Let me count the ways........................




B16 opens the so-called Year of Faith today.



During this Year of Faith we'll likely be saddled with yet another conspicuous
amalgamation of liturgy, a hybrid of the Novus Ordo Nonsense with the TLM in
a possible "new edition" of the 1962 missal.  All the major liturgical changes
have been reserved for Advent in the past 50 years, so why not this year?  
And why not call it the 2012 Missal?  Well, one of the errors of Russia is
subterfuge:  in this application, don't choose a title that will not be to your
greatest advantage, even if it is a lie, or, if you can choose a title that in itself
accomplishes more, regardless of truth, then JUST DO IT!  . . . . . . . . . (no Nike!)


Note: not Year of THE Faith. No, no, no. That would be obviously "unecuмenical."
Year of Faith. What faith, pray tell?  Well, so that a Hindu can be a better Hindu,
and a Mohammetan a better Mohammetan, and a Zionist a better Zionist, and
a Lutheran a better Lutheran, and an atheist a better atheist and an animist a
better animist, of course, this Year of Faith is for everyone to be a better
whatever-it-is-you-are.  How about satanist: did I leave out satanist? Yes, I did.
but maybe I shouldn't.  What do you think?



This is the day that +Fellay is going to do the backpedal ordinations, but not
in person.  Last I heard +de Galarreta was going to do them, in France (even
though his first language is Spanish).  Why not +de Mallerais, whose first language
is French?  I hope I don't have to explain that one.  You see ......... oh, never mind.



This is also the day that USED to be the Feast of the Divine Maternity of Mary.
But in their misplaced, so-called "zeal," the wreckovationists post-deplorable-
Vatican-II uprooted the Divine Maternity AND the Feast of the Circuмcision --
which had been a UNIVERSAL Holy Day of Obligation for the Universal Church
for I don't know how many centuries -- and replaced the latter with the former,
so to speak, well, actually, renaming it, "Mary, Mother of God," another as-it-were
concession to the Eastern Church.  Oh, what a tangled web we weave...



This is also the day one obscure Carlos Evaristo in 1992 on the 30th anniversary
of the deplorable Opening Speech, managed to sneak a private interview in
Portuguese with the elderly Sister Lucia of the Immaculate Conception in Coimbra,
Portugal, to evoke a scandalous denial of her lifetime Message of Fatima.  His
consequent booklet, actually a "reconstruction" of the interview based on the
recollection of two the witnesses who could not understand Portuguese, reporting
on Sister's abandonment of 75 years of absolute consistency was lapped up and
wallowed in by Conciliarists as if it were fulfillment of prophesy (Cf. II Pet. ii. 22).



This is also the day the same "creepy" guy managed to obtain a SECOND
ostensibly inexplicable "interview" with the elderly sister in 1993, the 31st
anniversary of the deplorable Opening Speech.  (This has a vague evocation
of the "31st of October," which is "Reformation Day" for Lutherans, and Halloween
in the USA, and the day satanists worldwide consider the "veil that separates
our world from the other world" the "thinnest," therefore the day when spells,
curses and incantations are the most powerful.)  This time, his new booklet would
quietly abandon the failed lies of the previous booklet, and would fine-tune
some of the others. Oh, what a tangled web we weave...





What else happened on October 11th?

Maybe what we should do is study our catechisms - and pray for God's will tobe done
 

October 11th is the 50th Anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council.  So, has one of the most famous periti of that Council, our Pope, placed the beginning of the Church Year on that "illustrious" date?

Our Lady of Fatima, please pray for us.

Yes, and those those herectics occupy our Catholic Churches and schools while we hold the true Faith by a saint forget his name.

It also shows that they will never admit that they made a mistake ..that vatican II is a mistake.  

The new evangelsim is not learned from our saints but is made up by liberals to welcome All to the table including gαys, lesbians women priestess, etc. and now those "herectics" of sspx.  (that is what they think of us)

.
All peace and love for everyone but traditional catholicism.

Even their own George WEigle  has written that the "Church needs to go back to Its roots."  Vatican II is Catholic lite.

50 years of vatican II and 75 year anniversary of destruction to local diocese. i

The Tridentine Rie Mass, Sacraments and Catholic Faith for which our ancestors were persecuted for.  The Mass of the Cristeros too.

