Honestly, I'm overall disappointed with the CI members for not
exploring this question.  BW gave us a boost, a prelude, an
introduction.  He opened the door and no one came walking
through.  



I am not impressed.  



What did Pope John XXIII do or say that makes it clear to us, in
retrospect and for ALL TIME (as it made clear to the Church in his
day, ACCORDING TO +WILLIAMSON) that he was abandoning the
erstwhile anti-Modernist Church?  



This is a very important question.  



So far, members have suggested that he convened Vat.II - that's
okay, but it's not per se sufficient, for Vat.II, even in the eyes
of saintly contemporaries, was not inherently DOOMED to fail.  It
was dangerously close to failing but not necessarily doomed from
the start.  



Members have suggested that he introduced men erstwhile under
suspicion of heresy.  Well and good, as he himself, J23, had been
disciplined by his removal to Paris by Pius XII.  What else?  What
did J23 do (or say) that "made clear that he was abandoning the
anti-modern Church?"  



Members have suggested that "John XXIII stated in his opening
speech that no new doctrine would be defined" (Columba),  and to
me, that raised another question -- since when does a pope
convene an Ecuмenical Council with the prior intent (apparently) of
NOT DEFINING DOGMA???  That's a first!  That has NOTHING TO
DO with Sacred Tradition, that seems to be an attempt at
RE-DEFINITION of the Ecuмenical Council per se -- a
definition of definition per se, so to speak.

John XXIII convened Vatican II.  Is that enough? I know that there

is a tale of John XXIII on his deathbed begging for the council to be

stopped.  Is there any proof of this?  Or is it a creation of people who

want John XXIII to be seen in a different light?

No, convening Vat.II is not enough.  I want more.

Perhaps some are satisfied with this one stroke, convening Vat.II,
but as I said above, that could have been a great boon to the
Church under other circuмstances, for example, what if Vat.II had
faced the terror of Communism square on, and had dealt with it?  
How?  Well, all the bishops of the world were there in one room at
the same time, with the Pope at hand.  What if he had commanded
them all, AS POPE to join him in the Collegial Consecration of
Russia to the Sacred and Immaculate hearts of Jesus and Mary
(respectively)?  Why not to the Immaculate heart of Mary alone?  
Okay, then do it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary alone.  Why
didn't he do that?  Because he was "afraid of offending the
Orthodox?"  Sorry, but the real Orthodox would not have been
offended.


They would have been HIGHLY HONORED AND IMPRESSED.  The
fact is, that the only "Orthodox" that he was afraid of "offending"
were the IMPOSTER ORTHODOX, who were actually KGB agents
DISGUISED as Orthodox.  So that was a BIG LIE.

Convening Vat.II could have been a big boon to the Church if the
dogma of Mary Mediatrix had been defined, and/or if Mary
Co-Redemptrix had been defined.  I had a most enlightening
experience with the vocalization of that phrase in a public park one
day about 20 years ago.  There were a whole throng of heretics
doing some kind of pow-wow like wild indians holding hands,
jumping up and down, and turning in a circle, hooting and howling.  
They were Protestants "doing church" before they had enough
money together to buy a building.  After they had broken up into
small groups, and the children were using the playground
equipment, I was near the swing set and monkey-bars and
sandbox with my own children when the so-called pastor and one
of his so-called elders walked nearby and we exchanged
pleasantries, touching on some Biblical facts, and I mentioned Our
Lady, offhand, upon which point the "elder" asserted that there is
only one mediator between God and man, etc.  To which I looked
him square in the eye and said, with confidence, that "The Bible
does mention the 'Mediator' but it has nothing whatsoever to
say about the 'Mediatrix'!"  

He turned various shades of rouge, and stammered, and his boss
stepped in, audibly huffing at me, and I smiled, and I repeated
what I had said to his little lackey.  He huffed louder, as if he was
getting ready to curse me, but somehow controlled himself.  
Meanwhile, I silently prayed a Hail Mary.

