecessors.  Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Dignitatis Humanae, 3 of the 16 Vat. II documents have contradictions to what the Catholic Church has defined as dogma, therefore, Catholics are bound to believe.  Don’t believe me; check it out for yourself.  The bottom line, Angelo, it’s about saving souls not people’s pride.

Thomist, SIECUS points out that it was not Planned Parenthood that led the way to get sex education in classrooms.  PPH saw a change in policy of the activities of priests and bishops who covered for them in regards to breaking down the family unit.  This is also pointed out in “The McHugh Chronicles” by Randy Engels.  Read it and weep!  The hierarchy did nothing to stop these priests who got a hold of the purse strings to perform their dastardly deeds. Excommunication nor corrections or apologies for the evils these legitimately ordained priest, BTW, foistered upon society has ever been made.  They were men who were rewarded for the evils they did up to and including John Paul II’s era.  These clergy were careerists snared by ambition.  There is not a pro-life group within the conciliar church who will speak against the changes in attitudes to no longer protect the innocence of youth in the parochial schools, YET, they claim to fight the against abortion, pornography and birth controlling.  The destruction is within the Vatican and it began a long time ago.  The Vatican II periti/modernists/progressives were well prepared ahead of the council opening much to the surprise of the conservative bishops who were treated most unkindly.  You mentioned Karl Rahner who was one of the major influences of the Council to destroy Catholicism.  Have you seen the picture of him at the Vat 2 council with his very close priest friend who was in a suit and tie?

Joe fantasizes that “Vat. II documents have contradictions to what the Catholic Church has defined as dogma,”

It doesn’t matter who claims that the Catholic Church has contradicted doctrine, or even dogma—who are they against Christ? For He have Her infallibility from teaching error through Her Popes, His Supreme Vicars, as we have seen from the Sacred Scriptures. And Her Ecumenical Councils when approved by a Pope cannot teach error.

The dissenters confuse the development of doctrine with a contradiction, which as we have send is impossible, has never occurred, and can never occur.

On religious liberty, in a new doctrinal development, Vatican II declared what may be summarized as “Non-Catholics have a right to immunity from coercion in propagating their religion publicly” (to the extent that it does not violate public order). [Dignitatis Humanae, # 2-3, 10].

On salvation, those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

Vatican II has singularly developed doctrine: identifying dissent by mandating “loyal submission of the will and intellect….to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra” (infallibly); clearly defining “for the first time in conciliar history” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday 1975, p 213) that “the sole Church of Christ…..subsists in the Catholic Church”.

Similarly, (collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history. [See The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233].  This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The Declaration on Religious Liberty is a “development of doctrine (which) constitutes a change of emphasis; makes explicit what was explicit, and clarifies former obscurity or ambiguity.” (Fr Brian Harrison, OS).

Apparently some are not doing their homework as well as denigrating the emphatic affirmation of the authority and fidelity of Vatican II by no less than Pope Benedict XVI. Trying to connect lax bishops and dissenting theologians with fantasy errors of Vatican II is sick because Christ’s Church cannot teach error.

Faithful Catholics can enjoy the many articles on Vatican II from the excellent website of Living Tradition, Organ Of The Roman Theological Forum, at:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html

Joe, Your confusing what Vatican ll said, with what was done by the modernists after Vatican ll. As the Holy Father has pointed out, “They are two totaly different things.” All the reading in the world will not change the fact, of what the Holy Father has pointed out.

Joannie, Pope Paul Vl never prohibited Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to say the Old Mass. Lefebvre actually had the Pope’s blessing. Lefebvre’s suspension came about because of his criticisms of Vatican Council ll, of which he himself signed all the Documents. Pope Paul Vl did in fact speak out against all the novelties and abuses that were happening, but sadly he was ignored. He stated at the time, “My crown of thorns has been the way priests are acting today.” I remember the day he died, commentators on the News said, “Pope Paul Vl will go down in history as the Pope who was never listened to.” You say the Council Documents should be clarified, Pope Benedict XVl is in fact calling for this, he has called for Vatican ll to be reinterpreted in the light of Tradition. As for the fading away of the “spirit of vatican ll” mentality. I too have noticed this, Thank God!

Thomist, In one of your Posts you thought I was anti-Vatican ll. I admit that I had the same impression of you, at first. We were both wrong. Reading your posts this morning, I have to say! I have never heard anyone defend the Council with the truth and the facts as you have done! I have heard many defend the Council, with the “spirit of Vatican ll” mentality. This is actualy the first time I have heard it defended in the light of tradition. Exactly what the Holy Father is calling for. Congragulations! God Bless!

Thank you Angelo for your kind words. For some 15 years I have been jousting on DB’s trying to do just that. We have to offer truth to the confused and take the trouble to right the wrongs which so many have done to Christ and His Church and to offer light leading to Christ – the Way the Truth and the Life.

I ask all who venture here to go to The Roman Theological Forum (Living Tradition) for that Way, Truth and Life at:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html

As Cardinal Ratzinger, our beloved Pope Benedict XVI said:
First: “It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous Councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism’, at least in its extreme forms.”
Second: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that that upholds the other two Councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.” “Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.”
[The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28].

The Pope has no absolute powers.
Ratzinger. God and the World: Believing and Living in Our Time: A Conversation with Peter Seewald , 453 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002).

A Catholic cannot uphold the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.
Ratzinger and Messori, Vittorio. The Ratzinger Report ,  28 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985).

Catholics ought to give communion to schismatics.
Ratzinger. Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith , 232 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005).

The Church is guilty of sins.
Ratzinger. Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith , 275 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005).

Many false religions fall within the plan of salvation.
Ratzinger. Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 14 6 August 2000

Heretics are in communion with the Church.
Ratzinger. The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001, 17 L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, 23 January 2002,

Pius IX’s Religious Liberty decisions need correction.
Ratzinger. The Nature and Mission of Theology: Its Role in the Light of Present Controversy, III (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1995).

Heretics are Christians.
Ratzinger and Seewald, Peter. Salt of the Earth, 242 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997).

The Church is joined to heretics and schismatics.
Ratzinger. Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, 17 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996).

Heretical sects are united to the Church.
Ratzinger. Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 17 -  6 August 2000

To expose just one false accusation from Minty is enough to expose the tissue of misrepresentation to which such as these are infected like a plague, as already identified above.
Extract from Dominus Iesus, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, CDF:
“If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92
“Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom,98 must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Notes:
(92) Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici corporis: DS 3821.
(98) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1.
http://tinyurl.com/81n1

“A Catholic cannot uphold the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.”
Ratzinger and Messori, Vittorio. The Ratzinger Report, 28 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985).

All Catholics ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD the orthodoxy of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.
Ven. Pius IX, D. 1000

Denzinger, Rev. Henry (ed.), Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 1000 (Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 27th ed., 1951).

Thomist, Benedict XVI has never renounced his theological errors.  One famous quote from a book he wrote is, “We must return to the era of 1789, of liberty, equality, and fraternity.  These are not Catholic principles.

Minty, You say, “Benedict XVl has never renounced his theological errors.” Pope Bendict XVl as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope has spoken of how at one time he began to lean towards the Left. He has never kept this a secret. He realizied that it was error. That experience of his I believe was the will of God. Only for him to better understand the errors of the Left, preparing him for the office of the Papacy. Which makes him one who truly knows what the Left is and how they think. That, I believe has made him a greater Vicar of Christ.

Thomist, a ‘pope’ never corrects his Predecessors or he violates the infallible annointing given by the Holy Spirit to the Supreme Authority of Christ’s Church. Tragically, this is happening in the post Vatican II era and documents:

“Pius X’s Anti-Modernist decisions need correction.”
Ratzinger. The Nature and Mission of Theology: Its Role in the Light of Present Controversy, III (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1995).

“Anyone trying to destroy the force and efficacy of Pius X’s Anti-Modernist Decrees is anathema.”

Denzinger, Rev. Henry (ed.), Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 2114 (Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 27th ed., 1951).

Angelo, Benedict the XVI has violated many Catholic principles prior and post Vatican II which he has never renounced nor corrected. Have you read any of his books?  He does not hide from the progressive/modernist that he is.  Nor has he renounced the lutheranized/protestant novus ordo missae fabricated by 6 protestant ministers, approved by Paul VI that replaced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  The Latin Roman Catholic Mass was offensive to non-catholics, they claimed.

Angelo, Vatican II Documents reak with errors.  Why are you compromising? All it takes is one drop of poison for a council to be renounced.

Posted by Minty on Wednesday, Jul 25, 2012 7:51 AM (EST):
“a ‘pope’ never corrects his Predecessors or he violates the infallible annointing given by the Holy Spirit to the Supreme Authority of Christ’s Church.”

1) A pope is infallible only when defining dogma or doctrine to the whole Church as Supreme Pastor. (Vatican I)
2) If it is assumed that “a pope never corrects a predecessor” how much less can a dissenter presume to declare that a pope is teaching error and confirming error in an Ecumenical Council!
3) There has never been, and can never be, a “violation” of papal infallibility, that is an oxymoron, as the very dogma of Vatican I identifies the protection from error in proclaiming doctrine on faith or morals to the whole Church, as the meaning of infallibility.
The lack of reasoning is appalling, but dished up as “thought”.

Joe, You say, “Vatican ll Documents reak with errors.” They do not! The Documents of V2 confirm the Truth. Modernism began in the 19th Century. St. Pius X condemned modernism as the mother of all heresies. Do you believe that modernism ended with St. Pius X’s condemnation? It did not, it continued and only got worse. In the 1940’s Ven. Pius Xll said, “The greatest sin of today, is the loss of the sense of sin.” Many of the Council Fathers were in fact modernists, and they were modernists long before the Council. At V2 modernisim tried to pop up its already existing ugly head. V2 was a huge battleground, the battle being for the Truth. Their errors did not prevail at V2, rather they were officialy defeated in the Council Documents. If not for the Council, the already existing heresy of modernism would have no limits today. We have the Infallible Documents to defend the truth against their heresies. Funny how the modernists hailed V2, not realizing V2 was their final death blow. Consider the Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre decided he was correct in defying the orders of the Supreme Pontiff. The sneaky heresy of modernism even overtook the Archbishop. The main tenet of modernism is defiance of the Church’s authority. Lets be careful! We must obey the Vicar of Christ in order to be safe in God’s hands.

Angelo, Modernism is the heresy of all heresies.  It began even before the French Revolution which Benedict XVI claimed and has never renounced that we need to return to its principles of ‘equality, fraternity and liberty’.  I’ve already posted some of the errors of Vatican II.  I don’t need to labor in posting any more of the over 200 errors of the council.  All it takes is ONE to call it a bogus/hijacked council.
SOURCES (easily discoverable for many more) to prove the destruction contrived by the periti of Vatican II:
“Desire to Destroy” by Atila Sinke Guimaraes
“What Has Happened to the Catholic Church” and “Tumultuous Times” by Fathers Radecki
“The Rhine Flows into the Tiber”
“No Crises in the Church?” by Simon Galloway
“Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia” by Atila Sinke Guimaraes
http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org
DailyCatholic.org
A wise priest told me conciliarists will not turn away from the new religion fabricated by Vatican II Council until they renounce the novus ordo missae (that is a mocking of a consecration and a sacrilege).
The “Oath Against the Errors of Modernism” promulgated by Pope Saint Pius X has been eliminated.  Benedict took the oath ordained as a priest.  He refused the oath for consecration of bishops.  He was not the first of the post V2 ‘popes’.  BTW, Pius VI gave the papal tiara to the United Nations and claimed this was the organization that is going to bring peace and harmony into the world.  Need proof?

Joe, You are correct, you don’t need to labor in posting any more of the imaginary errors of the Council. Of course I need proof that the Second Vatican Council erred, but there is no proof whatsoever. As the Council as all the Councils before it are the living tradition of the Church. The Dogma that no Ecumenical Council could err is the teaching of the Church. And I will never accept the heresy that Vatican ll erred. I can’t, as I am a Roman Catholic.

Vatican II Must be Used as Bridge, Not as Wedge!

Those who believe in the relevancy of Vatican II’s pastoral suggestions and are committed to implementing the concepts and trends introduced at the Council, violate both Vatican II’s letter and spirit by using the Council as a wedge to create division, discord and scandal within the Church, instead of as a bridge to understand, harmonize, and respect fellow Catholics that do not fully agree with them.

It should be evident that it is completely contrary to the letter and spirit of Vatican II to unjustly demand that Catholics who disagree with the Council’s non-dogmatic concepts and pastoral suggestions violate their informed conscience to obtain their agreement.

Did not the Council unequivocally condemn bullying, coercion, force or intimidation? How is it that Council partisans occupying the Church’s highest offices are constantly observed bullying, coercing, forcing, and intimidating into submission otherwise faithful Catholics who, as a matter of conscience, disagree with them when it comes to the non-dogmatic parts of the Council?

Unity will be restored only when those occupying the official structures of the Church implement the wise axiom of the great St. Augustine that should always guide us as Christians: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, charity.”

Thus, in fidelity to the mind of the Church and to Vatican II itself, all faithful Catholics must unequivocally oppose bullying, coercion, psychological pressure or intimidation against those who disagree with the Council’s non-dogmatic suggestions. All Catholics must unequivocally oppose the use of the Council as a wedge to divide, disunite or sow discord among Catholics faithful to the Magisterium.

This fabricated “crisis” within the Church not only injures the Body of Christ, but it is a source of scandal to the World, that those currently occupying the highest offices in the Church will work to end if their commitment to Vatican II is genuine and sincere.

Dr. Michelle Rios, I agree that bullying, coercion, force and intimidation are inappropriate means in attempting to help others see the Truth.  But see the Truth they must.  I hear pro-abortion advocates make a similar argument against pro-lifers.  It’s especially disheartening when these people claim to be the legitimate voice of the Body of Christ.  I tend to believe they just are unable to see the Truth.  That Truth being that we adhere to the direction of the Magisterium of the Church irrespective of our personal preferences.

Dr. Michelle Rios = It is impossible to reconcile The Vatican II Council with the infallible Magisterial Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.  Pre-Vatican II Popes have condemned it.  Holy Mother the Church did not leave her Church unprepared for the periti wating in the wings to foister their years of prepared anti-Catholic ideologies.  Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are two major issues, plus Vatican II explicitly states the Church now only ‘subsists in’ L.G. #8.  More about that later. 
I can’t believe you would even attempt to defend falsehoods on non-dogmatic matters.  There must be no errors against the principles of the Roman Catholic Church in pastoral issues as well as what has been Supremely promulgated.  Have you read any of the 16 Pontifical writings against Modernism?  Are you aware of the warnings the Fathers of the Church have written in order to safeguard the Total Deposit of Faith? 

...“There can be no return to the Syllabus” of Blessed Pope Pius IX.

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/60-traditionalism/934-john-venarri-is-pope-benedict-still-a-modernist#comment-919

SEE ”Cardinal Ratzinger takes a position against Scholasticism”
The idea that “the method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences” was formally condemned by Pope Pius IX, encyclical “Syllabus of Errors”, 1864.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_018_RatzingerScholasticism.htm

Tom, you quoted a “blog” site!!!!  which BTW I could not find your quote in it.  Pope Pius IX promulgated the Syllabus of Errors which makes your statement ludicrous.  Susequent Pontifical writings have ‘handed on’ the warnings AGAINST the infiltration of dangerous men who desire to destroy from within.  Catholics are bound by these condemnations of novelties.

It is taken from Robert Sungenis’ website catholicintl.com , which he took from John vennari of Catholic family news,  and the quote was three quarters down the first large paragraph. It actually came from Card. Ratzinger’s book in ‘86 called: “Principles of Catholic Theology”. And so what that it is a blog , he happens to be very informed. If you bothered to read it , you would’ve found it! Ludicrous my ass.

tom You actually want to discuss “Principles of Catholic Theology” by Ratzinger.  Ratzinger explicitly states he is not a believer in Catholic principles in this book by him.
Page 345 of “Principles of Catholic Theology” by Ratzinger, he said,
“Faith is a mere sensory experience that transcends man”.

Pope SAINT Pius X said in his encyclical,  “Pascendi Dominici Gregis”, September 1907, “The Modernists teach that faith is a mere sense felt without any intellectual assent”.
********
Page 381 of “Principles of Catholic Theology” by Ratzinger, he said,  “The Church ought to reconcile herself with liberalism & progress”.

Ven. Pius IX, ** Denzinger, Rev. Henry (ed.), Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, (Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 27th ed., 1951, 1780).
  “It is heretical to say the Head of the Church ought to reconcile the Church with liberalism & progress”.
*******
“The Church ought not exclude those who hold contrary views”.
“Principles of Catholic Theology” by Ratzinger,: 229

The Church excludes all those who hold contrary views to Her teachings.
Pope Eugene IV, D**. 705
********

There can be no return to Pius IX’s Syllabus over Vatican II.
“Principles of Catholic Theology” by Ratzinger: 391

There can be no appeal to a Council over past infallible magisterial decisions.
Pius II, D**. 717.

tom, legitimate councils and popes do not contradict former councils and popes.  There are more quotes by Ratzinger in PCT that prove his agenda.

Again, did you even read my post? Are you agreeing with the article or not?  Not sure if you are lecturing me or what. Are we going to avoid reading articles? I know Ratzinger had a not so orthodox past and seems to spill into his present position, which I was trying to present to others on this “blog” as you seem to have an aversion to. I am trying to find out for myself why info of the pope seem to contradict statements made by those who are proponents of him. I am not looking through rose colored glasses as some seem to do these days, such as the ones who did likewise with JPII the “great”.

How strange that it is not even understood that as a Blessed, Pope John Paul II, a worker of miracles, was not only protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error as defined by Vatican I, but is on the way to joining the saints.

Dissenters have no authenticity.

Some dissenters are questioning, others are not. Others are content where they stand. Some are not comfortable with why some things are not challenged, that obvious statements do not mesh with tradition and often are not explained at all- just left to speculation. IMO, this is where sspx comes in. Why NOT challenge the status quo and force the authorities of our church to come up with a viable explanation. I think as catholics, we need it.

Gentlemen: I have deliberately avoided taking sides on the debate on Vatican II, because it seems to me inopportune to do so at this time.

Instead, my position merely proposes that Vatican II partisans respect the letter and the spirit of Vatican II, practice what Vatican II teaches, and refrain from using the Council as a “wedge” issue to divide, disunite, and sow discord among Catholics, all to the great detriment of the Church and the World.

Thus, in fidelity to the mind of the Church and to Vatican II itself, Vatican II partisans must unequivocally oppose all bullying, coercion, psychological pressure or intimidation against those Catholics who, but for their disagreement as a matter of conscience with the Council’s non-dogmatic suggestions, are above reproach in their fidelity to the perennial Magisterium.

By setting aside the issue of Vatican II, all Catholics can move forward on evangelizing the world as the Our Lord Jesus Christ has commanded and as the Church has done, even before Vatican II ever took place.

In other words, Vatican II partisans must stop attempting to impose Vatican II’s non-dogmatic pastoral suggestions, as it is evident that these attempts sow discord, division and disunity and severely distracts from the Church’s divine mission of evangelization.

Attempts by Vatican II partisans to impose their will upon the rest of the Church, it is CONTRARY TO BOTH THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN II and, therefore, an illegitimate, hypocritical and dishonest adherence to Vatican II’s non-dogmatic pastoral suggestions. Deal with it, Vatican II partisans!

Stop using Vatican II as a wedge that divides and paralyzes the Church. Stop the constant bullying, and trying to coerce, force, or intimidate into submission otherwise faithful Catholics who, as a matter of conscience, disagree with you when it comes to the Council’s pastoral and non-dogmatic suggestions.

Dr. Michelle Rios,  I suggest that you stop declaring Vatican II represents the Catholic Church.  That council has started a new religion, a new denomination that ‘subsists in’ the Church ( the church is not defined in Vatican II as Catholic) as stated in Lumen Gentium #8.  The post conciliar church has clearly separated from Sacred Tradition.  It practices what has been formerly and Supremely condemned. 
You say, “Stop using Vatican II as a wedge that divides and paralyzes the Church”.  Facts are tough to admit, but you must for the sake of your soul admit that Vatican II intended to destroy Catholicism.  The fact is that there were shenanigans against the conservatives at the Vatican II council and since that council ending in 1965.  The periti’s preparedness to hijack the Council has been clearly exposed. 
Get a grip, Dr. Rios. These “wedges” are not placed by Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium and the infallible spirit of the Vicar of Christ.  All it takes is ONE DROP of poison, one false teaching of a council( Vatican II has over 200 errors ) and a Catholic in good conscience must renounce any attachment to that council.  You are misleading and playing a dangerous game with souls when you encourage placating falsehoods.
The “bullying” was all done at Vatican II by the periti.  Catholics who have renounced the Vatican II scandalous council are not bullying.  They are defending the Total Deposit of Faith handed on by Holy Mother the Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church instituted by Christ who is still the Supreme Head. 
I personally want an apology that I cannot have the Mass promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ofered in the Catholic Church built by the labor and sacrifices of my ancestors and financially supported by them for many years.  The Vatican has confiscated it as it has so many other Catholic Churches and buildings.  If these stolen Catholic Churches have not been reduced to rubble, they have been gutted out and now look like protestant/Masonic tombs. 
Yes, I want an apology for the high thievery of the Vatican who stole these Catholic Churches and sold them to pay off the pedophile priest and bishops’ debts.  BTW, when will there be excommunications in regards to these evil practices by the infectious and false priesthood?  None so far!!!  And you claim Catholics who renounce the Vatican II revolutionary changes are at fault!  You have no foundation to stand on except useless words.  It is easy to see the destructive forces of the Vatican 2.  Statistics report the endless closing of schools and churches, the loss of faith and the exodus of people out of the new religion fabricated by the Vat 2 council.  That was the plan, TO DESTROY CATHOLICISM.  You point the finger in the wrong direction. 

tom, Popes have warned against negotiations with those who have separated from the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church is the Church of the return.  Unity will come only by conversion to the only One Church Christ established without spot and blemish.  The Catholic Church does not make apologies for errors.  The Catholic Church does not mingle in synagogues and mosques and kiss their books.  The Catholic Church does not give the Body and Blood of Christ to any not in communion with Catholic Teachings.  The Catholic Church does not compromise on Truth nor give it new meanings and definitions claiming, “truth evolves”.  The Catholic Church does not offer a MEAL on a wooden table with females servers, sacriliges music and eucharistic ministers.  The signs are endless of what the Catholic Church IS and is not.  Those who are in the category of practicing what is not must be left out of negotiations.  No good will result in these talks.

Reading some of the posts here causes me to realize that errors continue to abound. I thought only liberals were deranged. We will all respond to God one day. “Dominus Iesus” warns us Catholics that God’s judgments will be harsher on us. For the Beatification of Blessed John Paul ll the Church had 174 medicaly unexplained miraculous cures due to his intercession to choose from. Now the Church is ready to approve another miracle that happened after his Beatification. Soon it will be St. John Paul ll. The Church is considering giving him the title of “Magnus”. I hope so, then it will be St. John Paul ll The Great. The Church has also approved a miracle attributed to the Servant of God Pope Paul Vl. Once the Holy Father signs the decree it will be Bl. Pope Paul Vl. And a miracle through the intercession of the Servant of God Pope John Paul l is set to be approved. This will be a blow to schismatics and their schisms and heretics and their heresies. “Santo Subito!”

It must be noted that john vennari of Catholic Family News is not Catholic. By his deliberate errors and lies he has incurred excommunication “Latae Sententiae” according to the Tradition of the Church. As it has been said, “The worst enemies of the Church today, claim to be within it.” According to Vatican Council ll, vennari has no salvation whatsoever even if he sheds his blood for Christ. I pray he repents and recants all his poisonous lies and deceits. Its only too obvious he has given up the Truth in exchange for lies.

It is by the continuous insistence of overlooking the errors of the Vatican 2 Council that it is claimed the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.  That’s the admission of those who will not face the truth in reality of it.

Angelo,  Where in the Vatican II council documents does it state vennarie has no salvation even if he sheds his blood for Christ?  Please, Angelo, don’t just say it, prove it!! According to “Dignitatis Humanae”, everybody has been given the “right” to develop their own conscience.  Why are you contradicting the council you support? Why is vennarie’s moral power differentiated from all the other denominations and heathens?  Be specific on the ‘exchange’ of a Truth for a lie’.

Posted by Joe on Friday, Jul 27, 2012 8:09 PM (EST):
‘According to “Dignitatis Humanae”, everybody has been given the “right” to develop their own conscience.’
Such immersion in misrepresentation is precisely how dissenters like this betray Christ. Here is the truth:
#1793 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “If the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore, work to correct the errors of moral conscience.”
The document of the Vatican Council known as Dignitatis Humanae 14, actually tells one how this is to be accomplished:
“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by Her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, ‘in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth’ (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 14).

Another truth denied by dissenters, and is as St Peter affirms of Sacred Scripture—St Paul’s epistles have “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

The recently appointed Novus Ordo Church’s Chief Doctrinal Guardian ... “Archbishop” Gerhard Ludwig Muller:
• does not believe in Miracles (Dogmatik, p. 284)
• denies the Bodily Resurrection of Christ (Dogmatik, pp. 300, 303)
• says the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary during birth does not consist of “differing physiological particularities in the natural process of child-birth” (Dogmatik, p. 498)
• denies that Hell is a place of torture for those who rejected God’s Love (Dogmatik, p. 562)
• says no one might actually go to Hell (Dogmatik, p. 564)

from his book Katholische Dogmatik.

Thomist, Dignitatis Humanae / Religious Liberty condemned by Popes:

Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical Singulari Quadam (December 9, 1854), “Since it is certain that the light of reason has been dimmed, and that the human race has fallen miserably from its former state of justice and innocence because of original sin, which is communicated to all the descendants of Adam, can anyone still think that reason by itself is sufficient for the attainment of truth?
+++++++
In regard to the term right, Pope Leo XIII taught in Libertas (June 20, 1888):
“Right is a moral faculty, and as We have said, and it cannot be too often repeated, it would be absurd to believe that it belongs naturally and without distinction to truth and to lies, to good and to evil.”
+++++
Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832):
“We come now to another cause, alas! all too fruitful of the deplorable ills which today afflict the Church. We mean indifferentism, or that widespread and dangerous opinion sown by the perfidy of the wicked, according to which it is possible, by the profession of some sort of faith, to procure the soul’s salvation,..”
******
Quanta Cura by Pope Pius IX (December 8, 1864):
“Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers,….” From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI (lately quoted) the insanity (deliramentum): namely, ‘that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means.’
There are more quotes from Popes who spoke against Dignitatis Humanae.  See also how Popes quote their Predecessors.  Vatican II ‘s foundation is not on Sacred Tradition, therefore it spins its modernist doctrines only on Vatican II documents and writings. 

Joe continues with his imbecilic attempts to fault the Magisterium, confusing the correct formation of conscience as confirmed by Vatican II with that free will to seek and to obey truth with which everyone is endowed by God.

Typical of the dissenter is the inability to obey Christ and to construct a selfist edifice of feelings, desires, wishes, prejudices, which enslave in a fantasy world of make believe in which the individual becomes his/her own alternative or parallel Magisterium whether Arius, Calvin, Luther, Henry the eighth, or the several groups describing themselves as “Catholic”. George Weigel has a good description of the “Catholic Lite” or cafeteria Catholics – of whatever prejudice, the real Magisterium must be denied.

The foolish prejudices against the Magisterium are most UnChristlike.
In trying to interpret papal documents of an earlier age, a common error is to fail to appreciate the different historical facts which were being addressed – thus leading to false conclusions of contradictions between them and later teaching. This is the case with Quanta Cura of Pius IX (1864) and similar documents which some have used to try to distort the unity of the teaching of Christ’s Church.

Qanta cura did not condemn ‘liberty of conscience’, “but only those excessive demands for civil liberty according to which the State should either not recognise the need for any restrictions at all on propaganda touching religion or ethics, or else assess the need for such restrictions on the basis of purely materialistic or naturalist criteria – instead of by reference to the objective spiritual values (natural and revealed) which Vatican II reaffirms as the proper basis for social and political life.”

What Vatican II teaches is “that religious (or irreligious) activity can and should be restrained by civil authority whenever it seriously threatens the common good of society.” It terms this “common good” as “public order”. This means that now, the public diffusion of non–Catholic ideas and practices are not a punishable threat to the common good compared with the historical conditions at the time of Qanta cura. [Cf. Fr Brian Harrison, Religious Liberty And Contraception, John XXIII Fellowship Co-op, 1988).

Joe, If everyone has the right to develop their own conscience, then why do you keep questioning the conscience of the authority of the Church? I thought you were against Vatican ll, you now sound like a liberal defending something V2 said with a “spirit of Vatican ll” mentality. We all have the obligation to form an informed conscience and follow it. Vennari has an informed conscience but violates it. Vatican ll says something like, If anyone knows that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ for salvation and yet refuses to enter it or remain in it, has no salvation whatsoever, even if he shed his blood for Christ. You being a self proclaimed expert on imaginary errors of V2, look it up. Vennari is only pretending to be Catholic. He refuses to enter the Church and to remain in the Church, both at the same time. Thats a double blow to his own soul. The Old Code of Canon Law and the New Code of Canon Law both have set the disciplinary law that anyone who enters formal heresy or formal schism incur automatic self excomunication known as “Latae Sententiae”. Vennari like Luther, Calvin, Lefebvre ect.. is only following his own self serving conscience, exchanging the Truth for his own lies, fables, halftruths ect…One only need to read his writings, and as Mother Angelica says, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out”.

Brethren:
Our Lord Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church! There is only ONE Church! The word “Catholic” is used not as a noun, but as an adjective. For some here to talk about a “pre-conciliar Church” and “post-conciliar Church” is contradict Christ and the constant Magisterium of His Church.

Modernism is NOT the “Church.” Modernism is a heresy condemned by the Church. There are Modernist within the Church. However, Modernists are NOT the Church. It is totally ignorant, therefore, to refer to the Modernists within the Church, as “the Church.” They are not. There is not and cannot be a “pre-conciliar Church” and “post-conciliar Church.”  Our Lord Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church!

Thomist, the infallible Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are misconstrued in the Vatican II Council.  BTW,  no Council confirms itself.  A legitimate council never contradicts the Deposit of Faith handed on and safeguarded by the infallibility of the Shepherd/Teacher/Doctor/Theologian of the Catholic Church who is taught by nobody but the Holy Spirit.
I’ve posted several contradictions.  All it takes is one drop of poison and the whole council is bogus.  There are over 200 errors in Vatican II documents.
Pope Gregory XVI in “Mirari Vos”, August 1832, quoted St. Augustine, “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error”.  Think about that in regards to the naturalistic error embraced by the conciliar bishops based on “religious liberty” from Dignitatis Humanae document of Vatican II.
Prove I’m wrong; don’t just say it.  Do not use proof based on the new religion of concilarist concepts from the humanly designed denomination that merely “subsists in” the Undefined Church of Vatican 2.

Dr. Michelle Rios, you posted, “Our Lord Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church!
Catholics agree.  The Apostolic Church instituted by Christ who remains as Head is made up of the “Mystical Body of Christ”.  Vat 2 designed a new religion that is comprised of “The People of God”.  Mysticism and the supernatural are not in the doctrines of the concilar church.  Notice all the statues of Saints and angels demolished.  Notice the confessionals used for storage.  Notice the Tabernacle hidden.  And please notice no devotions to Our Blessed Mother Ever Virgin, Queen of the Universe, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mother of Our Saviour, , and Mother of God – She who will crush the serpents head. 
The ONE Church has a crowd of witnesses who have gone on before us.

Angelo, you asked, “If everyone has the right to develop their own conscience, then why do you keep questioning the conscience of the authority of the Church?
Man has been given ‘free will’ not the right to develop their own conscience willy-nilly.  Catholics and all Christians must develop a ‘Catholic conscience’ or they live in falsehoods.
Pope XIII said, “it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. (Libertas #42 June 1888).
Vatican II “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance”. ( Dignitatis Humanae #4 December 1965)  promulgated by Paul VI and subsequently and currently by the conciliar church.

Joe:
“…no Council confirms itself. A legitimate council never contradicts the Deposit of Faith handed on and safeguarded by the infallibility of the Shepherd…..of the Catholic Church who is taught by nobody but the Holy Spirit.”
1) A “legitimate” Ecumenical Council is one confirmed by the Pope or his representatives.
2) The infallibility of the Supreme Vicar of Christ cannot be challenged by Joe—nor by Tom, Dick or Harry, as it is instituted by Christ Himself.
3)  Through infallibility the Holy Spirit protects the Holy Father from teaching error, not Joe, nor anyone else.
4) For anyone else, claiming to be a Catholic, to presume to tell a Pope that he is wrong in confirming an Ecumenical Council or what he can or cannot confirm as dogma or doctrine is the epitome of arrogance.
5) The upshot here is that a dissenter is assuming an infallibility which no one has, except the legitimate Pope, and claiming to interpret the legitimacy of a confirmed Ecumenical Council as well as denigrating Christ, Christ’s Supreme Vicars and the Holy Spirit.
6) Joe and his cronies claim to judge Christ, the Holy Spirit and His Supreme Vicars as teaching error in doctrine.
Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

“Subsists In” is a key element in the 1962-1965 Council of Vatican 11.  Lumen Gentium states the Church of the post Vatican II era subsists in the Church.  (church is not defined as Catholic)  “Subsist” means that one lives or exists or survives.  The Catholic Encyclopedia adds an additional theological meaning and that is the ability to exist without being dependent upon anything else.  The Holy Roman Catholic Church, that is the Mystical Body of Christ possesses this characteristic.  The Catholic Church is complete as itself. 
Subsists “in” means that the first thing is not the same as the second.  New church theorizes that some portion of the Mystical Body of Christ happens to be doing its subsisting therein and elsewhere.  Subsists IN the church as stated in Lumen Gentium #8, takes away any exclusive sense of identity of the Church Christ established.
Vatican 2’s document, “Unitatis Redintegratio” states that the Church can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church…..can engender a life of grace ..capable of giving access to the community of salvation….separated Churches..though we believe them to be deficient..have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
The new 1983 canon laws #844 and 845 permit Catholics to approach non-Catholic ministers for the Sacraments (not merely in extreme danger of death) at will. 
Separated brethren, heretics, schismatics, pagans and demon worshippers, therefore can be a means of salvation.
Anything wrong with this picture my good friends of the conciliar church?

Thomist, Vatican I Council confirms The Council of Trent and Predecessors. Where in the documents of the Vatican 2 council does it confirm the teachings of Vatican I, and its defining of the ex cathedra/infallibile teachings of Holy Mother Church by Christ’s representative on earth?  Where does Vat 2 refer to walking in the footsteps of Predecessors and adhering to Sacred Tradition?  And BTW, where does it say that the Vicar of Christ is the sole possessor of the infallible Holy Spirit?

Ratzinger wrote in one of his books that the Vicar of Christ must be reduced to a lesser importance.  When I find his statement, I’ll post it.

I sense your desperation by character smearing.  You really can’t prove your points.  Soon, a modernist’s only alternative is to tarnish the opponent’s character in order to detract from the issues.

See Link:  “The Catholic School that is 90% Muslim”. 
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/333117/The-Catholic-school-that-s-90-Muslim-The-Catholic-school-that-s-90-Muslim-

Can anyone disagree that Vat 2 was to jump start the One World Order Religion?  This is a prime example.  Remember the statue of Buddha placed above the Tabernacle just before ‘mass’ at one of John Paul II’s praying for world peace Assisi meetings?
www.truecatholic.us/nop/jp2buddha.htm

Joe:
“Where in the documents of the Vatican 2 council does it confirm the teachings of Vatican I, and its defining of the ex cathedra/infallibile teachings of Holy Mother Church by Christ’s representative on earth?  Where does Vat 2 refer to walking in the footsteps of Predecessors and adhering to Sacred Tradition?  And BTW, where does it say that the Vicar of Christ is the sole possessor of the infallible Holy Spirit?”
The bewilderment here is breathtaking.
Vatican II repeats this teaching in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) (#18): 
“This sacred synod following in the steps of the First Vatican Council…  This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful….”
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium which “are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II, 10.]

Joe, Am I mistaken or have you become your own tower of Babel? You’ve sent my head spinning. You condemn the Council then use its truth to defend what you say. You continualy contradict yourself and where you stand. You distort what the Council says, the Council says one thing and you claim it meant something else, using that as proof that the Council was wrong. You do not know what Vatican Council ll is about. In Charity I say, you and I should leave the Council alone. Accept what the Holy Father says. You and I are no experts when it comes to V2, that has become obvious to me. I suggest you and I read carefully what Thomist says about the Council, and without the distractions of our fallible selves.

Joe writes: “The Catholic Church is complete as itself. 
Subsists “in” means that the first thing is not the same as the second.  New church theorizes that some portion of the Mystical Body of Christ happens to be doing its subsisting therein and elsewhere.  Subsists IN the church as stated in Lumen Gentium #8, takes away any exclusive sense of identity of the Church.”
Vatican II declares that bishops, individually, only possess infallibility when they preserve with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, they agree on matters of faith and morals in their authentic teaching that a particular teaching be held definitively and absolutely. (LG 25)

Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican II:
“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

Further:
“Our separated brethren are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom he has given new birth into one body.  For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.” [Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, #3].  Again, UR teaches (#4) that: “The results (of authentic ecumenical activity) will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning.  This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”
The revered Fr John A Hardon points out:
“Behind the carefully chosen verb ‘subsists’ stands the affirmation that the objective fullness of Christ’s heritage to the Church – totality of his revelation, totality of His sacraments and totality of authority to rule the people of God in His name – resides in the Catholic Church, of which the bishop of Rome is the visible head.”
[See: The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].
There is only error in rejecting the truths of the Church.

Angelo,  You are right.  I’m not an expert on the documents of Vatican II and have no claim to fame in that regards.  That’s what makes these discussions so valuable.  A progressive can glean what they want and feel secure, likewise a conservative conciliarist.  Also the quotes from two Vat 2 documents you pointed out makes my case that much more solid.  None cannot deny, that the tyrannical Vatican II may print that it follows the infallible Magisterium while the paragraph before and after, one will find a totally different spin.  That kind of speaking is called concilarism.  Concilarism is filled with contradictions and AMBIGUITIES.  It leaves one’s head spinning trying to grasp its intentions and it exasperates some from even going further.  “What is Concilarism?” would be another good topic.
As Dr. Rios pointed out there is only One True Catholic Church.  I agree with that statement, but it must be pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church is without contradictions to its past and it does not minimize sin as does the new religion from Vat 2 council. 
Let’s return to the SSPX recognizing and resisting posture.  The organization claims Benedict XVI is the pope and they also claim that the novus ordo is the Catholic Church, but they do not accept its teachings.  They say that they have a true devotion to the Church and the pope, but they pick and choose the teachings.  “Is that a Catholic attitude?”  If the SSPX was to accept its teachings, they say, they would lose the Faith.  The ONLY alternative is to recognize that Benedict XVI is not the pope of the True Church.  So what’s their game? Who is their pope with in the organization that decides what to follow and not follow?
Fr. Peter Scott from the SSPX said we are to love the Church “with all Her faults and defects”?!  REALLY !!  Is that Catholic?  Compare that with the quote from a sermon of Pope Pius IX in 1862 who said, “The Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of truth.  She has neither spot nor wrinkle, but is holy and without sin.  She is the One with whom Christ has promised to remain all days even to the end of time.”  So the question is, which Church do we want to believe in; the one with all her faults and defects or the one without spot and wrinkle; the One that is the pillar and ground of truth; the One that will get us to heaven and not be our obstacle to getting to heaven?”
The SSPX has a great problem.  Any one has a great problem who accepts the novus ordo as the Catholic Church.  The errors of religious indifferentism especially and various other errors and heresies written in the documents and promulgated by Paul VI have spread throughout the whole N O church.  The SSPX has many times admitted as much.  They do not deny that the errors of Vatican II are universal.

The claim that the church SUBSISTS IN the Church is rooted in the Branch Theory condemned.  The"Branch Theory”  maintained that the “Universal Church” consisted of three branches: the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Anglicans. Although not in communion with one another, they are, nonetheless, all part of the “Universal Church.”  SUBSIST IN and NOT IS was chosen purposely to deny that the Church Christ established is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church.  SUBSISTS IN reduces the Church of Christ to a mere organization to which the Church of Christ subsists.  Vatican II is heretical in maintaining that unity is reduced to an obedience to “church order”.  SUBSISTS IN alters the nature of the Roman Catholic Church.  Those outside the Roman Catholic Church are heretics or schismatics and not at all part of the Roman Catholic Church.  The Roman Catholic Church is not operative in these cadavers.  There is no portion of those outside the One True Church with Divine ecclestiastical structure or charter.  They are cut off from the True Church and cut off from Christ.
It is the conciliar magisterium that used capital C for the ‘separated Churches’.  The Catholic Church of Christ is NOT made up of Churches.  Holy Mother the Church does not give the slightest legitimacy to non-Catholic sects.  Non catholic churches are means of damnation, not salvation.
Pope Leo XIII said in Satis Cognitum: “Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits….....
Pope Pius XI said in Mortalium Animos: “It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members.”
These are some quotes from Popes.  I have more.
Thomist, the Church of Christ began when the soldier pierced the side of Christ with his spear.  It appears you think it began with the Council of Vatican 2.  Christ’s Church neither recognizes nor needs anything outside its visible structure (currently in the catacombs) not in Rome.  Do not use error to support error and that is what you are doing.  The reign of terror you quote from is ruining souls.  I’m so sorry about Fr. John Hardon.  He was a legitimately ordained priest before the ravages of that Sacrament took place post Vatican 2.  He took the “Oath Against the Errors of Modernism” when he was ordained, I’m quite certain.  How could he turn his back on his oath?