 

Don't know how I could have missed this; it was dated 2 August 2012:


L'Osservatore Romano








Fifty years ago, on 11 October 1962, Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council in St Peter's Basilica

It was a splendid day,
Benedict XVI recalls

It was a splendid day on 11 October 1962 when the Second Vatican Council opened with the solemn procession into St Peter’s Basilica in Rome of more than two thousand Council Fathers. In 1931 Pius XI had dedicated this day to the feast of the Divine Motherhood of Mary, mindful that 1,500 years earlier, in 431, the Council of Ephesus had solemnly recognized this title for Mary in order to express God’s indissoluble union with man in Christ. Pope John XXIII had chosen this day for the beginning of the Council so as to entrust the great ecclesial assembly, which he had convoked, to the motherly goodness of Mary and to anchor the Council’s work firmly in the mystery of Jesus Christ. It was impressive to



               
               The procession of the Pope and the
                 Synodal Fathers into the Basilica



see in the entrance procession bishops from all over the world, from all peoples and all races: an image of the Church of Jesus Christ which embraces the whole world, in which the peoples of the earth know they are united in his peace.

It was a moment of extraordinary expectation. Great things were about to happen. The previous Councils had almost always been convoked for a precise question to which they were to provide an answer. This time there was no specific problem to resolve. But precisely because of this, a general sense of expectation hovered in the air: Christianity, which had built and formed the Western world, seemed more and more to be losing its power to shape society. It appeared weary and it looked as if the future would be determined by other spiritual forces. The sense of this loss of the present on the part of Christianity, and of the task following on from that, was well summed up in the word “aggiornamento” (updating). Christianity must be in the present if it is to be able to form the future. So that it might once again be a force to shape the future, John XXIII had convoked the Council without indicating to it any specific problems or programmes. This was the greatness and at the same time the difficulty of the task that was set before the ecclesial assembly.

The various episcopates undoubtedly approached the great event with different ideas. Some of them arrived rather with an attitude of expectation regarding the programme that was to be developed. It was the episcopates of Central Europe – Belgium, France and Germany – that came with the clearest ideas. In matters of detail, they stressed completely different aspects, yet they had common priorities. A fundamental theme was ecclesiology, that needed to be studied in greater depth from a Trinitarian and sacramental viewpoint and in connection with salvation history; then there was a need to amplify the doctrine of primacy from the First Vatican Council by giving greater weight to the episcopal ministry. An important theme for the episcopates of Central Europe was liturgical renewal, which Pius XII had already started to implement. Another central aspect, especially for the German episcopate, was ecuмenism: the shared experience of nαzι persecution had brought Protestant and Catholic Christians closer together; this now had to happen at the level of the whole Church, and to be developed further. Then there was also the group of themes: Revelation – Scripture – Tradition – Magisterium. For the French, the subject of the relationship between the Church and the modern world came increasingly to the fore – in other words the work of the so-called “Schema XIII”, from which the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World later emerged. This point touches on the real expectations of the Council. The Church, which during the Baroque era was still, in a broad sense, shaping the world, had from the nineteenth century onwards visibly entered into a negative relationship with the modern era, which had only then properly begun. Did it have to remain so? Could the Church not take a positive step into the new era? Behind the vague expression “today’s world” lies the question of the relationship with the modern era. To clarify this, it would have been necessary to define more clearly the essential features that constitute the modern era. “Schema XIII” did not succeed in doing this. Although the Pastoral Constitution expressed many important elements for an understanding of the “world” and made significant contributions to the question of Christian ethics, it failed to offer substantial clarification on this point.

Unexpectedly, the encounter with the great themes of the modern epoch did not happen in the great Pastoral Constitution, but instead in two minor docuмents, whose importance has only gradually come to light in the context of the reception of the Council. First, there is the Declaration on Religious Liberty, which was urgently requested, and also drafted, by the American Bishops in particular. With developments in philosophical thought and in ways of understanding the modern State, the doctrine of tolerance, as worked out in detail by Pius XII, no longer seemed sufficient. At stake was the freedom to choose and practise religion and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms. Given its inner foundation, such a concept could not be foreign to the Christian faith, which had come into being claiming that the State could neither decide on the truth nor prescribe any kind of worship. The Christian faith demanded freedom of religious belief and freedom of religious practice in worship, without thereby violating the law of the State in its internal ordering; Christians prayed for the emperor, but did not worship him. To this extent, it can be said that Christianity, at its birth, brought the principle of religious freedom into the world. Yet the interpretation of this right to freedom in the context of modern thought was not easy, since it could seem as if the modern version of religious freedom presupposed the inaccessibility of the truth to man and so, perforce, shifted religion into the sphere of the subjective. It was certainly providential that thirteen years after the conclusion of the Council, Pope John Paul II arrived from a country in which freedom of religion had been denied by Marxism, in other words by a particular form of modern philosophy of the State. The Pope had come, as it were, from a situation resembling that of the early Church, so that the inner orientation of the faith towards the theme of freedom, and especially freedom of religion and worship, became visible once more.