The so-called pastor gathered his fledgling flock, looking over his
shoulder at me with a stern grimmace, while I beamed a broad
smile back at him.  I WAS THE ENEMY!!  He was determined to
'save' his people from my HORRIBLE INFLUENCE!  This was a most
instructive experience for me.  I was first hand the recipient of Our
Lady's graces, and all I had to do, pretty much, is stand there and
smile.  That was a real "trip."

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Bishop Richard Williamson

A large proportion of the world’s 2000 Catholic bishops rejoiced instead of revolting when John XXIII made clear that he was abandoning the anti-modern Church.

And, pray tell, what exactly did Pope John XXIII do that "made
clear that he was abandoning the anti-modern Church?"  

For if he "made clear" this proposition, "He was abandoning the
anti-modern Church," then there must be something we can point
at and say, "There. That is what he did."  BTW, this includes the
statement, "There. That is what he said," so long as what it is you
claim he said was something docuмented and incontestable.  

What was it?

+W does not answer this question because he wants it to be a
 soccer ball that we can kick around for a while.  So go ahead, and
kick away!

I thought he exemplified his statement in the previous paragraph:

Two examples might be.............. However both compromises allowed for a certain humanising of the divine Church, and both contributed to a gradual secularising of Christendom. Compromises do have consequences.

I don't know but it seems some SV sites might have more in-depth information about this.  

H.E. may have been obliquely hinting at it there but no more than that.
Compromises do have consequences, true, but that is pretty general
and vague.  I want something specific and precise, not general and
vague.  "Humanising the divine Church and secularising Christendom"
isn't specific.  That could be talking about selling off the California
Missions (c. A.D. 1840) or putting Annibale Bugnini into a position of power
(Pope Pius XII, A.D. 1952).  

What did John XXIII do that was so terrible that it gave the clear signal
to the Freemasons of the world (they are really big on symbolism) that
he was abandoning the anti-Modernist Church that had been handed
down to him from Tradition?  IOW it was something that a
non-Freemason like ABL would NOT HAVE RECOGNIZED, which is why
I say it was likely a Freemason thing.  Because the Freemasons would
have had a secret meeting when they decided that John XXIII would be
given this instruction, that this thing is something he would do once he
is in power, to signal to the brethren worldwide that he was now
abandoning the anti-Modernist Church.  

This is I think, what +W is saying in his cryptic EC here, and he knows
that he cannot come out in public and say it openly and obviously
because his life would be up for grabs.  The Freemasons do not take
lightly to someone giving up their secrets to the world at large.  Their
secrets are to be protected, with your LIFE, or else, you lose your life.
Nor does it matter that this is not a current thread, but is from a few
moths ago.  +W put out the wire, and left it hang there.  It's up to us to
follow where it leads.  He can now deny it, and say he wasn't giving
out any secrets.  Nor is this any reason to think that he would be going
against a prior agreement with them to divulge the secret.



We can do this.

Please try not to be so narrow-minded.  Look at the big picture.  
When you see one word, like Freemason, now that's all you want
to think about.  Get a grip.  

What is the question?  What was it that John XXIII did or said that
gave everyone who was and/or is willing to pay attention, the
clear message that he was no longer leading the Church like all
of his recent predecessors had done, since Pope Gregory XVI
approximately?  Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV,
Pius XI, Pius XII -- they ALL were opposed to Modernism (and dare
I say it, lest you run off on a tangent again, yes, they were all
opposed to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, especially in the hierarchy!).  

So, what did he do, and how was that a signal - sorry you'll get
transfixed like a deer in the headlights with "signal" - how was it
a MESSAGE to the bishops, subliminally or overtly, that he was
abandoning the anti-Modernist Church of the past?  What did he
say, or what did he do?  

Some bishops like ABL perhaps saw it happening and did not want
to believe it was happening.  Why else would they have attended
Vat.II?  There was a commission of some 250 bishops in the
Council who canonically petitioned for the discussion of
Communism, ABL amongst them, but their petition was "lost."

But what about John XXIII -- something he did!!

He started Vat.II -- but that's not enough to answer this.