News Flash:

“An ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the Church’s supreme magisterium,” stated the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Müller, in an interview with Catholic news network EWTN News.” “The claim that the authentic teachings of the Second Vatican Council – he added – formally clash with Church tradition, is false.”
There you have it.  New Church’s NEWly appointed head of Church doctrine speaks with forked tongue. 
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-17065

CCC 883: ‘The Catholic Church teaches as the sole Church of Christ that “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” ’ [Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 22; Canon 336].
CCC 891: ‘ “The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.’ [Lumen Gentium 25].
So of course the Ecumenical Council exercises the supreme Magisterium as confirmed by the Supreme Vicar, the Pope. Fancy harboring the perception that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop Gerhard Müller would not know that!
The selfism evinced by Joe is an unfortunate mishmash of false perceptions.

Thomist, If I wrote a book on the Vatican 2 council and backed up my facts by my own words would you believe I had a credible book that might change anybody’s life?  Of course not.  It would need credible collaborating data for anyone to take it seriously.  For a Catholic Church council to be legitimate, it must go outside of itself to be proven that it has a connection to Sacred Tradition.  It’s been proven that there are many errors in the 16 Vatican 2-documents.  These discrepanies make the council bogus and a Catholic must not follow a hijacked council of revolutionary periti.  Vatican 2 is a major disconnect from its own past.  The New Catechism and the canon laws were updated to keep in sequence of the newly fabricated/man-made denomination.  Furthermore, a council does not promulgate itself.  A legitimate council needs a legitimate Pope and subsequent councils to confirms its validity.  There is no honor amongst thieves.

Perhaps this is too simple for Joe, but real Catholics ask where is his authority from Christ to presume that any Pope or any Ecumenical Council is “illegitimate”?

God knows that I have understood and that I have witnessed the man- made contrived contradictions of Vatican 2 from the legitimate Popes and Councils of pre-Vatican II.  I also understand that God gives me free will to walk the ‘wide road’ of Vatican 2’s new religion and overlook the contradictions or to walk the narrow road where few are traveling.  Will I stand for truth, Thomist, in spite of the mockeries and harassments?  Initially I fell for the changes and it took me a long time to recognize how perfectly detestable the new liturgies, the DANCE BAND music, the females around the table sometimes even concelebrating with the presider, how perfectly detestable to see more altar girls than altar boys serving, women clad most inappropriately in attendance of the new order mess and the ‘eucharistic ministers’ in miniskirts and see through low neckline blouses, lay people giving homilies, huge lines to receive the meal in hand served from the wooden table by a presider who mocked a consecration, very short lines at the tight fisted hours for confessions, no reminders of sin by the presiders, no praying for the souls in Purgatory and no teachings that it is good to have a holy fear of Hell, Our Blessed Mother irrelevant and no reminders to pray the Rosary daily as She asked us to do,  presiders giving sermons that gave no purpose or direction on how to be a conscientious Catholic but to just get along and love one another ……..One day I saw the Roman Traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass and proclaimed inwardly, “Holy Mother the Church IS alive and well as promised!”  It was all there and proven in the Mass.  I never turned back.  Is it easy to leave family and friends?  No.  It’s been one of the most difficult choices I’ve ever made in my life. 

As usual with nostalgist dissenters, not a single one of the items about which Joe complains in his July 31 9:10 a.m. post was mandated by Vatican II. Not one.

Larry, and not one of them is being corrected.  Vatican II’s contradictions were a slippery slope to revolutionary changes creating a mess that susbsists in an undefined Church.  Martin Luther, if he could, must be gloating about novus ordo missae fabricated by 6 protestants as he once propsed, yet SSPX say it is a legitimate Mass even if their own priest do not say it.

Vatican II is an ecumenical council of the world’s bishops approved by the pope, and as such it is a Magisterial exercise, Divinely prevented from promulgating error in faith or morals, regardless of whether it defines any new points of doctrine. Our present pope (who is the present successor to St. Peter) has clearly said that Vatican II’s authority is the same as that of Vatican I and Trent. Either they all stand or they all fall. All you’re doing is giving excuses for theological dissent. You think you’re holier than the liberal dissenters because you have nobler motives for rebelling against the Magisterium. In reality you don’t and you’re not. If you don’t repent in this life, both you nostalgists and the Modernists are headed for the same eternal cell block way down where they don’t have air conditioning. You’re no different and you’re no better the one side versus the other.

Joe, I’m sorry that you experienced such revolting experiences at your local parish.  Sadly, there are some renegade congregations out there, but if you look around (as I did) you can find wholesome, genuine Catholic teaching that adheres to the Pope’s directives (which includes Vatican II).  I think we far outnumber those renegades, and we’re growing stronger!  But we need people like you in our ranks.  Also, you mention our Blessed Mother’s request that we pray the rosary daily.  May I assume you are aware of, and believe in her apparitions in Medjugorje?

Larry, I’ve posted several of the 200 plus false teachings in Vatican II.  How do we know they are false?  We know because they have no connection to the Magisterial Teachings handed on by Holy Mother the Church.  Once again, “Religious Liberty” is one false teaching by Vatican II that has been condemned by Popes.  Ecumenism has been condemned by Popes, yet Vatican II claims the need to seek truth with separated brethren.  Popes have already condemned Vatican II even before Vatican II began.  Sacred Tradition cannot go unrecognized and it must not be taught giving new meaning to what has been promulgated by Popes who have the protection of the Holy Spirit.  Popes do not contradict their predecessors.  Catholics are bound to all Papal Pronouncements and anything spoken contrary to these Divine teachings is to be exposed.  Obviously you believe a Church began with the Vatican II council?  A new church did begin with the Vat 2 Council and it’s not Catholic.  Even the SSPX recognizes the errors of Vatican II.

Ken, it’s not just local.  Do you ever go into Novusordowatch.com?  It’s world wide.  Laity cannot correct the hierarchy, Larry.  It is the responsibility of the laity to remove themselves from the hijacked premises taken over by the Vatican and stop financially supporting it.  You say there are genuine Catholic teachings.  That’s conciliarism for you Ken.  It is not all false.  It’s the drops of poison that one must recognize.  Once in a while Rome throws bones out to the conservatives.  I know, I lived on those promises for quite a few years.  But it only got worse.  I’ll say something later about Our Blessed Mother who leads us to her Son.

Bull, Joe. Sounds like you’re writing the talking points for “Schismatics for God and Faith.” Schism is schism and heresy is heresy, Joe—and you’re peddling both. Every heresiarch and schism leader in history was convinced he was holier than the Church.

Joe, I suspect that various people attempting to interpret what previous popes said (and meant) contrasting issues with our current pope have a greater chance of erring than those who adhere to what our pope says today.  Many of the posters here have shown a deep intellect.  But can intellect become an impediment to the Truth?  Yes, I think so.  (I’m reminded of a similar discussion with an atheist scientist.)  “Be as children” Christ said. (Matt. 18:3)  The Pharisees also questioned Jesus about apparent (interpreted) conflicts with the well established law.  How did He respond?

Larry, Don’t take my word for anything I’ve posted.  I’ve given substantiation and proof on the errors and the contradictions.  All you post is biased scared opinions.  Lumen Gentium tells you it is not longer the Catholic Church that the documents support.  The documents are for the church that not IS but the church that subsists in another.  That’s OK with you?  Than you .aren’t in the Catholic Church but a fabricated-man made new religion that would have made Martin Luther very proud.  I know the haters of the Catholic Church are very pleased with the documents.  But that goes into another topic.  The SSPX was formed because of the errors of Vatican II and to this day they admit of Vatican II errors.  Strangely, they are in dialogue with the framers of it. Popes have warned against dialoguing with those who oppose what has been handed on.

Hi Joe, I might have missed something, but apparently I haven’t seen a particular “error” in your posts.  (I’ve seen references to interpretations, but no clear and obvious error.)  No insult intended here, but could you please be specific with one issue and not general about 200?  About 150 years ago, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was established.  Did the Truth include that Mary was NOT immaculately conceived as recently as 160 years ago?  My point is that the fullness of Truth is found in the Catholic Church, and through the work of the Holy Spirit, that Truth becomes clearer and fuller.  So the Church and the Truth are not static, but dynamic.  I imagine some people had a problem with the new dogma - and possibly joined another church.

Ken, Here are some on line suggestions and some books you need to keep on hand that points out the contradictions of Vatican II Council and the True Faith of the Catholic Church:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm
The Popes Against Modern Errors: 16 Famous Papal Documents
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089555643X/novordwat-20
Rhine Flows into the Tiber by Ralph M. Wiltgen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895551861/novordwat-20
Work of Human Hands: The Theological Errors of the Novus Ordo “Mass” of
• “Work of Human Hands” (2010) by Fr. Anthony Cekada
• “The Ottaviani Intervention” (1969) by Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci
• “The Problems with the New Mass” (1990) by Rama P. Coomaraswamy
“Tumultuous Times” by Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki
http://www.dailycatholic.org/tradcaus.htm
If you look above I’ve mentioned other books valuable to study in order to reconvert to the Catholic Faith.

Ken,  According to Vat 2’s new deal, it contrived a brand new doctrine.  According to the periti the revolutionaries of Vat2, the former doctrines and dogmas are to be opposed.  Truth as written in the Vat 2 documents have either changed their meaning or no longer exist. Benedict XVI, wrote as priest that vatican II is a countersyllabus.  The fact of the matter is, Truth does not evolve; truth does not change its meaning.  Truth is the the same yesterday, today and tomorrow or there is no truth at all.  Catholics do not contradict Supreme teachings such as the “Syllabus of Errors” that warned about these modernists who will confuse, deny truth, and convolute truth in order to wear people out trying to filter through the many changes.

Ken, in the Novus Ordo world, the Immaculate Conception is denied.  I’m sorry I’m not the time to provide proof.  This is a highly controversal issue.  Also Our Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity is denied:  Mary was Virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ - .  This Catholic Truth is denied in the new religion of Vatican II.

Among his many confusions, Joe is confusing periti at Vatican II with the actual teaching of Vatican II confirmed by Pope Paul VI.
Like many others, Joe’s problem is that he pays homage to an alternative magisterium of fallible people who feel they know more than Christ who established His Magisterium built on Peter the Rock and who protects from error the Magisterium’s defined teaching on faith and morals to the whole Church.  Now he fancies himself as such an alternative Magisterium which has no authority and rejects Christ.
The babel do not have such protection. For the similarly faith-challenged Genesis 11:1-11 reveals the source.

Joe’s formation in Catholic dogma and doctrine has been very remiss, now devastated by falsehoods.
The virginal conception of Jesus is a dogma of the Church (CCC 496, 510), based upon the conviction of the Church that its narration in the infancy narratives is historically true, as is her Immaculate Conception.
Prior to Vatican II, the four Marian dogmas (her divine Maternity, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and Assumption) do not of themselves betoken any conspicuously ecclesial or “social” role of Mary. But during the Council we witnessed a “subtle shift” when Pope Paul proclaimed Mary as “Mother of the Church.” His words were no novelty, but they received a unique standing ovation. Then the Council annunciated in its own name Mary as “Mediatrix” - again, a title that by definition is more than strictly personal to her.
It just not good enough for these canards to be spread with no evidence whatsoever.

Thanks Joe, for your many posts here.  Although you listed several links, I had hoped to receive a specific “error” of Vatican 2 to address.  I’m not aware of any dogma that “is to be opposed”.  And although the opinions of Cardinal Ratzinger (before elected as pope) may be interesting, they carry little more weight than yours or mine. Yes, Truth is fixed, but our perception (awareness) of Truth can grow.  For example, the earth may be the center of the universe from a spiritual point of view, but not from a scientific point of view.  Clarifications might seem contradictory.  The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not denied by the Catholic Church I know.  Perhaps your old parish erred on this matter, but the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching is clear about our Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity.  I believe you may be misinformed about the true teaching of our Church.

Joe—if we can’t believe Vatican II along with Popes John XXIII through Benedict XVI, then why should we believe anything previous councils and/or popes have said? What’s so sacrosanct about the words of some pope or council from a hundred, or two hundred or five hundred years ago as opposed to the more recent Magisterium’s members? If we can’t believe Vatican II, then we can’t believe anything from before and we may as well become atheists. You nostalgist dissenters never seem able to think that through, do you?

Larry, Exactly how do you define “nostaligist dissenters”. I ask because I think I am one of your nostaligist dissenters and I would like to respond.

“Nostalgist dissenters.” Actually, it’s a term I think I coined—at least I’ve never seen it used by anyone else. I’m glad you asked for a definition. A nostalgist is the exact opposite of a Modernist—but they are both dissenters. They both reject the authority of the Magisterium—the bishops acting in union with the pope. They confuse the distinction between the human and Divine elements in the Church—but in opposite ways. The Modernist wants to humanize what is Divine. He wants to take eternal truth and make it relative and malleable—changeable with the times. The nostalgist wants to divinize what is human. He wants to enshrine old ways of doing things—old man-made rules and treat them as eternal and untouchable. He calls himself a “traditionalist,” but that is a misnomer because a real traditionalist above all values the tradition of loyalty to the Magisterium, which is just as authoritative today as it ever has been—just as able now as ever to distinguish between what can and cannot change. No, the man I’m talking about is a nostalgist because he yearns for the way things were either in his own distant memory or that of his immediate elders. For example, he raves about the “Mass of Pius V”—but ironically he does not demand the actual 1570 version of the Tridentine. A 20th Century version will do. He has no interest in the pre-Tridentine rites abolished by Pius V, such as the Gallic or York Rites—each beautiful in their own way. He would not take us back to the Greek-language masses of Justin Martyr—nor would he go back to the original Aramaic format of the Jewish Passover supper. Nor would he reject the changes of the Council of Jerusalem and re-adopt Mosaic Law as part of the Catholic liturgical life. So it is not antiquity as such that he craves—only recent human experience—either his own, or that of one generation removed from him. The Modernist wants to live in an imaginary future—one which will never happen. The nostalgist wants to live in the past—as long as it isn’t one located too far back in time. The real Catholic chooses to live in the present.

Larry, I am then one of your “nostaligist dissenters”. This coined phrase of yours is a misnomer. You do not know what a Traditionalist is, so why pretend that you do. As a Traditionalist, I do not desire the Tridentine Mass yesterday, I desire it today for my spiritual good. I’m not being nostalgic, I am being realistic. I defend the real V2, Latin, kneeling for communion,ect… V2 called for renewal. But the renewal of taking what the Church already had and applying it to our lives. The real renewal is in fact the reform of our lives. This is what V2 is all about! It had nothing to do with changing the teachings of the Church nor its pious practices, nor demolishing the beauty of our Churches, it was in no way the creation of a new Church ect…. All that the modernists destroyed the Holy Father is restoring to its rightful use and place. In short we are not “nostaligist dissenters” but rather faithful sons of Holy Mother the Church. Christ will prevail!

“I defend the real V2…” All right, then—STOP RIGHT THERE! You are NOT a nostalgist merely because you prefer the older mass. Okay? The nostalgist denies that the mass even CAN be changed. He insists that the Magisterium has no authority to change what Pius V created, and if it tries to do so then it has forfeited its authority and has ceased to be the Magisterium. Let’s not confuse the issue of just whom I’m criticizing. I’m targeting Joe and others who agree with him. So I don’t want to start hearing from a bunch of people who say, “well, I fully accept Vatican II and do not deny the validity of the Novus Ordo—and I resent you’re calling me a nostalgist…(etc.)” If that’s your viewpoint, then I DIDN’T call you a “nostalgist,” and I do not call you one. Okay?

Larry, How long have you been a Freemason and/or Communist.  He who mocks a Saint as you did Pope SAINT Pius V, is not a Catholic.  Furthermore, you do not know the Magisterial Teachings of Holy Mother the Church or you would not be talking against Traditional Catholics as you do.  You are entirely wrong in regards to Sacred Tradition and Traditional Catholics.  BTW, do you mock Pope SAINT Pius X who promulgated the “Oath Against the Errors of Modernism” (and removed by post Vatican 2 Heads) also?  John Calvin and Martin Luther, if they could, would be most proud of your diatribe against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Which of the periti at the Vatican 2 council do you favor?  How long have you been their puppy dog?

Larry asked:  “if we can’t believe Vatican II along with Popes John XXIII through Benedict XVI,  then why should we believe anything previous councils and/or popes have said?” 
Legitimate popes and councils do not contradict what has been promulgated and safeguarded by the protection of the Holy Spirit.  Vatican 2 has stark contradictions.  I’ve named a few.  Do you really want more of these false teachings posted?  How many more errors pointed out to you will it take before your renounce the conniving intention of the periti at Vat 2 who wrote the 16 documents to fabricate a new religion?  Furthermore, if the SSPX claim the novus ordo missae and the Vatican Council 2 are legitimate, than their support of tradition for all these years have been for nothing.  They might as well have been part and parcel of the new religion of Vatican 2 from the beginning.  SSPX are pretenders of the Catholic Faith.  Their kind of worship is purely nostaglic for they do not defend Sacred Tradition.  Holy Mother Church stands on:  Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.  One cannot stand without the other.  The Vicar of Christ only has the annoiting to safeguard and to interpret the Total Deposit of Faith. A major intention of Vatican 2 was to diminish the office of the Vicar of Christ.  The vat. 2 collegiality of bishops is a new concept of their selp appointed power.  This is part and parcel to destroy Catholicism from within.

Oh, come off of it, Minty! Mocking St. Pius V? On the contrary, I’m saying exactly what he would want me to say! He would be the first to tell you that he did not invent the mass, that it is not his property and that he does not hold a copyright on it for all eternity. He would be the first to tell you that there is no “Mass of Pius V”—there is only the Mass of Jesus Christ, and don’t you forget it! As for the rest of your tantrum, calm down, breathe deeply and take a Valium with a glass of warm milk. Communist and Freemason! What rubbish! All because I won’t go into schism with you. And YOU, Joe. Listen to me carefully, okay? So you say that Vatican II and the recent popes contradict what Pope So-and-So said back in umpteen-hundred A.D.? In that case, why should I care what ANY of them have said—Vatican II, JPII, Benedict XVI, OR Pope So-and-So? You’ve just created an argument for the proposition that the Catholic faith is a fraud because Jesus of Nazareth is a fake Messiah who cannot enforce his promise to keep his Church clear of error. If your arguments are correct, then we should all be Jews still waiting for the Messiah. Obviously, I don’t agree.

Joe fabricates:
“A major intention of Vatican 2 was to diminish the office of the Vicar of Christ.  The vat. 2 collegiality of bishops is a new concept of their selp appointed power.  This is part and parcel to destroy Catholicism from within.”
How false! He has been quite unable to substantiate his previous fabrications.
He knows nothing of Vatican II. He knows nothing of the development of doctrine, without contradiction.
He does not know that it is the bishops at Vatican I who voted to define the dogma of papal infallibility—in fact, at the Public Session 433 voted for the Definition, 2 against, and 66 absentees wrote the Pope as against. All of the absentees eventually declared their full acceptance, a massive majority of the original 601 bishops present. (“Questions People Ask”, Dr Leslie Rumble, Chevalier, 1975, p 159).
His fantasy of “self-appointed power” utterly fails to assent to the truth that, to be valid, each and every Ecumenical Council’s declarations have to be confirmed by the Pope.
Minty is totally misled by trying to give periti at Vatican II what only the declarations of a Council can do—the authority to declare and define.

Larry, There are many who reject the Novus Ordo Missae. I at first did not understand why they reasoned that way. Until they pointed out to me “Quo Primum”, It is a Papal Bulla by St Pius V in which when he codified the St. Pius V Missal, also called today the Tridentine Mass, “Quo Primum is to be found in every Missal from 1962 and before, it served as a warning to priests. St. Pius V ordered that until the end of the world this Missal could not be changed or altered in any way whatsoever under penalty of “Anathema”. I am sure that the reform of the Missal did not violate this order, but I certainly have no explanation for their otherwise excellant argument. I am still waiting for Rome to clarify this point. The only clarification I could imagine is that the Novus Ordo is not a reform of the Old Missal, but is a NewRite. Otherwise those who oppose the Novus Ordo have an irifutable argument.

Pax et Bonum!

Whether those who think that Vatican II’s pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are valid or not, or relevant or not, these faithful Catholics have a right to their opinion.

Vatican II partisans need to deal with this reality; they need to stop using Vatican II, a council that did not define any new dogma or condemn any error, as a destructive, irrational wedge to divide the Church and distract Catholics from their mission to evangelize. If they really care about the Church and are disposed to take the moral high grounds, Vatican II partisans desperately need to turn the page and move on.

“Whether those who think that Vatican II’s pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are valid or not, or relevant or not, these faithful Catholics have a right to their opinion.” They do NOT have the right to hold that Vatican II promulgated error in faith or morals if they wish to call themselves Catholic, because that is clearly heresy, Dr. Rios. As for what constitutes “suggestion” versus “command,” one must consult the text itself, which would make that clear from the wording. As an ecumenical council with papal approval, it is a Magisterial exercise, and as such the faithful are NOT free to opine that it is totally without merit or binding force. Apparently, you define Catholics who trust in the Magisterium yesterday, today and tomorrow as “Vatican II partisans.” In that case, Dr., those who are NOT “Vatican II partisans” are schismatics and probably heretics, too. Count me as a Vatican II partisan, along with a partisan of each and every Magisterial teaching moment. And Angelo—I’m personally sick of the ways that the meaning of “Quo Primum” has been misrepresented by what you might call “nostalgist partisans.” It so happens that for 1 1/2 millenniums, the liturgy of the Church was a local or regional matter. In 1570, responding to Trent, Pope St. Pius V declared that from now on, liturgy would be a worldwide concern, and that only those formats directly approved by the pope could be used. When he said that henceforth no one could change the missal, he meant no one BUT POPES! He did not mean that no new editions could ever be issued by the Holy See—only that priests and bishops were not to deviate from whatever issue of the Roman Missal was current. We know that’s what he meant, because he himself made alterations to the missal, and because subsequent popes who knew darned well what he meant also made alterations—up to and including John XXIII and Paul VI. Pius V could not have tied the hands of future popes anyway, because he and all popes know that a pope cannot bind future popes in matters of changeable discipline. A pope a hundred years hence would have just as much right to change the liturgy as Pius V did. He had no right to have the absolute last word—a situation which exists only when a pope is defining infallible teaching. He knew that, and subsequent popes have known that as well.

Larry, I’m impressed with your clear logic.  I’ve tried to be respectful of both sides of this discussion, but clearly your posts are invincible.  I just don’t understand why others can’t see that.

Ken—thanks very much. I appreciate your most kind words. But what is invincible is the truth. It speaks for itself—it defends itself—and it is unconquerable. The truth comes from God, because He is truth. All I’ve done is pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and refer to His Magisterium. If my arguments are invincible, then that can only point to their ultimate origin.

Dr. Michelle Rios:
“Vatican II…..did not define any new dogma or condemn any error,…”
So what? Vatican II defined the doctrine of collegial infallibility as the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., affirms “their conciliar deliberations partake of the charism of infallibility; their conciliar insights are under the divine influence of the Spirit of Wisdom; and their conciliar agreement is a divinely given sign that God is enlightening the Church through their decisions.” [“The Catholic Catechism”, 1975, p 283].

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points….” (“The Ratzinger Repor”, p 28).

Larry, your post is most disrespectful, uncharitable, and hysterical. It is also in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of Vatican II. You dishonor Vatican II, while pretending to defend it.

What pope declared that otherwise Faithful Catholics who think that Vatican II’s pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are not valid or relevant are “heretics”? NONE!

Where in the documents of Vatican II does it state that those who happen to disagree with Vatican II’s pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are “heretics”? NOWHERE!

Where in the documents of Vatican II or in the Catechism of Catholic Church does it say that Vatican II is “infallible” or that Vatican II is an “Article of Faith”? NOWHERE!

What pope has said that “Catholics who trust in the Magisterium yesterday, today and tomorrow” are “Vatican II partisans”? NONE!

Did not the Council unequivocally condemn bullying, coercion, force or intimidation? YES!

How is it that Council partisans occupying the Church’s highest offices are constantly observed bullying, threatening, persecuting, and trying to coerce, force, or intimidate into submission otherwise Catholics faithful to the Magisterium who, as a matter of conscience, disagree with them when it comes to the Council’s pastoral and non-dogmatic suggestions?

To restore unity in the Church, shouldn’t Vatican II partisans currently occupying the Church’s highest offices honor the wise axiom of the great St. Augustine that should always guide us as Christians: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, charity”? YES, THEY SHOULD.

Deal with it!

The self-serving “Vatican II’s pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions” reveals the selfist assumptions of that poster.
The fact is that two Constitutions are Dogmatic – the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, (“Lumen Gentium”) and the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation’ (“Dei Verbum”).

Vatican II has two Dogmatic Constitutions—the same as Vatican I which issued the dogma on papal infallibility when defining doctrine.  As Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church teaches (#25): bishops “proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ….when…..in their authoritative teaching on faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitely and absolutely.  This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council….whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.”

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on Sept-21-2004 (EWTN): 
“Vatican II issued the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (along with other documents).
So that is two DOGMATIC constitutions and one PASTORAL constitution. That does not sound optional or merely suggestive to me.

“The Catechism is filled with quotations and footnotes from the council. The documents of the council have a higher authority than the Catechism itself. Once promulgated (c. 341), conciliar documents are the highest level of teaching documents possible, in terms of authority. An ecumenical council (of course in union with the pope, c. 338) is the SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on Sept-28-2006 (EWTN):
Vatican I defined the infallible teaching authority of the pope, provided that certain criteria are met. Vatican II defined the infallible teaching authority of the pope in union with the bishops, again provided that certain criteria are met. So Vatican II added something to the understanding of our doctrine regarding the infallible teaching authority of the Magisterium. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) #25 states: “The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office.” This is certainly a doctrinal definition that expands the understanding of the Church’s infallible teaching authority, that it can be exercised not just by the pope alone, but also by the bishop in union with the college of bishops. The dogmatic constitution also states that the pope in union with the bishops can teach infallibly either while gathered in an ecumenical council or while scattered throughout the world. This is certainly a doctrinal definition and an expansion and clarification of the previous teaching of Vatican I.

Dr. Michele, I’ve posted some errors contained in Vatican II and proved them to be in contradiction to Pronouncements of Councils or Popes pre Vatican 2.  The council of Vatican 2 defined new dogma by the very name of some of the documents and the new religion does not evangelize.  These are a few instances that show the new concepts that Catholics have no need to evangelize according to those who had the power to endorse Vatican 2:  John XXIII told Protestant Roger Schultz, “You are in the Church, be at peace, you are no longer separated”.  John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint #11 states that “these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them”.  Vat 2 speaks of a certain, though imperfect coomunion.  John Paul II said, “Christ’s Mystical Body is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church”. L’Osservatore Romano May 6, 1980.  Vat 2 document Unitatis Redintegratio #3 “significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church”.  Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1990, stated in Co-Workers of the Truth, p. 29, “there neither can nor should be any disavowal of the presence of Christ and of Christian values among separated Christians.  Catholic theology must state more clearly than ever before that, along with the actual presence of the word outside her boundaries, “Church” is also present in one form or another”. Then there is Lumen Gentium #8, “The Church of Christ subsists in”.  If time and space allowed I would have given you what Popes have taught pre-Vatican II that condemns these positions.  Are you interested in what the Church taught before Vatican II Council? Check it out for yourself in the book, “No Crises in the Church” by Simon Galloway.  I quoted from pages, 23, 25 & 26.

Thomist, you stated that “The Catechism is filled with quotations and footnotes from the council”.  See who archbishop Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is in the article below.  Schönborn assisted in the development of the Catechism that you hold up as a prize? 
Ecclesial Advisor for Ave Maria University is Vienna archbishop, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn (July 2008) bestowed a Pontifical decoration upon an Austrian socialist politician who has been leading in promoting abortion. The Order of St. Gregory is the fourth highest award for merits regarding the Roman-Catholic Church. It is directly granted by the Pope and is one of the highest decorations that is conferred on lay people.

The award was instituted by pope Gregory XVI. in 1831. The inaugural brief states that it is intended for “gentlemen of proven loyalty to the Holy See” who “are deemed worthy to be honoured by a public expression of esteem on the part of the Holy See”.

Renate Brauner was honoured with this order for alleged merits in the field of the Austrian health care system and for her collaboration with ecclesiastical institutions in that field.

Brauner is also a well-known defender of abortion which Second Vatican Council has called an “unspeakable crime”. Pro-abortion politicians are excommunicated by Canon Law.

During the bestowal of the Pontifical order upon Mrs Brauner, Cardinal Schönborn (And this from the Cardinal in charge, years back, of JPII’s Catechism) stated according to the official website of his archdiocese:……..

This has already been the second time that cardinal Schönborn has bestowed the Order of St. Gregory to a promoter of abortion.

In November 2006 he honoured Gertraude Steindl, the secretary general of the ‘Aktion Leben Österreich’ – an Austrian pregnancy centre.

Now why does the Ave Maria University have Schönborn as ecclesiastical advisor?  Schönborn loves abortion supporters, the university has the audacity to call itself Catholic and you quote from the catechism with his name on it.

Thomist, you say I fabricated the diminishing of the office of The Vicar of Christ.  Let me quote you some things from Chapter IV in the book, “Desire to Destroy” by Atila Sinke Guimaraes.  You can’t make this stuff up that the Vatican II council was out to destroy Catholicism.  The radical and progressives making major changes within the structure of the hierarchy conceived that the Church be as the “people of God” and the church to live much more from her base.  They maintain it is to not have a dominating, tyrannical and overbearing authority.  The conciliar revolutionists desire the Vicar of Christ to renounce spiritual power, to renounce excommunications (of which there has only been Traditional Catholics excommunicated) to renounce condemnations, and to renounce new statements of definitions and dogma (p. 250 Desire to Destroy).  Paul VI in line with spiritual renouncement gave away the symbol of papal sovereignty – the three-tiered crown..(p.250).  The transfer of power of the Vicar of Christ is to go from a Pope-King, to a Pope president (later in the chapter to a president of love,——it’s insanity)  on the slippery slope to form a democratic church (p. 251)  The intent of the progressives is to inflate the college of bishops role, the princes, to the detriment of the papal Primacy (p.252).  The NEW canon law makes the Vicar of Christ, the first among equals (p.253)  Let us not forget, the Catholic Church teaches that ONLY Peter received the key to bind and to loose and not the princes!  You can’t make this stuff up that the progressives who bullied the traditional Bishops at the V2 Council maintains the pope and the council have equal powers (p.256) in spite of the fact Christ said one man alone:  “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church” Mt. 16:18.  Yet these hijackers of V2 wanted Peter to be obedient to ‘the College’ (p.259).  Boniface VIII November 1302 in his Bull Unan Sanctam stated:  “..the one and only Church has one body, one head namely Christ and his Vicar Peter and the successor of Peter…”(p.263)  Tyrants who influenced the V2 council holds that the pope is subordinate; the college has more power than the pope. (p. 271)  The pope is at the service of the college (p.272)  Lumen Gentium defines the bishops destruction of the Vicar of Christ on pages 274 and 275, 278, 279 and possibly more in the book, “Desire to Destroy”.  John Paul II states in Ut unum sint, the bishop of Rome does not separate his office from the mission of the bishops and is a member of the college. (p. 280)  You can’t make this stuff up!

I think Thomist has refuted the false and tendentious assertions of Dr. Rios more effectively than I could have. There’s no reason for me to add anything to his post. As for Joe and Minty: you just can’t deal with the obvious questions raised by your own false reasoning, can you? All you can do is parrot back nostalgist talking points ad infinitum. You can’t answer this plain, simple question no matter how many times it’s asked: if we accept as true that the ecumenical council of the 1960’s, which carried papal approval, did in fact directly contradict previous Magisterial exercises (ecumenical councils, papal definitions) in matters of faith and morals—than how can we believe ANY of them? If Vatican II, for example, contradicts Trent—then how can you be sure that Vatican II is the one in error? Maybe TRENT is wrong? If Pope John XXIII contradicts Pius V—maybe it’s PIUS V who is wrong, not John. But if ANY of them ARE indeed wrong—how can ANY of them ever be believed again? And if ANY of them are wrong, it proves one thing beyond any reasonable doubt, that being that Jesus of Nazareth failed to enforce his promise to keep his Church free from error. THEREFOR, HE IS NEITHER GOD NOR THE MESSIAH, and we are all wasting our time worshiping at this altar. Your whole case runs head-on into that rock cliff—and you just can’t deal with it.

Larry, There goes the old argument ad nausiam, “One Pope cannot bind another”. They have been doing it for 2000 years. Many accuse V2 of breaking with Tradition, Pope Benedict XVl has strongly defended V2 that it was not a break, because the Church cannot break with Tradition. If V2 did break with Tradition then it would have to be abolished. Many do not wish to speak about “Quo Primum” simply because they cannot find a coherent contradiction to it. We cannot play the game, “Lets not talk about it and the problem will go away”. For 500 years the Papal Bulla “Quo Primum” has been in the first pages of every Missal. St. Pius V declared that this Papal Bulla was unto the end of the world. Have you read “Quo Primum”? Like you, I once also dismissed this Papal Document until I actualy read it in the light in which it was written. I was perplexed by it then and it perplexes me now. I am 100% positive that Rome has a good explanation, only I have’nt heard it yet. I continue to wait for the Holy Father and only the Holy Father (for obvious reasons) to give a clarification on the binding Document “Quo Primum”.

Vatican II’s Ambiguous and Controversial Juridical Nature
First of all, Pope John XXIII’s address opening the Council on October 11, 1962, and the Notificatio, read publicly on November 5, 1965, define the juridical nature of Vatican II as “pastoral,” not as “dogmatic”. The Council’s “pastoral” nature is confirmed by the fact that it did not define any dogmas nor condemn any errors.

Second, although two of the Council’s “Constitutions,” Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church), are named “dogmatic” and concern matters of dogmas of the Faith, they are dogmatic only in name, i.e. in a solely descriptive sense. The Council did not define any new dogma for anyone to believe in.

Third, Vatican II’s deliberate and willful refusal to define or declare itself a “dogmatic” council, forces Catholic theologians faithful to the Church’s Magisterium to legitimately and reasonably question the orthodoxy of the sense in which Vatican II texts can be and have been arbitrarily interpreted and the manner in which it has been ruthlessly imposed by self-proclaimed Council partisans.

Nowhere does Vatican II teach that those who happen to disagree with its pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are “heretics.” NOWHERE!

Nowhere does Vatican II teach that those who happen to disagree with its pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are “schismatic.” NOWHERE!

Nowhere does Vatican II or in the subsequently produced Catechism of the Catholic Church is it taught that acceptance of Vatican II or of self-proclaimed “pastoral” council such as Vatican II an “Article of Faith” or necessary for salvation. NOWHERE!

Nowhere does Vatican II suggests, command or authorize its self-proclaimed partisans to attack, bully, coerce, intimidate, persecute, offend or threaten Catholics otherwise faithful to the Church’s Magisterium to violate their informed conscience in order to accept Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions. NOWHERE!

Is it not evident that bullying, coercing, intimidating or persecuting otherwise committed and faithful Catholics to force them to violate their informed conscience and agree with Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions; is itself a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II?

It should be very, very clear that those who use Vatican II as a wedge to divide the Church not only commit a great disservice to the Church, but they also DISRESPECT, DISOBEY, and commit a great DISSERVICE to the very letter, spirit, purpose and declared intent of the Second Vatican Council.

Angelo, Thomist, Larry, et al: STOP DISRESPECTING and DISOBEYING Vatican II! You need to stop using a council that proclaimed its desire for UNITY among all men, as a wedge to DIVIDE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium.
Vatican II’s Ambiguous and Controversial Juridical Nature
First of all, Pope John XXIII’s address opening the Council on October 11, 1962, and the Notificatio, read publicly on November 5, 1965, define the juridical nature of Vatican II as “pastoral,” not as “dogmatic”. The Council’s “pastoral” nature is confirmed by the fact that it did not define any dogmas nor condemn any errors.

Second, although two of the Council’s “Constitutions,” Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church), are named “dogmatic” and concern matters of dogmas of the Faith, they are dogmatic only in name, i.e. in a solely descriptive sense. The Council did not define any new dogma for anyone to believe in.

Third, Vatican II’s deliberate and willful refusal to define or declare itself a “dogmatic” council, forces Catholic theologians faithful to the Church’s Magisterium to legitimately and reasonably question the orthodoxy of the sense in which Vatican II texts can be and have been arbitrarily interpreted and the manner in which it has been ruthlessly imposed by self-proclaimed Council partisans.

Nowhere does Vatican II teach that those who happen to disagree with its pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are “heretics.” NOWHERE!

Nowhere does Vatican II teach that those who happen to disagree with its pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are “schismatic.” NOWHERE!

Nowhere does Vatican II or in the subsequently produced Catechism of the Catholic Church is it taught that acceptance of Vatican II or of self-proclaimed “pastoral” council such as Vatican II an “Article of Faith” or necessary for salvation. NOWHERE!

Nowhere does Vatican II suggests, command or authorize its self-proclaimed partisans to attack, bully, coerce, intimidate, persecute, offend or threaten Catholics otherwise faithful to the Church’s Magisterium to violate their informed conscience in order to accept Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions. NOWHERE!

Is it not evident that bullying, coercing, intimidating or persecuting otherwise committed and faithful Catholics to force them to violate their informed conscience and agree with Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions; is itself a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II?

It should be very, very clear that those who use Vatican II as a wedge to divide the Church not only commit a great disservice to the Church, but they also DISRESPECT, DISOBEY, and commit a great DISSERVICE to the very letter, spirit, purpose and declared intent of the Second Vatican Council.

Angelo, Thomist, Larry, et al: STOP DISRESPECTING and DISOBEYING Vatican II! You need to stop using a council that proclaimed its desire for UNITY among all men, as a wedge to DIVIDE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium.

Please accept my apology for my message appearing twice, i.e., duplicated, within my previous post. It was an unintentional mistake. Thank you for your understanding.—Dr. Michelle Rios.

Dr. Michelle Rios, You forgot one thing, Vatican Council ll never condemned fruitful DIOLOGUE. Which is exactly what we are doing here. Would you rather we all go frolicking around singing that all is well. It is not! Look around and look at the state of the Church or rather the state of souls created by God for Heaven. Would you rather we all just remain silent, while God’s lambs and sheep are being slaughterd by the ravenous wolves in the Church?

Dr. Rio, even a “pastoral” council is not to teach what opposes The Total Deposit of Faith handed on.  Pre-Vatican 2 Popes did not leave Catholics unprepared to defend Truth.  The modernists have been spewing their underpinnings for a long time.  See the “Syllabus of Errors” issued by Pope Pius IX, 1864 for instance.  Benedict XVI claims the Vat 2 council is a counter syllabus.  No pope or council contradicts nor corrects a previous pope or council or they or it are not legitimate.  The acceptance that it can is to say that Christ’s Church can make mistakes and teach error.  Holy Mother the Church cannot be deceived nor is deceived.
More errors of Vatican II:  Orientalium Ecclesiarum #27, 1964 states:  “Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on Eastern Christians…”
Above Vat 2 statement is Condemned by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution #3 1215:  “Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to pestilent people…..”
Vatican 2 New Church religion is not a church of the return; it does not evangelize (God’s protection, I’m certain) Unitatis Redintegratia #9, 1964 states:  “We must get to know the outlook of our separated Christians…..where each side can treat with the other on an equal footing…”
Above Vat 2 statement is Condemned by Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos #7, 1928:  “Meanwhile they (heretics) affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal”.

Angelo you said, “Many accuse V2 of breaking with Tradition, Pope Benedict XVl has strongly defended V2 that it was not a break, because the Church cannot break wIn ith Tradition”.  Angelo, get to know who Benedict XVI really is.  In his own words Benedict XVI/Ratzinger said the Vatican II council is a counter syllabus.  He confirmed that the council went against Sacred Tradition.  Here is your proof:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

“Angelo, Thomist, Larry, et al: STOP DISRESPECTING and DISOBEYING Vatican II! You need to stop using a council that proclaimed its desire for UNITY among all men, as a wedge to DIVIDE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium.” You’re doing that with your endlessly repeated lies and distortions about the council, Dr. Rios. The words “pastoral” and “dogmatic” do not constitute official and mutually exclusive categories of councils. They are simply adjectives describing the general nature of a particular council’s work. They don’t in the least affect the authoritative nature of an ecumenical council under papal approval. There isn’t a syllable of truth in your malicious and wild bombast against the council. There is no point in continued dialogue with you. And Angelo—I’ve explained the meaning of “Quo Primum.” Obviously, you don’t have an open mind on the subject—so there’s no point in continuing to dialogue with YOU. If popes subsequent to Pius V were not allowed to change the mass, they would not HAVE changed the mass. It’s common sense—something which the V2 opponents on this site seem to completely lack. The Magisterium is not only the exclusive definer of the truth in faith and morals. It is also the exclusive interpreter, clarifier and elaborator for all previously-defined points of truth. I’ll take them over the bunch of you any day.

