docuмent 1 point 68 -  This could be a big one. "the mother of jesus continues in this present world as the image and first flowering of the church as she is to be perfected in the world to come.  Likewise, mary shines forth on earth, until the day of the lord shall come as a sign of sure hope and solace for the pilgrim people of God."

How can it be that mary is not yet perfected?  Mary was assumed into heaven and crowned as queen.  She is in heaven, and is therefore perfected.  This says she is still with us on earth and to be perfected in the world to come.  This seems like clear cut heresy to me.  

"the mother of jesus continues in this present world as the image and first flowering of the church as she is to be perfected in the world to come.  Likewise, mary shines forth on earth, until the day of the lord shall come as a sign of sure hope and solace for the pilgrim people of God.

Could the "she" here mean the church, rather than Mary? That the church is to be perfected in the world to come? The church is always spoken of in the feminine form "she"; like a ship is always referred to as "she". Either way, it's poorly worded and confusing. If it is meant to speak of Our Lady, then I agree that it smells heretical. 

1st mansion tennant and forlorn - It think that 1st mansion points out something important.  I think it is under that auspice(the church as she) that this overall statement is made.  However, it is worded such as to suggest another view.  And, that is problematic.  And, that other view happens to be in line with a diabolical theology(feminism) on the rise in our antichristian society.  So, I still think there is a correlation.  It will be necessary to compare this with the latin, and to proceed from there.  

Why was a Muslim praying the rosary? It seems to me that said Muslim was interested in Catholicism and seeked the truth, and perhaps Mary lent him aid to try and bring him to the Catholic fold.

It is because the Holy Virgin is the mother of everybody.  

Here is a time bomb.  "Explicit intention"  1.14 - Catechumens who moved by the holy spirit seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the church are by that very intention join to her".  What exactly is an explicit intention?  Intention is something that occurs in the mind and or heart.  And, these are interior matters, not exterior matters.  And, something that is explicit is something that is exterior.  So, an explicit intention cannot be.  It does not exist.  So, I think this is a diabolical phrase/concept.  

Next, the traditional explicit intention would be manifested in the shedding of ones blood or martyrdom.  The blood is an interior matter.  So, that could be accurately described as an explicit intention.  However, we are not to seek martyrdom.  So, to add to the problem of new ambiguous contradictory language, they are promoting seeking martyrdom.  Which, we are taught by the church scripture and tradition not to do.  But, this "moved to seek" phrase is also not clear.  That does not even imply the shedding of blood.  And, death(martydom of catechumen or death preventing reception of the sacrament) is the traditional barometer signifying when and how the church does allow such cases to be "joined to her".  But, "moved to seek" does not signify that really at all.  So, it is not even close to an adequate example of the three baptisms/true baptism of desire.  

Explicitness and implicitness have nothing whatsoever to do with externality and internality.
If it is my will to eat this apple here, being cognisant of this as an object of thought, it is an explicit intention, whether or not I announce the fact or ever make it known.
Something implicit is something that is implied - I’m not sure that an “implicit intention” is an intention at all, but more a consequence of an explicit intention - maybe if I intend to get from point A to point B, not knowing that I need to take the bus, taking the bus is an implicit intention - though there is no guarantee I will intend to take it when I find out I need to!

doc. revelation chapter 6.26 - In this way therefore through the reading and study of the sacred books, let the world of the lord "run" and be glorified.  This is a perfect example of the ambiguous and novel language embraced by this council.  Let the word of the lord run.  What exactly does that mean?  Only the modernist knows.  Because, the modernist is divided.  The modernist is ambiguous.  And, that's the problem.   

docuмent on the liturgy

"Proper disposition" replaces sanctifying grace. 

Example of contradiction - "The priest can never innovate when it comes to the liturgy, unless the good of the church genuinly requires it".  

"Latin can constitute a grave obsticle in the divine office Liturgy.  Really, how can that be so.  How can latin possibly constitute a grave obstacle?

This docuмent clearly forshadows the changing and revising of all of the sacraments.  I do not know how a traditionalist bishop could ever sign this docuмent.  

simpler melodies for small churches.  Remember this is within the context of having all of the congregation sing and chant.  And, it emphasizes simple for small churches.  And, that suggests more complex for large churches.  However, in practice, this is the worst thing you could do for large congregation singing.  In large churches, complex singing by mass amatuer/beginner/awful singers will never work and will sound terrible.  In small churches, you could actually potentially sing complex hymns with the whole congregation because the small space will limit the distortion that distance will create with sound waves so on so forth.  So, here they have it backwards, and they emphasize it as such.  

Flip this on its head, if it is just chant singing done by a choir, simpler hyms would be better for smaller churches because they do not have the resources to accomodate complex hymns for the choir.  That usually requires professionals, and only in a big city with big church and big church funds can a professional choir normally be supported.  So, it is all backwards here.  

This docuмent actually rejects the repugnant art that we see so common in vatican 2!  ch 3 124 "Let bishops carefully exclude from the house of god and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by their distortion of forms or by lack of artistic worth, be mediocrity or by pretense."

I forgot to mention another passage about personified evil. "Man sinned at the urging of personified evil".  

"God who probes the heart, awaits him(man) there".  There is the modernist god waiting for man in their heart, and welling up from their.  

ch 1 15 church today.  Here is something.  It speaks of the "depths of conscience man detects as a law which he does not impose upon himself".  That sounds an awful lot like the "depths of the subconscious" condemned in the anti modernist oath.  Lets see what v2 has to say.  "Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically, do this, shun that."  If the voice of this so called conscience speaks to the heart, then that is the "subconscience" that the oath condemns.  

The "Living and mature faith is one trained to see the difficulties clearly and to master them".  This sounds a lot like what the antimodernist oath condemned concerning the will trained to morality.  

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. [/color]