He re-instated clerics who had been under suspicion of heresy --
but that's not enough alone, either, but it's in the ballpark, I'd say.

He disseminated a new missal, the 1962 Missal of John XXIII, but
that's not enough either.  I want more!  

He issued a secret docuмent forbidding the ordination of any
candidates for the priesthood or even MINOR Orders if they had
been found to have a predisposition toward ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity -- and
that was a GOOD THING for him to do in itself, but he PUT NO TEETH
in it, and it set on the shelf in hundreds of libraries worldwide,
ignored and never even READ by perhaps a majority of the bishops,
but even that is not enough.  I want more!

He said he was in favor of preserving Latin in the Mass and the
sacraments and the priesthood, but he objectively allowed the
gradual decline of the principles of Latin primacy in practice, a kind
of duplicity, or say one thing and do another, but that's not enough.
I want more!  

I have some things in mind but I can't say what they are because
then the discussion will SHUT DOWN again, like it has on other topics.

I would like members of CI to contribute to this discussion.  And I
have this fault that makes me believe that CI members have what
it takes to do this.  If you read this and you can't help, that's okay.

Sleep on it.  Maybe something will come to mind.  Eventually,
someone is going to contact H.E. himself and ask him what he meant.
And if we're lucky, he'll be able to tell us.  

But it seems to me we shouldn't be incapable of figuring this out
on our own.  That's what I think.  This thread lay dormant for 4
months so we ought to have a bit of a fresher outlook on the
question now.  Don't be depressed if the answer isn't obvious.  

Patience!!

I'll add three on the fly suggestions:

(1) Was it when John XXIII took the name of an anti-pope?

(2) Was it when John XXIII symbolically opened the windows to the world.

(3) Was it when he made Montini a cardinal?

Like any of the ECs this one is not an easy read.  It is rather an
outline of a meditation, a sort of window into a realm of thought,
but it is not a thorough exploration of the realm itself, only a way
to get there.  Think of it as an icon of the ancient Church - an
image that draws the viewer into the realm beyond this reality.  
The icons of old drew the viewer away from and out of the
temporal reality and into the spiritual reality that is always
obscured by our present state, as The Apostle says, we view it as
if through a lens, darkly.

What is the reality we thereby are invited to view by means of the
EC? It is not entirely divorced from the reality the icons of old
would proffer.  But it is a little bit different, for it is not entirely a
spiritual reality but is rather a bit mixed with the realm of a
deeper understanding of our modern age in all of its complexity
and mystery.  H.E. is inviting us to look into that mystery with
him, if we will.  Most of us will not.  Will you or will you not?

DEEP PROBLEM

Many Catholics do not conceive of the full depth of the problem posed by the Conciliar Revolution of Vatican II (1962-1965) in the Catholic Church.

Right away, we are invited to ask:  what is the 'deep problem'
that Vatican II caused?  But wait.  Is that what the EC said?  No,
it is not.  The word is 'posed' not 'caused'.  Therefore, Vatican II
did not 'cause' the deep problem, rather the Deep Problem was
posed by the Conciliar Revolution of Vat.II.  What does H.E.
mean by "it was posed?"  A demanding photographer tells his
subject what 'pose' to strike while he takes the photograph, upon
which his reputation will depend.  Vat.II gave the Deep Problem a
posture, an appearance, an aspect of visibility by which the deep
problem may become known for (so far) the next 51 years, and
counting.  It has now been over a half century.  We are now in
the "second half of the ball game," as it were.  

The subject is "many Catholics" who have not come to know
the Deep Problem that struck a pose by way of Vat.II.  

Unlike the day and week this EC was first published, we have now
just come from Holy Saturday liturgy that processes into our
church and proclaims "Lumen Christi!" the Light of Christ!  Let's
take a look at what would-be informed Catholics are able to know
about the Deep Problem, what this icon, this EC, sheds its light of
knowledge upon..