Thomist you said, “ Minty is totally misled by trying to give periti at Vatican II what only the declarations of a Council can do—the authority to declare and define.”
No one is given the authority to make new doctrine but to faithfully deliver what have been handed on through the ages of the Church.  No one is given the authority to change what is received by Tradition.  Catholics must be attached to Tradition and not led astray by lying novelties.
So what are we to make of those who have endorsed Vatican II and its errors?

Larry you said, “If your arguments are correct, then we should all be Jews still waiting for the Messiah. Obviously, I don’t agree.”
Than you disagree with Benedict XVI.  Conciliarists no longer pray for the Jews (and the Muslims).  Benedict XVI claims the Old Testament was too obscure in understanding of the Messiah to come and that the Jews should continue waiting for the Messiah.  You OK with that !!??
Please tell me it ain’t so!, that you know better, that it is heretical to say the Messiah has not been born to die so that we might live.  Please tell you understand something is phoney in the Vatican when Jews are told they do not have to convert and believe in the Triune Godhead.

Thomist, you stated:  “The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) #25 states: “The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office.” This is certainly a doctrinal definition that expands the understanding of the Church’s infallible teaching authority, that it can be exercised not just by the pope alone, but also by the bishop in union with the college of bishops.”

That’s bogus, Thomist.  ONLY the Vicar of Christ was given the infallible spirit.  “In union with the college of bishops” is a fabrication of Vatican modernist hijackers desiring to change the office of the Vicar of Christ to be a “president of peace” submissive to the princes of the new found church and religion of Vatican 2.  I did not invent this.  See Chapter IV in “Desire to Destroy”  Can you admit to the Vatican II working towards a One World Order Religion?

Larry, you said, “And YOU, Joe. Listen to me carefully, okay? So you say that Vatican II and the recent popes contradict what Pope So-and-So said back in umpteen-hundred A.D.? In that case, why should I care what ANY of them have said—Vatican II, JPII, Benedict XVI, OR Pope So-and-So?”
The following quotes are why you should care, Larry: 
QUOTES PROVING THE AUTHORITY OF TRADITION
1. “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching ... Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” – Pope St. Leo the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church
2. “I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation.” – Pope St. Pius X
3. “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.” – Pope St. Pius X
4. “The Church of Christ, zealous and cautious guardian of the dogmas deposited with it, never changes any phase of them. It does not diminish them or add to them; it neither trims what seems necessary now grafts things superfluous . . . but it devotes all its diligence to one aim: To treat tradition faithfully and wisely; to consolidate and to strengthen what already was clear; and to guard what already was confirmed and defined.” – St. Vincent de Lerins: Commonitoria (5th Century)
Some of the quotes taken from:
http://www.olrl.org/doctrine/tradition.shtml

It is imperative that those who accept Vatican 2 Council admit that it is not the Roman Catholic Church but a new denomination, a new religion, a new found church.  It’s your choice to be a conciliarist believer.  Remember, all it takes is one drop of poison and the whole council is illegal.  I’ve pointed out several drops.  Those who have spend a great deal of time studying the documents of Vatican two claim over 200 drops of poison.

Larry, So you state you have explained it to me. You speak as if you had some authority. I agree there is no sense to continue our diologue on “Quo Primum”. I consider myself very open minded. I try to look at things through all different perspectives. The only authority I have is my openess to the Truth. Diologue of the deaf is not my game. Are you a modernist Bishop? Because your reasoning seems to suggest it. If I may say, you sound very anti-Traditionalist, you have no tolerance for them. So that makes all your arguments null and void, because being anti-Traditionalist means being anti Bl. John Paul ll and anti Pope Benedict XVl. Take this criticism for what its worth, and its worth more than you think.

Quo Primum, I believe, sums up its theme by saying that from now on, no one can deviate from “this Missal” approved “by Us,” or words to that effect—no? All right, then—“Us” means the office of the Papacy, the occupant of the Chair of Peter, not merely Pius V himself, a.k.a. Cardinal Michele Ghislieri. “This Missal” does not mean “this edition of this Missal,” as though there could never again be any future editions. You yourself said that “Quo Primum” had been published as part of every Missal for 500 years—during which time the Missal underwent several modifications. Obviously, the folks who issued each missal were familiar with Quo Primum. What kind of egomaniac would St. Pius V have been if he had declared before the world: “I, Pope Pius V, Cardinal Michele Ghislieri, hereby declare that I myself shall be the last and greatest authority over the mass—and that what I have done no man may ever amend unto the end of all time”? In fact he assigned all authority over the liturgy to THE PAPACY, not to himself personally as though with his death the liturgy must be henceforth frozen in time for all time. He said that no one could deviate from “this missal,” meaning the current edition thereof, approved “by Us,” meaning by the occupant of the Chair of Peter, whoever he might be at any given moment. Now—mark these words carefully. We know the popes can change the mass because they HAVE changed the mass. If the Holy Spirit did not want the mass changed one iota, He would have made sure that all popes understood that. That is part of the “You are Peter…” pledge. And Joe? Once again, you failed to address my question, didn’t you? Your latest posts are nothing but filibusters. The question is: “if I can’t trust the current successors of St. Peter and the Apostles—then how can I trust Jesus Himself?” The only answer is: I CAN’T (that is, if your thesis is correct, which it is NOT.)There’s no way around it—so you ignore it completely. Of course an ecumenical council (with papal approval) cannot contradict any previous council—it is Divinely protected from doing so. But there’s a flip side, also. God is a timeless being. He sees all of time, forward and backward. For that reason, no council can ever contradict any FUTURE council, either. It works both ways. Except for you, I guess—for whom it doesn’t work at all.

Larry, I thought you said the diologue between us on “Quo Primum” is over. I agreed, so lets leave it at that.

Larry, I have answered your question but you do not want to see that truth does not contradict or there no truth.  None can deny Vatican 2 contradicts its own past.  You’ve asked a ‘good’ question if your are a protestant, atheist, Jew, animist, pagan, Buddhist, Hinduist,conciliarist, or Muslim.  You’ve asked a very ridiculous question if you are a Catholic.  Keep in mind, Larry, in Catholic Church history there have been 17 illegimate councils and 41 antipopes.  At one time there were three claimed popes. More on your question later.

“None can deny Vatican 2 contradicts its own past.” I deny it, and so does every truly faithful Catholic. “Larry, I have answered your question…” You haven’t even tried. “...You do not want to see that truth does not contradict or there no truth.” I see that perfectly. You’re the one who doesn’t. “You’ve asked a ‘good’ question if your are a protestant, atheist, Jew, animist, pagan, Buddhist…” I’ve asked a good question, period. In fact it’s the pivotal question. And you don’t have an answer for it. “More on your question later.” Skip it. You’ve got nothing but hot air, and I’ve had enough of it.

Austria Issues a Personalized Stamp of Archbishop Lefebvre
On the Centennial of His Birth
On the occasion of the centennial of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s birth (1905-1991), the Austrian post office has issued a personalized stamp in the amount of 0.55 Euros (about half a U.S. dollar). The stamp features a large image of the traditional bishop against a background of the seminary church in Econe, Switzerland, where the archbishop founded his famous seminary to preserve the traditional Catholic priesthood.
The stamp involved is what is known as a personalized stamp. This means that a customer created the issue and retains possession of the design. The U.S. Postal Service also issues personalized stamps created by customers, but in the U.S. religious subjects are barred. A traditional Catholic vendor designed a personalized anti-Vatican II stamp, but it was rejected by the USPS as being a religious subject. (One wonders whatever happened to the Bill of Rights in the United States.)
http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0511.htm

Can those who use Vatican II as a wedge to divide and attack other Catholics be considered real Catholics? Are they being faithful to the letter and the spirit of Vatican II? Doesn’t fidelity to Vatican II demand RESPECT for others who disagree with Vatican II?

Isn’t it evident that bullying, coercing, intimidating or persecuting otherwise committed and faithful Catholics to force them to violate their informed conscience and agree with Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions; itself a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II?

Shouldn’t self-proclaimed Vatican II partisans STOP DISRESPECTING and DISOBEYING Vatican II? Shouldn’t they stop using a council whose self-proclaimed purpose and desire was for UNITY among all men, as a destructive wedge to DIVIDE, DISUNITE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium?

Why do they run away from these simple questions?

This post is for the benefit of the SSPXers who DO NOT want to reconcile with the bogus Vatican II council.  Those who want to join forces with the hijackers will refuse to understand the following which is Archbishop Lefebvre’s own words in a Letter to the Future Bishops on August 29, 1987:
“My dear friends,
“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross — Regnavit a Ligno Deus — and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies.”

Hi Dr. Michelle Rios,
Apparently your question was not answered about respecting opponents of Vatican II.  (I attempted to respond earlier, but apparently it was not adequate.)  Yes, I think we should all be respectful of each other.  However, I don’t believe I’ve seen “bullying, coercing, intimidation or persecution” of anyone.  (Certainly not from me - a fan of V2.)  I have seen some inappropriate insults from each side though.  However, your post is confusing because you appear to defend opponents of V2 whom you claim are faithful to the Church’s Magisterium.  If they are not faithful to the pope, then how can this be true?  A follow up question - who is your pope?

Ken, I think you mentioned your interest in Our Blessed Mother.  Remember it is She who is the dispenser of all graces, the Mother of God who has been relegated to a broom closet like Our Lord in the Tabernacle by the new church religion?  Are you familiar with The Message of Our Lady of La Salette? - This Church Approved apparition reveals much about the current crisis in the Church. (Delivered by Our Lady to Mélanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud, on September 19, 1846, while they were tending cattle on the mountain of La Salette, France).

Hi Ken, my pope is His Holiness Benedict XVI. Who is yours?

My comments have never been directed at you. They are meant to get the more fanatical Vatican II partisans here to understand that Pope Benedict XVI,or the Church for that matter, has NEVER expressed himself about Catholics who disagree with Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions with the ugly, uncharitable words and bullying tone that some on this thread have.

For example, when has the Holy Father called “schismatic” those Catholics faithful to the Magisterium who legitimately and reasonably believe that Pope John XXIII’s address opening the Council on October 11, 1962, and the Notificatio, read publicly on November 5, 1965, define the juridical nature of Vatican II as “pastoral,” not as “dogmatic”? When has the Holy Father called them this? Never! Then why do some who claim to follow Benedict XVI disrespect his example?

When has the Holy Father, or Vatican II for that matter, ever called “heretics” those Catholics who point out that Vatican II’s deliberate and willful refusal to define or declare itself a “dogmatic” council, forces Catholic theologians faithful to the Church’s Magisterium to legitimately and reasonably question the orthodoxy of the sense in which Vatican II texts can be and have been arbitrarily interpreted and the manner in which the Council has been ruthlessly imposed by self-proclaimed Council partisans? When?

So why do some Vatican II partisans attack fellow Catholics with epithets and condemnations that not even our Holy Father Benedict XVI has ever used?

My position is simple: We can disagree without being disagreeable; without being uncharitable; and without acting as if we have the monopoly and the exclusivity on Catholic Truth!!

Certainly, Vatican II has been interpreted by the popes as teaching otherwise. Doesn’t fidelity to Vatican II demands RESPECT for Catholics who are not the least bit unfaithful to the Magisterium while disagreeing with Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions?

Don’t Vatican II partisans know that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that Vatican II SHOULD NOT be imposed on Catholics as a “superdogma”?

Let be honest. Is mandatory agreement with the non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions of Vatican II an Article of Faith? YES or NO?
Is mandatory agreement with the non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions of Vatican II NECESSARY for salvation? YES or NO?

If the answer is NO to both questions, then why are Vatican II partisans using a council whose self-proclaimed purpose was to bring about UNITY among all men and nations, as a destructive wedge to DIVIDE, DISUNITE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium???

Shouldn’t Vatican II partisans answer these simple questions, not to me, but to themselves if they are truly sincere about upholding Vatican II?

Yes, I have a devotion to Our Blessed Mother that started after reading a book about Fatima.  Also, Lourdes and Guadalupe are among my favorites.  I am familiar with LaSalette and several other approved apparitions.  Currently, I’m following Medjugorje very closely and await the Vatican’s report and the prophetic events that will prove its legitimacy (or illegitimacy).  I wonder how SSPX followers will interpret such things if the prophetic events unfold accurately because this is occurring in a Roman Catholic Parish.  Would they ask “Would the Mother of God do such a thing in a “false” parish?  I fear that it’s more likely they’ll discredit it, claiming it’s a sham.  Seems all miracles (even raising Lazarus and the miracle of the sun in Fatima) had critics.  But even this must be part of God’s plan.

Hi Dr. Michelle Rios,
Yes, I agree that there is no benefit to anyone by using insults.  I understand the frustration expressed from both sides though when, apparently, there seems to be a lack of understanding or dismissal of key points.  But frankly, I continue to be confused by those who claim to respect our Holy Father and yet reject his invitation to reconcile.  Particularly considering his position of authority, who can question him?  I’m a pro-life activist, and my heart sinks when I hear some who claim to be “Catholic” believe they have the legitimate right to dispose of what the Pope teaches.  For “Catholics” that’s not an option.  Although invincible ignorance can be an acceptable explanation, that doesn’t include the right to contradict the pope.

To understand the position of the SSPX one must first understand that Catholic obedience is NOT blind obedience! There are legitimate doctrinal interpretations and disciplinary issues that must, in justice and in charity, be properly addressed by Vatican II partisans currently occupying the Church’s highest offices.

Why do you think Saint Peter Canisius liked to say “More than the Lord Pope I wish to please the Pope’s Lord”?

We must not forget that during the past 40 years, as a result of a virtual revolution within “official” Church structures, Catholics, be they clergy or laity, rejecting new anthropocentric redefinitions of the Faith; remaining faithful to a Christocentric worldview and a liturgical rite unequivocally and unquestionably Catholic; and genuinely committed to living the faith as handed down to them by Tradition, have been victims of a vicious, often brutal, abuse, mistreatment and persecution at the hands of Modernism-infected members of the hierarchy and the clergy.

Rather than attack or marginalize Catholics, such as the SSPX, forced to flee their “official” parishes, Catholics faithful to the Magisterium within “official” structures have a grave obligation to assist Pope Benedict XVI, through support of his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and his decree annulling the unjust excommunication against the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X. These Catholics should work for the full vindication of the violated human and canonical rights of Catholics faithful to Tradition and the restoration of these Catholics to the full participation within the Church that is their God-given birthright.

HI Dr. Michelle Rios,
I inadvertently overlooked responding to three of your important questions in an earlier post inserted here:
“Don’t Vatican II partisans know that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that Vatican II SHOULD NOT be imposed on Catholics as a “superdogma”?
Let be honest. Is mandatory agreement with the non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions of Vatican II an Article of Faith? YES or NO?
Is mandatory agreement with the non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions of Vatican II NECESSARY for salvation? YES or NO?”

Apparently, Pope Benedict’s first quote could be interpreted to mean that Vatican II is merely dogmatic, not super-dogmatic.
Yes, agreement with the pope on issues of FAITH and morals is mandatory for Catholics, whether we understand his reasoning or not.  Those who truly believe abortion is good, but want to be called “Catholic” just have to chalk it up as something they don’t understand, but will accept.
I don’t know the answer to the third question.  I’m not qualified to say who is condemned.

Dr. Michelle Rios asks:
Why do you think Saint Peter Canisius liked to say “More than the Lord Pope I wish to please the Pope’s Lord”?

With all due respect to St. Peter Canisius, I don’t think he was inferring that he had the right to choose to disrespect the Pope.

I’m sorry to hear that you have apparently been the victim of vicious, often brutal, abuse, mistreatment and persecution.  That has not happened in our parish although I’ve heard of some horror stories in some liberal parishes.  We need conservative people like you in the pews to stand our ground on what Vatican II means and what it doesn’t mean.  Abandoning ship, is not the solution.

Posted by Minty on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 6:00 AM (EST):
John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint #11 states that “these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them”
The intolerable effort to denigrate Christ and his Church is found above as Ut Unum Sint #10 confirms that:
“INDEED, THE ELEMENTS OF SANCTIFICATION AND TRUTH PRESENT IN THE OTHER CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES, IN A DEGREE WHICH VARIES FROM ONE TO THE OTHER, CONSTITUTE THE OBJECTIVE BASIS OF THE COMMUNION, ALBEIT IMPERFECT, WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN THEM AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Followed by # 11:
“TO THE EXTENT that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL SPEAKS OF a certain, though IMPERFECT COMMUNION.”

Ken,

In 1988, addressing the Chilean bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed, “The truth is that this particular Council [Vatican II] defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of ‘superdogma’ which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
While affirming his attachment to Vatican II, on September 14, 2011, Benedict XVI brought down the taboo of Vatican II.

On that day, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the fundamental basis for the SSPX achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011.

<<< The Preamble … leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium. >>>

While no Pope can free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, on September 14, 2011 Benedict XVI, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberated Catholic souls from those of a pastoral Council.

From now on, it is clear that one may be faithful to the Church’s Magisterium without being forced to hold to the controversial points of Vatican II.

In other words, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that the Conciliar doctrines are no longer non-negotiable in character and have no exclusivity of claim. Vatican II is not any longer the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church; that life is now once again refocused on its object: Faith.

Therefore, why are Vatican II partisans using a council whose self-proclaimed purpose was to bring about UNITY among all men and nations, as a destructive wedge, or superdogma, to DIVIDE, DISUNITE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium???

The further efforts to denigrate Vatican II and therefore the Popes Bl John XXIII, Paul VI and Benedict XVI (whose references we have seen) by claiming that in “Pope John XXIII’s address opening the Council” he defined “the juridical nature of Vatican II as ‘pastoral’, not as ‘dogmatic. [Posted by Dr. Michelle Rios on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 10:01 PM]

In “The Pope, the Council, and the Mass”, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead the reality is also acknowledged:
“The term ‘pastoral council’ as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church (the teachings and decisions of which would presumably somehow not be as binding upon members of the Church as those of a ‘dogmatic’ council). IN THE CHURCH THERE ARE TRADITIONALLY COUNCILS, OR SYNODS, WHICH ARE STYLED ‘NATIONAL COUNCILS,’ ‘PROVINCIAL COUNCILS,’ OR ‘GENERAL (ECUMENICAL) COUNCILS,’ BUT NONE STYLED SPECIFICALLY A ‘PASTORAL COUNCIL.’ ”(p 33).

“Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, stated that the reasons he was doing so were of a character that could be broadly termed ‘pastoral,’ although Pope John himself, in using the word, merely spoke of the need today of a Church Magisterium ‘which is predominantly pastoral in character.’ Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the ‘pastoral nature of the Council’ in his Weekly General Audience of January 12, 1966, but he didn’t call it a ‘pastoral council’ as if this were some new species of Church gathering which the faithful might go along with or not, as they chose” (p. 33).

“Pope Pius IX taught on this subject in a letter to the Abbot of Solesmes: ” ‘...the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit…it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council DEFINES AND PROPOSES WHAT MUST BE BELIEVED….’ NOT ONLY WHAT THE COUNCIL ‘DEFINES’—IT SHOULD BE NOTED—BUT WHAT IT ‘PROPOSES.’ ” (Op cit. P 38-39).

In his book, “Sources of Renewal” Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Bl Pope John Paul II) wrote: “It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.” The Cardinal goes on: “All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, WHILE PRESERVING ITS PASTORAL CHARACTER AND MINDFUL OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS CALLED, PROFOUNDLY DEVELOPED THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH AND THUS PROVIDED A BASIS FOR ITS ENRICHMENT.” (Ibid, p 38-39)

Friends:
On September 14, 2011, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that the Conciliar doctrines are no longer non-negotiable in character and have no exclusivity of claim, by stating that the Doctrinal “Preamble … leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.”
On September 14, 2011, the Holy Father made it clear: Vatican II is no longer to be considered the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church; that life is now once again refocused on its object: Faith.
Therefore, why are Vatican II partisans using a council whose self-proclaimed purpose was to bring about UNITY among all men and nations, as a destructive wedge, or superdogma, to DIVIDE, DISUNITE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium???

Dr. Rios, Why do you not practice what you preach. You drive a strong wedge between all the diologue of the faithful. If we are to take your word for it, then you by your own self declaring self, are the only authority in the Church. Much of what you say I do not believe for a single moment. Do you make up things as you go along? I usually take a persons word for what they state. But in your case please back up what you claim with quotes, dates, where, and when. Simply because you have no credibility until you can prove it.

HI Dr. Michelle Rios,
I’m not certain that putting the adjective “pastoral” in front of the word “council” denigrates it to something less.  However, if what you say is true; that Pope Benedict is essentially waiving full acceptance of Vatican II by those who can’t accept it, then what’s the barrier to full communion between us?  Formally accept his offer!  Incidentally, again, I believe that whatever Cardinal Ratzinger may have said in 1988 has little more meaning that what you and I might opine.  It’s interesting of course, but not necessarily relevant to the official position of the Church.  Also, various authors may offer interpretations or opinions, but they too are not infallible.  Follow the Pope!

Facing reality with Peter Vere
My Journey Out Of The Lefebvre Schism. All Tradition Leads To Rome
“I failed to realize, however, that at the root of every schism, as the present Code of Canon Law explains, “is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Can. 751).”
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4120

Do Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty really conflict with Traditional Catholic teaching?
In his first Envoy article on traditionalist apologetics [see “All Tradition Leads to Rome,” Volume 4.6], canon lawyer Pete Vere identified seven common arguments offered by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in defense of their schism, and how he overcame these objections during his journey back to the Catholic Church
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6056

In 1972 Paul VI stated he had the sensation that “through some crack the smoke of Satan had entered the temple of God.  (He said), There is doubt, uncertainty, a mass of problems, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation.  The Church is no longer trusted…Doubt has entered our consciences, and it has done so through the windows that should be open to the light….This state of uncertainty also reigns within the Church.  It was believed that, after the Council, a sunny day would come in the History of the Church.  Instead, there came a day filled with clouds, tempest, darkness, questions, uncertainty.  We preach ecumenism and distance ourselves ever more from one another.  We have sought to dig chasms instead of filling them.” (Isegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. 10, 1972, pp. 707-8)

There you have it Dr. Rio.  Paul VI gave his signature to allow the ‘self destruction of the (Catholic) Church’ Council.  He details why the Mystical Body of Christ rejects the ‘People of God’ Council and newchurch religion.  Catholics who point out the errors of Vatican 2 Council do not “DIVIDE, DISUNITE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD”  as you loudly keep stating.  The spirit of Vat 2 council was purposely planned to destroy Christ’s Church. 
Once again and prior to the above Paul VI referred to a mysterious process of self-destruction that had befallen the Church—-the great progressivist onslaught that triumphed at Vatican II. (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. 6, 1968, p. 1188 and “In the Murky Waters of Vatican II”, Chaps. V, VI, VII, IX).

Dr. Rios’ distortion-filled posts remind me of a line from “Bad Day at Black Rock,” spoken by Spencer Tracy to Ernest Borgnine: “You’re not only wrong. You’re wrong at the top of your voice.”

We have seen the errors abroad and the revolt of the theologian dissenters before during and after Vatican II [by Thomist on Monday, Jul 23, 2012 4:39 PM] so the ranting of Joe and his fellow-travellers reiterate those facts, while failing to faithfully follow Christ by assent and obedience to the Magisterium which He founded to offer salvation.

Fully aware of these modernist attacks Pope Paul VI issued his “Credo of the People of God” in 1968 in which, aware of a central problem today, he amplified the short phrase of the Apostle’s Creed to read: “We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ ” – a developed statement of the abiding truth. [See “Creed and Catechetics”, Msgr Eugene Kevane, Christian Classics, 1978, p xii – foreword by John Cardinal Wright].

As we have seen, “It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points….” (“The Ratzinger Report”, p 28). Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (“The Ratzinger Report”, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

Thomas, Holy Mother the Church saw the anarchy coming in the 17th century.  You quote only from post Vatican II writings.  I’ve shown you errors in the Vat 2 documents along with its condemnation with pre Vat 2 writings.  Fidelity to Holy Mother Church must connect with the centuries of the handed on “Deposit of Faith” safeguarded by the Vicar of Christ,  the keeper of the keys, Christ’s representative on earth who will feed Christ’s lambs.  The conciliar revolution is tied into the French Revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity.  One major difference of this Vat 2 revolution is that the tactical errors and excesses of the French revolution are avoided and to be peaceful and “evolutionary”.  Do you know who said truth evolves?  It’s a heretical statement, but that is the substance of modernists in the new religion of Vat 2.  The Catholic Church has condemned the evolutionary spirit of Vat 2 prior to 1962.
The conciliar revolutionaries want to transform the Papacy into a new church of a democratic organization in order to change the Catholic Church’s monarchic structure.  Why don’t you investigate the reason Vat 2 changed the Mystical Body of Christ (members) to the “People of God” members? 
Conciliar Heads of the new religion are encouraging lay people and women in particular to assume various important offices at the Vatican formerly held exclusively by priests.  Participation of the “People of God” is inverting the traditional structure. 
You can’t make this stuff up.  Check what I’ve posted in Chapter IV, “Desire to Destroy” and its references to “Murky Waters of Vatican II”.  Don’t take my word for it.

Thomist,  in reading through Vere’s information, I was completely repulsed with Vere’s validity when I read his comment:  “The suggestion that these “six Protestants” virtually put together the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI is a great exaggeration!”  Would you like the names of the protestants who fabricated the novus ordo missae?  Non Catholics considered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass repulsive (they said) and with the approval of Paul VI these protestants helped to change all that.  A picture of the 6 protestant designers of the new mass along with archbishop Bugnini or Paul VI is easily accessible. 
““Gone from these [Novus Ordo Missae — JKW] prayers are such Catholic concepts as “sacrifice,” “reparation,” “hell,” “the gravity of sin,” “snares of wickedness,” “the burden of evil,” “adversities,” “enemies,” “evils,” “tribulations,” “afflictions,” “infirmities of soul,” “obstinacy of heart,” “concupiscence of the flesh and the eyes,” “unworthiness,” “temptations,” “wicked thoughts,” “grave offenses,” “loss of heaven,” “everlasting death,” “eternal punishment,” “hidden fruits,” “guilt,” “eternal rest,” “true faith,” “merits,” “intercession,” “heavenly fellowship,” “fires of hell, etc.79’””
http://www.novusordowatch.org/bugnini.pdf
  See The Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Novus Ordo Services
http://www.traditio.com/nos.htm

Posted by Joe on Friday, Aug 3, 2012 9:10 PM (EST):
“Vat 2 changed the Mystical Body of Christ (members) to the “People of God” members?” 
More ignorance endlessly displayed and falsely demeaning St Peter himself and Christ’s holy Church. No credibility should be placed in these misguided ramblings where the Sacred Scriptures are falsified.
Vatican II “Lumen Gentium”, 10:
“This was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, (1 Pt. 1:23.) not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, (Jn. 3:5-6.) are finally established as “A CHOSEN RACE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PURCHASED PEOPLE . . . WHO IN TIMES PAST WERE NOT A PEOPLE, BUT ARE NOW THE PEOPLE OF GOD”.(1 Pt. 2:9-10.)

Thomist, I once believed in reincarnation.  Some of the scripture readings appeared to support that belief system. You can spin any belief system with scripture.  Only the Magisterium of Holy Mother the Church can interpret them for us.  Can you honestly say that the same Catholic principles are being taught in the documents of Vat. II that will keep you soul safe?  Can you honestly say that these documents connect with the “Total Deposit of Faith”?

BTW, what do you know about the writers of the 16 Vat. 2 documents?  Have you ever studied who these men are or followed their careers?  What do you know about the framers of the new mass?

thomist, are you familiar with this?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst004plinio.htm

You can’t make this stuff up!!  Is this what the SSPX desires?
......Decentralize governing functions in the Catholic Church…...
While the Papacy is an essential element of the Church, there are many possible ways to decentralize governing functions in the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Undoubtedly, regional forums which take on even some of the functions until now carried out by Rome are necessary,” the Cardinal said in a book-length interview with journalist Peter Seewald. The book God and the World by Ratzinger was published in German in October 2000 and was set for a late September release in Italy. In its September 13 edition the Italian Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana published the book’s chapter on the Papacy.

Seewald asked Ratzinger if he thought St. Peter would recognize today’s exercise of the papal office as having anything to do with his own exercise of authority over the infant Church. For instance, being head of the Vatican State, being a global voice for morality, writing encyclicals, naming Bishops throughout the world, how can a Pope find time for the prayer that must inspire his ministry? Seewald asked.

“Many of the things you listed can be changed,” the Cardinal responded. “One could discuss the ways in which forms of decentralization could lighten papal functions,” he stated, adding that in 1995 Pope John Paul II called for an ecumenical discussion on the exercise of the papal office. “Various voices already have been raised,” Ratzinger said. “Retired Archbishop [John R.] Quinn of San Francisco has vigorously argued for the need for decentralization. Certainly, much can be done in this area” (National Catholic Reporter, September 28, 2001)......

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/bev11-30-2001.htm

Ken, Your post of Aug. 12, 2012 10:13 PM. Was great. I being 53 now, at age 17 I read the book “Fatima in Lucias Own Words”, after reading about the vision of hell in the July apparition, I began immediatly to reform my life. This book led me to complete obedience to the Holy Father, love for our lord in the Blessed Sacrament, the acceptance of all sufferings for the reparation of sins and the conversion of poor sinners, a greater devotion to the Rosary of our Lady ect… Ven. Pius Xll said that the Fatima message was a reafirmation of the Gospels. Anyone who wishes to be a good Catholic will find all he needs to know in Sister Lucias words. I pray that the message of Fatima be once again accepted in all its purity. As is known there are those who have sullied the message with all their conspiracy theories, the work of satan of course.

From the nostalgist dissenters here—nothing but more of the same—false premises connected to outrageous conclusions by idiotic non sequiturs. If this is what passes for reasoning among the SSPX crowd, then how can reunion with Rome ever take place?

Larry, This comment has nothing to do with “Quo Primum”. The reunion with Rome and the SSPX will take place when the Church finaly addresses all the misinterpretations of the Council by the “Nostaligist dissenters” from the 60’s and the 70’s. Otherwise known as the aging hippies. These have caused massive destruction to the Church. The Servant of God Pope Paul Vl, Bl. John Paul ll, and now Pope Benedict XVl have all deplored the “Nostaligist Dissenters” of the now aging hippies in the Church. The SSPX, no doubt is exactly what the Popes have been pleading for. Why else would Paul Vl, Bl. John Paul ll, and Benedict XVl place such grave importance to the reconciliation with the SSPX. Sure there are hurdles but none that cannot be overcome. Deo Gratias!

http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_2003/editorials_jan03.html
VATICAN II IN THE DOCK
There is no doubt about it. As the most verbose Council in the history of the Church by at least a factor of six, it is the sheer volume of words that smothers a plain interpretation of many Vatican II documents, providing support both for a novel and a traditional meaning. “The council’s lack of precision,” writes Professor Romano Amerio, a pre-eminent Conciliar analyst who worked as a peritus on the draft schemas to be discussed at Vatican II, “is admitted even by those theologians most faithful to the Roman See, who attempt to acquit the council of blame in the matter. But it is obvious that the need to defend the univocal meaning of the council is itself an indication of its equivocal character”

Angelo—please try to pay attention to what I’m saying, okay? The “aging hippies” you refer to are “MODERNIST” dissenters, or you could call them “anarchist” dissenters. They are NOT nostalgists—because they do not deny that the Magisterium may effect changes. What they do is deny that there is anything at all that the Magisterium CANNOT and therefore WILL NEVER change. They are the polar opposites of nostalgists. They believe that NOTHING is set in stone. Everything is changeable to suit human whim. The nostalgists on the other hand believe that NOTHING IS CHANGEABLE. EVERYTHING is set in stone. A true Catholic finds the balance between the two extremes. Please read what I say and respond, if you will, to what I say—not to what I haven’t said!

Are you familiar with the prelates:  Law, Bernadin, Mahonney and his assistant Lavada, McHugh, Muller’s…?! “These men have been allowed to cause massive destruction within the conciliar Church”.
See for instance:  Catholic Truth vs. the Novus Ordo:  SSPX German District Blasts CDF Head “Archbishop” Muller’s Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ.  Muller is the new replacement of Lavada.  Muller’s history is truly remarkable and goes to show how the prelates are rewarded.  This is ONE OF THE MANY proofS that when prelates scandalize as much as possible, their careers will be rewarded.  But of course, Anathematize or euthanize or excommunicate or whatever those darn Traditional Catholics,
Here’s another:    Recently birds of a feather, “Cardinal” Dolan Invited Resident Obama to speak again at Fundraiser for New York “Catholic” Charities…
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm
Have you met “Padre Jony”?

Larry, You coined the phrase “Nostalgist Dissenters” to mean those who are demanding the end of modernism. I am adopting your phrase to describe those who are nostalgic for the 60’ and the 70’s who long for the days of the silly season of the Church. I call these aging hippies Nostalgist dissenters by my own authority. You speak of “extreme”, is it extreme to desire the Truth in the Church to prevail? Obey what I command! Listen to what I say and don’t make me have to repeat it.

Angelo—this dialogue is over because you have chosen to be contentious and argumentative instead of engaging in a discussion of facts. You claimed that you support Vatican II. Then why are you constantly jumping to the defense of the council rejectionists every time I try to criticize them? Why do you insist upon taking offense at criticisms that I’m not even aiming at you? You know what? I don’t believe you. Let’s leave it there.

And for the record—you have deliberately misstated the meaning of my term “nostalgist dissenters.” They are NOT “those who are demanding the end of modernism…” because if they were, I would be one of them. Furthermore, I’ve already explained this—so you know darned good and well that I am referring to people who DENY the authority of the Magisterium to make any changes whatsoever. You’re not misunderstanding what I say. You’re lying about it, and I don’t appreciate that.

Larry, This is the end of our debating. But for the record. I did not mistate your term. I gave it a new meaning of my own. You speak as if you had some sort of authority. Your self authority is as prideful as that of lucifer. The point I was making is that you have no authority to speak as if you did. You demand that one accept with blind obedience your self proclaimed facts. Sorry! you completely discredit yourself ad nausium. What makes you think that you can give orders and that all must obey. When you are elevated to the Chair of St. Peter, then I’ll obey you. In the meantime consider yourself a haughty proud nostaligist dissenter of the modernist type trying to imitate an authority you do not possess. Repeat your haughtiness and I will respond! I don’t expect nor solicit a return response from you. Remember this is Mother Angelica’s site, not our own.

Tom, I believe the Second Vatican Council can in fact be defended, but only in the light of Tradition. I believe this is the point the Holy Father has made. Something that surprised me recently is that Archbishop Di Noia stated that the Jews do not have to convert. The SSPX in a charitable manner pointed out to Di Noia the actual Documents of V2 that state that the Jews must in fact convert. Archbishop Muller has firmly stated that the SSPX must accept all of V2. The Society pointed out to Muller that many of his statements and views are in contradiction to V2. The SSPX asked how can Muller demand them to accept V2 when Muller in fact has contradicted the Council many times. The Society has given a great example of what they mean by being given the right to correct. Now their demands don’t sound as unreasonable than at first. I believe the Holy Father should grant their demands for the good of the Church. It now seems clear to me that the Society’s main objective is the salvation of souls. It has not been denied that the gross misinterpretaions of V2 have prevailed for 45 years. It must be corrected and I trust the SSPX would do an excellent job in doing this. Imagine a watchdog group in the Church to preserve the Truth from those who have or would distort it.

I apoligize for the manner I spoke to Larry. It was only my intention to speak to him in the same unreasonable manner he speaks to others. In the hopes that he realize he does not have the authority to slam down his opinions and then humble those who don’t agree. So Larry, now you can understand why I commented to you the way I did. It was merely fraternal correction.

Joe, All the problems in the Church you point out are very serious. They are errors that the recent past Popes have tried to correct. The problem is that the “spirit of Vatican ll” Catholics just downright refuse to obey and they lead others to do the same. They have done all they could to create a new Church. Bl. John Paul ll condemned such an idea of a new Church. I was once an adherent of the SSPX, but broke away in 1988, I had harsh criticisms of them. But lately I have found myself admiring them again, because of their real desire for the Truth and for the salvation of souls. In the examples I pointed out concerning Archbishop Di Noia and Archbishop Muller the SSPX has shown that they can in fact correct errors very effectivly, they have shown that they can do it in a charitable manner. The Holy Father could sure use the help of the Society to correct errors.

Joe, As for the New Order of the Mass, when one looks at the facts that Benedict XVl has pointed out, the New Mass actually looks pretty good. BXVl has made it clear that the priest saying Mass facing the people started only as a novelty, that the Council never called for this. He has made it clear that the proper manner is priest and people facing the same direction, “Ad Orientem”. He said that he will not order all Altars to be turned around immediatly, it will be done gradualy. He gave his reason, “We must learn from the past, when the Atars were first turned around we lost many Catholics.” He has put in stone that no priest can ever be forbidden to say Mass properly, that is both priest and people facing the same direction. Recently Cardinal Burke of the Apostolic Signatura called for the prayers at the foot of the Altar be restored and the secret prayers of the priest also be restored. There was talk of giving priests the option of using the offeratory of the Old Mass in the New Mass. The call to return to greater use of Latin in the Mass (most of the Mass in Latin). Pope Paul Vl did not codify the Novus Ordo as St. Pius V codified the Old Missal. So thank God! its open to changes. The problem with the new Mass is all the liturgical abuses that crept in. There is more and more talk of reforming the Novus Ordo in many ways.

The SSPX apologists have been consistently wrong in denigrating Vatican II and so have little credibility in portraying the Holy Father also as wrong in placing Bishop Muller in charge of the CDF.

Writes William Oddie in the Catholic Herald of Archbishop Müller:
“he’s also close to the pope, who knows what he is doing.
“According to the renowned Vaticanologist Sandro Magister, Archbishop Müller will be part of a “small nucleus” of cardinals in whom the pope can have complete confidence, including Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the French Canadian who is Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops and Cardinal Kurt Koch, who is Swiss and is President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Archbishop Müller is an old friend of the pope, and is presently editing a 16-volume Collected Writings of Joseph Ratzinger.
“So, I am sure that Archbishop, Cardinal-to-be Müller is doctrinally as solid as a rock.”

Also:
In 2006, Müller acted to halt over 2 million Euros in Church funding to pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ groups after their dissident activities were exposed by faithful Catholic bloggers and a group called Union for the Associations Faithful to the Pope . 
Archbishop Müller also suppressed the Diocesan council of Lay People and thirty-three other dissident organizations.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-levada-out-new-head-of-vaticans-cdf-is-bishop-who-corrected-dissid

Thomist, I trust the Holy Father’s wisdom. I do not reject his appointment of Archbishop Muller. I have read of some really great moves by Muller. What bothers me is the fact that he has proven to be a sworn enemy of the SSPX. He was reported to have called the SSPX “stupid”, calling on its seminarians to leave and go to the seminaries of their prespective Dioceses, which no doubt are inferior to a solid training for the priesthood. Muller called on the SSPX Bishops to resign and live as humble priests. He has reportedly held views that are definatly not in line with the official teachings of the Church. He is sympathetic to liberation theology, a theology that was condemned by Bl. John Paul ll as not being in line with the Church. Muller yearly went to the Peruvian University to take classes by the very founder of this theology, knowing that Rome had been trying for years to bring the University in line with the Church. Recently Pope Benedict XVl and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone stipped this University of its Papal status and stripped it of the name Catholic. They are defying the Church, which was to be expected because of their liberalism. All of this causes one to question whether Muller is sincere in his resolve for reconciliation of the SSPX. Archbishop Di Noia is good news for the SSPX. But Muller for good reasons causes one to wonder. I do have my grave doubts that I have only voiced, but he has been chosen by the Vicar of Christ for this position, despite my confusion I prefer to trust the wisdom of His Holiness. My trust in the Pope as the voice of God on earth has never failed me before, so I am confident it will not fail me now.

A perspective on reality
07/ 3/2012
Müller and Liberation Theology
Andrea Tornielli
vatican city
On the occasion of German bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller’s nomination as the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, his ties with Gustavo Gutierrez, one of the fathers of the Theology of Liberation are recalled. There is a widespread belief that John Paul II and the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office), condemned this field of theology without appeal, supposedly making the relationship between a bishop and a liberation theologian (never condemned or sanctioned by Rome) “suspicious”.