The second docuмent that was to prove important for the Church’s encounter with the modern age came into being almost by chance and it developed in various phases. I am referring to the Declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. At the outset the intention was to draft a declaration on relations between the Church and Judaism, a text that had become intrinsically necessary after the horrors of the Shoah. The Council Fathers from Arab countries were not opposed to such a text, but they explained that if there were an intention to speak of Judaism, then there should also be some words on Islam. How right they were, we in the West have only gradually come to understand. Lastly the realization grew that it was also right to speak of two other great religions – Hinduism and Buddhism – as well as the theme of religion in general. Then, following naturally, came a brief indication regarding dialogue and collaboration with the religions, whose spiritual, moral, and socio-cultural values were to be respected, protected and encouraged (ibid., 2). Thus, in a precise and extraordinarily dense docuмent, a theme is opened up whose importance could not be foreseen at the time. The task that it involves and the efforts that are still necessary in order to distinguish, clarify and understand, are appearing ever more clearly. In the process of active reception, a weakness of this otherwise extraordinary text has gradually emerged: it speaks of religion solely in a positive way and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion which, from the historical and theological viewpoints, are of far-reaching importance; for this reason the Christian faith, from the outset, adopted a critical stance towards religion, both internally and externally.

If at the beginning of the Council the dominant groups were the Central European Episcopates with their theologians, during the Council sessions the scope of the common endeavour and responsibility constantly broadened. The bishops considered themselves apprentices at the school of the Holy Spirit and at the school of reciprocal collaboration, but at the same time servants of the word of God who were living and working in faith. The Council Fathers neither could nor wished to create a new or different Church. They had neither the authority nor the mandate to do so. It was only in their capacity as bishops that they were now Council Fathers with a vote and decision-making powers, that is to say, on the basis of the Sacrament and in the Church of the Sacrament. For this reason they neither could nor wished to create a different faith or a new Church, but rather to understand these more deeply and hence truly to “renew them”. This is why a hermeneutic of rupture is absurd and is contrary to the spirit and the will of the Council Fathers.

In Cardinal Frings I had a “father” who lived this spirit of the Council in an exemplary way. He was a man of great openness and breadth, but he also knew that faith alone leads us out into the open, into that space which remains barred to the positivist spirit. This is the faith that he wished to serve with the authority he had received through the sacrament of Episcopal Ordination. I cannot but be ever grateful to him for having brought me – the youngest professor of the Catholic theology faculty of the University of Bonn – as his consultant to the great Church assembly, thereby enabling me, alongside the others, to attend that school and to walk the path of the Council from within. The present volume contains a collection of the various writings that I presented at that school. They are thoroughly fragmentary offerings, which also reveal the learning process that the Council and its reception meant and still means for me. I hope that despite all their limitations, these various offerings, combined, will help to make the Council better understood and to implement it in a healthy ecclesial life. I warmly thank Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller and his collaborators at the Pope Benedict XVI Institute for the extraordinary commitment they have taken on in order to produce this volume.

Castel Gandolfo, on the Feast of Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli

2 August 2012

Benedictus PP. XVI
 
October 11, 2012
[tags: Benedict XVI | Vatican Council II]



"This time there was no specific problem to resolve."  

Are we supposed to be STUPID?
No specific problem to resolve, was there?
What do you call Communism?
No problem?
What do you call 60 million Catholics
tortured, raped, abused and murdered?
No problem to resolve?
Is that why even after the
UNCLEAN SPIRIT of Vatican II
had run its malignant course,
the murders continued apace??
No problem?


I would like to see what Russia would have to say if we were to imprison
all the Russian Orthodox in the USA and threaten the Russian leaders
with retaliation if they don't pretend it's "no problem."

Confiscate the visas of the Russian Orthodox priests in the USA like they
have all the Catholic priests in Russia. How about that? Require them to
renew permits to operate their churches every 3 months like they do to
the Catholic Church in Russia. How about that? No problem, right?