If they knew more Church history, they might be less tempted either by liberalism to think that the Council was not all that bad, or by “sedevacantism” to think that the Church authorities are no longer its authorities. Did Our Lord question the religious authority of Caiphas or the civil authority of Pontius Pilate ?

Catholics who are inadequately familiar with Church history are
uninformed.  I have nothing to lose by saying so, while H.E.
restrains himself out of a sense of duty to his audience, a
diplomacy, if you will.  I'm not so diplomatic.

Liberalism tempts uninformed Catholics (you no doubt know some
yourself!) to think that Vat.II wasn't all that bad.  +Fellay isn't
doing them any 'favour' by telling them that "95% of Vat.II is
acceptable!"  He is, objectively, keeping them in the dark, and
feeding them B.S., as if they're mushrooms.  And not to be
outdone, sedevacantism tempts uninformed Catholics to pass
judgment on the validity of the Church's authorities.  But did Our
Lord question the religious authority of Caiphas or the civil
authority of Pontius Pilate, or of Caesar, for that matter, IOW,  the
civil and/or religious authority of Rome!?

You have to read between the lines in these ECs!  In what manner
is this Problem "DEEP," anyway?  How is it "DEEP?"  Why is it
"DEEP?"

The problem is deep because it is buried beneath centuries and centuries of Church history.

Recall, this is the same difficulty that uninformed Catholics have
by not being adequately familiar with those centuries and
centuries!  Message:  it behooves Catholics - and this means YOU
and ME - to study and learn about what happened hundreds and
hundreds of years ago, to establish landmarks of history along
with the number of the years that identify them, such that you
can recall what the abiding concerns were in the world during any
particular age, and how that fits in with what came before it, what
came after it, and how God by way of his prophets foretold would
happen at the time.

When in the early 1400’s St. Vincent Ferrer (1357-1419) preached all over Europe that the end of the world was at hand, we today know that he was out by over 600 years.

..........and how MUCH "over 600 years" was he out, eh?.............

Yet God confirmed his preaching by granting him to work thousands of miracles and thousands upon thousands of conversions. Was God confirming untruth ? Perish the thought ! The truth is that the Saint was correctly discerning, implicit in the decadence of the end of the Middle Ages, the explicit and near total corruption of our own times, dress rehearsal for the total corruption of the end of the world.

God blessed the work of St. Vincent Ferrer - you should know the
dates, now!  They were 1357 to 1419!  That's the latter half of the
14th century and the first two decades of the 15th century!  It is
for your own good that H.E. posts these numbers!  It's not a
game!  This is for your edification, if you would become informed!

But as you can lead a horse to water, you can't make 1917 drink.  

The near total corruption of our own times, for those with eyes
to see and ears to hear, is but a dress rehearsal for the total
corruption of the end of the world.  "This generation shall not
pass away until all these things are done.  Heaven and earth
shall pass away but my word will not pass away."  That's how
this subject sounded when Our Lord spoke about it infallibly!
BTW that was the continuation of the Gospel according to St.
Mark xiii. 30-31.

It has merely taken time, God’s own time, several centuries, for that implicit corruption to become explicit, because God has chosen at regular intervals to raise Saints to hold up the downward slide, notably the crop of famous Saints that led the Counter-Reformation in the 16th century.

Read:  And Most Notably for our own time, one TRULY humble
and venerable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, not artificially
humble like one particular pope we know about, but one TRULY
humble because his immediate successors did so mark his
very grave "TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI."  He passed on what
he had received, instead of insisting on paying his hotel bills
with his "own money" and cooking his own meals and washing
the feet of a Mohammedan inmate in prison for this year's
mandatum -- which had not happened yet when this EC was
published, either.

There was a "crop of famous saints" that led the counter-
reformation of the 16th century (every century gets its name
from the LAST YEAR of the hundred, so the 16th century
ENDED at the END of the year 1600, and January 1st, 1601
was the FIRST year of the 17th century), but how many
saints did we have to lead the counter-unclean spirit of
Vatican II of the 20th century?  St. Padre Pio barely made it
to the START of the aftermath of Vatican II.  And this is the
corrupted Church that would have forgotten him if they could
have gotten away with it!  Stigmatist priest!  A relic of the
superstitious middle ages! Woe to thee Bethsaida!  Woe to
thee Corozain!  For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought
the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long
ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes (Matt. xi. 21).