In actual fact, the Instruction Libertatis nuntius, which was published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 6 August 1984 warned against the risks and deviations of Theology of Liberation which looked at reality through a Marxist lens. These were the years when the “Continent of Hope” was home to dictatorships and the Church sided with the Marxist-inspired liberation movements, although Wojtyla’s visit to Puebla in 1979 for the meeting of CELAM bishops had signalled a turning point. These were the Reagan years, when the United States was fighting the “evil empire”, the Soviet Union and a key battle was being fought in Latin America. But the Congregation was not targeting the entire Theology of Liberation, which was conceived in Latin America in the years following the Council. Neither was it condemning the “preferential option for the poor.” It was simply against the Marxist interpretation adopted by some theologians.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/documents/detail/articolo/teologia-della-liberazione-muller-16500/

Thomist, This may clear up a small part of the confusion, but questions still linger. Did Muller, as reported in many circles, actually question the Perpetual Virginity of our Most Holy Lady, the literal belief of Christ’s bodily Resurrection and other Dogmas of the Faith? Muller is a supposed expert on Ecumenism, he is known for his openess and charity to non Catholics. Its no secret that he treated the SSPX with such uncharitablness that caused Bishop Fellay to say, “He treated us as if we were lepers.” I myself question why Archbishop Muller would place the SSPX on the same level as non Catholic religions in the name of Ecumenism. The Society is not outside of the Church yet, if it were why would Rome allow us to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion at Masses of the SSPX priests and even allow us to give modest donations to them. This is not allowed freely with other non Catholics, because the Church says we are not in full comunion with them yet. All leads to the fact that the SSPX question is still an internal affair of the Church. So it is a matter of Church discipline and not Ecumenism. Archbishop Muller seems to be one of many contradictions. I read that Muller made a clarification about he and liberation theology, he said he was not in full aggreement with all of it but only with some of its aspects. If Muller has an explanation for all that the faithful are questioning, he should give it. He is doing a diservice by not clarifying all the legitimate questions about where he stands.

Thomist, I greatly admire the way you interpret Vatican Council ll. You are the last person I would want to debate because I don’t want to get on the bad side of someone I have learned a good deal from. The reason I question Muller is because the reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX is of the highest importance to me. If Archbishop Muller is one of the Prelates that does’nt really care for the SSPX (as there are many). Then I think he should be honest with the Holy Father about it, and should step aside and let Archbishop Di Noia handle the reconciliation process. The errors that have spread through the Church by the misinterpretations of the Council have long gone too far. Its got to end! I really believe that the SSPX under Bishop Fellay would be a great blessing to the Church. There are those in the Society who have fallen into error, but with the love they have for Christ and his Church, most I believe would not find it hard to accept correction.

Angelo “The main condition on which diocesan bishops could grant authorization for the Indult Mass was that it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.”
You cannot say Paul VI did not promulgate this mass contrived by Bugnini and six protestant henchmen.  It was binding upon presiders that they must say the novus ordo missae IF they were given permission to say the Indult Mass.  The presiders signed an agreement to never speak against the Vatican II council (and its many errors).  The priest who refused to say the one world order new mass were sent away without stipend and without any retirment assistance.  The Indult Masses have been tight fistedly offered and offered at inconvenient times.  Now that there are questionalble priests in the novus order world, and now that the Vatican is desperate for money, more opportunities for this Mass is offered.

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/bugnini.html

“The Society is not outside of the Church yet, if it were why would Rome allow us to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion at Masses of the SSPX priests and even allow us to give modest donations to them.” Certainly not in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska where Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has a long-standing order in effect forbidding Catholics in his diocese from associating with SSPX. He has also called the Society a non-Catholic group. In view of the fact that the Holy See has also publicly said that the SSPX as yet exercises no legitimate ministry within the Church, meaning that their priests and bishops possess no faculties, I would find it very hard to conclude that we are “allowed” to attend their masses and to give any donations to them, modest or otherwise.

Larry, Around that same time of the decision of Bishop Bruskewitz, a concerned Catholic wrote to one of the Cardinals of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, asking if it was a sin to attend Mass to fulfill ones Sunday or Holyday of obligation at a Chapel of an SSPX priest. The Cardinal responded that there was no sin if one attended out of devotion for the Mass. It would only be a sin if one attended as a deliberate act of disobedience to the Church. The Cardinal further stated that giving a modest donation is acceptable, “As they also have their expenses.” Something worth noting is that the person making the inquiry did not ask about giving a donation, the Cardinal added that information freely. I hold Bishop Bruskewitz in high esteem, but when he threatened with excommunication those who attended an SSPX Chapel in his Diocese. I believed and believe he was doing something that was under the direct jurisdiction of Rome. If a Bishop would do today as Bruskewitz did, I would still say it is soley within the jurisdiction of Rome. One thing I do understand, is that in his Diocese the FSSP priests had already established their seminary in the Diocese through Bruskewitz own personal invitation. So there was no need for the faithful to attend the SSPX Chapel as there were already plenty of Mass’s according to the Ancient Use there. I wish I could give you some link to this information, but I don’t know where to begin searching for it. True the SSPX has no legitimate ministry within the Church yet. But their Mass’s are nevertheless valid.

A purported hearsay opinion by an unnamed Vatican cardinal allegedly with the Ecclesia Dei Commission, relayed by an unnamed “concerned Catholic,”—versus a written, signed, dated order by a diocesan ordinary, published for all to see and never contradicted or countermanded by Rome—question: which should be heeded? Answer: the latter.

Joe, I don’t think that the Ancient Use of the Mass is offered for the sake of money. That would be the sin of simony. When Bl. John Paul ll granted the indult for the Old Mass in October of 1984, he called on Bishops to be generous in its application. Most Bishops defied him then, and defy “Summorum Pontificum” now. The then Cardinal Ratzinger speaking on the Old Mass said, “What we need is a whole new generation of Bishops” in order to further the cause of the ancient liturgy. Now Benedict XVl is making what he said as a Cardinal a reality. Only those priests who are open to the Old Mass are elevated to the Bishopric. Notice any new Bishop today is not only open to the Old Mass but they say it themselves. If one would keep up to date on all the Pope says, one would have discovered a treasure of statements of the Pope’s defense of the Ancient Use of the Mass. What many don’t realize is that when Bl. John Paul ll was elevated to the Papacy his number one priority was the restoration of the use of the 1962 Missal. Within a year of his Papacy he sent a letter out to all the Bishops of the world concerning the return of the use of the Tridentine Mass.

Larry, The latter is of very little interest to me. Its rather a terrible memory that I would prefer to forget ever happened. The former is not mere hearsay, it is a fact. It is a fact that caused Traditional Catholics to rejoice. It gave us hope, it gave us joy, it gave us peace, all of these were consolations from God the Holy Ghost. I can’t give you any links right now, but I know it was said, it happened, and nothing could ever change that fact. If I find a link for you, proving what I say is true, what would your reaction be? What will you do with that kind of information? Would it be positive or would it be negative?

Larry, I found one link out of many of them! Here goes. RORATE CAELI:Ecclesia Dei:SSPX priests and faithful are not “ecommunicates”
www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html Let me know what you think. Okay!

Larry, I hit a jackpot! Type in, Eclessia Dei/is it a sin to attend a sspx chapel
There contains official documented letters on what I remember. It is no longer hearsay. Documented facts GALORE!!!

On the web site of Queen of Martyrs Press (one of the hits I got when doing the search to which you referred me at 11:23 a.m.), I see a letter written on March 28, 2012 by Monsignor Guido Pozzo, secretary to Ecclesia Dei. He says it is not a sin to attend mass at an SSPX chapel provided that one does not view this as having satisfied his Sunday obligation. He also says, though, that attendance at this mass does NOT satisfy the Sunday Mass obligation—which in view of canon #1248 (saying the obligation can be satisfied by attendance at any Catholic rite) amounts to a declaration that SSPX is NOT a Catholic institution, and that the masses they offer are not Catholic. I would note that whether or not it is a sin to attend SSPX masses in most places, nonetheless associating oneself with SSPX is still banned in Lincoln, Nebraska. No Vatican cardinal or monsignor is Bishop Bruskewitz’ superior. That individual is the pope alone, who has never directed Bruskewitz to rescind the order. It is undeniably true from the above letter that both Bishop Bruskewitz and Monsignor Pozzo agree that SSPX is not Catholic—a fact which ought to discourage, if not forbid, every faithful Catholic from becoming involved with the Society.

Angelo, you have no idea how silly this is that you posted:
The Cardinal responded that there was no sin if one attended out of devotion for the Mass. It would only be a sin if one attended as a deliberate act of disobedience to the Church.

You say corrections have tried to be made by the post V2 heads.  Who is going to correct the action of John Paul II?  He allowed a Buddha statue to be placed over the Tabernacle at the panreligious 1986 Assisi prayer meeting, and incensed it before the protestanized version of mass was celebrated.  A Dominican priest protested and was hauled off to jail.  Any corrections coming from this action?  Or is that OK in your newchurch?

Joe: In your opinion, if a pope were ever to be surrounded by a hostile mob demanding whether he was an adherent of Jesus—and if that pope were to respond out of fear, “I swear I don’t know the man! I’ve never heard of him!” Would that be enough for him to be considered an antipope, so that he forfeits any claim to authority?

During the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI, the Vatican adopted a tolerant approach toward communist regimes that denied Catholic principles of Faith and social doctrine. This was one of the scandals that marked the post-conciliar era. While priests and bishops rotted in communist prisons, the Vatican signed an agreement to not oppose the most evil regime on the face of the earth ( and continues with its dastardly deeds).  Why was John 23 and Paul 6 so tolerate of communists, Angelo?  Any corrections forth coming in your newchurch in regards to this?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst004plinio.htm

I don’t know who Guido Pozzo is? But who cares. The Truth was spoken! Did you guys know that one fulfills ones Sunday’s obligation by attending the Divine Liturgy at a separated Orthodox Church. This is one aggreement the Roman Church and the Orthodox have. When one attends any Liturgy that is the real sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, then it is Christ’s Divine Act for our salvation. I expected this, I show proof that I am not lieing, then you guys instead of rejoicing in Christ Jesus, shoot the whole thing down. I should have followed my conscience and ignored this, the fact is that your opinions were just a wind up. Joe, Blessed John XXlll and the Servant of God Pope Paul Vl tolerated communism only because they knew it would make you happy. Larry, Guido Pozzo was possesed by demons when he belched that out. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU CAN’T BEAT SILLY PEOPLE WHY NOT JUST JOIN THEM!

From his Wikipedia entry: “Pozzo was born near Trieste, Italy. On 24 September 1977 he was ordained a priest of the diocese of Trieste. In 1987 he became a member of the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and thus became well known to the Congregation’s then Prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI. A distinguished theologian, Pozzo is also a professor at the Lateran University and Adjunct Secretary of the International Theological Commission. Pope Benedict XVI named him secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 8 July 2009…” He was possessed by demons when he wrote the letter to which you directed me, Angelo? What am I supposed to say to an idiotic statement like that? And NO, Angelo—we are NOT permitted to fulfill our Sunday obligation at any place except a CATHOLIC rite—that is expressly said by canon #1248. An Orthodox mass will not do. Here is the text: “Can.  1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

§2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.” Section two says if no priest is available, the alternative is to take part in a Catholic Liturgy of the Word. If that’s not available, then private prayer. It does NOT say we may substitute mass at a schismatic faction which holds valid sacraments and apostolic succession. More than your misstatements, Angelo, what concerns me is that you’re living in a fantasy world and you find yourself unable to deal with the truth—so much so that you must repeatedly shoot the messenger who tries to tell you the truth. No matter how many messengers you shoot, it won’t change the message, which is that SSPX is OUT OF COMMUNION with the Roman Catholic Church, and it has chosen and continues to choose to remain out of communion with the RCC because it will not comply with Pope Benedict’s simple demand that the Society abrogate the heresy that Vatican II was a heretical council. I don’t believe they’re ever going to agree to reunite with Rome. I think SSPX is simply stringing the Vatican along until the point where the pope is forced to call a halt and anathematize them, to which they will respond by saying, “we’re still willing to talk. It is the Vatican who has spurned us.”

Angelo and etal,    In 1959 John XXIII announced his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council and a reform and a revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Laws promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.  John XXIII knew (obviously) that technical experts/periti were going to muscle their way into creating a new church.  The SSPX rejected John Paul II’s rejection of Benedict XV’s promulgated Code of Canon Laws.  New canon 844 allows intercommunion and new Canon Law 204 confuses the priesthood of priest with the spiritual priesthood of the laity.  Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General of the SSPX announced that it would interpret the other 1983 new canon laws in accordance to tradition and not as set by the revolutionary spirit of Vatican II.  John XXIII of course did not live to see the havoc wrought in the Church by his two projects.  So if the SSPX rejected John Paul II’s rejection which is unprecedented, BTW, for no pope corrects his predecessors, how can the SSPX reconcile with the Vatican II’s new religion considering how they’ve been their own decision maker on what is and what is not Church law since the onset?

To correct Joe’s mischaracterization of canon law—#844 allows Catholics to approach non-Catholic ministers who possess valid sacramental powers for the Sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Annointing, IF the Catholic is unable to approach a Catholic priest. (However, be aware that the other church may object to giving THEIR sacraments to Catholics. I understand this may be the case with the Orthodox.) Catholic priests may administer the same sacraments to members of the Orthodox faithful at the latter’s initiative, and if the recipient is properly disposed. The canon also says that in certain circumstances of grave necessity, our priests may give those sacraments to members of other Christian denominations who cannot approach their own ministers, and who manifest “Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.” These restricted conditions are a far cry from allowing full intercommunion, as Joe suggests has happened. I should also repeat that canon #1248 makes it clear that under NO circumstances may we satisfy the Sunday Mass obligation anywhere but at a CATHOLIC mass. As for canon #204, it simply says that all the faithful are “made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function..” This wording hardly confuses the priesthood of Holy Orders with the general priesthood of all the faithful, as Joe tendentiously claims. If he were to say there is no such thing at all as the priesthood of the laity, he would commit heresy. The rest of his 8:09 p.m. post is incomprehensible gobbledygook.

Larry, False ecumenism is one of the errors of Vatican two that is creating havoc because it is forcing submission to the United Nations - and the one world order of religion:

  Per Vat 2- Heretics legally can receive the sacraments from us. Ut Unum Sint, Encyclical of John Paul II, May 25, 1995: 46, 05/25/1995

Tradition - Heretics cannot legally receive the sacraments.
Leo XIII, Exima Nos Laetitia, Decree of Pope Leo XIII
___________________________________________________
Per Vat 2 = Catholics can legally receive the Sacraments from heretics.
Ut Unum Sint, Encyclical of John Paul II, May 25, 1995: 46, 05/25/1995

Tradition - No one can pray with heretics and be a Catholic.
St. Agatho, Sacrorum Conciliorium, Archbishop John Mansi, Thomas Florentiae: 1759: 635

Joe pontificates; “no pope corrects his predecessors”, while claiming a confusion of the priesthood itself with the priesthood of the laity. The persistent ability of some to confuse teaching is endemic.
Facing reality:
Sharers in the Priestly, Prophetic and Kingly Mission of Jesus Christ
14. Referring to the baptized as “new born babes”, THE APOSTLE PETER WRITES: “Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ ... you are a chosen race, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pt 2:4-5, 9).
“In the wake of the Second Vatican Council(20), at the beginning of my pastoral ministry, my aim was to emphasize forcefully the priestly, prophetic and kingly dignity of the entire People of God in the following words: “He who was born of the Virgin Mary, the carpenter’s Son -as he was thought to be-Son of the living God (confessed by Peter), has come to make us ‘a kingdom of priests’ The Second Vatican Council has reminded us of the mystery of this power and of the fact that the mission of Christ -Priest, Prophet-Teacher, King-continues in the Church. Everyone, the whole People of God, shares in this threefold mission”(21).
“The participation of the lay faithful in the threefold mission of Christ as Priest, Prophet and King finds its source in the anointing of Baptism, its further development in Confirmation and its realization and dynamic sustenance in the Holy Eucharist. It is a participation given to each member of the lay faithful individually, in as much as each is one of the many who form the one Body of the Lord: in fact, Jesus showers his gifts upon the Church which is his Body and his Spouse. In such a way individuals are sharers in the threefold mission of Christ in virtue of their being members of the Church, as St. Peter clearly teaches, when he defines the baptized as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Pt 2:9). Precisely because it derives from Church communion, the sharing of the lay faithful in the threefold mission of Christ requires that it be lived and realized in communion and for the increase of communion itself. Saint Augustine writes: “As we call everyone ‘Christians’ in virtue of a mystical anointing, so we call everyone ‘priests’ because all are members of only one priesthood”(27).
See: Christifideles Laici, Bl John Paul II, 1998:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

thomist - I merely posted what the modernists teach in Vatican II which has been condemned by pre-Vatican II Popes.  All you give me is the new interpretations of doctrine according to the Vatican 2 spirit that created a new church and a new religion to be ONE BIG umbrella without boundaries.  You know what they call this expansion?

In the book by Alden Hatch, “Pope Paul VI”, chapter XV, he describes the meeting Paul had with the Greek Orthodox leader Athenagoras (Hatch did not mention Athenagoras was also top Freemason).  Paul gave him the kiss of peace and called him “Holiness”, saying to Athenagoras, “you are Holiness to your people, I am Holiness to mine.”  (No call to Athenagoras for conversion by Paul).
Pope Boniface VIII, Unan Sanctam, 1302, “..we firmly believe and confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin….every human creature by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff…”
Vat 2 in Unitatis Redintegratio #3, contradicts Pope Bonficace VIII,  stands in agreement with the greeting of Paul VI to Athenagoras and sentences him and his people to destruction for all eternity.  That OK with the SSPX?

Joe, you’d better pay attention to that passage you just quoted from Pope Boniface VIII—and to the rebuke Jesus delivered to the Pharisees during one of their arguments. They asked if He were accusing them of being blind. The Lord replied, “If you really were blind, you would have no sin, but you say, ‘we see,’ so your sin remains.” In that one sentence, the Lord explains the doctrine of invincible ignorance and how it differs from willful blindness. Translate it as follows: “If you were invincibly ignorant, you would have no sin—but you boast of your knowledge of the Scriptures, so you are instead willfully blind—and that does NOT excuse you.” Those who start the major movements of schism and/or heresy are the willfully blind. Those who are raised in them many generations later, knowing no other way or teaching, are invincibly ignorant. Athenagoras and his people are in no way culpable for the Orthodox schism started by their spiritual fathers centuries ago. But you, my friend, had better watch how many times you quote Boniface VIII on the need to not desert the Roman Catholic Church—otherwise it may come back to haunt YOU at YOUR judgement, and for a long time afterwards.

Larry and Joe, You both absolutly shocked me. I pointed out what the Magisterium stated about fullfilling ones obligation for Mass at an SSPX Chapel. You both could not accept that you were in error. Instead you come out with a way to knock the Magisterium down. I take it you both are in no way in search for truth. But only seek for your own infallible selves not to be contradicted. You both do a great disservice to the Church founded by Christ. You both want the Church to be what you want it to be. Sorry it does’nt work that way. I find your reasoning shocking, disturbing, laughable ect…Your both in serious error, for the sake of your souls you should both consider conversion to the Holy Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation. Don’t get offended but I find both your reasoning Pathetic to say the least, one an extremist to the left and the other an extremist to the right.

“I find your reasoning shocking, disturbing…” Excuse me? My REASONING? I gave you no “reasoning”—I gave you the simple fact that: 1) the secretary of Ecclesia Dei said in writing, this year, that the Sunday obligation can NOT be satisfied at an SSPX mass—I found that letter during a google search which I did in response to YOUR invitation; 2) canon #1248 states explicitly that the obligation can be satisfied at any CATHOLIC rite, meaning that in Ecclesia Dei’s ruling, SSPX is NOT a Catholic organization; 3) the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska Fabian Bruskewitz is on record, in writing, saying that SSPX is a non-Catholic group to which Catholics in his diocese may NOT attach themselves, and; 4) the Holy See is publicly on record that SSPX exercises no ministry within the Church. What more do you want? If I were to tell you that Wrigley Field is located here in Chicago at the corner of Clark & Addison, and that it is the home of the Chicago Cubs, would you find my “reasoning shocking, disturbing (etc)”? Would you accuse me of having the pride of Lucifer—of demanding that people obey me, etc? Just exactly what planet are you on? Am I corresponding with someone who is in full contact with reality and his senses?

The simple fact:
Answer by Catholic Answers on 04-07-2011 (EWTN): 
The SSPX does not have permission from the Church to be offering Mass or celebrating the sacraments. That they do so, in defiance of the Church, is a serious matter. That Catholics, under ordinary circumstances and knowing the status of the SSPX, would go to the SSPX for Mass or the sacraments is a serious matter and might indicate an unwillingness to obey the Church’s judgment. I cannot act as your conscience, but I can say (again, under ordinary circumstances) that I could never recommend going to an SSPX priest or community for the sacraments so long as the SSPX does not have a licit ministry in the Church.

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers

Michelle Arnold is only another self proclaimed expert in the Church. They are all over the place. She has her opinion and it remains just that, her own opinion. But the Ecclesia Dei Commission has already instructed that one fulfills their Sunday and Holyday Obligation attending an SSPX Chapel. The Ecclesia Dei Commission has more authority than anyone else on this matter, each of the members of this Commission were handpicked by the Holy Father himself. No one can impose their personal opinions on the Authority of this Commission, not even a Cardinal. This Commission is a part of the Holy Father’s Magisterium. The final word on this is “Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est”, Rome has spoken the matter is closed. Anyone who imposes their own opinion as authorative over the Popes Magisterium, commits sin. Deo Gratias for the Voice of God on earth, Pope Benedict XVl!

Larry, The SSPX is more Catholic than most. Did you know that they have been offered a Papal Prelature by the Vicar of Christ? Most High ranking officials in Rome believe strongly that it will beome a reality, especially by The Supreme Pontiff Pope Benedict XVl, His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke head of the Apostolic Signatura, Secretary of State His Eminence Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, His Excellancy Bishop Bernard Fellay soon to be Cardinal and a host of others. Deo Gratias!

Archbishop Muller presents positive vision for Vatican’s doctrine office
By David Kerr
Vatican City, Aug 6, 2012 / 03:08 pm (CNA/EWTN News).-
Extract:
The new head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says he wants the department to play a positive role in the New Evangelization, rather than simply responding to doctrinal problems as they arise.

Archbishop Muller’s latest appointment, however, has been met with a degree of criticism from some who allege he holds unorthodox views on a range of issues – from the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, to the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, to the relationship of non-Catholic Christians to the Church.

“These are not criticisms, they are provocations. And not very intelligent provocations at that,” he said. “Either they have not read what I have written or they have not understood it.”

“Our Catholic faith is very clear,” he explained, “that at the consecration during Mass a change occurs so that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that this change is rightly called transubstantiation. And we have refused to accept all the other interpretations, consubstantiation, transignification, transfinalisation and so on.”

The Church is also equally clear on the “virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus, mother of God, before, during and after the birth of Christ,” Archbishop Muller stated.

As for inter-Christian relations, the archbishop noted that in his 4-5th century debates with the Donatists, St. Augustine underscored that the Church recognizes “everybody who is validly baptized is incorporated into Christ,” even if they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
http://tinyurl.com/9mlqe2j

Archbishop Muller has alot to answer to. Thank God the SSPX brought up in a charitable manner many of his errors. Is the Archbishop going now on record that he never claimed what he actually claimed? The SSPX has called on Muller to accept Vatican Council ll. Because he ordered the Society to accept all of V2, with the same authority they point out he in fact has many times contradicted the Council. Archbishop Muller is now being requested to freely sign a Doctrinal Preamble in order to be in good standing with the Church. Bishop Fellay has shown that the SSPX is only trying to bring order in the Church. He who denies that there is no disorder in the Church is a liar. What happened after the Council cannot be denied. All that is happening in the Church was prophesized by our Lady. In the early 70’s Our Lady of Akita said “Bishop will oppose Bishop”. Our Lady was speaking about today. The great showdown of Truth against error is now upon us. Which side will we take?

The real Catholic has only to assent to truth and to try to live that assent as exemplified so well:
“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, Vatican II,

Thomist, I do not disagree spiritualy. But it cannot be denied that many in the Church do not have the Faith.  There are too many false prophets since before the time of St. Pius X. What you have quoted and how you quote it, would suggest that every voice in the Church today is right. The Servant of God Pope Paul Vl said, “Many today say that the Holy Spirit Speaks to them. If this spirit of which they speak says anything contrary to the TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH, I DECLARE, IT IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT.” Today God the Holy Ghost has manifested himself in the hearts of Traditional Catholics who truly love God. Test their spirits and one will see clearly how they are in unison with the same Faith.

Larry in answer to your post on Tuesday, Aug 7, 2012 1:28 PM (EST):

Paul VI did not as accorded his station so to speak, instruct that UNITY will come about only by conversion to the Apostolic Church.  He walked away   not doing his duty to strive for conversion of the separated from Christ’s Church.  (I’ve grown to understand the protections of the Holy Spirit in all this - actually - because Paul VI himself defected from Christ’s Church.)

Angelo in response to what you posted on Tuesday, Aug 7, 2012 4:25 PM

You do not appear to accept that the Church began 2000 years ago and not with the Council of Vatican II, 1962.  You base all your reasoning with the revolutionaries who controlled the council. If you admit you are a conciliariest and not a Catholic, that would be understood.  You cannot claim to be a conciliarist and Catholic.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was one of the most eminent American theologians of the first half of the 20th Century who wrote his doctoral dissertation under the revered Thomistic theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and editor of the theological journal, The American Ecclesiastical Review.  He was horrified by Msgr. Fenton. Fr. Murtagh statement shortly before the opening of the Council of Vatican II:

“The Church has entered the Age of Dialogue and the Age of Public Relations–dialogue with non-Catholic Christians and public relations with the community at large…I don’t think it an exaggeration to say that we are on the threshold of a revolution in Catholic attitudes and policies in the Church’s confrontation with the world. The revolution has already begun. It may well be signed and sealed and directed at the Second Vatican Council and will mark the end of the Reformation era.”

“When the directives of the Council are handed down, they may well call for a considerable readjustment of attitudes and ideas and a deliberate re-setting of editorial sights,” per Fr. Murtagh.

Some of the trouble makers were already known to be Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, de Lubac and Congar and it was firmly believed by Archbishop Lefebvre before the disaster fully hit that a pope would NOT confirm and adopt revolutionary thinking.  Catholics did not expect that the deviations from the Faith to come from the hierarchy and would put the Church in a state of emergency.
Why are Conciliarists no longer shocked at the unthinkable acts of visiting synagogues, mosques, protestant places of worship and exalting worldliness,  kissing korans, signing agreements with protestants, worshiping with atheists, being annointed by animists, destroying and selling away Catholic properties, removing Our Blessed Mother from the prominent place she deserves……..no longer acknowledging sin, and by the exaltation of man it will correct the eclipse of man (per the 1995 Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality document) !?

“But the Ecclesia Dei Commission has already instructed that one fulfills their Sunday and Holyday Obligation attending an SSPX Chapel.” The March 28, 2012 letter by Ecclesia Dei Secretary Monsignor Guido Pozzo comes in answer to a letter written to Cardinal Levada February 19, 2012 containing two questions. The first question of the unnamed letter writer was “strictly considering the aforementioned canon [1248S1], would a Catholic be able to fulfill his Mass obligation by assisting at Holy Mass at this ‘Friends of the Society of St. Pius X’ chapel, called Roman Catholic Church in…”? with the location of the church edited out of the letter reproduced on the Queen of Martyr’s Press web site. Monsignor Pozzo’s response reads simply: “Responsum: Negative.” The second question reads: “Upon the condition that the answer to the first question is in the negative, does a Catholic sin by assisting at Holy Mass at the aforementioned chapel?” Pozzo answers, “Responsum: Negative, unless the Catholic substitutes it for his Sunday obligation.” http://queenofmartyrspress.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecclesia-dei-mass-obligation-not.html It should be noted that the editors of the web site in question printed Monsignor Pozzo’s response in order to deplore it. The 2012 letter does reverse the answer given in a letter in 2002 by ED’s then-secretary, in which he stated that “In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X,” but then also stated that the priests of the Society are under suspension and that ED cannot recommend attending their masses. Since this is a matter of liturgical discipline and not infallible and unchangeable dogma, we’d best regard the 2012 letter as not merely a contradiction of the earlier one, but a RESCISSION of it, and act accordingly. Both documents are issued by the Ecclesia Dei secretary. Neither represent official texts issued by vote of the commission, so one cannot impugn the credibility of one author without doing the same to the other. It would be foolish in the extreme to cling to the earlier letter over the most recent one, it having been written a mere five months ago rather than ten years ago. I would infer that between 2002 and 2012, circumstances have arisen prompting Ecclesia Dei to rethink its earlier opinion. And I would repeat that you’d better not try to fulfill your Sunday obligation at an SSPX mass in Lincoln, Nebraska, or you’ll be in trouble with the bishop. “Did you know that they have been offered a Papal Prelature by the Vicar of Christ?” Of course I know that, Angelo. We all do. I also know that they have as yet refused to accept it because they find themselves unable to recognize Vatican II as a legitimate act of the infallible Magisterium. And frankly, I don’t see them EVER being able to do so. “Most High ranking officials in Rome believe strongly that it will beome a reality, especially by The Supreme Pontiff Pope Benedict XVl, His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke…(etc)” And I think they’re being suckered by SSPX into thinking that, but time will tell. How many more years or decades are we going to have to wait for this marvelous day when SSPX agrees to reunite?

For those who believe the SSPX can correct the errors of the Vat 2 Council, what will the SSPX do with these NON Catholic Cardinals as,  Dolan,  who Invites Resident Obama to speak again at Fundraiser for New York “Catholic” Charities?
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm
Are there schools to retrain cardinals and to teach them the Faith handed on by Holy Mother the Church?  Did Dolan ever take the “Oath Against the Errors of Modernism” mandated by Pope St. Pius X?
  It appears he opted out OR we should pray for his accountability on that fateful judgment day if he took the Oath.

Larry, are you aware that the Preparatory Commission documents that were in conformity with the Traditional Catholic Magisterium of the centuries (per Archbishop Lefebvre) for Vatican II Council was never followed because a group of progressivist bishops and theologians hijacked the Council from the first day it opened?    These progressivists are well known: Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Dominic Chenu, Hans Küng, Edward Schilebeeckx, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Frings–the list goes on.

The progressive theologians mentioned were invited to the Vat 2 council at the insistence of John XXIII, even though most of these radical theologians had been censured by Pope Pius XII.  They have never retracted their modernist view nor have excommunitions or corrections of their positions been handed on of these framers of Vatican II documents.  Do you know which of the 16 Vat II documents they infected with their views?

You SSPX fans had better remember one important fact: YOU’RE the ones who have to be right about this, not we SSPX avoiders. No one is going to go to hell for obeying the hierarchy and NOT patronizing SSPX. Those who believe that you won’t go to hell for GOING to SSPX masses and giving the Society their support are the ones who are betting their eternity—everything they have worth having—that they are right and the rest of us are wrong. If you make the decision to go against the Holy See and get mixed up with that bunch, you’re on your own. You own the decision. You will own the consequences. So when that inevitable moment comes when you feel your last breath fast approaching—you’d better remember what I’m saying right here and right now, and ask yourself one last time: “do I want to stick with this decision? Am I THAT sure I’m right?” And you’d better think quick, because after that curtain rings down, you will instantly find out whether you bet on the right horse—and win or lose, you live with it for eternity. Folks like Thomist and me don’t have to worry about that. We’ve got an excuse. We were obeying the Lord’s Vicar on earth. We’ll have to examine our consciences about many other things—but not about that. On that we can afford to be wrong. You can’t. Think about that. Long and hard. And pray over it.

Larry,  there are over 100 different reasons why those faithful to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass do not recognize the post Vatican two men claiming the right to the Chair of Peter.  (I don’t accept ‘recognize and resist’).  Even the Lutherans recognized Paul VI new order mass to be nothing more than a Protestant service.  Theological Faith teaches there is no salvation outside of Christ’s Church and to reject the ecumenism of Vatican II .  It is also faithfulness to Christ’s Church that the novel interpretation of religious liberty in Vat 2 is rejected, and finally the Mystical Body of Christ does not belong to a Church that subsists IN amongst many (Lumen Gentium para. 8) and not IS the Apostolic Church with the fullness of truth.  Christ’s Church needs no other.  Christ’s Church, BTW, is a spotless bride without stain.  Catholics know that Christ is not a deceiver and will not give the Mystical Body of Christ anything that causes them to lose faith.  Consider how the gates of hell prevailed over that counsel of Vatican II when 32,300 priests under the watch of Paul VI left the priesthood.  The “Desire to Destroy” is strong and has been successful.  The wreckage of so many beautiful churches since Vatican II should jolt your “Catholic” senses into reality.  It appears that you have not been taught the Catholic faith or you would surely know that you are a conciliarist in a new religion who opposes what the Apostolic Church teaches.

Larry, help me out.  You maintain that the hierarchy of the Vatican II church must be followed, YET the Vatican II church hierarchy rejects the Magisterium of the Church.    Now,——if the hierarchy have rejected the Faith, please explain how one follows them?  NO, NO don’t say they have not rejected the True Faith.  There are over 100 contradictions in the 16 Vatican II documents alone and many more bomb shells have gone off since the promulgation of that council, plus the trappings of new order mess called a mass.  Think very carefully!

Joe, Pope Paul Vl defected from the Church?! Rome is soon to announce the accepted miracle that clears the way for his Beatification. Pope Bendedict XVl not too long ago said, “We should not pray for Pope Paul Vl, we should pray to him.” Rome is also getting set to announce the second approved miracle for the Canonization of Bl. John Paul ll. Joe, I believe in the 2000 year Church founded by Christ on the Rock who is Peter. As Bl. John Paul ll said, “There is no pre-vatican ll Church, nor is there a post-vatican ll Church. This is and continues to be the same Church founded by Christ”. The sad thing is the fact that there is still mass confusion in the Church, from a simple laymen to the highest ranking Cardinal. Many Saints I understand predicted this day. They also predicted its end and the Glorious Triumph by the Church.

Larry, I was getting ready to ask you your position on “Summorum Pontificum”, and the Latin Tridentine Mass, and Traditionalists already in union with Rome ect… But I think you answered when you said, “we SSPX avoiders”. The Church is working hard for a reconciliation with the SSPX. You sound like your very much against it. Am I wrong? If the SSPX re-unites with Rome it would not be the first Society of Priests and its adherents who start in union with Rome, or later reconcile with Rome. We have the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, The Institute of Christ Sovereign Priest, Bishop Rangel with his Priests and adherents in Campos Brazil. and a Host of other large and small groups. This Traditionalist movement which pleased Bl JP2 and B16 gained momentum right after Bl John Paull ll made the Fatima Consecration in 1984. What surprised both Popes is the fact that it was not the older generation who flocked to the Old Mass, it was rather the younger generation who discovered its riches. Should you ever attend a Tridentine Mass you will notice mainly young people, young couples with children. So Larry what is your position on the Old Mass and the Churches efforts to reconcile the SSPX? Thats 2 questions.

I would like to clear something up. When the Ecclesia Dei Commission stated that one who attends Mass at an SSPX Chapel to fulfill their Mass obligation, that they in fact do fulfill their obligation. Perhaps I should have mentioned something the Commission cleary stated. This is something I did’nt mention for the sake of brevity, the Commission said this, “Though we cannot encourage you to attend a Mass at an SSPX Chapel, neither can we prohibit you.” The fulfillment of ones obligation has nothing to do as to whether it be an SSPX Chapel or not. It is strictly theoligical reasons that causes one to fulfill their obligation. When attending a validly ordained priests Mass, we in fact are assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of Christ Passion and Death for our salvation. For over 40 years in the Latin Rite we have been attending Mass’s where priests and Bishops were in fact heretics responsible for all the confusion in Christ’s Church. We for theological reasons nevertheless fulfilled our obligation. Many Bishops and priests believed themselves in good standing with the Church even though they were not. We must always remember that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a human act but a divine act, God offering himself to God, regardless of the standing of the priest before God and his Church.

“Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” chapel is not the same as sspx owned chapels.

I think that the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts is the only body authorized to issue definitive interpretations of canon law. Therefore, this letter would be a private opinion, as was the previous opinion of Cardinal Castrillon that SSPX Masses DO fulfill the Sunday obligation. In the absence of an authoritative interpretation by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, it seems to me that the faithful can safely follow Cardinal Castrillon’s opinion.

It might be an act of desperation coming from someone on the losing side who is hoping to derail a possible Vatican acceptance of the SSPX, maybe?
There is likely a bit of an internal “turf war” (politics) at the Vatican over this issue, as it seems that the Ecclesia Dei Commission would stand to be a loser in any regularization of the SSPX. Bureaucrats do not tend to surrender power or influence willingly.

Also, the wording of the questions answered by the EDC is rather curious. The questions were in reference to a specific chapel, and asked for answers based “strictly” on one point of Canon Law. As the response did not go beyond answering the very narrow questions asked, this does not appear to be a general answer that would contradict Cardinal Castrillon’s previous statements.

Finally, I cannot help but recall that Cardinal Levada was a horribly ineffective bishop of a single diocese, either unable or unwilling to exercise any control over radical homosexuals making a mockery of Catholic churches in San Francisco; I would be very much surprised if such a weak leader is any more effective at running an important Vatican office. Indeed, the only good reason I can think of for putting such a poor leader in this position is if it was on its way to being phased out or at least marginalized (i.e., put him in a place where he can’t do much damage… ).

Minty, You ask, “Are there schools to retrain Cardinals and teach them the Faith handed on by Holy Mother Church?”. I understand your question is a rhetorical one, but it could become a reality. As the SSPX has been asked to sign a “Doctrinal Preamble” as a condition for reconciliation. The SSPX has made counter demands with conditions for signing that “Doctrinal Preamble”, in which they have stated they will sign. One of their desired demands is that Rome set up a New Congregation to oversee the preservation of Tradition. Something the liberals in the Church definatly do not want. They don’t want it because it will be like a school in which they will be given their homework, which will be graded with a pass or fail. This will for sure keep them in line. Lets continue to pray to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary for Rome and the SSPX. Lets also ask the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel to cast satan into hell, because the evil one is working overtime to destroy the reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX.

tom, Great Post! Its no secret that Cardinal Levada was a known enemy of the Traditional Mass. He absolutly prohibited any Tridentine Mass’s in his Archdiocese. It seemed tragic to many that he, an enemy of the Traditionalists would be the head of the reconciliation process with the SSPX. And Muller succeeded him, another sworn enemy of Traditionalists. His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay himself said that previously Archbishop Muller treated the SSPX as if they were lepers. And now Muller says he wishes to work hard towards the reconciliation of the Society. Many seriously question his sincerity. There are those who critisize the Society for making the demand of having the right to exclusively say Mass according to the 1962 Missal, pointing to the fact that “Summorum Pontificum” already provides this. The SSPX is very smart in making this a demand. When the first Superior General of the FSSP was about to make it a rule that its priests say Mass exclusively according to the 1962 Missal, he was replaced and it was directed that priests of the FSSP have the right to say Mass according to the Novus Ordo. So the SSPX knows what its demanding and why.

You can’t make this stuff up:    The September 1988 issue of The Angelus, official publication of the SSPX in the U S stated:  “When the pope is elected, he does not have the right to change the solemn pronouncements of his predecessors.  He must protect the teachings of our Faith and pass them on to this successors without change in the essentials..The Archbishop Lefebvre wants the Catholic Faith in its purity and its whole Tradition.  He wants it without the heresies in Vatican II documents…Paul VI signed these documents and most of the bishops of the Council did.”
St. Robert Bellarmine taught that a heretical Pope by the very fact of his heresy is ipso facto deposed from the papacy directly by Almighty God.  To this day SSPX refuses to renounce those who sit in the Chair of Peter from John XXIII to current.  Who will re-train the SSPX?  It never has been nor ever will be a Catholic theological position to recognize yet refuse to follow he who sits in the Chair of Peter.  Because the SSPX has been schmoozing with those who have NOT protected the Faith, they have lost credibility of being a leader of the Traditional Catholic Faith.

Joe, A few years back the Vatican put on display all the original 16 Documents of Vatican Council ll. The original Documents with the orginal signatures of the Council Fathers, not photcopies. Each Document of Vatican Council ll bears the signature of one Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Thats right Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as a Council Father signed all 16 Documents of his own freewill.

Joe, Here’s something else, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre till his death used only the 1962 Missal of Bl. John XXlll. He was a strong proponent of allowing some vernacular in the Mass. He especially wanted the Lessons and the Gospel proclaimed in the vernacular. Why else do you think the SSPX uses the 1962 Missal of Bl. John XXlll exclusively.

“The Church is working hard for a reconciliation with the SSPX.” But is SSPX working hard for a reconciliation with the Church? I don’t believe so, and so far the Society isn’t trying very hard to prove me wrong. The Holy See officially proposed what we are calling “the Doctrinal Preamble” on September 14, 2011, to which the Society must agree before the two sides can reunite. Although the preamble is secret, enough of its contents have been leaked that we can know the basics. The demand is that the Society fully accept the documents of Vatican II as Magisterial pronouncements, along with the validity and legitimacy of the Novus Ordo as issued by the Holy See. It is now August 9, 2012. The first anniversary of the Doctrinal Preamble is approaching. The SSPX has failed to agree. Indeed they’ve offered counter-proposals. I submit that if in 11 months they cannot agree to stop bad-mouthing Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, that they in fact NEVER will be able to. I opine that they have no intention of agreeing—that they never DID have any such intention—and that they are stringing the Holy See along using stalling tactics. (One of their proposals or demands is that the Society throughout the world enjoy complete independence from diocesan bishops. I don’t know how many such organizations currently have such independence. Even Mother Teresa’s nuns don’t.) I believe their strategy is to simply nickle-and-dime the Vatican to death with endless counter-proposals and requests-for-clarification until the pope finally breaks off the talks. SSPX will then say, “we are still willing to talk. It is the Vatican which is now shunning us.” I challenge SSPX to prove me wrong. “You sound like your very much against it. Am I wrong?” You are. But I am certainly against any reunion unless SSPX accepts unequivocally Vatican II’s and the Novus Ordo’s right to exist. “Larry, I was getting ready to ask you your position on ‘Summorum Pontificum…’” Why? I don’t take “positions” on papal acts of authority. I accept them, which is what we are all supposed to do. “Should you ever attend a Tridentine Mass…” I attended many back when the Tridentine was the only Mass in town. The changes didn’t start to be evident until I was about nine years old.

