I just listened to Martin Geddes guvean interview. Interesting guy very smart math whiz from Oxford who is in the tech industry—and no dummy and he addresses these things. The organized darkness of the deep state cabal and their utter wickedness. He said he had been researching their craft and d manipulation and hiding in plain sight for years. It is NOT conspiracy theory he says—there are many layers to this psychopathic system filled with psychopaths who perpetuate their kind in various fiendish ways. He said something I found interesting. He said many people are waking ng up to this and as horrifying as it is they see the truth of what Q and others are tells ng them. And they want to fight for goodness. Others simply won’t wake up. They don’t want to wake up. They refuse to see what is going on right in front of them. And they get very angry when you present truths. He was talking about entrenched evil in governments—Britain was mentioned and in the Church(prelates who behave like the cabal elites who also prey on children) Just very interesting talk. If you go to his twitter feed he has it posted. Your comments reminded me of things he was saying.
Don, allegations without any evidence is dangerous territory to enter. God preserve us from whatever it is that motivated this celebrity endorsement of PF. But please don't just throw out suggestions of sexual immortality unless you have good reason.
Pardon me, but I find it amusing that people still think after all the information available that Summorum Pontificum granted a "permission" that was never actually taken away. Bishops in the aftermath of V2 LIED to their priests and said they couldn't say the Traditional Mass or the Traditional brieviary, but that was a modernist hijacking and NOT the truth. Actual permission was never rescinded. What Summorum Pontificum did was basically tell the bishops that they didn't have the right to prevent their priests from saying the Traditional Mass (which the bishops STILL do, completely ignoring Summorum ). It also paved the way for the founding of the FSSP, which I am the most grateful for. However, it was more of a trying to right a wrong, not some grand gesture that wasn't already deserved. JP2 should have been the one to enforce the rights of the priests himself, but was rather busy with his inter religious prayer meetings with buddhists, witch doctors, and muslims. Perhaps I don't understand this sentence, but to me I have the impression you believe the Liturgy of the Hours was published in 1970? The Liturgy of the Hours has been prayed since the apostles, so literally for 2000 years. The modernists hijacked V2 and used it to butcher the Liturgy of the Hours in 1970. It takes time to do this, so naturally it wasn't published in 1965. The proper texts of the Mass (called the Introit, Offertory, and Communion texts which are to be sung by the choir or said by the priests without music) were also butchered by the new mass of V2. While priests and laity "waited" for the new proper texts to be released, they filled those missing gaps with guitar strumming and kumbya hand raising (and no one can tell me this didn't happen overnight - maybe not in your parish, but it did in my moms and she will testify it literally happened overnight). The "revised" proper texts weren't released in the new Roman Missal until 1970, at which time people were so used to their 4 hymn sandwich no one actually used it. Revised versions aren't created overnight, so despite the butchered Liturgy of the Hours not being released until 1970, it was still a product of the Modernists and V2.
Indeed. We have enough to complain of about Bono that we know of without speculation without evidence. PF seems to think that the endorsement of celebrities will influence the laity. The same with the reports of DiCaprio. It seems to be a form of group-think that the elites share; and in their isolation, surrounded as they are by people with the same narrow world-view and by sycophants who keep reminding them how much they have the right of things. It is a strategy that is not likely to succeed in the long term.
I don't doubt that Bono is a good family man who means well. Pity about the tax thing and his support for the legalisation of abortion.
Just to be clear I'd delete the post if I could but that option is gone to me at this point. Anyone with Mod privileges please delete it if you are able.
DM, No, I am not under the impression the Liturgy of the Hours was first published in 1970. I was referring to the 1970 publication of Liturgy of the Hours, that is what the following article that Sg posted was discussing along with the 1962 version of Breviarium Romanum, https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-omission-of-difficult-psalms-and.html . I realize that both of these documents were in existence before these years (1970 and 1962) but the discussion was related to changes that were made to the the Liturgy of the Hours in 1970 and how the 1962 version Breviarium Romanum is available in print again. Unless you can provide proof that the 1970 publication of the Liturgy of Hours was a direct result of Vatican II, you are making an assumption by stating that it was. Do you know of any cardinals or bishops in the Church who are currently fighting for the Church's orthodoxy but yet they are adamantly apposed to the Vatican II council and can you provide proof of this? I have not come across any proof of this at all, it may be available but I have not seen it. I am not referring to various priests but I am asking if any cardinals or bishops who have been out spoken about concerns they have in relation to the various changes that Pope Francis has made, for example Archbishop A. Schneider or Cardinal R. Burke. I have not heard either of these two men ever adamantly oppose Vatican II. Cardinal R. Sarah has been outspoken about the idea of making certain changes to the mass that have changed since Vatican II but I have never heard him state that he is adamantly opposed to the Vatican II council either.