However, he would not take away men’s free-will, so that if they chose not to stay on the heights of the Middle Ages, he would not force them to do so. Instead he would allow his Church, at least to some extent, to adapt to the times, because it exists to save present souls and not past glories.

Unzipped, this says that the Church exists to save present souls
from eternal damnation, and does NOT exist to save her own
past glories from the forgotten dust bin of history that is
inherently repugnant and contemptible for the MAJORITY of us
in the modern world, even if we ARE Catholic, which is why a
grasp of historical context and connotation is so invaluable to
a proper and meet understanding of our own age and what God
is doing in the world and in the Church today.  

No, God will not force man to stay on the heights of the middle
ages, nor will he even force man to bother to recall that the
heights of the middle ages even existed in the first place.  No,
he will allow the common man of today to be steeped in
Freemasonic doctrine that teaches us to believe with full assent
of mind and will (so help us!) that those were the DARK AGES,
and people were full of superstition, like "the earth is flat" and
the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, and that
the Bible tells us literally what happened in ages past, like the
"fable" of Adam and Eve, and the so-called whale of Jonah, and
the (chuckle) "resurrection of Jesus Christ!"

No, God will not deprive us of our free will.  And history shows
us that as we creep ever closer to that ultimate end of our
temporal reality (cf. St. Mark cap. xiii), God has seen fit to
provide us with comforts, in the form of compromises with the
world, examples of which follow:

Two examples might be Molinist theology, made virtually necessary by Luther and Calvin to guarantee the protection of free-will, and the Concordat of 1801, made necessary by the Revolutionary State to enable the Church in France to function at all in public. Now both Molinism and the Concordat were compromises with the world of their time, but both enabled many souls to be saved, while the Church allowed neither to undermine the principles which remained sacred, of God as Pure Act and of Christ as the King of Society respectively.

If you don't know about Moninism or the Concordat, then look
them up, and then come on back and read this again.  How
many will do that?  Oh, three or four.  God will not interfere
with our free will.  You can lead a horse to water...

The Church with Molinist theology did not allow Luther and
Calvin to undermine the sacred principle of God as Pure Act,
nor did the Church by the way of the Concordat of 1801 allow
the Revolutionary French State to undermine the sacred
principle of Christ as the King of Society.

Why does God allow compromise with the world?  The highest
law of the Church is the salvation of souls, for it is a divine
institution, and properly fulfills its role by imitating the
providence of God.  Compromise with the world, to the extent
that it provides for the salvation of souls, is good.  To the
extent that it prevents the salvation of souls, is bad.  
Therefore, when the Church's compromise with the world
reaches the point where it no longer serves to save souls
but rather condemns them, God may, in his infinite mercy,
intervene to stop it from happening any more.

However both compromises allowed for a certain humanising of the divine Church, and both contributed to a gradual secularising of Christendom. Compromises do have consequences.

Is this 'humanising' and 'secularising' a good thing?  They are
a consequential thing, but are they good?

Thus if a slow process of humanizing and secularizing were to go too far in that world from which alone men and women are called by God to serve in his Church, they could hardly enter his service without a strong dose of radio-active liberalism in their bones, calling for a vigorous antidote in their religious formation.

You're hearing from a man, a bishop, who has seen to the
religious formation of hundreds of priests, and he knows full
well what the nature of this antidote is, to forestall the effects
of inherent radioactivity that liberalism instills in the hearts
and minds of prospective seminarians and novices.  

How many of us have friends and neighbors, perhaps even
extended family members, who are looking for the opportunity
to enter the seminary?  How many of them plan on going into
an SSPX seminary, for where else can one find formation as
a traditional priest?  And who is it running that anymore?  It
used to be +Williamson in the USA, but no more.  Heads up!