“Larry,  there are over 100 different reasons why those faithful to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass do not recognize the post Vatican two men claiming the right to the Chair of Peter.” And not one of them will do you any good on Judgment Day.

Larry, That the SSPX is being asked to accept the Novus Ordo Missae, this is strange. Strange because the SSPX does in fact accept the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. What they have done is critisize the New Order of Mass and they are not the only ones. One of the main critics is Pope Benedict XVl himself. With criticisms such as, “the Altar was never supposed to have been turned around, it started out as a novelty. I will not order the Altars turned around immediately it will be done gradually…” In the Mass of Paul Vl the rubrics clearly state such instructions like, “Then the priest turns facing the people and says Dominus Vobiscum. Then turning towards the Altar again says..” Benedict XVl has had alot to say in criticism of the New Mass, “The New Mass was revised in haste in a halph hazard manner”. Some claim he said this only as a Cardinal but recanted after becoming Pope. This is a lie, he said many things critical of the New Mass as Pope and he continues to say it now. Archbishop Di Noia made some very strong statements, such as, “The SSPX must accept all of Vatican Council ll, but certainly not the way liberal Bishops have misinterpreted it.” Bishop Bernard Fellay has said it is no secret that there are those in Rome trying to derail a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX. There is a great deal going on both good and bad in this situation. But God the Holy Ghost will prevail in the end, soon maybe late, but it will happen. BTW Cardinal Ottaviani in what is known as the Ottaviani intervention brought to the attention of Pope Paul Vl heresies being put in the New Missal. Paul Vl ordered its correction immediatly. The Name Cardinal Ottaviani is a nasty word to many liberals. And Raymond Cardinal Burke Head of the Apostolic Signatura recently stated about restoring the Prayers at the foot of the Altar, and the restoration of the secret prayers in the Novus Ordo Missae. More is going on than we know.

Where did Pope Saint Pius X teach that one day expect to reject me for he who will sit upon the Chair of Peter will reject me and the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church?
Where did Pope Saint Pius X teach one day expect to accept the evolution of truth to become the French revolutionary principles of 1789, liberty equality and fraternity maintained by he who sits upon the Chair of Peter and he who supports an ecumenical council rooted and grounded in these mutable, fallible principles?

Joe, All you ask about what St. Pius X said, one probably read in Catholic Family News. If so then St. Pius X never said it.

Angelo, Pope Saint Pius X taught what the modern church opposes, yet the modern Vatican 2 church believes one is to follow who currently resides in the Chair of Peter all the while opposing what Pope Saint Pius X taught.  Both are not of the Magisterium, obviously. 

How can the SSPX claim the current resider in the Chair of Peter to be of the infallible Magisterium and yet that same resider oppose Pontificate of St. Pius X?  I do not read the CFN.

Joe, Tell us exactly how Pope Benedict XVl opposes the Pontificate of St. Pius X. St. Pius X is the one who began the reform of the Liturgy. I’m sure you recall his words, “Don’t pray at Mass, Pray the Mass.” When you say, “Pope Saint Pius X taught what the modern Church opposes,”, are you confusing what those in error teach, with what the Holy Father and his Magisterium teach. I without a doubt believe so. It is a grave error to say that what the modernists teach is what the Church officialy teaches, that would be a blatant lie. I have said before and I will say it again, the main tenet of modernism is to defy the Supreme Authority of the Church. When St. Pius X condemned modernism as the “mother of all heresies”, those he was condemning you must remember, were all adherents of the Missal of St. Pius V, their sin was the fact that they condemned the authority of the Church in order to impose their own authority. Does this sound familiar Joe? I see the modernism condemned by the Supreme Pontiff St. Pius X, in your opinions, and it comes out loud and clear. To defy the authority of the Church and impose ones own authority is an act of modernism.

“The firmness of faith, for which the first Pope was praised. never fails. Just as everthing that PETER professed in Christ REMAINS, SO WHAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED IN PETER REMAINS…The order willed by God’s truth remains. SAINT PETER PRESERVERES IN THE FIRMNESS HE RECEIVED; HE HAS NOT ABANDONED THE GOVERNANCE OF THE CHURCH, which was placed in his hands. That, my brethren, is what the profession of faith inspired by God the Father obtained in the heart of Peter. He received the FIRMNESS OF A ROCK, which no assault can shake. Throughout the whole Church the POPE says every day: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
                                St. Leo the Great
                                Pope & Doctor of
                                the Church
                                Sermon on the Papacy.
                               

Angelo, l have posted books written on the errors of the 16-Vatican Two Council documents.  Are you expecting me to spoon feed you? All it takes is one error to make the whole council an anti- council.  The Vatican II council paved the way for the novus ordo mess called a Mass.  The Canon of the Mass given to us by the early Fathers, was replaced by eucharistic prayers written in part by 6 Protestant ministers working with Bugnini.  After the ‘commission’ assigned by Paul VI completed its work, one of those ministers, a Lutheran pastor, boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”  Bugnini stated, that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m002rpMisunderstandingMass.htm

To this day the lutheranized/protestant scandalous service has not been stopped.  You can’t be that out of touch not to have seen the many scandalous n. o. masses said one of which was with a Buddha statue placed on top of the Tabernacle implying that the Catholic Church will mesh with Buddhism. 
The SSPX cannot clean up this mess called a Mass without entirely separating itself from the scandalous Vatican II council.  The SSPX is on record as stating the Vat 2 Council has many errors.

Angelo, why is the SSPX not submissive and obedient to the one who resides in the Chair of Peter?  They claim he is legitimate in spite that he does not renounce the errors of Vatican II council and the SSPX publicly recognizes the many errors of Vatican II.

Lavada’s replacement makes headlines again:
New CDF Head Gerhard Muller, under fire for heretical and erroneous statements in his published works, claims he’s been “misunderstood”:
“Either they have not read what I have written or they have not understood it.”
This, too, is an old trick in the modernist playbook: Subvert Catholic doctrine by confusing otherwise clear teachings, by introducing new ideas, redefining old terms, reinterpreting sources, injecting doubt into what is certain, and then claiming that whoever exposes the fraud didn’t “understand” you! The New Theologians in the 30s and 40s like Congar, Chenu, etc., did the same thing. Pope St. Pius X, however, exposed their tactics:
• “We [must] protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.”—Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Our Apostolic Mandate (1910), par. 1
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm

How can the SSPX call the Novus Ordo mass legitimate?  How can the SSPX claim to “recognize and resist” based upon Pope St. Pius X’s promulgation of the “Oath Against Modernism”?
“Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, called the Oath Against Modernism “the most important and most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the 20th Century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth in the face of errors which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history.”1
……..
Stressing the seriousness of the matter, Msgr. Fenton noted in 1960 that a man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, “would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.”2
He who takes the Oath Against Modernism swears solemnly: “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 explanation (eodem sensu eodemque sententia). 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.”
At the end of the Oath, he makes this solemn Promise before God Himself: “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, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.”3
It is hard to see how a person who holds to the countersyllabus of Vatican II can claim to have kept the Faith “in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation” as the Church always held. It is hard to see how someone who accepts the Council’s new program of ecumenism and religious liberty can claim to have “guarded inviolate”, and “in no way deviated” from the clear teachings of the pre-Vatican II Popes regarding true Christian Unity and the Social Kingship of Christ.
Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar stated openly, as if it’s something to be proud of, that Vatican II is a countersyllabus – that it says the opposite of key teachings from pre-Vatican II Popes…….”
http://www.cfnews.org/oathmodbtryd.htm

Joe, Get this, Muller says our criticisms are provocations and, “And not very intelligent provocations at that.” He called the SSPX “stupid”, sounds like he’s calling us stupid too.  ???

Joe, Spoon fed? I don’t ask that much. What you have expressed you cannot back up with anthing that is official. What you have expressed are your mere personal outlandish opinons and nothing more. I do not accept mere personal opinions as being Dogmatic teachings of the Church. That there are problems in the Church has been the prority of Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Bendict XVl. To say the problems in the Church today are not being addressed shows that one is not keeping up to date with the Church. Joe, when it comes to Ecumenism, the Popes have in fact said enough with the false Ecumenism, and is addressing this problem. So why continue to hammer away at Christs mandate of, “Et Unum Sint”. As for Religious Liberty, if one understands this correctly it is in perfect line with the Tradition of the Church. If not for Vatican ll and Religious Liberty you would have already been excommunicated for making false empty accusations against the Authority of the Church. Joe, you are very much in error in just about everything you say. Please rethink your positions. Our Lady told one certain Saint that blasphemies against the Church is one of the main reasons souls go to hell.

  Angelo, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again; do not take my word for anything.  I give references why I believe the Vatican II council is a false council.  Go back through my postings and rarely will you find me standing on opinion only.  No one can maintain a credible discussion based on opinions. 

Angelo,  Religious Liberty in the Vatican II Documents is not according to Sacred Tradition; it is not according to the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  In fact, it was one of the most difficult to get through during the sessions of Vat 2 because of its errors.  The conservative Bishops were horrified at the periti’s actions and held up its approval as presented.  Alden Hatch (pro V2 man) wrote the biography of Paul VI.  He describes the difficulties Paul VI had getting it approved with enough votes in council so he could promulgate it.

The VATICAN COUNCIL II was called by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church.  There was no need for a council to be called as in the past when hereties needed to be combated.  The Vat 2 council decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Vat 2 Council’s drops of poisons are primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecumenism. These were previously condemned by:
Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)
Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos (1928)
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)
THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals. Since John XXIII,  the ones sitting in the Chair of Peter have not renounced the poisons of this council but have aggressively continued with more changes that are opposed to the Church Christ established.

Angelo, you know what the real issue is between your position and mine is that you and I are in different Churches.  I am Catholic; you are a conciliarist.  You are in the church that subsists IN and not in the exclusive Catholic Church that IS with the fullness of truth that needs no other.  See Lumen Gentium para. 8.  You are in one amongst the many denominations that exists in the world.  Vat 2 approves of these separated brethren and say they will be saved by their personal convictions and conscience. 
Vat 2 has put the conciliar church on the same level as all the other Christian faiths along with Jews, and Islamists, and atheists, and animists and Buddhists and Hindus, and Greek Orthodox, and pagans, and….... The conciliar church is not the church of the return (thank the Lord’s blessing!!).
If you would admit to this, than you and I would be in agreement of who you are and who I am.
BTW, if Muller, and etal, have not been excommunicated for their heretical positions and their many violations against Christ’s Church, than who can be excommunicated? 

Another “BTW”——Vatican II does not recognize the Traditional Catholic Church.

Joe, You ask me not to take your word for anything. Thats exactly what I have been doing. You take all that is happening in the Church and invent the reasons for it. Mere made up ideologic unacceptable fantasies. Take for example what you say, “Vatican ll does not recognize the Traditional Church.” Vatican ll is the Traditional Church, many are distorting the Church and Vatican ll and you claim it was the Doing of Vatican ll. If you knew what was going on in the Church, you would find all your errors are worse than your modernist friends to the Left. You should read what St. Pius X actually said, and you will find that you are the exact replica of the modernists St. Pius X spoke of. Your incoherency is not a surprise to me, I have met many of the same mold, they change like the weather. Continue as you wish, I prefer to remain a Roman Catholic.

This was written for you, Angelo:

The art of deception:
Quote from: Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem fidei,August 28, 1794
“[The Ancient Doctors]knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shockthe ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuousmaneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them toinsinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had beencompromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions inphraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for oursalvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of thecircumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never betolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all inteaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

“Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that onesees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shockingaffirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in otherplaces, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for thepossibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it upto the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been thefraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

“BTW, if Muller, and etal, have not been excommunicated for their heretical positions and their many violations against Christ’s Church, than who can be excommunicated?” You can, for your sedevacantism, not to mention numerous lies and distortions against Vatican II.

Larry, I have proven my comments.  I’ve given links, books, encyclicals. Can you ask for anything more?  You hate what I post, yet you fail to prove why.  Millions of people have left the new religion of vatican II.  It has broken many homes and families and has made a major negative impact on communities and nations.  Countless Catholic schools, seminaries and convents have been closed, plus the destruction of many, many beautiful Catholic Churches.  They were either sold, gutted out or totally demolished.  As the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was incrementally replaced with a protestant/lutheran mocking service called the novus ordo missae, people lost their faith.  Those remaining in the pews are willing victims.  If they have any interest at all, it is not difficult to discover the ‘takeover’ of the Catholic hierarchy by an old enemy.

“Larry, I have proven my comments.  I’ve given links, books, encyclicals. Can you ask for anything more?” I have. I asked you repeatedly, “if I cannot trust the bishops who teach in union with the pope, then how can I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is truly the Christ and Son of God? After all, He promised that His Church would never err. According to your ‘links, books and encyclicals,’ it HAS erred.” And you have no answer. You never will have an answer.

Larry,  Christ’s Church is not and can never be in error.  You are defending the Vatican 2 conciliar church which is a denomination amongst many other churches, plus the other ungodly practices of heathens who pray together in ecumenical meetings (condemned by Christ’s Church).  They worship together and even meet in large Assisi Meetings.  The Mystical Body of Christ is not present in these abominable demonstrations of so-called praying for peace meetings with Buddha placed over the Tabernacle and animists and semi-clothed females prancing around.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm

Joe, All your links are most probably written by anti-vatican ll people (I dare not call them Catholics). satan has a trick, he allows truth in order to make the lies seem true. You have fallen into this trap. You take things that are happening in the Church which are true, then inject poison to make it look like you are infallibly on to something. Allow me to say, you do a bad job of it. I think because as I said before I know many of the same mold as yourself. Everything you have said so far, I have already heard, and I have heard even more errors than you present. Compared to them your an amatuer at distorting facts. Why not convert to Christ and His Catholic Church? You won’t regret it!

Angelo,  All you do is post ‘your opinions’ and substantiate NOTHING!
Happy St.Philomena day to you.  Did you know this 13 year old girl Saint, Virgin and Martyr was the first canonized Saint expunged from the list of recognized Saints,....of the new religion of Vatican 2 calendar?  What kind of a religion expunges canonized Saints, Virgins and Martyrs?

Where is the precedent for the SSPX to claim it is possible for there to be a period of over fifty years wherein true popes can blaspheme God repeatedly by publicly esteeming the symbols of false religions, can enter into places of false worship and treat the “ministers” of false religions as having a mission from God to serve and to save souls?
Where is the precedent of praising these false religions to contribute to the “building” of a “better” world?

Joe, Expunged Saints??? The Old Calender was filled. It was decided by Rome to update the Calender. Many feasts were merely deleted from the Liturgical Calender in order to make room for future Saints. Some mistakenly thought that Rome was declaring them no longer Saints. Rome never even imagined such a thing. It was the master misinterpreters who put that in the minds of innocent faithful. As for your second post, why did Rome in the past, take years, decades, and generations to finally crush heresies in the Church. It has been 50 years since V2, and the Church still has not declared Anathema those who blame V2 for all the problems in the Church. When will Rome finally act???

Joe, Philomena’s name was removed from the calendar in 1961, BEFORE Vatican II—but this does NOT constitute a positive declaration that she either never existed or was not a saint. Because the action was taken in 1961, the 1962 missal for the Tridentine Rite does not contain her name. It is untrue to call this a figment of the post-Vatican II Church.

Larry,  The false ecumenism and inter-faith worship currently practiced because of Vat 2 documents, delude people to believe that it does not matter which religion is necessary for salvation.  Martyrs, Saints, Confessors, Virgins, are an embarrassment to the new religion of Vatican II.  St. Philomena wears the double crown of Martyrdom because she renounced the world.  She renounced the promises of Diocletian who would give her wealth and power if she married him, gave up her promise to be the bride of Christ and renounce her Apostolic Faith.  These heroes must we wiped from the memories of Catholics.  Actually, is was before Vatican II that youth in parochial schools were already being denied the education of Saints.  It changes people’s lives to know the lives of these heroes for the Faith. 
John Paul II’s “Ut unum sint” speaks about a common martyology.  This document defends that Catholics, Orthodox and protestants share common saints.  He defended that those who shed their blood for their own religion would be considered ‘martyrs’ according to “HIS NEW criterion”.  See page 11, in the book “Quo Vadis, Petre?” by Atila Sinke Guimaraes.  BTW, this author is an amazing source of the errors in Rome yet he has never renounced those who have abused the Sacred Office of the papacy for the purpose of creating a new world wide/one order religion.

In other words, you still can’t answer my question, Joe.

Larry, I did not see men walking on the moon, but based upon credible authority I believe men walked on the moon.  Based upon the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I believe in the Divine Revelations Christ personally taught to His Apostles that has been handed on in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  This Deposit of Faith is safeguarded by the infallible Spirit upon the Chair of Peter.  The personal representative of Christ on earth, the Vicar of Christ will not deviate from all that was revealed in the time of Christ.  There are no new revelations after the death of the last Apostle.

“The personal representative of Christ on earth, the Vicar of Christ will not deviate from all that was revealed in the time of Christ.” Then why have you deserted him and gone your own way?

Joe, The Church in updating the Liturgical Calender, intended in no way to wipe Saints out of the memory of the faithful. The Traditional Calender is in fact still in use for the Tridentine Mass. The updating of the Calender had dissapointments for many all around the world. Here in the US the deletion of the Feast of St. Valentine, Bishop and Martyr Feb. 14, was a dissapointment to Americans. Feasts that were’nt given much attention in the US, were major feast days in other Countries. So we all got hit in one way or another. Bl. John Paul ll restored some Feast days to their orginal place, such as the feast of The Holy Name of Jesus and that of The Holy Name of Mary, both of which had been deleted. I think some reforms were good, such as taking the 3 separate Feasts of the Archangels Michael, Gabriel and Rafael and combining them into one feast. Also Aug. 22 in the old Calender, Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, was transfered to the day following the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that it was God’s will that both Hearts be honored together. So the change was excellent to me. What is good is that both Calenders are still in use. So as a Novus Ordo-Traditionalist I get to celebrate the Heart of our Most Holy Mother twice a year. The feast of the Epiphany on Jan. 6, Ascencion Thursday on a Thursday and not the following Sunday, Feast of Corpus Christi on a Thursday and many others. The pick is mine, the choice is mine, I like that.

Joe, Larry asked you a question which is sad but appropiate, “Then why have you deserted him and gone your own way?”, I am not claiming infallibility, but as a laymen I have pointed out to you what I consider to be error on your part. You constantly lay blame on all the ills that betray Christ in His Church today, on V2. You claim V2 said, what it did not say. You defend many Holy Truths and say V2 done away with those Truths, which in fact the Council Documents themselves defend those Truths. What is necessary today, is to be in union with the Holy Father. We cannot be in union with him unless we know the direction he is leading the Church. There are many websites that give us excatly what the Pope is saying and describe the path he is leading the Church. Joe, Everything you want for the Church, believe it or not, the Holy Father has expressed the exact same desires. But we can’t know it unless we keep up with what he says and does. Do not consider this a condemnation but rather an invitation to join the forces of our Lady to defend the Church by battling to defeat error. You have got to stop putting blame where blame is not due.

Angelo,  you said this of me, “You constantly lay blame on all the ills that betray Christ in His Church today, on V2. You claim V2 said, what it did not say.”

Give an example.

Angelo, I’m of course in agreement with Joe and should have explained that in my last post.  Can you give an example(s) of your position or are you just going to make reckless accusations because you can’t be specific?

Minty, If you read Joe’s comments to me, and mine to his, you would understand what exacty I am saying. Instead of just coming off the wall, read all posts first. I can’t be more specific than this!

Minty, My comment of Aug 13, 2012 2:07 PM, was in response to Joe’s comment of Aug 11, 2012 10:25 PM. My second comment of Aug. 13, 2012 2:30 PM, was in aggreement with Larry’s comment to joe of Aug 13, 2012 9:08 AM. It was a comment made in complete Charity to Joe. Minty, don’t mistake the rustling of the leaves for the sounds of war.

Larry and Angelo,  Vatican II contradiction the total Deposit of Faith handed on by the infallible Magisterium.  The infallible spirit given to the Vicar of Christ is what you deny when you defend V-II with its 100 plus errors.  Character smearing is a sign of your desperation.

BTW, did you know that Paul VI made 3 Eastern Rite Patriarchs Princes of the church?  They resisted because it was not a high honor to them.  Paul assured them that the Church was going through a major evolution and that they were not being incorporated into the church of the west but a more universal participation.  There was a striking difference and special treatment of these 3 patriarchs.  One was that their “Oath” to this new religion was different.  The Latins promised, “faith, fidelity, and submission,” the patriarchs, “faith, fidelity, and cooperation.”

Angelo, you are a WHAT!!  Novus
Ordo-Traditionalist.  How is it to be straddling the fence of indecision of just who you are?  Please link that to a credibe source contained in the Magisterial Teachings of Holy Mother the Church.  Did any of the Saints call themselves one of these?  Are you another “branch”?

“The infallible spirit given to the Vicar of Christ is what you deny when you defend V-II with its 100 plus errors.” You’re the one denying that “infallible spirit”, when you ATTACK V-II, claiming that an ecumenical council with papal approval has erred in matters of faith/morals. And when you deny that infallible spirit, you deny the veracity and finally the Divinity of Jesus.

Joe, I often attend a Traditional Chapel where a Priest offers Mass according to the Tridentine Rite. A certain couple who are schismatic sedevacantists, attempted to report me to him for the purpose of having me expelled from the Chapel. This Holy Priest said in response in his sermon, “In this Chapel we have NOVUS ORDO-TRADITIONALISTS and sedevacantists, and I will say NOTHING to either on this matter. Both are welcome.” So it was a Traditional Holy Priest who coined the term “Novus Ordo-Traditionalist” And I like it. To me it means I am neither a schismatic nor a heretic, But am in union with the Vicar of Christ. No indecision whatsoever is involved. BTW Joe, Eastern Rite Catholics are just that, “CATHOLICS”. Who allowed you to declare they cannot be Cardinals in their Catholic Church? They in fact can be elected Popes. You have no say in such matters. Before V2 their were Eastern Rite Cardinals. Minty, do you now see why I have posted the way I have been posting? You and Joe say I give no examples, with your posts need I give any?

Joe and Minty, Here are a few examples of one who is a Novus Ordo-Traditionalist. Look up “The Badger Catholic” website, Todays Aug. 14 video interview with His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke. Also on you tube, “Cardinal Burke on the SSPX”, and “Cardinal Burke Communion kneeling and on the tongue.m4v”. These are a few of tens of thousands of faithful Catholics speaking the truth on the Second Vatican Council. Without all the indecisive confusion from the grand master mixed up confused misinterpretators of Vatican ll.

Angelo,  you said, “So it was a Traditional Holy Priest who coined the term “Novus Ordo-Traditionalist”.  You bet he invented the phrase.  This is a blatant contradiction to the Deposit of Faith pontiffs are to safe guard and not change.  If you could, you would have given the source in Sacred Tradition.  Angelo, if it is new it is not true.  The Church must be in agreement with what has been handed on and that is what Christ personally taught to his Apostles.  Christ instituted the Sacraments; the Church did not.  Beware of these men who are straddling the fence in disobedience.  This claimed ‘traditional priest’ has no authority to ‘coin phrases’.  I suspect the ‘couple’ has left the church scandalized by this presbyter who believes he can change what Christ taught.  A legitimate bishop would not stand for ‘coining of phrases’.  V-II has put a lot of responsibility upon the shoulders of those who want to be Catholic.  When attending a Traditional Mass they must ask the priest when he was ordained.  If the ‘priest’ hedges, Catholics MUST leave.  A legitimate priest will give his date of ordination and by whom and does not participate in the false Mass of Bugnini and his 6 protestant fabricators of it.  The novus ordo missae is not a Catholic Mass and bears extremely little resemblance.  Legitimate priests warn Catholics to stay away from Bugnini’s mess of a mass.  Bugnini said that what offends protestants must be stripped from the Mass.  He did such a darn good job of stripping away that it caused even Catholic Churches to be demolished, but more tragically, souls condemned because of not getting the graces needed for this journey.  You are putting your soul at risk, Angelo.

Angelo,  Eastern Rite Orthodox split from the Catholic Church and do not recognize the Magisterium of the One True Church.  In the ceremony of installation they claimed ‘cooperation’ NOT submission as the other cardinals installed by Paul VI.

Larry, you said, I’m the one denying that “infallible spirit”, when I ATTACK V-II.  I’ve given you proof, Larry, of a few of the 100 plus contradictions to the Deposit of Faith in V-II.  What more do you want?  Proof is:  what has been handed on by the predecessors of Popes.  Popes do not contradict nor correct their predecessors.  They have taken an oath to safeguard it; not change it.  Once again, you cannot stand on any proof of that new religion from V-II will save souls.  That’s the bottom line, Larry.  You are reckless acquiring a good final end.

Angelo, I watched a couple of segments of Burke, in regards to the SSPX and LCWR.  Burkes uses over and over the word ‘obedience’.  How can one ask for it when one refuses to submit to it?  Ask Burke about the sexualized catechetical program in his diocese(s).  Is he using the approved by the U S bishops series, “Growing In Love” or don’t you care what the youth are being taught in Burke’s schools?  This must be your web site.

Angelo,  In regards to Burke and on the tongue:  will an Islamist, Buddhist, Jew, abortionist, remarried, atheist, animist, Hindu also receive ‘it’ if they kneel?

Why was kneeling and on the tongue removed?

Joe, By your reasoning you can never buy a NEW car. Only because it is NEW, and as you say everything NEW is bad. What name would you use for one who is in union with the Holy Father, accepts the validity of all 27 Rites of the Holy Roman Catholic Church ect…The couple I spoke of have actually mellowed down. They used to go in and around condemning everything and everyone at the Chapel who did not agree with them. Of course they were the only ones who were infallible. Were I a Priest and someone came to probe me as to the day of my ordination ect… I would harshly tell them to go to gehenna. If our Priest at the Chapel were to read your posts, he would most likely become a modernist heretic, he would certainly find more peace there.

Joe, There are Eastern Churches that reunited with Rome long, long ago. You seem to know nothing about this. You hear something and you begin to babble on and on and on. I see there is no end to those who now nothing but yet seem to know everything.

Joe, You’re confusing! You sound like those of the anti-catholic sects, who when they have nothing to say, they say it anyway. Here is something from Vatican Council ll, I’m sure you are going to disagree with! “Standing for Communion can be allowed in certain circumstances. Such as when the number of Communicants is so large that it would unecessarly prolong the Mass. When standing for Communion, the communicant must make an exterior act of reverence of his own choosing. When kneeling for communion, no other act of reverence is necessary as kneeling is an act of reverence in itself.” Kneeling is and remains the norm. Standing, only the exception under certain circumstances. The modernists in the name of the “spirit of vatican 2” twisted what the Council actually said. While the schismatics back up the heretics and claim, “Thats what vatican 2 said, so you see V2 was wrong, wrong, wrong!!! ERROR GALORE, error everywhere, no more truth, all is error, heresy, lies , deceits, ERROR ERROR ERROR!!!” Such silly people, joining the silly season of the Church!

Angelo,  You’re making a comparison of a new car with the revolutionary spirit of V – 2.  Interesting!!
Angelo, When did the Eastern Rite unite with the Western/Latin Church?
Angelo, will Muslims, Jews, pro-aborts, animists, Hindus, remarried, protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and atheistis receive the host if they kneel in your church?

Angelo, it is a very good question to ask a priest when he was ordained.  Would you ask the one who coined the phrase, “novus ordo traditionalist”?  I’m not asking how much money he’s got stashed away, just when he was ‘ordained’.  If I had his name I could look it up.

“I’ve given you proof, Larry, of a few of the 100 plus contradictions to the Deposit of Faith in V-II.” Obviously I don’t agree that you have, but if we concede that those are indeed errors, then that does not discredit the Council—it discredits the CHURCH and by extension discredits JESUS as the Messiah. If, as you claim, you have given “proof” of massive heresy in Vatican II—an ecumenical council of the world’s bishops approved by the pope—then you have proved that Jesus has defaulted on His promise to safeguard the Church from error. That can only mean he is NOT God and Messiah, and that we are to wait for another. This is what you refuse to deal with—the obvious end-point of your so-called reasoning. You also deny the existence of the Eastern or Uniate Rites. I don’t understand whether you are simply ignorant of their existence or whether you refuse to recognize their legitimacy—but they are known as the “Uniate” Rites because they are in union with the Bishop of Rome, and are therefore just as validly Catholic as the Latin Rite. The term “Orthodox” with a capital “O” refers ONLY to those Eastern Churches with valid sacraments that remain in schism. “Orthodox” and “Uniate/Eastern Rites” are mutually exclusive terms, referring to two separate classes of churches. So your odd phrase “Eastern Rite Orthodox” is a meaningless contradiction in terms—an oxymoron, like a “square circle” or “daylight night.” And I find your contentions that it is sinful to coin new phrases, and that we are obligated to demand of every priest the date of his ordination, too bizarre to require further comment. You talk on and on about how you have offered “proof” of doctrinal error in Vatican II. The only “proof” I’ve seen is evidence of serious and repeated factual error on your part. Why should I credit anything else you say?

A bishop or priest expects to be asked his date of ordination and by whom he was ordained during this time of confusion. VAtican II council has imposed greater responsibilities on Catholics.  Christ never backed away from a question.  Neither will those ‘in persona Christi’.

If a priest is on staff at my local parish—especially if he’s the pastor—I accept that he was validly ordained, on the authority of Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, who is in charge of granting faculties in this area. There’s no need for me to take on burdens handled by the Church. As for Christ backing away from questions—I can think of three times when he gave a “no comment”—regarding the time of the end of the world, regarding the earthly destiny of St. John (asked by Peter,)and when he was asked by the cynical Pharisees, I believe, by what authority He worked his miracles.

Joe, The Priest I speak of was ordained in 1952. His name I will not give you, only to defend you from getting your feelings hurt. This priest is very charitable, but question him as you suggest, would only cause for him to speak to you with severe justice. Here is some information about him, he was the official Diocesan Theologian, until his retirement. The liberals hated him because he used the official teachings of the Church to silence them. He did’nt make up his own teachings, he defended with full force the Pure Teachings of the Church. You also suggest he has money stashed away, thats an irrelevent suggestion, if he has any money that would not be any of our business, as a Diocesan Priest he never took a vow of poverty, so by Church law he can be a billionaire and it still would not be any of our business. You ask me about when did Eastern Rite Churches reunite with Rome. After the great schism, some never left, others that separated from the Church came back in union with Rome later. This is something you yourself can look up. Heres a hint, The Byzantine Rite, Coptic Rite, Melkite Rite, Catholic Armenian Rite, Syro Catholic Rite ect… Enjoy!

Minty, I don’t think any Bishop or Priest would appreciate someone asking them such questions for the mere purpose of Probing them. Especially for your and Joe’s bad intentioned reasons. What if I say to you and Joe, You two post as Catholics, how do we know you are Catholics? When were you baptized? Who was the priest, when was he ordained, who ordained him, and who was the Bishop, who consecrated that Bishop and when and by which Bishop, and who consecrated that Bishop? What priest heard your first Confession and give you your First Communion, who was the priest, when was he ordained, who ordained him, was the Bishop validly consecrated and who consecrated him, is he of the Apostolic succession? Next, have you recieved the sacrament of Confirmation, who was the Bishop, was he validly consecrated, is he of the Apostolic Succession? Next, the Sacrament of Matrimony with all the same probing questions. When you are on your deathbed, will you ask all the same questions to the Priest who is to give you the Last Rites of the Church? Mind boggling and rediculous!

Angelo, I speak for me:  on my deathbed, God willing I will receive the Sacrament of Extreme Unction and Viaticum which is a stark difference from the last rites/ or of the sick.  The Catholic Church can change the ceremonies but it cannot change the matter a form of a Sacrament. It is a desperate situation when conciliarists believe they are getting the correct Sacrament on their deathbead by a presbyter.

SSPX German District Blasts CDF Head “Archbishop” Muller’s Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ.

Does he deny the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother?

Today is the Feast of the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm

Joe, you and the other sedevacantists are taking authority and responsibility onto your shoulders which doesn’t belong to you, but to the Church. I don’t intend to make that same mistake.

Angelo,  The questions in regards to receiving legitimate Sacraments and by whom are very good questions to ask in this day and age because the conciliar church has not safeguarded what Christ instituted.  A Catholic priest welcomes and understands the need of these questions.  Apostolic succession is imperative!  Even more than that is “obedience”.  We must guard against mocking the Sacraments and that is why these questions are raised.  God is not pleased and He is offended by those who claim to come in His name. 
Angelo, what does the priest you speak of think about his “Oath Against Modernism” that he took at the time of his ordination?  What is his conception of the founder of the SSPX?

Larry, be more specific in your question. 
What ‘church’ are you speaking about?  The one that ‘subsists IN’ amongst many others churches?  Or are you speaking about the exclusive univeral Church with the fullness of truth and any outside puts their salvation at very high risk?

You know exactly what I’m talking about.

Larry, please answer my questions.

Why, Joe? You won’t answer mine.

Larry, I have and you did not accept my response(s).  The Fact is, you fear my question.

I think you’ve got it backwards about who is afraid of whose question. You or anybody who wants to know what I believe can go back and re-read my posts here. I’ve laid it all out. All YOU’VE done is demonstrate an appallingly profound ignorance of—or contempt for—the truth and even logic, mainly by spouting vicious lies about what the Council did or didn’t do—lies you’ve read in some schismatic talking-point sheet, and lies whose logic you can’t even defend or follow—you’re only able to repeat and repeat. Then you even deny the existence of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches! If you truly don’t know about them, you are horribly uninformed and need to open up your mind to more than just the garbage you’ve been feeding it. Catholics who are old enough to have been educated before Vatican II (like myself) know well about the Eastern Rites and their union with the Holy Father and the Catholic Magisterium. It’s not some post-Vatican II-type scam. If you DO know about the Eastern Rites, but refuse to recognize them as THE Catholic Church DOES, then your self-important arrogance is so insuperable that it’s no use trying to talk you out of it. At any rate, I don’t see what else I can or ought to say.

Joe, According to you, whether you realize it or not, Christ lied to us and the gates of hell have prevailed against his Church. Since that is your position then by Church law, before and after Vatican ll, you have incurred excommunication “Latae Sententiae” for Formal Schism. You are banned from the reception of the Sacraments. Its sad that so many former Catholics don’t take their excommunication seriously. They only wish it away or attempt to justify themselves. As for “Last Rites” that is both pre and post V2, used more by pre V2 Catholics. You constantly condemn what you do not know. I was going to ask you what the so called 100 errors of V2 are. But it would only be a waste of time, as you will give it invented fantasized reasons for them, and then claim you cannot err, that only the Vicar of Christ is the only one that errs on this planet. What if you should become Pope, (God Forbid) then that would mean according to your reasoning that all you say and do would be ERROR. Vatican ll did not, could not err. The Church has a Traditional Teaching called the Church’s indefectability. A Tradition you reject.

Larry and Angelo, You only give talking points without substantiating them.  That’s the major difference.  I’ve posted V-II comments and have posted pre-Vatican II Papal quotes that condemn them. 

You want to smear my character so that you can get off specific issues.  You might be right about the Eastern Catholics———.  If I have time I will check it out. 

When you speak about “church”, you are unclear which one you are speaking about and that is where we break down.  You are in a different denomination if you accept V-II.  I once was a conciliarist and suffered to see the changes that was destroying not only buildings and churches and gutting out altars, statuaries, altar rails, senseless homolies, limited hours for confessions, female altar servers replacing altar boys and eucharistic ministers improperly dressed, entertainment by the presbyters as he said the novus ordo mass, Catholic hymns and chants replaced with dance band beat and sounds of drums, soloists frocked in red mini skirtdresses, female or lay homolists, the presyters basing their talks on Karl Rahner or De Chardin and the modernists who controlled the V-II, concelebrating at the “table”, presbyter’s chair in the center where the Tabernacle formerly was center, no red candle lighting the Tabernacle that couldn’t be found, ceremonies to Our Blessed Mother removed so not to embarrass protestants, holding hands while praying the Our Father across the aisle, the kiss of peace just before receiving the host in the hand…...........  I’ve witnessed the demise of good Catholics’ and their once strong faith lost or greatly weakened because they followed the changes in the way the novus ordo prayed, families driven out and broken because they lost all faith…..women dressing like men attending Mass and no head covering….. women taking over the catechetical instructions and often times divorced and militant in nature…..... I worked with lay people in the building up of Adorors for the Blessed Sacrament—-  the presbyters lacked the time to pray because they were too busy running a business. They said Adoration was a ‘lay people’s movement’.  I actually did the reposing of the “Blessed Sacrament” in the chapel of a rectory where 4 priests lived but they could not carve time out for it…..Would ask questions of the presbyters, some had been legitimately ordained, and could only get uncommitted answers. .....Stations of the Cross prayers changed to focus upon one’s self and not the Crucified Christ who died for our sins.  I witnessed a new social gospel of doing the works without any faith.  Nuns stripped off their habits and became ‘in charge’. Witnessed First Communicants not being instructed in the need of confessing their sins first.  Presbyters performing the watered down verson of Confirmation ....the bishop too busy.  Friends and acquaintences are suffering because of their lives being torn from the Catholic Faith and they don’t know where to go.  The legitimate Masses exist in the catacombs and are spread out.  The gates of hell will not (has not) prevailed over Christ’s Church.  It is more of an effort to find the true Mass handed on and some families only get to them only a few times a year.  we are experiencing difficult times to be a Catholic.  The road is narrow.

Joe, Now your making sense. What you point out as major problems, are just that, MAJOR PROBLEMS! But none of it was called for by the Second Vatican Council. These problems you point out are the misinterpretations of the Council. It was for these very reasons that Bl. John Paul ll and the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger called for the “Reform of the Reforms”. Pope Benedict XVl has done a great deal to address these problems and many others you do not mention. As I said before, if one keeps up with what the Holy Father says daily, one would hear him lament all these abuses you name. He has ordered them to stop. But we still have Bishops, Priests, Religious and Laity who refuse to heed his orders. I could tell you my own horror stories of what you mention, you would be shocked! This is the reason that I have the Hope for a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, the SSPX would be be a great contribution to end all this mess in the Church. They have suggested a New Congregation in Rome that would oversee the defense of Tradition. With this last post of yours I can say you and I are on the same page. But remember Vatican ll did not call for this mess. It was as Bl. John Paul ll said it was “the spirit of Vatican ll” mentality that brought in these errors in the Church. These errors have been officialy condemned, but defiant Catholics will not heed the Holy Father, they continue to insist on doing whatever they want.

Good luck my friends and God Bless. I’m signing off because I am shutting down my internet service. Due to financial difficulties. Keep me in your prayers, I’ll be keeping you in mine. Hope to be back.

Angelo, you said that “These problems you point out are the misinterpretations of the Council”.  I could not disagree with you more.  The documents are ambiguous - purposely.  Conservatives can glean what they want from them and modernists are pleased with them.  Infallible Magisterial writings are always clear and distinct, and Councils do not write to deceive because the Catholic Church is never a deceiver nor is deceived.  The counciliar fabricators to change truth over powered the conservative bishops.  The schemas prepared by the bishops advised by John XXIII before the council opened was thrown out and the revolutionaries were well prepared to replace them with their shenenigans.  This was a well planned scheme to make the Catholic Church more desireable without conversion into it.  (and thank goodness because it is now a deceiver.)

In 1964, Archbishop Lefebvre correctly warned that the Conciliar schemas “have a spirit of rupture and suicide,” and went on to say, “There exists a spirit of non-Catholic or rationalist ecumenism that has become a battering ram for unknown hands to pervert doctrine.”

Atila Sinke Guimaraes has written a lot on the Vatican II council.  He’s not a sedevacantist.  See his books:  “In the Murky Waters of Vatican II”, “Desire to Destroy”, “Quo Vadis, Petre?”, “Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia”,
Read:  “Whatever Happened to the Catholic Church” and Tumultuous Times” by Fr. Dominic and Francisco Radecki
Read:  “No Crises in the Church?” by Simon Galloway  
Read the corruptions caused by Catholic priests in education in the ‘60s:  “The McHugh Chronicles” by Randy Engel.  None of these priests have been excommunicated nor have there been apologies or corrections of their dastardly deeds using the purse strings of the Catholic Church.  The U S bishops all agree to spoil youths’ minds in parochial schools by sexualizing their education beginning in kindergarten.  I’ve posted this often.  Sex education is classrooms has been condemned yet conciliarists insist upon funding what is meant to harm our youth and all society.  The intention to destroy Catholic consciences is very well planned and you keep making ‘excuses’ of being misunderstood.  Angelo, at this point it is willful blindness. 
Men need to combat men!  “Christians are, moreover, made for combat….To recoil beforean enemy, or to keep silence when fromall sides such clamors are raisedagainst truth . . . is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.”  ‘SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE’ 
www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm

None of the things you ticked off in your 10:32 p.m. post was mandated by Vatican II. You obviously know nothing about the Council you repeatedly condemn. I suggest you get away from the literature and/or handlers who are poisoning your mind and find out about the REAL Council, as well as the real motives and attitudes of your fellow sedevacantists and how little relationship they bear to the truth. “You might be right about the Eastern Catholics———.” There’s no “might.” I’m definitely right about the Eastern Catholics, and furthermore their existence is not at all secret—they are widely known, at least among faithful Catholics (perhaps the CINO’s are ignorant about them, as they are ignorant about virtually everything Catholic.)

