CathInfo.com

.this post ID.


The server cut out twice while I was trying to post this.

.

Make that three times.  I'm glad I kept a copy on Notepad!


http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=post&s=reply&t=28122
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=post&s=reply&t=28122
 
(Yes, it is the same URL --- just making sure!)

.

This thread is quite noteworthy.  


I would like to thank Machabees, Orinoco, Graham and Wessex

for addressing the fine points and raising apt questions which bring to
light the fallacies and deception that we are being 'required' to imbibe
from the denizens of Menzingen.  

I am reminded of the words on the St. Benedict Medal:  Ipse venea bibas.
(Telling the devil to "drink your poison yourself.")


It seems to me not unrelated that I picked up a copy of EC 268 that
I had Xeroxed for distribution to my friends, and I noticed something
in it that I had missed before.  

The relevance of this to the present thread is that once we realize that
there is deliberate deception going on from Menzingen, we should not
be averse to notice where else it could be going on, in the various
docuмents and "things that didn't happen."

Fellayites like John Anthony like to harp on the fact that something
"didn't happen," as being somehow proof that we should forget all
about it.

Well here's something else that "didn't happen."  

Recall a year ago, as Advent approached, we were expecting a new
edition of the "1962 Missal" from Rome, one that uses 'that title',
but is actually a 2012 missal with a deceptive front cover.  

And it was Internet forums like CI that blew the whistle on that.   :whistleblower:

Otherwise, it might well have happened -- something else that wasn't
and now they want us to FUGGEDABOUDIT!!!


It seems to me that I now have a strong clue as to what that was
all about.  I would hazard a guess that someone came up with the
idea that all they have to do is get the SSPX to agree to the exclusive
use of the 1962 missal, and once they have that fish in the bag,
so to speak, then switch the missal with an updated version that
they call the "1962 Missal" but it's really halfway NovusOrdo, and
all the sheeple of the Society, like John Anthony, et. al., will scamper
to the fore and acclaim that we must blindly follow the Great Leader
who says that "everything's back to normal" or whatever.  

And the Sean Johnsons of the world will continue to give the "benefit
of the doubt" to the dubious machinations in and of themselves.

The relevant paragraph of the EC 268 is as follows:

The second condition requires exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy.
Again, well and good, insofar as the 1962 liturgy is no such betrayal of
the Faith as is the Conciliar liturgy imposed by Rome from 199 onwards.

All stop!  Key word:  INSOFAR. I underlined it so you can find it real quick.

For if the 1962 liturgy remains as it is, all well and good (as +W says, but
as you may suspect, I have my reservations on several levels, not the
least of which is the severe reduction in the amount of Scripture readings
that the 1962 liturgy entails compared to the pre-1954 missal, but yes,
that's another topic).  

But if the 1962 liturgy is slyly twisted into something else with a "new
edition of the 1962 liturgy" like they had in the works merely one year ago,
then, NO, "all" is not "well and good."  

But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional
congregations that have submitted to this authority a "mutual enrichment"
Missal, mixing Tradition and the NovusOrdo?  

Precisely!  When I first read this a year ago, I did not connect the dots.
But +W was hot on the trail of the deception afoot, which is why +F saw
fit to expel him before the whole thing blows up in his face, for once he
gets away with expelling a bishop in a pious union (the first time in the
history of the Church that any such bishop was ever expelled, no less!)
then he would be able to demonize everything +W says from thence
forth, or, would be able to otherwise weasel around even usurping +W's
own words and messages as he has indeed done the past month or two.

Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome why should it be any
more protected?

And that is the bottom line, the one that John Anthony tries doggedly to
gloss over and to pretend that it doesn't exist, and Sean Johnson falls prey
to the ruse before our eyes.  And it's all right here in this short and
archive-able thread of merely two days' duration early this month.


.

cosmas,

Great zeal in your comment but regarding this. What percentage of laity have actually asked questions? How can one be silenced if they haven't spoken? This is the crux of the problem.

As Cassini has demonstrated of Ireland, laity kept out of the fight, they have a chapel, the Mass. All is ok. There is no agreement.

Sure even a 'Stbrigidswell' stated clearly of only finding docuмents several months after they being in the public docuмent. It's incredible.

the silencing and ostrasizing of any parishoners that might try to question whats going on in the society