What would be the nature of this humanising and secularising
compromise with the world that invades the souls of men and
women who would be called into service for the Church in the
modern world?  What is the character of their radioactivity?
Is there a Geiger counter that can measure it?  Where do you
go to buy one, at Grainger???  

Naturally they would share the instinctive conviction of almost all their contemporaries that the revolutionary principles and ideals of the world from which they came were normal, while their religious formation opposed to that world might seem pious but fundamentally abnormal.

What was the question again?  Compromise with the world, to
the extent that it provides for the salvation of souls, is good.  
To the extent that it prevents the salvation of souls, is bad.  
And is this effect of worldly compromise, that renders young
people who would become priests and nuns saddled with the
radioactivity of the conviction that revolutionary ideals and
principles are "normal," a good thing or is it a bad thing?  

Such churchmen and churchwomen could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Sounds pretty bad to me.  How about you?

That disaster struck in mid-20th century. A large proportion of the world’s 2000 Catholic bishops rejoiced instead of revolting when John XXIII made clear that he was abandoning the anti-modern Church.

The disaster struck, he says, and what happened?  Catholic
bishops rejoiced.  Well, tell me, dear reader, can you think of
another disaster that struck and Catholic bishops rejoiced?  I
can think of one where Catholics worldwide should have
revolted, but there was nary a whimper.  Catholics should have
been pretty ticked off when the author of this EC was
"excluded" from the General Chapter.  But they were not.  And
then what happened?  Well, just as the addition of St. Joseph
to the erstwhile untouchable Canon of Mass was a trial balloon
to see if Catholics would rise up in horror, and they did not, so
too was the exclusion of +W from the GC a trial balloon to see
if Catholic SSPXers would rise up in horror and they did not.

And just as the wreckovationists on the eve of Vatican II saw
green lights everywhere so too the wreckovationists at the
GC saw green lights to EXPEL +WILLIAMSON from the SSPX
since there was no reaction to the former exclusion at the GC.

You have to read between the lines in these ECs.

And that still hasn't answered my abiding concern for the
past 4 months:  what was it, really, that told the world that
John XXIII was abandoning the anti-modernist Church?
Because he certainly did not hold a press conference to say,
"Behold, We are abandoning the anti-modernist Church."

See some of the previous posts.

So nobody who wants to save his soul should follow them or their successors, but on the other hand the latter are so convinced that they are normal in relation to modern times that they are not as guilty as they would have been in previous times for destroying Christ’s Church.

So now we have not only seminarians and novices who are
steeped in Modernist radioactivity that makes them think it's
normal to be infected so, we have consecutive successors to
the Holy Office of the Papacy who are likewise contaminated
with the unclean spirit of Vatican II.  And therefore, they do not
know that their faith is defective.  Is it a willful defect?  Read the
article linked above from CFN where it docuмents how priests
took the Oath Against Modernism and did not believe that what
they were saying was true.  And even so, does God judge them
as illegitimate usurpers of the Church's highest offices?  

Blessed are the Catholic souls that can abhor their errors, but still honour their office.

Kyrie eleison.
 

I never cease to be amazed at how often Catholics have no
regard for the ECs of Bishop Williamson, and as often as I
recommend to them that they get signed up for them as a
weekly e-mail, they put it off and forget about it.  

:detective:

Niel. Here.

pft:  .........and, what?  You scanned some old telegraphs that have what
significance in this?  Can you summarize it?  

BTW it's not "Niel" but Neil.

It was a simple question and there isn't any clear answer yet on this
thread.

I'll have to admit +W has made me think.  PFT's link to the telegraphs
is a dead end, it answers nothing.  She's not understanding the
question, apparently.  That's why she can't summarize her answer.


Once again:


He's talking about the disaster of religious becoming acclimated to a
spirit of the world, which is really the unclean spirit of Vatican II..

...
Such churchmen and churchwomen could be a disaster waiting to happen.

That disaster struck in mid-20th century. A large proportion of the world’s 2000 Catholic bishops rejoiced instead of revolting when John XXIII made clear that he was abandoning the anti-modern Church...