Larry, and the proof of what you say is WHERE and is WHAT!?
What did the REAL Council intend that the church ‘subsists in’?  Or do you want to save that one for later when you’ve provided information on why I’m wrong about the periti hijacking the V-II council?

Larry, I forgot to mention, you bet I’m ticked off!  Catholics have a right to access of the immutable truths most notably contained in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and then in the Holy Priesthood and in the Sacraments and must renounce the contrived evolutionary doctrines that kill souls.

“Larry, and the proof of what you say is WHERE and is WHAT!?” The Council documents themselves.

Larry, how do you account for the contradictions to the Deposit of Faith in the 16-Vatican II documents,  such as, ‘subsists in’?

What is it about that word “subsist” that bothers you so much? Here’s an online definition: “1. a. To exist; be. b. To remain or continue in existence. 2. To maintain life; live: subsisted on one meal a day. 3. To be logically conceivable.” The word “subsist” is, in essence, a synonym of “exist.”

Also—my use of the phrase “ticked off” at 10:47 a.m., as in “None of the things you ticked off…” means “none of the things which you listed.”

Joe, I’m back, my son is going to pay for my internet service. Now, all the errors you pointed out did not come from V2. If you still claim they did, then forget all the sources you point too and show exactly where V2 demanded for the abuses you mentioned in your previous post. Don’t base your faith on hearsay. Show me the Documents of the Council that called for all the errors you mentioned. Point them out from the Vatican ll Documents themselves. As for Archbishop Lefebvre, I read how he warned the Council Fathers and he was not the only one. Truth prevailed! The proof is in the fact that Lefebvre sighned ALL the Council Documents with his personal signature of approval. A few years ago the Vatican placed on public display the original V2 Documents showing the personal signature of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on each and every Council Document. As Larry said to you, “You obviously know nothing about the Council you repeatedly condemn… get away from the literature and/or handlers who are poisoning your mind…”. There is the real Vatican ll, and then there is the hertical interpretation of your personal V2 Council.

Angelo, Larry is very grateful your back.  He needs all the help he can get.
-:)

You say V-2 is not to blame for the errors in the liturgies, and the changed sacraments, and the annulments given out like candy,and the destruction of what reflects the Catholic faith, ......well, you know the list.  Deal with this:  There is not a diocese in the U S that does not have sexualized catechetics in its schools and this kind of education has been Supremely condemned.  Who appoints these bishops who are neglectful and abusing our youth?  Who allows these bishops to stay in their ivory towers even after they’ve proven themselves to be unfaithful sons of the Catholic Church?

Larry, ‘subsists in’ means that the Catholic Church, according to Lumen Gentium para. 8 and in another V-II document, is dependent upon others to exist.  According to V-2 materials, the exclusive universal Church with the authority to teach all Christians no longer exists but must come along side of separated brethren to discover Truth.  The nature of Christ’s Church changed dramatically, and with ecumenism and religious liberty once condemned now encouraged.  John XXIII called a council where there was not a need.  The Catholic Church was flourishing and the enemies of the Catholic Church feared the strength of the Church.  The past Church councils had a pressing need to correct heresies.  John XXIII opened the windows of Christ’s Church to the periti to weaken it. The gates of hell prevailed over the council, not Christ’s Church.  The Catholic liturgies and Sacraments Traditionally practiced still exist and prevail as Christ promised.  They cannot be found in Catholic churches owed by the U S bishops.

This is a perfect example of bishops allowed to destroy from within.  This is part of the letter prepared by American Life League, Virginia.  See my question below:

An Open Letter to Cardinal Dolan

August 14, 2012

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan
Archdiocese of New York
1011 First Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Your Eminence,

During the last week, there has been much written on diocesan websites and by other bishops concerning the controversy created by your invitation to President Obama to attend the Alfred E. Smith dinner. Much of what has been written seeks to justify that invitation. 

American Life League recently launched an effort to convince you to rescind that invitation. The reason for this memo is to let you know exactly why we are doing what we are doing.

First, let me point out that Cardinal Egan invited Mr. Obama to this same dinner four years ago and we did not object. Although we disagreed with Obama’s basic philosophies, we felt that an attempt by the cardinal to show congeniality was worth trying.

However, it is now four years later and it is clear that whatever the cardinal hoped to accomplish at the 2008 dinner did not work. In four short years, President Obama has done everything in his power to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. As you know, he is implementing programs and policies that may soon make it necessary for the Church to repudiate our basic beliefs or close down all of our charitable and educational organizations.

Your Eminence, Mr. Obama has a long history with the Catholic Church. From his days as a community organizer working with Catholic churches in Chicago to his current attack on our beliefs, Obama has shown himself to be a shrewd politician with a captivating personality. How else do you explain the fact that, despite his very public support of abortion, contraception, and Planned Parenthood, he received 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008?

The question is NOT why you invited Mr. Obama to the dinner. The real question is why he accepted. 

I submit to you that the reason he accepted is that he has nothing to lose. The Al Smith Foundation website touts that, at the 2008 dinner, Obama displayed “wit, wisdom, warmth, and wile.” I am sure the author of those words thought he was being totally complimentary, but the fact is that he was very accurate. Synonyms for “wile” are, of course, “hoax,” “ploy,” “scam,” and “deception.” ........
____________________________________________________

WHY IS JUDIE BROWN OF A. L. L. SMOOTHING OVER DOLAN’S INVITATION TO A PRO-ABORT POLITICIAN?

Joe, The essentials of the Sacraments have not changed one iota. It was those after the Council that downgraded them. These were not present and had no input at the Council. So Joe, how is this the fault of Vatican Council ll? As for annulements, many complained to Bl. John Paul ll that they were being granted in a hazerdous manner in the US. The Holy Father chided the US Hierarchy many times on this subject. Still in many countries annulements are looked down upon, except in rare real cases. So how is it the fault of V2? You are now blaming the Bishops, before you blamed V2. So which is it? You claim that Vatican ll gave up the teaching authority of the Church. Point where this is to be found in the Council Documents. You claim Bl John XXlll called for an unnessary Council. The Council was absolutley necessary. Modernism did not die with its condemnation by St. Pius X, it only spread and got worse. Many Council Fathers were in fact modernists, and they were, long before the Council was called for. They tried to take over the Council, but Holy Bishops in union with Bl. John XXlll and Pope Paul Vl overcame them. And out came the treasure of the Vatican Council ll Documents. Which were a reaffirmaion of all the truths of the Gospel, a weapon against modernism, a truly Pastoral Council that defended all the Traditional Dogmatic teachings of the Church.

“Larry, ‘subsists in’ means that the Catholic Church, according to Lumen Gentium para. 8 and in another V-II document, is dependent upon others to exist.” You are wrong. “Subsist” is merely another word for “exist”. “The gates of hell prevailed over the council, not Christ’s Church.” That is impossible. The Council was a gathering of the world’s bishops in union with the pope—the successors of the Apostles together with the successor of Peter. It was to Peter and the Apostles that Christ said, “the gates of hell shall not prevail” over His Church which would rest upon the rock of Peter. On another occasion, He said to the Apostles & Peter, “he who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me and rejects Him who sent Me.”

Joe, The well known and respected Dr. Alice Von Hiderbrand, Husband of the famous, now deceased Dietrich Von Hilderbrand. Had this to say, she said the problems in the Church today did not begin after Vatican Council ll. She said the problems already existed long before the Council. There was already a great loss of faith among the Bishops, Priests, Religious and Laity. And their loss of faith became catastrophicaly visible after the Council ended. Which is why Priests left the priesthood in droves as did Religious both Men and Woman. Ven Pius Xll in the 1940’s said, “The greatest sin of today is the loss of the sense of sin.” The loss of faith is evident in what the Council Documents called for, one example being,  calling on Religious to “reform and return to the Spirit of their Founders”, as they had already strayed. Religious in the name of the condemned “spirit of vatican ll” did the complete opposite of what the Council called for. The Council Documents, if one even reads them, will find that it was a Pastoral Council that reaffirmed all the teachings of the Church, reaffirmed as Truth all of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and defended and upheld the Tradition of all the Church’s Dogmatic Teachings. So Joe how is the mess in the Church the fault of Vatican Council ll???!!!

The following article is dated 2005.  I would like more recent statistics.  “you will know them by their fruit” –
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/letters.jsp?did=0304-letters

Joe. I once subscribed to the “New Oxford Review”. They were very good and were strong defenders of the Church against modern errors. But they they twisted and became schismatic. No longer defending the Church but instead attacking it. Thats when I said goodby to that Newsletter. I have no desire to read anything they have to say anymore. Try quoting from literature that is faithful to Christ’s Catholic Church.

Joe, you say you want more statistics. Lets take the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. V2 called for the reform of the Liturgy. It absolutley forbade the deformation of the Mass. The Novus ordo Missae seems like a deformation but it, in its original form is not. Pope Benedict XVl said that if the New Mass were said correctly one would not be able to distinguish it from the Old Mass. He has said that V2 never called for the Altar to be turned around. It started out as a fad after the Council. He said he would not order them to be turned back around immediatly, his reason, “We must learn from the past. When the Altars were first turned around, we lost many faithful Catholics.” In the meantime he has said that no Bishop can forbid any priest from saying Mass facing in the same direction as the people (Ad Orientem). Some Bishops are now saying Mass facing the Altar with the people facing the same direction. Bl. John Paul ll said of the Old Mass, “We cannot lose the great treasury of prayers from the old Missal.” In the first year of his papacy in 1978 he immediatly began the great work to restore the Missal of St. Pius V to its rightful place. He himself often said the Old Mass in his private Chapel and made no secret of it. He sent a letter to all the Bishops of the world about the Old Mass in January of 1980, a year and 2 months after his election. He gave the first Indult in October of 1984. His publicly known intention to give all priests the right to say the old Mass was met with opposition from a hoard of liberal Bishops. The US Bishops threatend breaking from Rome if he alowwed this (Thus the name Am Church). BXVl in the second year of his pontificate gave us Summorum Pontificum. Raymond Cardinal Burke is seeking the restoration of the prayers at the foot of the Altar and the restoration of the secret prayers of the priest. Many, many, many more such things are planned and are being planned right now. According to you Joe, V2 caused all the destruction. Tell me how Vatican Council ll is to blame for the whole mess. I forgot to mention that Cardinal Von Stickler was sent throughout the world by Bl. John Paul ll to spread devotion to the Old Latin Mass. Does all this sound like V2 caused the errors in the Church today?

Angelo, you said, “But they they (New Oxford Review)twisted and became schismatic”.
Give an example.  You make a lot of comments without proof.

Regardless of what you think about the statistics these can be found elswhere.  The desire to destroy is working, Angelo, and you are making excuses for they who are hell bent on destroying the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Is the one sitting in the Chair of Peter, after all, just a president of love with little authority just as described in the “Desire to Destroy”?  Everything points to it. 

BTW, did Muller get his new position because he helped to orchestrate that sedevacantists cannot call themselves Catholic or they will pay severe penalties?  See DailyCatholic.com or Novusordowatch…..for the latest persecution of Traditional Catholics.

Joe, Traditionalist Catholics are not being persecuted by the Holy Father and His collaborators. Maybe by the modernists? I think it is rather Ultra-Traditionalists that are persecuting the Holy Father with a vengeance from Gehenna! As for the New Oxford review becoming schismatic, I read from many sources that they did. The Remnant and Catholic Family News rejoiced in it. That was enough for me to believe it was a FACT! Funny you should say I give alot of examples without proof. I thought you were the grand master at that?! You can continue to blame V2 for eveything that is bad, but there are many of us who only feel bad for you. There was the joke from the 90’s for everything gone bad, “blame it on the immigrants”. I guess with the Glacier melt in Greenland, one can say “blame it on Vatican ll”. As for sedevacantists, it is a fact that they officialy fall into formal schism. I may not be a fan of Muller. So I don’t need for him to say it, in order to know it.

Angelo, you said, “The Novus ordo Missae seems like a deformation but” ——Angelo, it was fabricated by SIX protestant ministers.  It is a deformation and a sacrilege because it is mockery.  The worst offense against the Triune God is ‘mockery’.  John XXIII or Paul VI said the Mass must change to not offend protestants.  He had no worry to offend God!!?

Catholics are persecuted, Angelo.  They cannot have the True Mass said in Catholic Churches with legitimate priests.  That’s persecution, Angelo.  If a priest will not say the novus ordo mess, they are not allowed to say the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the confiscated Catholic Churches.  The U S Bishops deny them access. 

Larry or Angelo,  Will Dolan be replaced anytime soon because of his insulting invitation to a pro-abort figure to attend a ‘conciliar affair’?

Joe, I see! I did not understand you before. You by you own admission were a conciliar Apostate. That means you are a Conciliar Person and you have no salvation whatsoever. So when you were in the Conciliar Church, as you previously mentioned, You committed the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost. I will be sure not to pray for your eternal repose as you are destined for eternity in gehenna, as you once belonged to the Conciliar church. This is your own way of reasoning, and as God said, “As you measure so shall you be measured”. GOD IS INFALLIBLE!

Angelo,
All 3 periodicals you mentioned are not schismatic - they all acknowledge the pope as the leader of the church. I too do not like New Oxford review but for other reasons. Curious though, who have you heard that says they are schismatic?

“They cannot have the True Mass said in Catholic Churches with legitimate priests.” That’s false. I also assume you refer to the Tridentine Mass, as all masses (including those of the Eastern Rite Catholics whose existence you have denied) approved by the Holy See are true masses. “Larry or Angelo,  Will Dolan be replaced anytime soon because of his insulting invitation to a pro-abort figure to attend a ‘conciliar affair’?” Completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. God promises the Church’s Magisterium to be infallible in faith and morals. He never said the members of that Magisterium would be perfect people and leaders—which they never have been, going all the way back to St. Peter and Judas.

Larry, priests and bishops who refuse to say the novus ordo mess cannot offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Catholic Churches.  That is a fact.  It is only ‘presbyters’ who are saying the “indult mass” and they commit also to the n. o. mass; ===.  The major difference between the 2 Masses are the words of consecration.  There are not many priests available to say the Mass as Christ instituted.  Those who do are traveling long distances each week to bring the Sacraments to Catholics.

Why aren’t conciliarists up in arms above Dolan’s invitation to a man who wars against the next generation of Americans?  To date 57 million babies have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade 1973.  HO HUM!!! per conciliarists.  If not you, than who will speak against this man Dolan abusing his position of power?  Why isn’t his job snatched away from him?  Why are large pro-life groups SILENT??!!  Dolan has proven his allegiance.

“Larry, priests and bishops who refuse to say the novus ordo mess cannot offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Catholic Churches.  That is a fact.” No, that is a LIE—else how explain the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter? “It is only ‘presbyters’ who are saying the “‘indult mass…’” That is a Biblical word meaning “priests.” There is no difference between a priest and a presbyter. “The major difference between the 2 Masses are the words of consecration.” The words of Consecration are “This is My Body…This is My Blood.” They are present in all Catholic rites. “Why aren’t conciliarists up in arms above Dolan’s invitation to a man who wars against the next generation of Americans?” The people whom you call “conciliarists” are indeed up in arms. Multitudes of them have been writing in anger on various blog sites, including Cardinal Dolan’s own site. I repeat—it is irrelevant to the question of the authoritativeness of Vatican II.

Tom, It is my opinion and that of others that “The Remnant” who’s owner is the son of the founder of “The Wanderer” took a complete different direction. He and the owner of “The Wanderer” also a son of its founder are brothers who had a differnet view of the Church. They have been known to have clashed in their approach to the Church. “The Wanderer” has long refused to stray from the Church, have been strong defenders of the Holy Father and his Magisterium. The Vatican oficialy recognizes “The Wanderer” as a Catholic Newspaper. And has recently recognized the “National Catholic Register” as also an official Catholic newspaper. All those who I know that are diehard readers of “Catholic Family News” have all turned sedevacantist. I have a good friend who stood strong in defense of the Church and the Holy Father, since he started reading “Catholic Family News” about 7 years ago, he is now a sedevacantist and has a passionist hatred of the Pope. Need I say more? As for the “New Oxford Review” They are converts from Anglicanism. They started out very well in defending the Church. Its no secret they made a complete turn and have now pitted themselves against the Holy Father and his Magisterium. I read it many times, I just don’t recall exactly the Catholic Magazines and Newsletters I read it in, so I won’t try to guess.

Joe, You speak of the “Indult Mass”, not understanding what it actually means. Every Mass said before V2 and after, are in fact “Indult Masses”. Since centuries ago, a man ordained to the Priesthood was granted an “Indult” for saying Mass. This “Indult” could be taken away anytime as an act of discipline. “Indult” simply means permission. So when a man was ordained and is ordained he is granted an “Indult” to say Mass. I know a priest who upon Ordination some 10 years ago was granted by the Bishop the “Indult” to say the Novus Ordo, 3 months after ordination he was granted the “Indult” to say the Old Mass also. He and the Bishop had some dissagreement and the Bishop suspended his Indult to say both forms of Mass. After matters were resolved the Priest had both Indults restored by his Bishop. On the Validity of the Mass, a Traditionalist priest explained that the “Novus Ordo” is in fact valid. Because what matters are the essentials. He said as long as a priest say’s the words of Consecration as Larry stated, “This is my Body”, “This is my Blood”, those are the essentials that make the Mass valid. As an example this priest told us of something that was changed in the Ordination Rite, right before he was ordained in 1952. It was no longer necessary for the one to be ordained to hold Chalice and Paten in hand during the Ordination Ceremony. This caused a huge debate in the Church, some said the ordination would be invalid if the priest did not have Chalice and Paten in hand. Others dissagreed. The conclusion was that what mattered were the essentials in the Odination. And the Priest holding Chalice and Paten was not an essential for a priest to be validly ordained. It seems like a small matter now, but it was a major matter then.

Tom, Sorry, I forgot to include my main point about “schismatic”. By the very definition of schism by the Church. Anyone who separates himself from the authority of the Pope falls into schism. There are 2 types of schism as there are 2 types of heresy, Formal and Material. Formal schism is when one knows he is separating himself from the authority of the Church. They can use the excuse that they accept the Pope, but if they knowingly separate themselves from the Pope’s authority they fall into formal schism. Which the penalty is excommunication “Latae Sententiae”, or automatic self imposed excommunication, which is a very real fact. Material Schism is when one unknowingly separates himself from the authority of the Pope. Of which their is no sin as it happens out of ignorance, or in some cases it could be venial sin, but can never be a mortal sin. So take the 3 Newsletters I mention and judge for yourself whether they are in Formal Or Material Schism.

Joe, Your post of Aug 17 2012 8:33 PM. You claim Bl. John XXlll and the Servant of God Pope Paul Vl said, “the Mass must change to not offend protestants”. I won’t even ask what your source of this lie came from. Such was never said by either Pontiff. So why do you make this up? When I said the Novus Ordo may look like a deformation, I meant it in the context of all the liturgical abuses that have marred it Beauty. I have seen on you tube “The Novus Ordo in Latin”, it is said the way Pope Paul Vl intended, I will say it looks no different than the Tridentine Mass. As for Catholics being persecuted, when it comes to the Tridentine Rite. I could not agree with you more. It is a fact that was and is known both to Bl. John Paul ll and now Pope Benedict XVl about this persecution of those who desire to worship God through the Old Missal. “Summorum Pontificum” was the answer to the persecution. But there remain Bishops sabotaging it. Many priests, especially the younger ones wish to say the Mass of 1962. But many Bishops have proven that if they do, they will be punished and will lose favor. And I mean their very Priesthood would be at stake. The Holy Father as Cardinal Ratzinger said that for the Old Mass to be restored, “We need a whole new generation of Bishops.” If you notice it is he himself creating this whole new generation of Bishops. All the bishops he has chosen are very much open to the use of the 1962 Missal. This whole new generation of Bishops are now being put in place. We must wait patiently, and stand with the Holy Father. We don’t help him any by blaming it all on Vatican ll.

It’s been a few years since I’ve had a subscription to New Oxford Review but last I read , they were not schismatic, material or formal. Sure , they would attack subjects they were not in agreement with , whether it was prelates or the spirit of the council, but I never got the impression they were in schism nor does that make them schismatics, unless that has changed fairly recently. To criticize the effects of the council, disagree with the pope or prelates is their opinion , which I believe they can do. As for Catholic Fam. News and The Remnant, I do believe they also can criticize. It’s unfortunate that you’ve known people that have turned sede due to reading these papers but there are many who read them and do not stray. I find these periodicals enlightening because they bring to light info that papers such as the Register/Wanderer don’t dare touch upon . I and others would not be aware of things if not for the likes of the 3 mentioned above.  It wasn’t too long ago that SSPX was deemed lepers by most novus ordo catholics because they were deemed schismatic , which the stigma is still associated today, but lessened with the recent talks with the vatican. They were considered bogeymen , not so much now. The SSPX, and the 3 periodicals still believe the pope is the successor to Peter, so I do not believe schism applies here. And of course, reading the NCReporter still makes many catholics feel they are also within the bosom of the church and they criticize too the council and its decisions but are not considered schismatic. That might be because the majority of the church members are modernists but don’t consider themselves so but loyal members of the church. This is the dilemma the post vcii era finds itself.

I might add too that it is most unfortunate that the post vcii era has resulted in millions of catholics leaving the church due to the confusion that is within the church. The debate that rages among people here on this blog is nothing compared to the untold numbers that have fled in the last 40 years. The term schism is an much overused word bandied about too often these days, a derogatory word used to dismiss any kind of legitimate criticism of the problems that plague the church today. The issues in the church have to be dealt with and not dismissed by using this word , much like the word conspiracy, which is used automatically to stifle any kind of meaningful discussion.

It is strange that for many its open season on the real Vatican Council ll and open season on the Vicar of Christ, successor to St. Peter who is the voice of God on earth. The Pope is the Visible Head of the Church, Christ is the Invisible Head of the Church. So when one attacks the Pope, they are in fact attacking Christ. But on the other hand calling the newsletters schismatics, for inventing all types of rediculous lies against the Council and the Holy Father, is somehow to be anathema. I disagree with the idea that the word Schism is overly used today. The problem lies in the fact that the meaning of the word schism is not well known. If it were, then the confessional lines would become miles long. The liberals stifled the use of the word heresy, I believe because it pricked their consciences. Likewise the ultra-Traditionalists have been stifling the word schism, I believe for the same reason. It pricks their consciences. Most don’t like for their own conscience to accuse them of their offences against God. Especialy when one has no intention of repenting.

What do you think the average Novus Ordo catholic has been doing for the last 40 years?  Following the leads of the popes/bishops/priests who have presided over this post vcii church. Yes this council and its effects, have had the blessing of these popes the last 40 years.  If the real council has not been revealed as of yet, then what has the average, nominal vatican ii catholic been doing the last 40 years? If the council that has not been defined correctly but has been followed as currently practiced under the aegis of the last popes, who are vicars of Christ, then what have we been doing all this time? Yes, the liberals are guilty of heresy but are considered still catholics under Pope Benedict 16 aren’t they , not exiled like those labeled schismatic who have legitimate questions in re to the council. Not only the term schism has to be defined, the council has to be defined, and the popes have to be questioned for their actions for allowing all this to occur under their auspices. The real issue is why this has been allowed to happen for so long without any real answers.

I, as an average Novus Ordo Traditional Catholic like many others certainly have not been idle. We have been battling for the truth, inside and not outside the Church. Because of this we are the ones that the Holy Father and his Magisterium have been listening to. Does one really think that the Holy Father takes too seriously those who reject his authority (AKA schismatics & heretics). The Traditional teaching of the Church called indefectibility gives one the absolute guarantee that Vatican ll did not, could not err. Many claim that the Church broke with Tradition, yet those very ones by their very words have broken with the Traditions of the Church’s, Indefectability, Obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and many other Traditions. The Council has been misinterpreted with grave error by two camps, the liberals and the ultra-traditionalists. The Popes did not allow this to happen! The Servant of God Pope Paul Vl spoke out against the errors many were committing. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had the blessing of Pope Paul Vl, until his suspension for speaking against the Council which he himself sighned all its Documents in approval. Bl. John Paul ll condemned every error that crept into the Church, but both schismatic and heretical camps continuously shouted out, with their defiance of the Pope, “Non Serviam!, Non Serviam!” Pope Benedict XVl as well has blasted all the errors. Again Both camps sing the same song, “Non Serviam!”. So this is your answer about what the average faithful Novus Ordo Traditional Catholic has been doing for over 40 years.

Tom: I’m not sure I understand your post of 12:35 p.m. You say, “The real issue is why this has been allowed to happen for so long without any real answers.” What, exactly is “this” and how, exactly, does “this” connect with the official Council documents? And by the latter question, I am asking you to give me document, chapter, verse and verbatim quotes from the official Vatican II Acta, to which you object. As for liturgical changes, Vatican II itself changed absolutely nothing in the mass. Rather, the Council directed that the liturgy BE reformed with certain goals in mind, among them greater simplicity and participation by the laity. In the wake of the Council, administrative documents were issued by the Holy Father and the Holy See, further clarifying the Council’s goals and setting up mechanisms through which the liturgy would be reformed. In the wake of the administrative orders, the Mass was re-written and given approval. The liturgical abuses happened when rogue parish priests took it upon themselves to re-write the approved rewrite, while their diocesan ordinaries either failed to exercise leadership or were complicit in the shenanigans. At that point, supervision by Pope Paul VI’s Holy See over the negligent or wayward bishops broke down completely, for reasons I still don’t know—and was not restored until the papacy of JP II when it was brought back only gradually. Under Benedict XVI, the leadership which should have been applied all along regarding the reforms mandated by the Council has been noticeably strengthened. The real question is why did Pope Paul VI allow the rioting to rage completely out of control roughly between 1968 (when clergy openly rebelled against Humanae Vitae) and his death in 1978? Because make no mistake about it, the chaos became as awful as it did primarily because the cat in Rome was asleep and the mice in the parishes were playing to their hearts’ content. Was it his fault? Was he not completely up to the job to which he’d been elected? Was it because ill health had severely weakened his stamina? I’d like to believe the latter, but on the other hand he did take firm and appropriate action against Archbishop Lefebvre when called for—proving that he was indeed able to lead. This is a question which future introspection must probe.

But the popes have allowed these to occur, otherwise things would have changed. The many worded documents of the council have allowed these to occur, with a multitude of interpretations, thus the pastoral monicker. But you still haven’t addressed something you continually bring up - “the real council”. Which is it? If we haven’t had the real council being practised, what is it that has been our faith for 40 years? If one questions the novelties of the council, you label them schismatic. No one questions the mandated dogmatic statements echoed in vcii from previous councils, it is the novelties introduced that are questionable, and one can debate these novelties without having one’s loyalty questioned . Your last sentence doesn’t make sense. The average NO catholic is not traditional but a nominal one and for the most part,  modernistic. So how can they be practicing the “real” vcii teachings if they are modernists, and NOT considered separated under these popes? So by your definition, what has been practiced for 40 years by the ordinary catholic, this is what vcii mandated.

“No one questions the mandated dogmatic statements echoed in vcii from previous councils, it is the novelties introduced that are questionable…” WHAT novelties are contained in the Council documents? Give quotes and references, please.

Angelo,  I want to establish something perfectly clear with you.  If I lie, I would expect to be removed from this site by the powers that be.  That action would be justified.
Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae.  It was Bugnini who was commissioned with 6 protestant ministers to redesign a new mass that would not offend protestants.
Bugnini himself said on March 19, 1965, as can still be read in the “Osservatore Romano” and in “Documentation Catholique,” which magazines published a translation of Bugnini’s discourse:
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Infiltration-of-Modernism-in-the-Church.htm
I know you asked to not be proven the fact of it.  Truth and facts are a major hurdle to one who prefers otherwise.  There are other sources to prove the intention to destroy from within

tom,  I’ve posted where Popes have condemned Vatican II council.  Larry and Angelo refuse to recognize these pre-Vatican II Popes.  Here are more errors of Vatican II:

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio #3, states that the Catholic Church “has separated Brethren in Separated Churches…..
Pope Leo XII said in Ubi Primum #14, May 5, 1824:  “it is impossible (for the above and you can look up the rest of the paragraph.)
Also Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum #9, June 29, 1896 condemns this Vatican II statement.
______________________________

Vatican II Council, Unitatis Redintegratio #8, “During ecumenical gatherings it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated Brethren.”
Pope Benedict XV, Codes Iuris Canonici (1917) canon 1258.l – “It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics.”

Vatican II,  Ad Gentes #29 condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos #8, January 6, 1928.

All it takes is ONE drop of poison to spoil a council.  A poison cannot be corrected.  It is condemned .  That is the way of the Catholic Church.  I’ve posted other contradictions with detail.  A major one is ‘subsists IN’, Lumen Gentium para. 8

Joe, In the Church, no Pope has ever contradicted another on matters of faith and morals. This is a fact that has long been known. That we cannot join in the actual worship services of other religions is still Church teaching, that, has never changed! But that in no way prohibits us from worshiping God with a non Catholic in the same room or on the same planet. Distinguish between the two manners of praying, don’t take what the Popes say out of context. At the Councils of Trent and Vatican l and Vatican ll, the Church invited non Catholics to observe and pray at the Councils. At Assisi Bl. John Paul ll called on all the religious leaders of the world to come together in one place to pray for peace. Catholics were not to pray together in the same worship with other religions. They were all to pray in the same place for peace. Assisi was real and symbolic of all of God’s creation to come together and beg him for peace. Heaven was surely attentive, since 1986, some 26 years later, we have not been all out chastised by God the way we deserve. As I stated, Heaven was attentive to the prayers of all peoples and nations or if you’d rather, all his perfect creation. The attitude you are showing is the attitude Christ condemned. Jews believed themselves the one and only people of God. All others were referred to as dogs. Christ showed them their errors, “What does one gain if they love only those that love them.” He tells the story of the robbed and beaten man, ignored by two of his own and a Samaritan comes and binds his wounds and sees to his care. The Samaritan woman who begs him a favor, and Our Lord answers, “It is not right to give the food of the Children to the dogs.” She answered, “But Master, even the dogs eat the scraps from their masters tables”, Christ hailed the faith of this woman in public, he told her that her faith had saved her. And Christ lavished her with all the graces she desired and needed. Joe, lets not do a repeat of the ancient errors. Lets listen to Christs Vicar, he knows much better than we. I could explain to you what you see as a contradiction of different posts. But as you have proven before, it would be of no use.

Joe, That last sentence should have read “different Popes” and not “different posts”. As for Bugnini, I have heard and read many horror stories about him. But they mostly have came from ultra-traditionalists, so I must be careful as to their accuracy. What I do know from sources I could trust, is that Bugnini called on the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments to abrogate the Missal of St. Pius V. His proposal was outright rejected by the Conciliarists. Also a very good source was the intervention of Cardinal Ottaviani, another conciliarist. I hope that Cardinal Ottaviani will one day be canonized in the Conciliar Church. There is absolutly nothing wrong with the Missal of Pope Paul Vl, He approved it, so we accept it. What is bad are the liturgical abuses, which Pope Paul Vl lamented and tried to stop, Bl. John Paul ll ordered their official end, as has Pope Benedict XVl. But the problem is liberals acting like ultra-traditionalists, and ultra-traditionalists acting like libereals.

Angelo, you are in the conciliar church.  You are not in the Catholic Church, therefore, you defend the new conciliar doctrine.

You are part of the Conciliar Church that focuses on the council that established changes contradictory to Sacred Tradition.
The Novus Ordo missae is a protestantized mocking service that is offensive and disobedient.  39 popes would not change the essentials of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass until the era of Buginini and his protestant cohorts who removed what was offensive to protestants (naturally, what else would protestants do??!!) Paul VI approved the mess.  Holy Mother the Church is not a deceiver.  Just say, “I Angelo, am a conciliarist, I renounce the Catholic Church and I uphold all the teachings of the Council of Vatican II.”  That would be truthful.

Joe, I Angelo, am a conciliarist. Who obeys the Holy Father and his Magisterium. I uphold all that Holy Mother the Church (Roman Catholic Church) upholds and teaches. I accept all 21 Councils of the Church as infallible. Whoever teaches a different Gospel than that of the 21 Councils (Especialy Vatican ll in this day and age), I reject as being Anathema, unless they are in complete ignorance of God’s Truth. I am a Conciliar Catholic because I accept all 21 Holy Ghost inspired Councils. I accept that all the anti-conciliarists of the previous 20 Council were swept away by God. And I hereby trust that God will do the same to the anti-conciliarist of The Ecumenical Second Vatican Council. All this through the Sacred Heart of my Lord and Saviour, and the Immaculate Heart of my Mother and the Mother of the Church (As Pope Paul Vl proclaimed her).

Joe, Here is a Mass on you tube that is much closer to the Mass of Pope Paul Vl, the Novus Ordo. “Novus Ordo Solemn Mass, Part l”. Pope Benedict XVl said that if Mass was said as was intended by Pope Paul Vl, one would not be able to distinguish the Old Rite and the New Mass. Except for those who well know the Liturgy.

I’d say we’ve gone about as far as we can go with Joe & company. I get the feeling I’m arguing with a computer programmed to keep spitting out the same speech over and over, more or less, regardless of the responses of other posters. But to use your own words, Joe—if one drop of error is enough to invalidate an entire council (I submit it would be enough to invalidate the entire Catholic Church) then by the same token, would a whole glassful of error be enough to invalidate every sentence of every post by the same writer? You’ve got plenty of error in your posts, not the least of which was your embarrassing gaffe about the Eastern Rite Catholics. But to move on—on one point you counterpose canon law to the Council documents. In fact canon law has no infallible or immutable charism, and can be amended or repealed by any pope in his turn. Besides being now obsolete (being from the 1917 Code of Canon Law), the canon uses the term “illicit”—but that is equivalent to saying “unauthorized.” What is illicit in the Catholic Church at any one time can be made licit at another time (or, I suppose, vice-versa), depending on the dispositions of the hierarchy. Most puzzling to me is your odd insistence upon larding down the harmless little word “subsist” with all sorts of sinister connotations which it does not, in fact, carry. The sentence in question from Lumen Gentium #8 reads: “Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata…” The verb “subsistit” is a conjugation of the Latin “subsisto,” meaning “to stand up” or “to remain.” The official Vatican English version of the above is: “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him…” The English word “subsist,” cognate to the Latin “subsisto,” is basically a synonym of “exist.” So in other words, the above essentially means: “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him…” So what’s the problem? I don’t understand. It is not Vatican II, but you yourself, Joe, with the serious credibility issue here. Why should anybody believe anything you say?

Angelo, Without exception, Catholic families have been broken by the new religion and new mass fabricated by human hands.  Vatican 2 Council paved the way.  It is an oxymoron to say one remains a Catholic and a Vatican 2 conciliarist.  That statement is as contradictory as the words of Consecration in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass taught by Christ to His Apostles, and the one fabricated to mock the consecration by protestant ministers and Bugnini, promulgated by Paul VI.  Now all are welcomed in the new religion without conversion.  Even Buddhist statues are placed above the Tabernacle and the Angelos of the world bows their heads before their thousand gods.
Angelo, you forgot to mention the 17 illegitimate councils and the 41 anti-popes prior to Vatican II.  One anti-popes name was John XXIII, 1410-1415.  You straddle a wide fence and hide under a huge umbrella.

Angelo, Does the Novus Ordo Solemn Mass, Part l speak of the Holy Trinity?

Larry, where are you getting your information on “SUBSISTS IN”?  Lumen Gentium states, “IN” not “IS”.

I’m getting my information from dictionaries, Joe, both Latin and English. You should try it. It’s better than using your own or someone else’s fevered imagination. “Angelo, you forgot to mention the 17 illegitimate councils…” Vatican II was not one of them, Joe. There’s nothing irregular about the way it was convened, and it had full papal approval.  “...and the 41 anti-popes prior to Vatican II.” Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, since neither the real John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli, not Baldassarre Cossa), nor Paul VI, nor JPI or II or Benedict XVI are antipopes.

Larry, the 17 illegitimate councils were prior to 1962.  When John XXIII (a prior anti-pope’s name) announced his desire for a council he also added that he wanted a revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Laws.  Do you think he knew the periti were staged, polished and manicured for the job ahead to hijack the council?  Do you think he was stating that his predecessors were a bunch of dupes and needed to be corrected? 
The list of 41 anti-popes were before 1962.  See “Tumultuous Times” by Fathers Radecki

Larry,  On the matter of ‘subsists IN’:  Vatican II reduces the Roman Catholic Church to a mere organization in which the Church Christ established merely subsists.  It is a ‘mere branch’ amongst a great trunk and other branches.  In Lumen Gentium “Roman” is missing and also the fact that only Catholics make up the Mystical Body of Christ.  Heretical choices of words are used to confuse and destroy the ‘exclusivity’ of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The periti imply that non-Catholics are a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=35

Again, Joe—“subsists” is just another word for “is” or “exists” or “lives.” You’re trying to change the definitions of words to suit your delusions of Vatican II somehow being a rupture with the past. You are uninformed, misinformed and malinformed, but what is much worse—you are not only resistant to fraternal correction, but you insist upon trying to spread your errors of knowledge and logic to others. In this respect, I hope that the Holy Spirit through me has been able to frustrate or at least hinder your plans. A man could spend a lifetime trying to unravel your rats nest of falsehoods, faulty assumptions and defective logic—i.e., your confusing of Eastern Rite Catholics with Eastern Orthodox faithful—your attempts to introduce a false distinction between priests and presbyters, two terms that are absolutely synonymous—your outrageously false definition of “subsist”—your filibusters with data which may be accurate but is definitely irrelevant to the question of Vatican II’s authority—I could go on and on, but there’s no reason to—and I won’t. I think any fair, unbiased and reasonably intelligent reader can check for themselves and see who is telling it like it is and who is spinning huge paranoid fantasies.

Joe, I know many ultra-traditionalists like yourself. They baffle me. They claim to be Catholic, but reject Vatican Council ll, reject the authority of the Holy Father, reject anyone who accepts the Roman Catholic Church as the Church founded by Christ, claiming the Popes since Bl. John XXlll are antipopes, its always about conspiracies, masons in the Vatican, the Missal approved by Pope Paul Vl as false, rejecting the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae, claiming the Church said what it did not, denying what the Church actually says and said, twisting what V2 said while never having read a single paragraph of its Documents, then claiming to be experts on the Council ect…ect…ect…What can one say to you? You disagree with everthing and anything. But I have to say I have enjoyed the exchange of comments with you. Its been fun! I really believe Larry has put a huge dent in your arguments, which is why it is obvious that you don’t like what he says. I doubt you will ever be able to forget what he has pointed out to you. May God have mercy on us, and May the Immaculate Heart of Mary lead us to her Son.

Larry,  Lumen Gentium says, “SUBSISTS IN” not subsists.  You must look at the context Paul VI promulgated it.

“...Subsists in [the form of] the Catholic Church.” It wouldn’t make any sense if it read “...subsists the Catholic Church.” It’s nonsense without the preposition. Your persistent objection is plain silly.

“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him…” = “This Church…exists in the Catholic Church…” = “This Church…lives on in the Catholic Church…” = “This Church…is the Catholic Church.” You’re seeing a problem where there is none.

Angelo, you forgot to mention the United Nations in your diatribe.  According to Alden Hatch, writer of “Paul VI”, page 239-240, Paul said, “...the peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace..”  Paul VI praised the U N for what it is, because it grants “recognition of the highest ethical and juridical values” to each member nation….It is, he said, “a bridge between peoples, …the establishment of a world authority”…  The author of the book (he’s pro Vat 2) pointed out that Paul VI intended to do what was to bring to the support of the United Nations the entire weight of the Roman Catholic Church and its long history…its saints; ..he was qualified to speak for it.
There you have it, Angelo, this unborn baby killing organization, this organization that is led by men who hate women and children and the word democracy now has Paul VI support (no subsequent corrections)by handing over the mantle to them to promote peace, love and harmony to the U N.  Isn’t Paul VI saying Christ’s Church can’t do it?  Christ has made no many mistakes in establishing His Church so Paul VI makes it appear.  Good thing Paul VI came along to patch things up, don’t you think?
How does Paul VI account for the U N’s reputable humanitarian tract record?  Can you at least look at these words if you will not say them out loud – One World Order – One world religion?

You quote from Paul VI’s speech before the UN during his famous 1965 visit to New York City. This speech does not constitute an infallible papal definition of dogma. Since it’s addressed to the UN delegates and not specifically to Catholics, he is not speaking as a shepherd to his sheep, a teacher to his students—but as a statesman to fellow statesmen. As such, whatever merits his words possess (and I think what he’s doing is calling the UN to live up to its high ideals, so his speech by no means lacks merit, even considerable merit) they are nonetheless his own words and are not Divinely protected from error. Also I don’t think the UN in 1965 was quite the “unborn baby killing organization” that it’s become in 2012—and even now it would be far more depraved than it actually is without the persistent protests of the Holy See to the abortion-contraception promotion throughout the world. If you’re using this to declare Paul VI an antipope, you’re way off base.

Larry, you said, ““This Church…is the Catholic Church.”  Where, Larry, does Vatican 2 say the Church is the Catholic Church?  Vatican 2 is cleverly spinning something for the future.  See Avery Dulles, S.J. opening remarks to Lumen Gentium.

You neglected to mention that Lumen Gentium states that truth can be found with heretics. Oh you, say I’m stretching it!?  Well, what are we taught as Catholics to call those outside of the Catholic Church?

“Where, Larry, does Vatican 2 say the Church is the Catholic Church?” In the passage that I’ve been showing you over and over, which you keep rejecting because of some strange aversion to the verb used. “You neglected to mention that Lumen Gentium states that truth can be found with heretics.” Well, it’s certainly true that even heretics may possess SOME of the truth. Take yourself, for instance. I’m sure there’s some truth somewhere within the huge pile of nonsense which you spout—although it might take a lot of effort to find it.

Larry, I have the copy of Lumen Gentium.  You are dreaming of what you want it to say.  Catholics DO NOT dialogue with heretics.  Popes have warned us of the danger of it.  It is sound Catholic teaching that we do not seek truth outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The mandate is to convert, Larry, not have tea and crumpets expecting to have a good outcome.  Salvation is only in the Catholic Church.  Both feet in!  The Catholic Church has the ‘fullness of the truth’.  Catholics are not to schmooze with those who waffle on dogmas and doctrines handed on.  We can rightfully ask, what sin are they protecting that prevent them to submit to the Authority Christ placed on earth.  I’m Catholic, Larry, not a post Vatican II conciliarist.  There’s the difference.  I stand on the firm foundation of immutable truth that Pontiffs protect known as the Total Deposit of Faith.

Be careful, Minty—lest you stand condemned before God by your own words. “Catholics are not to schmooze with those who waffle on dogmas and doctrines handed on.” In that case, I’d better not dialogue any further with you Council rejectionists. “I’m Catholic, Larry, not a post Vatican II conciliarist.” If you reject the authority of an ecumenical council of the world’s bishops whose output has the approval of the pope—then you are neither one.

Joe, I take it by one of your questions that you watched that Novus Ordo Mass on youtube. So it being the Missal of Pope Paul Vl, the way it was intended, what is your opinion of it? As for Paul Vl and the United Nations, the only things I know about it, is that he went there, and also that there are many using that occasion as some kind of proof that V2 is wrong. Another thing I know is that Paul Vl visited the UN, he was not in charge of it. If he praised things about it, its because God has put men in charge of running his world, and at that time those in the UN had great Ideas for the keeping of peace. Now he went there in 1965, we are in the year 2012, I’m sure things have changed.

Joe, Why do you insist on giving your wrong interpretation to “SUBSISTS IN”? Accept your interpretaion is an error. The Church cannot err in such matters. So why do you keep denying Tradition while claiming to uphold Tradition?

Larry, Did “His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan” of New York” who invited Obama to a charities for life dinner get approval from Rome?  If not, will he be removed or disciplined for this reckless action?  If he is not removed does that mean his action was approved?
Does Ave Maria University, in Naples, Florida have the local bishop’s approval,  who is appointed by Rome, to have Christoph Cardinal Schönborn as an ecclesiastical advisor?  Schönborn has twice given the Gregory XVI to pro aborts.  The award is intended for “gentlemen of proven loyalty to the Holy See” and who “are deemed worthy to be honoured by a public expression of esteem on the part of the Holy See”.  Schönborn has an amazing history of scandals in his strong and successful church career.  Would you want this church advisor, counseling one of your kin?
http://en.kreuz.net/bookentry.2912.html
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/105bev12-29-2008.htm
Oh, has the infamous Card. Christoph Schönborn of Vienna - responsible for the text of YouCat   apologized for this fiasco?  Did I miss his it?  Will he be disciplined anytime soon?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/E027cpYouCat.html
Schönborn prepared the new catechism in the ‘80s for John Paul II.  It too had errors and needed to be recalled.  Who promotes these men who manage to use the purse strings of the conciliar church?  How are these men in black able to stay in control in the midst of their controversial and blatantly anti-Catholic activities?

SAINTLY Traditional Catholic Prelates as Archbishop Marcel LEFEBVRE and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer who fought so hard to preserve/safeguard the 2000 year old Catholic Faith, Priesthood, and Sacraments get excommunicated! 

Minty—we are discussing the authoritative standing of the official documents of the Second Vatican Council—an ecumenical council of the world’s bishops called and approved by the pope. Stick to the subject.

Minty, A Domican Priest once gave a Parish Mission in our Church. In one of his sermons he warned us never to think that our salvation is 100% guaranteed. He said, “There are in hell, many who once had more sanctity on the tip of their finger than everyone in this Church put together”. He spoke of the fact that even the holiest of men and woman can fall and be eternaly lost. I do not doubt at all that at one time Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a very holy man. But before he died, he committed a public an act of Formal Schism. Our Lady at Fatima said that the Holy Father would have much to suffer. It is said that Bl. John Paul ll with the act of schism by Lefebvre, suffered a sorrow extremely intense. When Lefebvre died, Bl. John Paul ll simply said in his public statement, “We recommend his soul to the Mercy of God”. One thing is for sure, Lefebvre will never be canonized. I believe unless he repented before dieing, his soul was lost for eternity. In this, let us be carful to take Christ and his Church seriously, and not pretend we are immune from the justice of the Just One.

Angelo, in regards your statement:  Bl. John Paul ll simply said in his public statement, “We recommend his soul to the Mercy of God”.

And John Paul II allowed an animist female to annoint his forehead,  kissed the Koran, allowed a Buddhist statue to be placed on top of the Tabernacle ......, sometimes you are so amusing.

Angelo, Our Lady at Fatima also said we must pray the Rosary daily, dress modestly, wear the Brown Scapular and make reparation for our sins and sins of the world.  How many times was Our Blessed Mother mentioned in the Vatican II documents?  Needless to say she is an embarrassment to non-Catholics and the modernists saw to it she would be denied her rightful place for devotions and was shoved in to a closet just as the Tabernacle.

Time has proven the devastating effects of the V-II Council.  Catholics have a duty to check what was taught before and after the council.  We cannot look to Paul VI that things did not change.  He promulgated the New Order Mass, the episcopal consecration, the newrite of ordination after the 16 V-2 documents.The Catholic Church is in a terrible condition today because of these changes, one of them is ‘subsists in’  which is novelty.  It has never before been taught.  If you know Catholic doctrine, you know that something new is never true.

Minty, Bl. John Paul ll was of the school of St. John of the Cross. He was a Third Order Carmelite and wore the Large Brown Scapular under his vestments. He often spoke of how the Rosary of Our Lady was his favorite prayer. Even adding 5 more myteries to the Rosary, making the mysteries complete. He was very much devoted to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. He was a Mystic, when he prayed he was not aware of his surroundings. He was a man of great prayer. He went to confession very frequently. He was a man of the greatest wisdom. As for Our Lady at V2, the Council was entrusted to her, Pope Paul Vl at the Council gave Our Lady the Title of, “Mother of the Church” to the joyful applause of the Council Fathers. I’m sure you will find these facts very amusing. They certainly amuse me with great joy.

Joe, You say something new is never true. You must be living on another planet. Christ says, “I make all things New”, scripture says, “despise not new beginings”. NEW, is the whole message of the Gospel. God calls us to RENEW, that is at every moment through Christ be a NEW man. It was not Pope Paul Vl who made the “Episcopal Consecration”, It was Bl. John Paul ll on March 25, 1984, Solemnity of the Incarnation.

Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis teaches us that the ‘unique Church of Christ’ is not connected nor identified with other denoninations.  Lumen Gentium, however, for the sake of forcing Catholics to become involved in ecumenical services,  reduces Christ’s church to a mere organization amongst separated churches in which the Church of Christ subsists,  and is a mere branch with other branches.  Pope Pius XII condemned this theory.

Lumen Gentium said no such thing, Joe.

Three Words, Cardinal Dolan:
Cancel the Dinner!!!!!
http://catholicexchange.com/three-words-cardinal-dolan-cancel-the-dinner/

When will these bishops stop being identified with pro-abort politicians?  Why are they still allowed to abuse their power?  What will be accomplished with their actions?  Who’s in charge?

“Three Words, Cardinal Dolan:
Cancel the Dinner!!!!!” That’s about the only thing you’ve said that I can agree with, Joe. As for Lumen Gentium, it ACTUALLY reads as follows: “This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.” In other words, whatever valid elements the heretics and schismatics have they took from the Catholic Church when they left.

Larry,  The words “Roman Catholic Church” are absent in Lumen Gentium.  The Roman Catholic Church “IS” and needs no other to subsist in.  This reference: ‘subsist in’, was a convoluted slippery slope for the acceptance of indifferentism, ecumenism, interfaith celebrations and giving the host to whomever may ask.  These actions have been condemned by Pontiffs.  You are a conciliarist only, Larry.  Catholics do not accept your wide umbrella.

Catholics are quite able to read Lumen Gentium for themselves and see what it really says. They are also able to look up “subsist” in any dictionary and see what it really means, as opposed to what you, without offering any substantiation, claim it means.

Larry,  Per Lumen Gentium “subsists in” not the sole word subsists.

That is because “subsists” here is an intransitive verb which does not take a direct object—so you cannot say “this Church subsists the Catholic Church”—it does not make sense—just as your posts do not. You need the preposition in order for it to make sense. Instead of “in,” they could just as well have written “subsists as” the Catholic Church. Means the same thing as “subsists in” the Catholic Church.

Larry, your quarrel is with the periti, the hijackers who wrote the documents not with me.  Lumen Gentium specifically reads:  “SUBSISTS IN”.  If these geniuses made a grammatical error, tell them and the subsequent powers that have no quarrel with the fact that Lumen Gentium reads: “This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists IN the Catholic Church.  Conciliarists want to correct the writers of this Vatican II document.  It cannot be rewritten.  It stands as promulgated by Paul VI.  This is a major reason hundreds of thousands of Catholics left, Larry.  I’m trying to be a respectful opposition but I think that there might be problems in continuing to post and it’s not my choice.  Does that surprise you?

The Vatican II documents do not state that the Catholic Church is the One true Church of Christ, but is denied by subsists in.  Sacred Tradition never used the words partial identity can be found in other sects/denominations/.  Those outside the Catholic Church do not submit to the papacy which is an essential element to be in the Mystical Body of Christ.  Why is Vatican II striving to see some goodness in those outside?  (we all know why.)  Those outside the Church Christ established rejects Sacred Tradition,  and rejects pages of Sacred Scripture.  Christ’s personal representative on earth is proven by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the infallible Magisterium joins these together with Divine Authority. 

Unless you have some new and interesting point to make, I have nothing more to add.

You could say thank you for all my hard work of explaining what you needed to know!

Larry, we could talk about teddy bear masses.

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2005/12/teddy-bear-mass.html

Joe, I could point out many places in the Council Documents that call the Church “Catholic”. But it would be of no use and a waste of time, simply because you will nit pick and choose any word to twist and declare the Council was wrong because of one single word. Joe accept that you are a bona fide Schismatic. And according to the Vatican ll Documents you have “no salvation whatsoever even if you shed your blood for Christ. You do alot of research, now you can research how to be Catholic again.

Angelo you said, “And according to the Vatican ll Documents you have “no salvation whatsoever even if you shed your blood for Christ”.
Angelo, Where in the 16 V-II documents does it say this?

  Why won’t you ‘prove’ your points?

Angelo, you said, “Joe, I could point out many places in the Council Documents that call the Church “Catholic.”

I’m interested knowing these places in the V-II documents that states the Church Vatican II speaks about is the Catholic Church Jesus Christ established.

Joe, Vatican Council ll clearly states, “Anyone knowing that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ for salvation. And refuses to remain in it, or to enter it, has no salvation whatsoever even if he shed his blood for Christ.” Now where is this in the Council Documents? Its there, but I will leave the burden of finding it on you. Even if I should point it out to you, you will find some word in it in order to twist and mangle it. You have spoken as if you are an expert on the Council. Do you even have a copy of the Council documents? You hail yourself as a great researcher who gives all answers. This is one of your constant, “point it out” you have not been able to research, why not?!

Joe, I misphrased what the Council stated, but the essential words are there. Lumen Gentium Chapter 2, 14. I also found in a few short minutes that everthing said about salvation in the Council Documents had already been said before, at Trent, Vatican l, the Fathers of the Church Tradition ect… The Church was reaffirming what already was! So, A Pastoral Council reaffirming all the Dogmatic teachings of the Church. Just in reading parts of Documents of Vatican ll, I think the word Catholic was used the most! Get in touch with your sources and let them know of their grave errors.

This should make it easier;
                  LUMEN GENTIUM
                    CHAPTER 2

14.This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon SACRED SCRIPTURE and TRADITION, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is neccessary for salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the neccessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the neccessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. WHOSOEVER, THEREFORE, KNOWING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS MADE NECESSARY BY CHRIST, WOULD REFUSE TO ENTER OR REMAIN IN IT, COULD NOT BE SAVED.

This information can be found in the Vatican ll Council Documents.

Joe, May I add that “Lumen Gentium” has ten pages of footnotes quoting from scripture, Tradition, previous Councils, Doctors of the Church, Fathers of the Church. All to back up all that is said in “Lumen Gentium”. I knew the Vatican ll Council Documents were a treasure, what I did’nt know was that it is an Enormous Treasure. I encourage you to read them and compare what they say to the resources you’ve been relying on.

Angelo, the sources that you want me to correct remind us that Revelation does not change its original meaning.  Vat 2 in Lumen Gentium prepared a new foundation of modernism/one world religion and peace at any price. For instance,  interreligious services that formerly were a practice that incurred ecclesiastical penalties as stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, c.2314-2316 and is also in 1983 Code of Canon Law, c. 1365.  However, there is no enforcement of the Law only continuous violations and on and on encouragement for conciliarists to increase in the practice of interfaith services.  Ecumenism is of the People of God not of the Mystical Body of Christ. 
How cleverly the writers were of L. G.  They appeared Traditional in one paragraph and in the next paragraph they were progressives desiring to destroy the Traditional Faith.  Until just before the Vat 2 council believers at worship were united in Faith.  Common worship with other denominations was forbidden.  Pius XI speaks in Mortalium Animos that there is only one true religion and for non-Christians there is only one way to Truth and Life:  the way of conversion is only to the religion and Church of Jesus Christ.  The Catholic Faith is the only true bond of unity.  Unity will never happen with the new virtue of tolerance and love of separated brethren. 

Angelo, it was not until after I found the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass did I recognize the real destruction going on within the new religion of Vatican II.  I knew about the V-2 documents but I never read them nor were we encouraged to do so.  Nor did I ever read the pre-Vatican 2 encyclicals nor were we encouraged to do so.  My conservative conciliar friends and I who spoke often about the current issues in regards to the Church, were hopeful that things would change for the better but it continually got worse.  We were like sheep being led to the slaughter.  There was no arm twisting to leave that religion.  It was totally by the grace of God and I am so very grateful for the grace to discover in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass an atmosphere of reverential worship, a profound reference for the Real Presence, fidelity to Catholic Doctrine, stability, and the dignity of the True Priesthood.

Angelo,  This is what my sources oppose (and you want me to correct):
• Interreligious services, dialogue, pluralism,  and the belief that one will be saved out of deep loyalty to their choice of religion
• a generic God absent of the Triune God
•    Vat 2’s intention to change the Faith and setting the pace for disloyalty to Sacred Tradition
My Sources recognize that:
• V-2 stands on a diversity of religions without doctrinal grounds
• V-2 is a radical break from Revelation and Church Teaching
• There is a pre-conciliar church and a post-conciliar church and are incompatible
• The post conciliar church considers the pre-coniliar church backwards
• The post-conciliar church cannot make the connection of Tradition and compatibility
• Dei Verbum 4 claims it adheres to time-honored established teachings, but the perfectibility of human reasoning, man coming into himself,  created new impulses for ‘aggiornamento’ – a steady renewal
• V-2 was framed by periti for a modern adaption, a transformation of the consciousness of the entire Church, an adaption to the world. 

Joe, Lets stop jumping subjects. You said that V2 did not use the word Catholic. You also claimed that no salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church was not spoken of at V2. You asked me, “Why won’t you ‘prove’ your points?.” I proved them using the Documents of Vatican Council ll themselves. Only to prove you and your sources wrong. I prviously warned, why prove them as you would only twist and mangle what I would show from V2. Lets not finish this sujbect, until we have finished it. You were wrong, now I expect some form of explanation from you, before we jump to another subject! Why won’t you read the Vatican ll Document “Lumen Gentium” and study its 10 pages of footnotes. Admit your error so as we can move on. Thank you.

Joe, There are many who believe that they are experts on Vatican ll. Those who think this way are the very ones who have never read the Documents. And I mean ultra-traditionalists and ultra-liberals. This will for sure go down in history, “Everyone was an expert on V2 but yet never read the actual Documents”. This will be proven a massive fact of an embarrasing period in the history of the Church.

Your 8:47 p.m. post is an abomination of lies about Lumen Gentium. The following excerpt from the actual document shows you as the contemptuous and contemptible liar you are. “Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church…This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

Larry, Christ is NOT the mediator, He is the Head (there is a difference)
*I will concede to the one, holy, small “c” and apostolic all though I do not find it and there is something wrong with its wording
* the Catholic Church is NOT a society
*the Catholic Church does not “subsist in” but IS the Church Christ established without attachment or need of any other
* elements of truth are not to be found with heretics; any outside of Christ’s Church are heretics according to Roman Pontiffs and Catholics are not to seek truth amongst them.
*Unity is found only by conversion to the True Church

You can’t make this stuff up…

New “Archbishop”-Elect of San Francisco
Arrested for alleged Drunk Driving:
Mr. Cordileone booked, released from Jail -
Court Appearance October 9

Joe, You give the News that Archbishop Cordileone was arrested for a DUI. Does this give you some happiness or something. Such an attitude comes from satan, to gloat over another mans fall is not from God. It is a lack of charity. Now Joe, all you claim that is not in the V2 Documents, are in fact there. Tell me now, what can you now say about “Catholic” and “No salvation outside the Church” in the V2 Documents? Then we could go to another topic of V2 so that we can prove you and your sources in blind error.

Joe, According to scripture Christ is in fact the Mediator between God and Man. Chist is also the Invisible Head of the Church, while the Pope is its Visible Head. Which is why the Holy Father is the voice of God on earth. The Visible Head of the Church has stated that Vatican Council ll contains no errors as many claim. So who will you believe, ordinary men or Christs Vicar? Please answer! Don’t dodge the question as is your custom.

Angelo, in regards to “Archbishop Cordileone” it’s a sad state of affairs when these men are appointed and these men have a major impact in the parochial school system.  Ho HUM!!! is that your response?

Joe, I’ve about had it with the plain bovine effluent you’ve been spewing about Vatican II, especially Lumen Gentium, whose language is so simple and direct that any literate and reasonably intelligent person can see that what you claim isn’t there IS—and what you claim IS there, is NOT. It’s time to come out and say that your errors are not those of a well-intentioned but misguided zealot—but of someone with darker motives. And furthermore—don’t I know you? Aren’t you the same bigoted sedevacantist who frequently posts at a certain other Catholic web site under various names including “Doug” and “Bruce”? And by a strange coincidence, the above poster on that other site is often backed up by a second who appears, either from literary voice or screen name, to be a woman—just like on this thread. What’s the use in trying to convince someone like you of the truth? You wouldn’t know the truth if it stood in front of you, staring you in the face. Oh, and by the way—it’s going to do exactly that some day—or I should say HE will do that. Then you’ll have to explain to him why you slapped his face so many times—which is what you are doing every time you attack His Church and accuse it of lying to you on matters of faith and morals.

Joe, Concerning Archbishop Cordileone, it sounded very much to me that you were gladdened by the Conciliar (As you call them) Archbishops mistake. “Ho Hum!!!” is not my response. It is my hope that the Archbishop trusts in Christ’s mercy. And will emerge as an even more effective Archbishop in the hell hole the Holy Father has appointed him to. When good men fall and rise up again, God brings much good fruit from the experience. Larry suggests that you are posting elsewhere on different sites, using different names. I recall a certain “Doug” who spoke as if he truly loved the Church. Then when he had everyones attention he bit, injecting his venomous poison of a schismatic. You had better be careful, Our Lady gave 3 main reasons for souls falling into hell, “Sins of the flesh, the profanation of Sunday’s and Blasphemies against the Church. In a brotherly manner I warn you that you are 100% blasphemous against Christ’s Church. But I think this does not faze you one bit. Joe are you a Mason or into the Ocult?

And I take it, Joe, that your thesis is that Archbishop Cordileone would never have been arrested for DUI were it not for Vatican II? (I have to assume that, since this whole discussion is about Vatican II.) What moronic garbage! What kind of simpletons do you think the readers are? There are plenty of people alive today—some of them former altar boys—who can testify that misuse of alcohol by clerics didn’t start after 1965 when the Council closed. As for the archbishop, I’m hoping and praying that God will make sure only the best comes from this.

Angelo, Christ is the invisible Head of His Church; Christ is the Mediator who suffered and died to repair the breech between God and man due to original sin, the sin of our first parents.  (Baptism removes original sin.)  You will know them by their fidelity; you will know them by their fruit; you will know them by their actions . . . . . . .

Larry and Angelo,  Clergy carry the weight of the sins of the world.  Clergy represent Jesus Christ and should have as much purity and sanctity to entitle them to stand in the midst of Angels.  Clergy have more dignity than the Angels.  In fact the priesthood has power that surpasses Our Blessed Mother.  See “Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva” by St. Alphonsus De Liguori.  Our youth need heroes desperately.

Angelo,    In the context “Catholic” is written it has taken on new meaning.  That was the intent of the writers of the documents to make adaptations to the modern world.  The leading theologians at V-II understood that the language would affect the very substance of the Catholic Faith.  These theologians abandoned the traditional language of the Catholic Church.  They modernized scholastic language and caused confusion.  Does anyone ever say Vatican I or any other legitimate council misunderstood?  The periti at V-2 changed Catholic theology.  It sent many people out the door.  In the V-2 documents there are traditions remembered and honored and there is liberty, equality and fraternity along with loaded phrases that appeal to the UNcatechized.  V-II maintains one can be saved by the firm conviction of their own consciences.  Conversion to V-2 conciliar church is not necessary. (Wow, the periti are right about that one.)  The extreme break with Tradition made the pre-vatican Two Council Catholic Church obsolete.  A new structure and a new foundation were formed for a new Church and a new denomination.

Larry and Angelo, claiming I am Doug or Bruce is a distraction.  I can’t prove I’m not, so why ask?

Joe: The point of asking is to probe the issue of your veracity, which judging from your numerous comments on Vatican II, is completely lacking.

Larry,  all it takes is one contradiction.  I’ve posted several.  Subsists IN, para 8 of Lumen Gentium is a perfect example that the ‘pastoral council’ never intended to present with unmistakable clarity, the immutable teachings of the Catholic Church.  A New Theology and a dismissal of the Catholic system infiltrated the council.  The pope of the Council, Paul VI said, “The smoke of satan has penetrated the Temple of God through some opening.” Did the charateristics of the pastoral language and not the dogmatic language of the Church prepare the opening?  Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis warned against the surrender of the Catholic Faith using new notions marked with the spirit of the times.

Joe, I remember when Bl. John Paul ll strongly made it clear, “There is no new Church”. It was in referance to ultra-traditionalists and ultra-liberals who had fallen into this heresy. That after V2 there is some sort of a new church is the mother heresy of both of the Ultra’s. Every Pope in history has had to deal with some form of heresy. Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl inherited the heresy of a “new Church”. But what is unique about this one is that its one heresy, yet its two heresies, both ultra’s commit the same heresy but in opposite manners. I think this is a first for the Church. the evil one was very cunning in thinking this one up. But he is no match to Our Lady, defeater of all Heresy. She will once again crush the head of the serpent. I hope I live to see it.

Ok, Angelo, you believe there is no new Church.  Please list what are the resemblances to the Catholic Church pre-Vatican II Council and the the post Vatican II Council church?

Lets best talk about the middle, Vatican Council ll. It was a council according to “Scripture and Tradition”. Liberals completely distorted the Council and took the Church away from us. The ulta-traditionalists won’t read the Council Documents. They depend on its interpretation soley on the wreck the liberals caused. Something is wrong, I think the ultra- traditionalists should listen to the Holy Father (Which they don’t) and read the Council Documents themselves.

Angelo, you said, “Liberals completely distorted the Council and took the Church away from us”. Are you saying the post Vatican II church is different than the pre-Vatican II Church?

Angelo, you said, “The ulta-traditionalists won’t read the Council Documents.”  C’mon Angelo!  You have no idea how much they’ve studied these documents.  I’ve given you some sources and I could give you much more.  I never read them as a conservative conciliarist.  Have you forgotten I was in that new church/new religion?
By the way, do you have a list of the theologians who wrote the documents?

Your words, Angelo, “They depend on its interpretation soley on the wreck the liberals caused. Something is wrong, I think the ultra- traditionalists should listen to the Holy Father (Which they don’t) and read the Council Documents themselves”.

What you said in the above is very confusing.  The liberals caused Vat 2 to be a wreck, you say.  You say something is wrong.  Paul VI promulgated what the liberals created – a wreck ??!.

Angelo, the documents were written with a pastoral language that appealed to conservatives and progressives.  Conservatives see a continuity with Tradition and the progressives see the novelties and confirm the Council’s break with Tradition.

Joe, I apologize for not being clear. This is what I meant to say. Vatican Council ll was convened and ended according to Scripture and Tradition. It was not and did not intend to be a break with Tradition. The Church with the Council intended to continue as it had been for 2000 years. The Council did not intend to create a new Church. But that is how the modernists interpreted it. They made a complete break with Vatican ll. While claiming that what they were doing to the Church was in “the spirit of Vatican ll”. If you lived the faith during the 70’s and 80’s I’m sure you heard many times the phrase “in the spirit of Vatican ll”. Bl. John Paul ll condemned the mentality of this phrase. Bl. John XXlll recognized problems were arising from the modernists, such that he intended to end the Council gracefully. After the Council ended the Council Fathers who were modernists went full speed ahead with what they wanted to begin with, but was rejected by the other Council Fathers. They lied to us and told us they were only implementing V2. They in fact were only implementing their modernist heresies disguising them as being the intentions of the Coucncil. Pope Paul Vl harshly spoke out against what the modernists were doing, but no one listened. Pope John Paul l gave us hope, but died. Then Bl. John Paul ll came and condemned every single error of the modernists, again no one listened. And now Pope Benedict XVl is taking stronger action. The Ultra-Traditionalists are now judging Vatican ll with what the modernists did after Vatican ll ended, 2 totaly different things. They claim that the mess in the Church was caused by V2. But what the modernists have done and are still doing, one will never find in the Council Documents. The Ultra-traditionalists say, “judge the Council by its fruits, look at all the destruction caused to the Church ans souls, they are the fruits of V2”. And that my friend is totaly false. Its not V2 they are looking at, they are looking at what the modernists done after the Council, and claiming the Council called for this whole mess. The Ultra-Traditionalists are doing exactly what the Modernists done to us. Lie!!!

Angelo, you believe there is no new Church.

Please list what are the resemblances to the Catholic Church pre-Vatican II Council and the post Vatican II Council church?

Angelo, Since you will not list the similarities of pre and post Vatican 2 Church, I’ll fill in with this item:
This is copied text:  Fr. Gommar DePauw, Founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964 - - -
Had It Not Been for the Hundreds of Independent Traditional Catholic
Bishops, Priests, Monks, and Sisters throughout The World Like Him
There Would Be No Traditional Roman Catholic Life Today
Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Castro de Mayer, and the SSPX Were Not Enough
Especially Now that Fellay Has Taken the SSPX “into the Belly of Satan”

Joe, What are you failing to realize? There was an era and it still continues, in the Church where there is error, confusion ect… You are relying on whats happened in the Church by those who have caused many of the problems themselves. Bl. John Paul ll made it only too clear, “There is no new Church, there is no pre-vatican ll church, there is no post-vatican ll church. This is the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago.”. If you are seeking the greater glory and honor of God, you would listen to what the Holy Father is saying himself. For every question you ask there is an answer that debunks the errors of the ultra-traditionalists and the ultra-liberals. You speak of Fr. Grommar DePauw, personaly I have never heard of him. What I will say is that anyone who gives themselves the credit for the continuation of the Church is being presumptuous and heretical. The continuation of the Church depends only from God himself. You and I are looking at the Church through different angles, one of us is wrong. I have taken the safe path and am listening to the Vicar of Christ himself. Anything said contrary to what the Pope says is worthless.

 
Angelo, you claim no new religion and no new church post Vatican II.  Please list the similarities of the new mass for instance to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V. and or any other similiarities of pre and post Vatican II church. 

Angelo, why have you not heard of Fr. Grommar DePauw?

Joe, I have been trying to answer you, but I’m having trouble with my computer. Be patient with me.

Joe, You continue to ask about the similarities between the Old Mass and the New Mass. This is what I do know. The Novus Ordo Missae has the exact same structure as the Missal of St. Pius V. The Introit, Penitential Rite, Gloria, Lessons, Gradual, Gospel, Credo, Offeratory, Preface, Sanctus, Canon, Communion Rite, Dismissal ect… The Altar as stated repeatedly by Pope Benedict XVl was never supposed to be turned around. Latin is and remains the Language of the Liturgy. Pope Paul Vl promulgated at least 2 things that were part of the Missal of St. Pius V. That of the Intecessory Prayers and the Gesture of Peace. The Mass of Trent intended for this gesture to be given by all in attendance at Mass, somehow it became reserved for Solemn High Mass by the Priest, Sub Deacon and Deacon. At Vatican ll allowing some vernacular at Mass was debated, Cardinal Ottaviani argued that no vernacular should be allowed, he had good reasons. Archbishop Lefebvre at the Council championed the use of the vernacular for the Lessons, Gradual and Gospel. Cardinal Montini later Pope Paul Vl also championed some use of the vernacular saying, “Brother Bishops in this we must proceed with great caution and Prudence.” The Rogation Days and the Ember Weeks were never done away with in the Novus Ordo. Also the distinction between High Mass and Low Mass was not done away with either. These are just a few similarities. So you can see that if the Novus Ordo Missae was said the way it was intended, there is not much difference as compared to the Missal of St. Pius V. Pope Benedict XVl said that if the New Order of Mass is said as intended, one would not be able to distinguish it from the Missal of St. Pius V. The list of similarities go on and on. But this is just to give you an Idea of what was supposed to be. Much of what you see in the way the Novus Ordo is said are called Liturgical Abuses. Do not attribute the abuses to Vatican Council ll, as the Council had absolutley nothing to do with such rampant abuses.

Joe, as for Fr. Grommar DePauw, you ask why I have never heard of him. I don’t know why I have never heard of him. And by judging by what you say, that he attributes the continuance of the Church to himself and others of like mind. I doubt I am at all interested in what he says. It is Christ who continues his Church by the way He has established it. God in the Old Testament called men and made them great among the people, such as Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jacob and all the other Patriarchs of the OT. These prefigured what God intended in St. Peter for the New Testament. A leader to safeguard Truth and lead his people. Those who break from Peter fall into many errors, such is the work of the evil one.

Angelo,  Am I understanding you correctly that the 6 protestants (who hated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) along with Bugnini would reconstruct another Mass that will not make the Mass promulgated by a Saint null and void?
Am I understanding you that the hierarchy of the conciliar church recognizes no essentials of the Mass to have been changed in the:  balloon masses, cheese head masses, hula masses, teddy bear masses, females immodestly clad as dancers or servers’ masses, basketball masses ………….. OR are you stating they have no authority to correct these mockeries?  Who stole their authority????

Are you stating the millions of people who left because of the new mass (and other issues in connection to it) were uninformed idiots?  Are you stating that the millions who remain and pray differently that their Catholic Faith is secure?

Are you stating that the Catholic Churches gutted out and refurbished to look like hollow tombs is not changing the Faith?  Are you stating that the thousands of Catholic Churches that were confiscated and sold that Catholics are to just buck it up and get on with it?  Are you stating that papal authority was changed at Vatican II?

Joe, No, No, No, No, No, No, and many more No’s. The bad you point out in the Novus Ordo Mass are called Liturgical abuses. They are called abuses because Vatican Council ll never called for such things and had not even dreamt of such catastrophe’s. So you say the Missal of St. Pius V is holy because St. Pius V was canonized. Well whoever put the Novus Ordo Missae together is really irrelevant. What matters is that the Servant of God Pope Paul Vl approved the Missal. So if the Vicar of Christ approved it, who can speak against it without offending the Holy Ghost. Pope Paul Vl has been given the title Servant of God because his cause for canonization has already been introduced in Rome. I read the other day that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints have approved the Miracle that clears the way for the Beatification of Pope Paul Vl. It is now in the hands of Pope Benedict XVl to approve it. And I am confident that he will approve it, as he himself said, “We should not pray for Pope Paul Vl, we should pray to him.”. Again I ask you to rethink your error of blaming everything on V2. I still can’t get over that you blame V2 because Archbishop Cordileone got a DUI.

Angelo, you said, “I still can’t get over that you blame V2 because Archbishop Cordileone got a DUI.”
I just posted the information and did not expound upon it.  I posted the information about the new appointment to Muller of Germany also.  Do you see any links to their choices of lifestyle and theology?

Angelo, have you heard about Fr. Luigi Villia?  He wrote this book:
“Paul VI Beatified?”
  that stopped the beatification process of Pope Paul VI.

On GOOD FRIDAY…
The Novus Ordo Church prays:
“for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they many continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”
But the Catholic Church prays:
“for the faithless Jews: that Our Lord and God may lift the covering off their hearts,
so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ Our Lord.”

It is a great act of charity towards Jews and all non-Catholics to pray for their conversion, for we truly love them, and Christ died for them, and without conversion they will be damned to hell, that everlasting place of punishment and torture: “Those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41]” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1445). Therefore, those who love Jews pray for their conversion, that their souls may be refreshed and find Eternal Bliss in the the only true Messiah, Jesus Christ the Lord. Their Eternal Happiness is our hearts’ greatest desire.

Angelo, have you seen the “Circus Masses”?

“Pope Leo XIII, Bull Apostolicae Curae, par. 30 (1896):
“Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying’, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the [Protestant] reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.”  Note how Pope Leo emphasizes the connection between faith and worship—it is essential!

The infamous Martin Luther once said, “Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam” - “If you take away the Mass, you take away the Church.””

Old Mass vs. New Mass
http://www.traditionalmass.org/versus/

Joe, Muller has alot to do with this conversation. Because you pointed out Cordeleone’s DUI, your intentions were quite obvious. The beatification process of the Servant of God Pope Paul Vl continues. Like all Saints he has his detractors. Bl. Pope Pius lX who convened the first Vatican Council, almost had his dead body tossed into the Tiber by his enemies. I can certainly understand that you and others do not even want to hear of Pope Paul Vl ever being canonized. I was perturbed when I heard of the Body of Bl. John XXlll preserved incorrupt. I still had my prejudices against him and Vatican ll at that time. The modernists always hailed him as their very own Pope. I prayed, and then began to read articles that showed who Bl. John XXlll really was. That he was, “More of a Traditionalist than his predecessors Ven. Pius Xll and Pope Pius Xl”. He writes in his Diary that he attended Mass somewhere in Europe in the mid 50’s where the priests were experementing with Mass facing the people. He contacts their superiors and afterwards writes, “I am sure this most serious abuse of the Liturgy will be put to an end.” He is the one who reported to Ven. Pius Xll that a new heresy was springing up by Teilhard de Chardin. Ven Pius Xll immediatly condemned Chardin’s heresy. I have since discovered that he is truly the Pope of the Traditionalists. One day many will find out who the real Pope Paul Vl is. How he tried to stop the madness that was raging in the Church by the disobedient modernists. Today many slander him for the mess in the Church, a mess he was not at all responsible for. A great Holy Man of God, a Saint.

Angelo, you never substantiate anything.  You are straddling a wide, wide fence. 

Angelo, you said, “I can certainly understand that you and others do not even want to hear of Pope Paul Vl ever being canonized”.

Please explain what you understand.

2004 statistics of Vatican II

Catholics aged 18-44 who believe that the Eucharist is merely a
  “symbolic reminder” of Jesus - 70%
Lay religious teachers who believe:
  • A Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic - 53%
  • A Catholic may divorce and remarry - 65%
  • One can be a good Catholic without attending Sunday Mass - 77%

It has gotten worse since 2004.

Joe, you must excuse me, I am not fealing at all well today. I have Chronic Pancreatitis. Do say a prayer for me. Let me shorten what I’m saying. One day people will discover who the real Pope Paul Vl is. He is not the bad Pope I myself once thought he was. I blamed him for the mess in the Church. It was something he tried to stop. He was not to blame. It’s the same with Bl. John XXlll, many of us blamed him for the mess in the Church. He was falsley hailed as the Pope of the modernists. When in fact he was a traditionalist. If we do not see the holiness of Paul Vl its because we are still in a state of confusion. This is what Paul Vl was saying when he spoke those famous words, “I detect the smoke of satan has entered the very house of God”.

Angelo, I’ll be at an Holy Hour of Adoration tonight and I will pray for you.  I want you back grappling these important issues but I desire most of all that you be in the place God designed perfectly for you.  It’s times like these that I wish I was gifted at being humorous.  But I only know 3 jokes.  Maybe I ought to write them out sometime so I can post them.  Do you know any good jokes? 
May God graciously give you His peace that is beyond all understanding.

Joe, I thank you. I used to make a Holy Hour daily before the Blessed Sacrament for years, but with this illness I spend most of my time in bed now. I get very frustrated at times. In confession the priest recently told me that by this frustration I am blocking God’s graces as this could be a meritorious time for me. As for humour, I have tried to be funny but it does’nt work too well for me. I see you do have a sense of humour, so you want me back here to keep “grappling” these issues. I’ll explain now why I understand about why many Traditionalists do not want the canonization of Paul Vl. I am 53, when I was 15 I started studying and practicing my Catholic faith seriously. I learned about God and his Church from good books written before V2, mainly from “Tan Books”. I fell in love with the Church. then at 17 I joined the Charismatic movement, I was cushed at learning the Church I fell in love with was no more. All they spoke of was, “Vatican ll, the spirit of Vatican ll, changes, renewal, reform, updating ect… They spoke out against Traditionalists, made Latin seem like a mortal sin, looked down upon obedience to the Pope, knocked Our Lady out of the way, denying the Real Presence. They praised Vatican ll and hailed John XXlll as the champion of doing away with the Old Church and Vatican ll was the New Church. All to the point that when they would say these things they would make me literaly cringe. They assured me the Council wanted everyone to be a charismatic. When I told them that Paul Vl was saying the opposite as they, Then they wanted me out. Then came a traditional priest to our parish in 1978, he told me of the heresies of the charismatics and ordered me to get out of it. Even he blamed John XXlll and Paul Vl for the mess. Mother Angelica herself said that she blamed John XXlll for years. After his beatification I got to read who he really was, a Traditionalist. So the reason I understand is because I have been there and back.

Joe, I prayed very much to see God’s will in Vatican ll, I knew the Church could not err. I learned that from pre-vatican ll books. The immense love I had and have for the Church caused to me to suffer so much that it ruined my health. A priest refers to this type of suffering as “Dry Martyrdom”. Along the way these past 37 years or so I found bits and pieces of truth at a time. I began little by little to realize V2 was not the problem, it was the smoke of satan causing people to misinterpret the Council, without reading a single page of it. There are still things I am “grappling” with, but I put all in God’s hands. When I read the book “Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words” at age 17, the first apparition of Our Lady on May 13, 1917 made an impression on me. I thought of making of myself a “sacrifice to God in reparation for sins committed against him and in supplication for the conversion of poor sinners” but I dreaded the idea of suffering. This idea of making this offering gnawed my conscience for 3 days. I reluctantly but sincerely made the offering. And God accepted it. I have suffered immensly, my greatest suffering has been that having fallen in love with the Church, witnessing the Church being raped and violated by the modernists has been unbearable. So my faith is very similar to yours. Only that I am realizing that the Council was in fact a Traditional Council. Our Lady fortold this day of schism and schismatics, heresies and heretics. Scripture says that, “Christ learned obedience through from what he suffered”. It has been through all the suffering caused by liberals that I love the Church to the point of death if neccessary, and I am willing to suffer for the salvation of souls. St. Luis of Montfort said which I make his words my own, “The Cross fascinates me, its weight terrifies me.”

Angelo, I’ve not forgotten you today, friend.  A new schedule has started and I’ll be back ASAP.  May God give you an arm load of grace.