The disaster struck, he says, and what happened?  Catholic
bishops rejoiced. Well, tell me, dear reader, can you think of
another disaster that struck and Catholic bishops rejoiced?  I
can think of one where Catholics worldwide should have
revolted, but there was nary a whimper.  Catholics should have
been pretty ticked off when the author of this EC was
"excluded" from the General Chapter.  But they were not.  And
then what happened?  Well, just as the addition of St. Joseph
to the erstwhile untouchable Canon of Mass was a trial balloon
to see if Catholics would rise up in horror, and they did not, so
too was the exclusion of +W from the General Chapter of July,
2012 a trial balloon to see if Catholic SSPXers would rise up in
horror and they did not.



And just as the wreckovationists on the
eve of Vatican II saw green lights everywhere
so too the wreckovationists at the GC saw
green lights to EXPEL +WILLIAMSON
from the SSPX since there was no
reaction to his prior exclusion at the GC.

But if you think you're going to read that in DICI or SSPX.org,
you may as well wait for all the cows to come home.  For you
won't even see it in +W's ECs because he doesn't blow his
own horn - he's letting others do that, and I'm trying real hard.



You have to read between the lines in these ECs.

And that still hasn't answered my abiding concern for the past 4
months:  

What was it, really, that told the world that John XXIII was
abandoning the anti-modern Church?

Because he certainly did not hold a press conference to say,
"Behold, We are abandoning the anti-modern Church."

(Pope John XXIII was the penultimate pontiff to use the regal "We."
Paul VI sorta kinda used it, and JPI never got much at all said, then
JPII hung it up on a coat hook along with Peter's Keys where J23 had
hung them on Oct. 11th, 1962.)

Did he somehow announce that the Church was now going to be
on a new program of accommodation to, and compromise with,
the spirit of the world, the unclean spirit of Vatican II?

Maybe we could list all the suggestions, like those of Capt McQuigg.

See some of the previous posts..  

But maybe nobody is seeing them..

+W is not going to put in his ECs what I just put in my commentary
and questions, above.  He's not going to blow his own horn.  He is
going to leave that up to us.  Maybe I'm no good at blowing a horn.





We'll have to wait for the angel blowing the Trumpet of the Apocalypse.

Everyone will no doubt take notice of that.  But then it will be too late.





..So I guess it will hang here, since nobody else is contributing.  
Thanks, Capt. for your contribution.  






Perhaps +W will pick up on this sometime in the future, but for now,
it's 4 months old, and there has been nothing forthcoming in any
developments in the ECs.  

One thing's for sure, you can't expect the SSPX website or your local
district chapel to answer this.  And your neighborhood parish priest?  
FORGET IT.  John XXIII announced the bright new beautiful tomorrow,
shining at the end of every day.  


The Carousel of Progress keeps

churning out hypnotized guests,

as we all march on to the

Reign of Antichrist.  

When John XXIII made it clear that he was abandoning the anti-modern Church, he eliminated the description of the Jєωs as "perfidious" in the Good Friday liturgy. He also confessed on behalf of the holy Catholic Church, the "sin" of anti-semitism throughout the centuries.

We now see the fruits in the NewSSPX as she rots from the head down ...

Thanks UPS, that helps..........

1)   Eliminated "perfidis Judaeis" from the Prayers in the Good Friday liturgy

2)   Confessed the "sin of anti-Semitism" throughout the centuries.



I don't recall where or in what docuмent that second item can be
found but it somehow rings a bell.  Do you know where to find it?  


According to +W, "Catholic bishops rejoiced."  How many Catholic bishops
rejoiced when 1) and 2) happened?   How did they "rejoice?"  Did you see
it in any reports or can it be found online now, bishops "rejoicing" over that?

I recall that JPII did a lot of "apologizing" for the Church's offense against
Jєωs over the centuries, but he did not do the ѕуηαgσgυє visitations that
B16 did later.  But in neither case have I seen any bishops "rejoicing" over it.


Have you?