Angelo,  There have been 17 illegitimate councils and 41 antipopes in the history of the Church.  Of course Christ’s Church does not err.  That does not change these FACTS.

Angelo, you saying the V-II council is traditional does not make it traditional.  The ambiguities of the porous- pastoral language of the documents have some traditional concepts.  The periti turned their back on tradition and wrote in a manner that created a new foundation for a new religion and a new church.  I recognize there are many smoke- screen pre-Vat 2 references.  Have you read anything in regards to the writers of Vat 2 documents?

St. Luis of Montfort said which I make his words my own, “The Cross fascinates me, its weight terrifies me.”

Where did you pick this one up, Angelo?

Angelo you said, “Scripture says that, “Christ learned obedience through from what he suffered”.  For three years, Christ was the personal teacher to his apostles.  He was present from the beginning as described in Genesis.  Are you quoting from a satanic bible?
You said, “A priest refers to this type of suffering as “Dry Martyrdom”.
A legitimate priest would never approve of what you’ve described.  You’ve given me a line, Angelo

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/

Joe, you say there have been 17 illegitimate Councils and 41 anti-popes. I have never heard of any of the 21 Councils as being illegitimate. I have heard of a few anti-popes that the Church recognized as actualy being anti-popes. There are even some today claiming to be the official Pope, the Church does’nt even recognize their silliness. As for Vatican ll the SSPX will recognize it only in the light of Tradition. This is something Pope Benedict XVl has called for, “re-interpreting the Council in the light of Tradition.” The SSPX is now even recognizing the Council as being a Traditional Council. The problem all along is becoming clearer, the mess in the Church today has been caused by liberals who interpreted the Council with much error. As for the words of St. Montfort, he wrote them in the booklet called “Friends of the Cross”, its meaning is very deep, St Paul in his Letters speaks of this great mystery. A priest used to say, “You will never receive anything from God except through the price of pain.”

Joe, “Dry Martyrdom” is a Traditional phrase in the Church. Martyrdom by Blood is when one literaly sheds his blood for Christ and his Church. Dry Martyrdom is a sort of death by immense suffering for Christ and his Church. I thought you were a Traditionalist, and you did’nt know this? The words from scripture, “Christ learned obedience through from what he suffered” Is a great mystery we are all called to share with Christ. Jesus said, “If you wish to be my follower, deny your very self, take up your Cross and come after me” The Cross means suffering, Jesus accomplished everything through suffering, it was through his passion and death on the Cross that he won for us salvation. His death redeemed us. Jesus said, “Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart”. Without Christ’s Passion and Death, he could not possibly have risen from the dead. So in order to rise from the death of sin, first we must die with Christ in order to rise to new life. Through the Cross Christ makes all things new for us. Christ is the “sign of contradiction” the Cross is folly to the world. The world cannot understand how death gives us life. Christ many times spoke of how the seed must die in order to come back to life and bear much fruit. Suffering brings us freedom, newness of life, causes us to be in union with God. Suffering, death, the Cross however you wish to put it, makes us new.

Angelo, there HAve BEEN 17 Illegimate Councils.  There have been 20 (not including the illegimate) general councils and 41 anti-poes in the history of the Church.  “Tumultuous Times” by Francisco and Dominic Radecki pg 584,588 & 592

Angelo, you stated: A priest used to say, “You will never receive anything from God except through the price of pain.”

Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice and set the example.  The protestant designed novus ordo missae lacks any remberances of that bloody scourging of Christ and dying for OUR SINS.  The mocking sacrileges mass has absolutely no sense of gratitute.  Man can choose life only because of what Jesus Christ has done on the Cross is absent.  The People of God are too busy in admiration of their wonderful advancements. God now meets man so it goes with ecumenism and universal salvation.  Things are very twisted and out of order due to the lack of traditional language in the 16 Vatican Two Council documents.

Angelo, you stated:  “The problem all along is becoming clearer, the mess in the Church today has been caused by liberals who interpreted the Council with much error.”
Angelo, the modernists wrote the documents and they were promulgated by Paul VI.  The porous/abiguous language of the V2 documents did not use the scholastic, St. Thomas Aquinas teachings.  In fact, these teachings are detested by the modernists who run the show of the new religion of the new church.

Angelo, you used your ‘sickness’ to be a dry martyrdom.  Not for one minute do I equate dry martrydom for the new religion that has heaped countless tragedies upon families in the world today.  No one is a martyr for the endless list of destructions the new church has caused and still is causing.  The latest headlines are that Milwaukee will be closing over 100 churches before the year 2012 due to shortages of priests.  The “Desire to Destroy” is well on track and undoubtedly doing better than expected.  The novus ordo religion is a dying religion.

Angelo, John XXIII opened the windows to let the modernists into the Church. Paul VI threw out the two years of preparations done by the conservative bishops prior to the V-II council and the periti were well prepared and took over that council.  Have you heard of Fr. Luigi Villa?

Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism by John Daly

The article contradicts the current SSPX party line and “official history,” of course.

But this is all the more reason to send the link to friends affiliated with SSPX — and especially, to younger clergy in SSPX who may never have encountered these statements made by their founder.

Angelo, Nobody is a dry martyr for this:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a015htGoldenCalf1.htm

Joe, Forget eveything I said concerning “Dry Martydom”. For the future I have learned from this not to speak of this mystery in the sense of applying it to myself. Joe, A great moment in the history of the Church is unfolding and you are missing the ship. As for the mystery of suffering I will try to give an understanding of St. Luis of Montfort’s words “The Cross fascinates me”, the Cross or suffering in union with Christ is fascinating because it brings about great graces, understanding, liberation from attachment to sin, joy, peace ect… That is why the Cross is fascinating. As for the words of St. Montfort, “Its weight terrifies me”, this simply means that human nature desires happiness and not suffering. But one accepts the pain of suffering with Christ for a greater end, Union with Christ and eternity with him in heaven. Scripture says, “God chastises us a little. At first there is no cause for rejoicing. But when the chastisement ends, then there is great cause for rejoicing.”

Joe, As for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre I know many hold him in high esteem, I once myself also held him in high esteem. But in truthfulness I find he is a bit confusing. He seemed to be a very undecisive man, saying one thing and constantly changing his mind. He was one of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, he sighned with approval all of its 16 Documents. Then turned around and critisised the very Council of which he himself took part and approved. He was warned by Pope Paul Vl, but he refused to obey the Holy Father and continued speaking out against the Council. This was why he was suspended. He had the Blessing of Pope Paul Vl in training priests in the Traditional manner for the Mass of St. Pius V. Many think wrongly, that he was suspended because of his continued use of the Old Missal, that is not so. In 1987 or 1988 Lefebvre sighned an aggreement with Rome, the Holy Father Bl. John Paul ll was to immediatly Consecrate a Priest a Bishop from the SSPX itself to be the future successor to Lefebvre. Lefebvre for strange reasons decided to Consecrate 4 Bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. Even moments before the Consecration ceremony the Holy Father sent him a personal telegram, not to proceed. Lefebvre was a learned man and he fully knew that his actions would be an act of Formal Schism. But he proceeded and then lamented that he was being persecuted by Rome. Strange!!!

Pope Leo XIII noted this in Satis Cognitum, December 8, 1896:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).—————

Be very careful, Angelo.  All if takes is one word to be a drop of poison.

Concerning the heretics and their heresies that you mention. Do you suppose they began their heresies in the morning and that the Church condemned them in the afternoon and then all of a sudden they came to an adrupt end. Those heresies lasted years before they were crushed. Even after they were crushed these heretics continued until the last one of them died. The heresies of modernism began long before St. Pius X condemned them, St. Pius X condemned that heresy about one hundred years ago. And yet the heresy of modernism continues to rage like a fire out of control in the Church to this day. Lets remember to always pray the Rosary of Our Lady, The Defeater of all Heresies.

Angelo, Sin and concupiscence exists and will until the end of time, but we are not to despair.  God has give us the true Priesthood to give us the Sacraments for the needed graces for this journey.  The most powerful prayer and offering is the Immemorial Latin Mass.  See this site.  I don’t know who produces it, but the point is, that Mass must be said in this manner or it is a mockery to the invisible Head of the Church.
http://www.theholymass.com/index.htm

Joe, The concupiscence of the flesh and the ardor of worldly desires are there as the effects of Original sin. Christ commands us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. Scripture says, “God’s will is your sanctification”, by the Sacraments, prayer, pennance and mortification of the flesh, God grants the grace of purification. Bl. John Paul ll was of the school of St. John of the Cross in Carmelite spirituality. He said that it is possible for us to reach the state of perfection and enjoy the joy that Adam and Eve enjoyed in paradise. Those who reach this state are those who enter Heaven immediatly after the death of the body.

Angelo, Modernism is the heresy of all heresies.  There exists only one Magisterium in the Church with the Roman Pontiff as its mouthpiece when he addresses the universal Church on matters of faith and morals.  All Catholics are bound to them in perpetuity.  It was the work of Pope Pius IX at the Vatican Council One in 1870 with “Pastor Aeternus” who explained the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and it was the same encyclical that ended with:  “Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable.”  Authentic teachings of the Magisterium always retain its value and are not changed.  Councils also define teachings because of heresies (and promulgated by a Pope).  Subsequent councils and popes’ teaching and speaking must contain the same doctrine and the same judgment.  Another discrepancy of the infamous V-II council is universal salvation as in Gaudium et Spes, para.22.  Priests wear black at Requiem Masses; Presbyters wear white.  Conciliarists believe hell got frozen over, I think.

Fr. Matthias Gaudron, a priest of the SSPX specializing in dogmatic theology and author of the book, Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, recently published some remarks on the SSPX’s German District website concerning certain statements made by Bishop Mueller in the past. Fr. Gaudron’s comments conclude with a request to His Excellency.
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_gaudron_on_bishop_mueller_7-6-2012.htm

Joe, First you herald and hail the truth about the Holy Father and his Magisterium. Then you blow him away with that unacceptable statement, “Another discrepency of the infamous V-ll council” You can’t have it both ways, either one is with the Holy Father or one is against him. As for Archbishop Muller, the SSPX is challenging him using the very Documents of Vatican ll. The SSPX is calling on him to reafirm his obedience to the Council, as he in fact has made statements that are contrary to the Second Vatican Council. Which in fact is a Council perfectly in accordance with Scripture and Tradition. Many in the SSPX are now saying that V2 is in fact a Traditional Council. This is what I meant when I said, you were missing out on what is unfolding in the Church at this moment.

Angelo, The “Magisterium” is never mentioned in Vatican Two’s 16 documents to my knowledge.
MR. Muller is being challenged because he denies principles and precepts of what Holy Mother the Church teaches. How could it have anything to do with Vatican II documents considering the documents have over 100 heretical positions?  See this on MR. Muller:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_gaudron_on_bishop_mueller_7-6-2012.htm

Joe, Prove that the “Magisterium” was not mentioned at the Council. All the Council Fathers were of the Holy Fathers Magisterium. The Council Documents contain no errors, it could not and certainly did not. To make the claim that the Council made errors in its 16 Documents is a slap in the face to God the Holy Ghost. Lets not take things that far!

All the Council Fathers were of the Holy Fathers Magisterium.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vaticans-latest-statement-on-rome-sspx-talks#ixzz266BS16Oc
What are you talking about, Angelo?  Bishops DO NOT make up the Magisterium.

Anglo, I’ve proven the Catholic Church does not ‘subsist IN’ is in error; I’ve proven that Religious Liberty is in error; and I’ve proven that universal salvation is in error.  You maintain with audacity that the Holy Ghost makes errors!!??

“Declaration of Resistance to the Vatican Ostpolitik
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira———
Thirty years ago, Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira published his Declaration of Resistance to the Vatican Ostpolitik with communist regimes.

During the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI, the Vatican adopted a tolerant approach toward communist regimes that denied Catholic principles of Faith and social doctrine. This was one of the scandals that marked the post-conciliar era. The last straw that gave rise to Prof. Plinio’s Declaration of Resistance was Archbishop Agostino Casaroli’s visit to Cuba in 1974, and the eulogies of the regime he made in an interview afterward.

Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
With its Ostpolitik with communist countries, the Vatican was sending an unspoken message to Catholics: Stop fighting against Communism.——-

Specifically, that Declaration of Resistance continues to be very opportune. For, in fact, the Vatican Ostpolitik did not disappear with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. Reconciliations with the communist regimes of Russia and other old USSR and “satellites” countries continued to be sought, leaving aside Catholic principles. And, with some few differences, concessions are being made to the governments of Cuba and China.”

Modernists and their progeny, the “new thinkers” started with the nature of man himself to manifest a new religion.  All sorts of convoluted theories and hypotheses have been devised to explain who man is and how he can know his “identity” in this world. It is easy to discover the anti catholic reflections written at different times that were woven together and took form.  Various philosophers and theologians, including numerous Protestant theologians and the usual suspects from the “new theology” in Catholicism (Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner) developed a “synthesis” by which the Protestant and the Orthodox can be brought into some sort of communion with the Catholic Church to produce a new Faith——-hence, the Council of Vatican 2 was called in order to implement the new church and new religion to the horror of many of the bishops present at the council.

The new thinkers who controlled V-II believed that Protestants, including the father of all modern heretics, Martin Luther, have something to “contribute” to understanding how a new “synthesis” can be created to “bridge the gap” between “believers.” Such a view means that the Catholic Church is imperfect.——, that she does not have everything within herself to safeguard and transmit the Deposit of Faith capably without the “insights” of those who reject her teaching authority.  Therefore, they concocted “paradigms” that contradict articles of the Catholic Faith the Church as handed on under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost.

The Mass of 2012 Missal is Now on Vatican’s Presses
The half novus ordo Vatican II Mass and the Mass of 1962 will be replaced as of December 2, 2012. On that date will be the blending of the Traditional Latin Mass with the invalid Novus Ordo service.

Joe, You are fighting a lost cause. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Holy Catholic Church. I am debating heretics on another thread. We are getting nowhere. We are just repeating ourselves. This debate was over a long time ago. God Bless!!!

Angelo, it’s impossible to defend the conciliarist church.  It is dying as planned discouraging millions who believe it is the Catholic Church.  I assure you, Holy Mother the Church is alive and well.

The heresy of americanism and vatican ii

...the central idea behind the founding of the United States and the central idea behind Vatican II have much in common. Extrinsically, this is because both ideas originate in Freemasonry.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/america.htm

John,  Now we are getting somewhere.  Truth is difficult, messy and a great imposition.  Have you read, “Who Is Father Luigi Villa?”  It can be downloaded.  He was mandated by Pope Pius XII to expose Freemasonry in high places.  The most powerful weapon to counteract the service Fr. Villa provided in exposing the infiltration was and still is “SILENCE”.  I’ll check out your sight.  Freemasonry has infected education, as you know.  Once again no major conciliarist pro-life organization will expose the evils imposed upon innocent youth in the U S bishops’ parochial schools.  The “Desire To Destroy” is progressing because good men do NOTHING!!

John, Bishop Williamson’s activities in these next few months should prove to be very interesting.  Thanks for the article.

Joe, This might be of interest to you, check it out. Edward Pentin “Funeral of Cardinal Martini to take place Monday”. There are some anti-Traditionalists we are battling. Come Join the fun.

Frs. Francois Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer Founding the SSPX of the Strict Observance
Based Strictly upon Archbishop Lefebvre’s Traditional Catholic Principles
Which They Say Have Been Abandoned by Bernie Fellay and His Neo-SSPX
Three Other Leading SSPX “Resistance Priests” Have Joined as Founding Fathers
Groups around the World Have Applied to Them for Help and to Offer Help

On September 21, 2012, the announcement came forth like the trumpet of the Apocalypse: a new Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance was founded on August 10, 2012, by the Vienna (Virginia) Declaration. The founding members are five leading priests of the SSPX. 25 more SSPX “resistance priests” have been identified so far and are expected to form the core of the SSPX-SO.

Described in the words of the Declaration as a “united core of priests faithful to the position always maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre,” Frs. Joseph Pfeiffer, Ronald Ringrose, Richard Voigt, David Hewko, and Francois Chazal, coming from various areas around the world, signed the founding documents. Joining the priests in the SSPX-Strict Observance are a number of SSPX religious and laity, to name just a few: Mother Ann-Marie Simoulin, Dom Thomas Aquinas (Benedictines of Brazil), and Dr. David White, who has previously given classes at the SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota.

The five founding fathers have elected Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer as their leader for a term of two years (compared to Fellay’s dictatorial 24 years). The fathers have refused to give up the name “Society of St. Pius X” because “we did not change the message; the official line of the [Neo-]SSPX has changed.” Although the founding fathers note that Fellay has not yet signed any “sellout deal” with Newrome, they publicly “withdraw the exercise of obedience to him for motives of Faith until this crisis is over,” in order for the priests to maintain obedience to God in their sworn Anti-Modernist Oath. Ironically, this was the same Anti-Modernist Oath to God that Fellay himself swore when he entered Major Orders with Archbishop Lefebvre.

The Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance has set up its headquarters at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in the United States, with permanent resident priests and a bank account to receive financial support. The SSPX-SO plans to start a traditional Catholic school at the headquarters and organs of communication. For further information, click on the TRADITIO Network’s Official Traditional Catholic Directory department, and locate the contact information in the chapter, “Traditional Catholic Organizations.”

In addition to the 25 other priests whom Fellay has expelled or threatened to expel from his Neo-SSPX, the SSPX of the Strict Observance has announced that it will welcome “all the priests that Fellay sends them”—sardonically referring to the nearly three dozen priests whom Fellay has expelled, with more to be expelled, from his Neo-SSPX. Frankly, it is wonderful to see that the SSPX-SO has a sense of humor, as Our Lord had so often in Sacred Scripture, instead of the dictatorial, autocratic, humorless Fellay, who is more reminiscent of the corrupt leader of the Jewish Temple, Caiphas, who persecuted the Lord and took a cut of the Temple treasury, or more reminiscent of Judas, who stole from the apostles’ purse and betrayed the Lord.

The founding fathers indicate that anti-Fellay groups have appeared from everywhere, calling for help from the SSPX-SO and offering help to the new organization. The fathers say that it is not easy to cast them out of places that do not belong to Fellay and that they now understand Fellay’s adamant machinations to take legal possession of more and more properties away from the local NSSPX groups. It may well be that Fellay brought in the Jewish fund-raiser and Dresden lawyer Maximilian Krah to give him legal advice on how to do this. The founding fathers are prudent enough to expect that the autocratic Fellay will unleash lawyers against them at some stage, but they say that they are prepared for this.

In a Declaration dated August 10, 2012, the founding fathers of the SSPX-SO stated that the Neo-SSPX crisis remains as long as its head, Bernie Fellay, teaches errors and allows errors to spread, thus dividing the flock. Fellay is “excusing” the Modernist Vatican II Council instead of rejecting it. This Council’s chief advocate remains Benedict-Ratzinger, who, the fathers state, is praising Vatican II continually, insisting that Mohammedans stay Mohammedans, preparing to Novus Ordo-beatify the successor of Josemaria Escriva (the Opus Dei cult leader), continuing to support the Focolari and other Modernist movements, et al…....

This is good news. It takes a load off His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay. He does’nt have to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff is separating itself into protestant nowhere land. Now the SSPX-SO can do us all a favor and warmly invite Archbishop Muller, Cardinal Levada and Cardinal Koch as well as the rest of the, in the way bunch.

Vatican Appoints Heresy-Holding Prelate as Prefect of CDF
      We now have a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Mueller, who himself publicly dissents from certain doctrines of the Faith.
  He does not believe in Our Lady’s Virginity in partu, contrary to the teaching of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium: 57 and the Popes, Councils and Doctors cited in support of that doctrine in the acompanying footnote 10. Mueller’s reduction of this de fide physical miracle to a generic statement about the influence of “grace…on human nature” is the classic demythologizing tactic.
Even more astonishingly, Archbishop Mueller apparently holds a doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist that is Lutheran (at best): the consecrated Species are not the true Body and Blood of Christ in his transfigured (risen) corporality; rather, the Lord just becomes “present” in what remains bread and wine. Mueller’s view seems impossible to distinguish from that condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent (cf. Denzinger 884 = DS 1652).
Pope Paul VI insisted on this dogma in his 1964 Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, and again in what he considered the most important document of his pontificate, the 1968 Solemn Profession of Faith. Here the Holy Father proclaimed:
“Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine” (emphasis added)
This perennial Catholic doctrine is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1374-1377.
Mueller also has sympathies for the liberation theology of his close friend Gustavo Gutierrez. He also believes “Protestants are already members of the Church” - a position that would be clearly contrary to Pius XII’s teaching in Mystici Corporis as to what constitutes “real membership” of Christ’s Church.
http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/catholic/scandals/947-vatican-appoints-heresy-holding-prelate-as-prefect-of-cdf

“The pope’s infallibility does not exclude a sacramental rite favoring heresy,” spoken by Bishop Williamson of the SSPX taken from the ‘Faith In Crises Series’.

Does anyone have any information on this quote?

Pope’s message to Fellay: “Want to re-join Catholic Church? Then accept Vatican II”
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/concilio-18455/

Joe,

Can you provide a texted copy of this series by +Williamson?  His candor is refreshing.

The connection between Fatima, vcii , freemasonry and communism can’t be coincidence.

http://defeatmodernism.com/video-benedict-xv-warns-of-a-new-world-order-while-iranian-president9262012

John, Have you been following the big split with the SSPX?  The SSPX is allowing novus ordo priests in and that makes their Masses very questionable.  As for Bishop Williamson’s quote, I do not have any information.  It was given to me by a friend who got it from a cartridge tape possibly recorded in the ‘80s.  I dare say no pope can justify heresy or he is not a pope.  The connections are well planned, it appears to destroy Catholicism.  Our Blessed Mother instructed us to wear a brown scapular and pray the Rosary daily in order to stop the spread of evil.  We are a stiff-necked people for the most part and now paying the consequences.  I look forward to viewing the site you referenced.

A key feature of the Second Vatican Council was its unprecedented suggestion of the idea that all other religions are more or less different branches of the same Universal Church of Christ. To actually assert this would have been heretical, of course; but the insinuation seems to have been engendered by the presence of Protestant delegates who were invited to the Council as consultants on matters of liturgy and doctrine (Michael Davies, Pope John’s Council, 1977). Their names for the record were: Canon Jasper, Dr. McAfee Brown, Professor George Lindbeck, Professor Oscar Cullman, Pastor Rodger Schutz, and Archdeacon Pawley (among others).
Unfortunately, these emissaries of false religions played a significant role in shaping various aspects of at least some of the Council documents. Augustine Cardinal Bea, who headed up the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, boasted of the contribution made by the Protestant envoys in formulating the Council’s decree on Ecumenism, for example. “I do not hesitate to assert that they have contributed in a decisive way to bringing about this result.” And according to Professor B. Mondin of the Pontifical Propaganda College for the Missions, delegates such as Dr. Cullman made “a valid contribution” to drawing up the Council documents.
Because of their contribution, the documents introduced novel language such as, “In prayer services ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.” (Unitatis Redintegratio) And what are we to make of this perfidious blunder from the same document: “The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means of salvation.” This contradicts the Church’s dogma that the Holy Spirit works only through the Catholic religion, outside of which there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
The Council seems to have been intent on rehabilitating the cause of Martin Luther, as Catholics discovered in the 1980 Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commission, which grew out of Vatican II: “Among the ideas of the Second Vatican Council, we can see gathered together much of what Luther asked for, such as the following: description of the Church as ‘The People of God’ (a democratic and non-hierarchic idea); accent on the priesthood of all baptized; the right of the individual to freedom of religion.” 
Luther founded the Protestant religion on the false premise that Christ died on the Cross to dispense with our obligations to God (Ten Commandments) so that we may sin freely without worry. Consider his famous quote from August of 1521: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly… No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (From Luther’s famous letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, Luther’s Works Vol. 48, pp 281-282)
Herein is the crux and foundation of Protestantism which asserts that Jesus already paid the price, so that our works will neither save nor condemn us. This was a key error of the Reformation that was condemned by the Council of Trent, yet Vatican II asserts that the Holy Spirit works through such a religion and even declares its liturgies and ceremonies to be the manifestation of God’s workings within their institution:
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation. It follows that the separated Churches and communities… have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.”  [UR-3)
Equally disturbing is how the Council seems to attribute to the workings of the Holy Spirit this ecumenical movement to unite all religions into a one-world religion. “Among our separated brethren there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called ‘ecumenical’... the one visible Church of God.” [UR 2]
The one visible Church of God is the Roman Catholic Church established under the authority of Peter and guided by the popes for the past 2000 years. It is dogmatically taught that none can be saved outside this Church. “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, 1854)
The Council’s design to ecumenically unite all religions seems to have been foreshadowed in the writings of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that “the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council” in a move “to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state.” (Bishop Rudolph Graber PhD, Athanasius and the Church in our Time, 1974)
Canon Roca speaks of a New World Order to come (Novus Ordo Seclorum) which would war against the Order of Tradition. The Second Vatican Council was an opening for this Masonic thread to weave itself into the Church’s fabric, thus cloaking the Mystical Body with a new garb. Though the Council was started with the best resolves, the storm of conspiracy rushed in, causing the pope to eventually cry out that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God.” (Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972)
Vatican II indeed was that fissure through which the infernal enemy first slipped into the Church. The adversary knew that if he could get his foot in the door he could use the Council to decree error if his agents could simply gain control of the Council’s drafting apparatus, which unfortunately they were able to do (Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber).
So with the 50th Anniversary of Vatican II approaching this October 11, it behooves the Catholic hierarchy to take a second look at the Council and how it was used by the enemies of religion to steer the Barque of Peter onto a new and destructive course. The Council was convoked with good intent, but the doors were opened to outsiders and those alien to the Faith, and because the Council was not dogmatic in nature it left an opening for these agents to plant their doctrinal and liturgical time bombs into the Council documents. 
The only recourse for liberating the Church from this quagmire of relativism is to confess that a mistake was made at the Second Vatican Council, and the approaching 50th Anniversary of the Council is an appropriate time for the hierarchy to do just that. “The truth will make you free.” (John 8:32) Let them heed the exhortation of St. Paul to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Pope Benedict XVI accentuates this very point in his April 30, 2011 document on the Tridentine Mass: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well.”  (Universae Ecclesia)
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0815-martin-vatican-II-turns-50.htm

Peter, I was almost rejoicing with your post, but then something quickly deflated my joy.  Some pertinent information was left out.  The following is no means the sum total of what you skillfully avoided.

You neglected to mention Cardinal Casaroli who was the architect of the Ostpolik of Paul VI, opening the doors for dialogue with Communists as Catholics were being murdered and/or rotting in communist prisons.  Communists were present at the Vatican 2 council because of the promise to be silent regarding Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on Atheistic Communism.  Communism was and remains one of the biggest threats to world peace.          Manning Johnson authored the book “Color, Communism and Common Sense” after leaving the Communist Party.  He testified in 1953 before the House un-American Activities Committee regarding the Communist Agenda and the Catholic Church:
“... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the (Catholic) Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. …. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries….”

Bella Dodd’s testimony and “School of Darkness” has been covered over as well as AA1025==== .  One question I would like answered is when Bella Dodd testified that she had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate Catholic seminaries and religious orders, why was there not a cleaning house and a list of excommunications?  Where is the list of men she assisted? This is a loud silence and absence!

Joe, thank you for the partial rejoicing. The link at the bottom , written by Dave Martin of the Remnant newspaper, is provided so I cannot take the credit for skillfully avoiding anything. But I agree with you, Bella Dodd and the communist agenda is a major part of the present misery in the church. She has testified before Congress about her role. She was stunned after entering the church to discover high ranking cardinals from her role of formation of these communists. And I believe that I read that the communists were elated at how far the church had been infiltrated by them.

Peter, it was the Freemasons that spoke of their unexpected surge of progress.  Do you think I’ll be getting an apology any time soon for the Catholic Church built by my ancestors in the early 19th century, confiscated and sold off by Rome about 10 years ago? 
Seriously, Peter, why wasn’t action taken to remove the men Bella Dodd assisted to be destructive within the Catholic Church?  Someone knows the names of these men, don’t you think?  After her shocking testimony, what did happend, do you know?

this is shocking news:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-students-executed-by-boko-haram-in-nigeria-believers-pray-for-change-of-heart-82646/

OK, where are the men who will stand up and defend the Catholic Church?

I”…. the new Pope stated he would explicitly mention “the commitments of the Council,” including that of “not talking about communism (1962).” Madiran stresses that the date in parentheses is significant as it refers directly to the Metz agreement between Tisserant and Nikodim.

The Vatican would firmly adhere to the agreement during the council, insisting that Vatican II remain politically neutral. Even a petition of more than 400 council fathers to include a formal condemnation of Communism in the decrees was rejected (surprisingly, Bishop Karol Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II, was one of those who voted against it)…..”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Why Second Vatican Council Avoided ‘Communism’

“…Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place…
Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1).

And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?....
…..a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:
“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5)….

” the Cardinal Secretary of State, under the pseudonym of Stato, tells about the understanding made by the Holy See with the Kremlin from 1942 to our days:
“Stato reminded his Venerable Colleagues that he had been with the present Holy Father at His Holiness’s two meetings with the Soviet negotiator, Anatoly Adamshin, the most recent of which had been earlier this very year of 1981. His Holiness had given the Soviets a guarantee that no word or action, either by His Holiness or the Polish Hierarchy or Solidarity’s leaders, would violate the Moscow-Vatican Pact of 1962.
….Paul VI, talked directly with Joseph Stalin’s representative. Those talks were aimed at dimming Pius XII’s constant fulminations against the Soviet dictator and Marxism. Stato himself had been privy to those talks. He had also been privy to the conversations between Montini and the Italian Communist Party leader, Palmiro Togliatti, in 1944 .... “Stato offered to supply reports from the Allied Office of Strategic Services about the matter, beginning, as he recalled, with OSS Report JR-1022 of August 28, 1944” (8).
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a007ht.htm

Joe ,Thanks for the article.  I would not have expected a neo catholic reporter to cover something as “shocking” as this. I’m sure you realize that this is not well known amongst catholics.  I won’t hold my breath to see if the Register picks this one up, even though Pentin is a contributor to it.  Too controversial.  As far as I know, only the “schismatic”  traditionalists were the ones who dared open this can of worms.  It would seem to cast a “shadow” on the council, wouldn’t it!  Let’s hope more is steadily revealed about the council, as far as who and what really were behind the scenes.  Proponents of the council always acknowledge the authenticity of it but never venture into the omissions , communism being one.

Look who is talking about giving away the Catholic Faith:
PARIS (Reuters)- The Vatican plans no more talks with rebel Catholic traditionalists who insist the Church must revoke modernizing reforms launched five decades ago, Pope Benedict’s main doctrinal official has told a German interviewer.
Archbishop Gerhard Mueller, who took up his post as head of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in July,….
“We cannot give away the Catholic faith in negotiations,” Mueller said according to a pre-broadcast report by NDR.
“There will be no compromises here,” he said. “I think there now will be no new discussions.”
The German-born Pope Benedict and the CDF, which the pontiff led for over two decades under Pope John Paul, will now have to decide what to do next with the SSPX, Mueller said.
The Swiss-based SSPX broke away from Rome in 1988 in protest against the 1960s Council reforms that replaced Latin with local languages at Mass, forged reconciliation with Jews and admitted that other religions may also offer a path to salvation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/05/us-pope-traditionalists-idUSBRE8940EK20121005

It’s interesting when one has clearly contradicted an article(s) of the Catholic Faith defend themselves by saying “I’ve written this or that book(s)” never apologizing for being a detractor of Catholicism.  Muller is one of these with a tainted past.  Who will apologize to all the Saints, Martyrs and Virgins for this modernist man who is confounding and confusing the world?  Clearly Muller’s purposed intention is have no connection with the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
1. Bishop Gerhard Muller Welcomes Punk Girls - Tradition In Action
www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A477-Muller-
1. Bishop Muller’s Denies the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady by ...
www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a096_Muller_OL.htm
Jul 11, 2012 – Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller is friend of Liberation Theology and holder of unorthodox views, such as his denial of the perpetual Virginity of ...

Moderator in http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings will not allow the above posting.  Facts are truly provoking and more shocking than any fiction ever written.

... “Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it.“3 Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian schismatic representatives, many bishops were in prison and innumerable Faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
...
In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and bishops solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Msgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.9
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr73/cr73pg32.asp?printer

The church had been infiltrated by communists per Bella Dodd, the Pact of Metz is a reality , communism is still alive and has plans for world dominion - has Russia “really” been consecrated, given that communists are still in the church today and not likely to concede their power, with the ultimate goal of destroying the faith of the RCChurch?

Peter, have you any idea of what happened to the list of men Bella Dodd assisted in to the seminaries of the Catholic Church to destroy from within?  Has there even been any speculations of who these men are?

What I’ve read was Bishop Sheen told her not to name these men in public but rather make a list of them which he then turned over to the Vatican. Alice Hildebrand said that there is more information that has not been released to the public and we should pray that this is done. That was all she said.

Angelo, many of my posts are denied by moderator.  Facts are provoking.  Here is some proof of changes none can deny.
These are old statistics and I would like more current:
There were 49,000 seminarians in 1965. By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700 - a 90 percent decrease.
At the grade school level, there were 10,503 parochial schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002.
The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million”.

Yet, Angelo you keep saying nothing has changed.  Conciliarism is a dying denomination as planned.  The plan is to bring the pre-Vatican II Church into the post vat 2 church and then into the modernist one world religion.  Signs of it are every where.  Even you Angelo are an impediment to its direction.

“...As for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, It was done by Bl. John Paul ll, on March 25, 1984…”

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/62/1059
Edmund Mazza, a professor at Azusa Pacific University, Calls for Consecration of Russia .

Some are becoming convinced that Russia still isn’t there yet, despite what Rome says. It certainly appears that that nation isn’t.

Russia will be converted when enough people are wearing the brown scapular and praying the Rosary as Our Blessed Mother asked.

I know of a priest who as a child had to flee Vietnam with his family in 1975 the day before the communist invasion of that country.  A conversion of Russia will not take place with the current ‘bishops’ of the day until they renounce the errors of communism (and until they are legitimately consecrated).  See the facts.  True Catholics do not shake hands with this powerful destructive force.  It rules—-  and controls— and will until all of Vatican II is renounced, Catholics wear the Brown Scapula and pray the Rosary daily.

The Pact of Metz
Atila Sinke Guimarães

Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place………

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a007ht.htm

Confirmed:
EXPULSION IN PROCESS
Confirmed by Bishop Williamson himself:
Bp. Bernard Fellay has ordered His Excellency to:
• Shut down web site dinoscopus.org
• Quit publishing Eleison Comments
• Make public apology for (alleged) harm caused to SSPX and Church
• Commit to making reparation for remainder of days

Upon failure to comply with all of these conditions, expulsion will be official as of Tues., October 23, 2012
Source: True Restoration Blog, “The Latest from London” (10/16/12)
Meanwhile: Swiss News Agency Kipa reports Fr. Alain Lorans, press speaker for the SSPX, knows nothing of an imminent expulsion of Bp. Williamson (Source - German).

In September, Novus Ordo Watch had already reported on the expulsion of Bp. Williamson being prepared, confirmed by SSPX priest Fr. Andreas Steiner http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive2012-09.htm), after Williamson had administered the sacrament of confirmation in Brazil without the knowledge or approval of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Bp. Fellay.

Restoration Radio XIII: The Second Vatican Council

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/10/20/restoration-radio

You’ve got to see it to believe it…

JAW DROP:
Liturgical Freak Show in Brazil
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm

SSPX General House issues Communique:

EXPELLED

Former SSPX Bp. Richard Williamson

Official Press Statement Here (DICI)

Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, has expelled Bp. Richard Williamson from the fraternity, for “having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors”, the SSPX General House in Menzingen announced Wednesday, October 24. The expulsion had already occurred on October 4, but Williamson was then given one last ultimatum to submit to Bp. Fellay, which expired on October 23.

Bp. Williamson, for his part, has announced he will publish an open letter in which he will ask Bp. Fellay to resign from his post as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, the communique from Menzingen states.
•October 24 Communique from the Society of St. Pius X General House, Switzerland (English)
•October 24 Communique in French
•October 24 Communique in Spanish
•October 24 Communique in German
•Bp. Williamson’s Web Site, Dinoscopus.org

Related Links:
•Video (June 2012): Bp. Williamson calls for the removal of Bp. Fellay as SSPX Superior General: “They’ve got to get rid of Bp. Fellay”
•Commentary: Michael Hoffman on the Removal of Bp. Williamson
•“Alternative SSPX” forms to resist Bp. Fellay: Five Priests Band Together
•“Man of Many Contradictions”: Web Site lists alleged changes in position of Bp. Fellay
novusordowatch.org/

Bp. Williamson Responds to Bp. Fellay, Refuses to Accept Expulsion:

“A Member I Remain”

“Not All to be Wiped Out with
One Stroke of a Pen”

‘You should Resign
Rather than Expel Me’

Open Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X
dated October 19, 2012
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm

An analysis of the evidence relating to an agreement between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Conciliar Church of Rome

Posted on October 29, 2012

I seek to analyse the evidence relating to a possible agreement between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Conciliar Church. I conclude that many of the Superiors of the Society are prepared to enter into an agreement with the Conciliar Church, where that agreement is a practical agreement (only), without a doctrinal resolution and the terms of which would mean that the Society would be subject to the Conciliar Church.

I conclude that the conduct of many of the Superiors of the Society in relation to a possible agreement with the Conciliar Church represents a staggering change from the Society’s principles and direction.  I conclude that the position adopted by many of the Superiors of the Society in relation to such an agreement is contrary to the position of the Society’s founder, Archbishop Lefebvre.

Archbishop Lefebvre said the following words on 6 September 1990[1]:

“Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbour’s field…they look to our enemies on the other side.  “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church.  So they are doing the devil’s work. They are now saying: “So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.”  But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.

Archbishop Lefebvre said the following words in July or August 1989[2]:

Question: Some people say,“Yes, but Archbishop Lefebvre should have accepted an agreement with Rome because once the Society of St. Pius X had been recognized and the suspensions lifted, he would have been able to act in a more effective manner inside the Church, whereas now he has put himself outside.”

Archbishop Lefebvre: Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church – what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.

Archbishop Lefebvre said the following words on 30 June 1988 [3]:

It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call “Operation Survival,” operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed “Operation Suicide”. There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.

I invite you to read my “book”: Is this Operation Suicide?

————————————————————————————————————————

[1] Archbishop Lefebvre’s address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on 6 September 1990, refer http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm

[2] http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm

[3] In his sermon at the time of the Episcopal Consecrations of the four bishops in 1988, in reference to the agreement he signed and then withdrew in May 1988 http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm

http://isthisoperationsuicide.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/an-analysis-of-the-evidence-relating-to-an-agreement-between-the-society-of-saint-pius-x-and-the-conciliar-church-of-rome-2/

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page60/no_rome_sspx_accord.html

Vennari as well as others have pointed out what is not discussed openly as to why the church has gone in the direction that it has, and who is behind the scenes influencing.  The fingers do point in the direction of jewish influence and others in their efforts to destroy the church. As St. Padre Pio stated : The Jews are enemies of God and foes of our holy religion. It’s not to be taken lightly.

Peter, Have you studied who the men were that influenced many errors in the Vatican II 16 documents - such as religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and sex education (s.e. is in every U S Bishops School without exception) plus many more?  Have you studied the novus ordo missae designed by 6 protestants?  Have you studied the changes in the Seven Sacraments?  Even the SSPX do not know which one of their new ‘priests’ are legitimately ordained.  What does Vennari say about Paul VI promulgating Vatican II and the novus ordo missae?

These are rhetorical questions but to answer the first 3 , no I have not studied these items. I have read some about them but not enough. I have read some on the possibility of priests not being ordained properly, some sacraments being invalid. I have read some of Vennari’s works but I understand even he hasn’t turned sede. Some sede sites are very good at pointing out the vast number of problems, but I am not ready to concede that we are without a pope. I do not know enough to debate but I also know a lot of people with vasts more knowledge than I have not gone sede either, and this includes +Lefebvre.

Peter, you are straddling a wide fence and souls are at great risk because of your posture.  See the shocking results of last week’s election:
” Despite Attacks on Catholics, They Vote to Re-Elect Obama “
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/07/despite-attacks-on-catholics-they-vote-to-re-elect-obama/

You’re comfort and cozy indecision is willful, I fear, and dangerous for all of us.

So you fear the worst for +Lefevbre’s soul because he didn’t call jpii an antipope?

peter,  Do you accept the ‘recognize and resist’ posture?  Where is that Catholic doctrine?

“...only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed…”

(Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, par. 22)

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/catholic/sedevacantism/124-antidote-to-the-disease-of-sedevacantism-

peter, willful disobedience to the Magisterial Teachings of the Holy See handed on by Sacred Tradition is Hell, Fire and Damnation - far more serious than what you may consider a disease.

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/catholic/sedevacantism/135-the-insanity-of-sedevacantism

peter, why has the the 2nd Vatican Council undertaken so many reforms?

Author Francis del Sarto analyzes recent developments in the never-ending story of the negotiations between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X, showing that, whether they reconcile with Rome or not, the SSPX position on the Pope is dangerous and not compatible with Roman Catholic teaching.