All I have to say about the bravery of the hierarchy is: look at what happened to Cardinal Sarah for wanting the priest to face the proper way (towards God, not the people), to Cardinal Burke being demoted twice for irking the pontiff, or Cardinal Muller for not following the Francis agenda. And you seriously want proof from them about having reservations concerning a NON binding council that has produced more evil fruit than in the entire history of the Church? The hitmen would be out in full force making a "killing" that day
Are your parents old enough to have witnessed the transition to VII? It happened We can’t turn back the clock No matter how vociferously you or anyone else protests I have lived through it snd can truthfully say that God has never abandoned His Church He can always be found by those who sincerely seek Him with humility Some of us are not edified by constant attacks of VII. I think it is best not to be sardonic in our posts about the church and each other in Christian Charity. You only mention the current Cardinals in relation to the current Pope There is more than that of course It’s very easy to post from certain points of view, but much harder to look at the whole picture I have said before that we can’t see the forest for the trees The gates of Hell have not prevailed against this Church And they won’t
DM, Yes, I seriously want proof, absolutely, because I have proof that they defend the Vatican II council. In addition, I don't believe that there is one message from the Blessed Mother in which she has criticized the Vatican II council either.
A lot of evil has infiltrated the Church since the popes of the 19th century warned and as the daily postings of sex abuse news constantly remind us - are we to ignore them as well if we don't find it "edifying"? I have young children at home I'm raising - I don't have the luxury to sit in an easy chair and pretend that the evil that infiltrated up to and completely in V2 wasn't all that bad and be relieved (as I've noticed many people on here post multiple times over ) that somehow I'm old and won't have to live through the chastisement and be spared that horror. Well, that's nice for those who feel they'll pass on before that happens, but those of us who are younger and raising young children are faced with the reality of dealing with the aftermath of what those older people caused in the first place. I have to face the reality of the circumstances in the Church for the preparation of my young children to Know, Love, and Serve God in this world so that they can make it to Heaven and in the meantime through the crap going on so as not leave the Church. Pretending that things that happened wasn't so bad instead of acknowledging is cowardly, and one of the reasons why so many have left the Church in the first place. People are tired of bs and don't want to hear the excuses of those who made mistakes. V2 was a huge mistake as I would bet my life that it is why the 3rd secret was supposed to be announced in 1960. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was at V2 himself, and totally changed his opinion on the entire event as history has shown, risking his career in the Church. He was a man who gave everything for the Truth, no matter the outcome, a faithful son of the Church. If we had more sons of the Church who cared less for their status and careers and more for the preservation of the Faith, the infiltration would have been stopped. But as we know, that didn't happen. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, my mom lived through it and remembers the transition. My dad is an adult convert, so he did not. My grandparents did as well, however my grandmother was also a convert so she didn't have a very long experience before the change. My grandfather is a great example of what Fr Ripperger addresses in his talk on the 5 generations. He was an altar boy and only complains about how the Church was "in those days" and gets angry if a priest mentions no clapping in Mass. so no, at the age of 82 he's not a great example of an orthodox Catholic but a product of V2 hippies. *edited to add: I'm tired of the same old defensive retort that God never abandons or has abandoned His Church. All faithful Catholics know this and believe it as I do, it's not disputed, so it's a straw man tactic to deflect from and ignore obvious problems that the Church has that touch someone's buttons the wrong way
I was a young adult How old was your mother? I don’t like all of the stuff that happened Please don’t attribute those attitudes to me because you have no idea how I feel or what I experienced I know there are sins and outrages That has been a part of Church history since the founding I am glad that you are taking your responsibility seriously for raising your family I never brought that up I also do not happen to share your opinion on Archbishop Lefebvre But I am entitled as you are I don’t wish to get into a lengthy harangue again I pray for you and your family and would appreciate it if you would pray for mine I am insulted that you think I sit in an easy chair and am relieved I am also aggrieved that you keep saying about how VII was a huge mistake Even if it was, I maintain that no matter how much you rail about it, it is not going to change the fact that it happened Our Lady gave the plan at Fatima We can follow it and find peace
That is exactly what Abp Vigano has done, is it not? I would like to think that priests who truly love God would want to stand up and fight against this cabal. The cabal that has brought ruin to the Church. We need more priests like Abp Vigano. I dare to say yes to the question. I only pray for strength to bear the pain.
Yes, I meant that the bad changes in the Liturgy of the Hours is a direct result of Vatican II. I believe this is what the article is really saying. Here are relevant excerpts from the article (The Omission of “Difficult” Psalms and the Spreading-Thin of the Psalter) I had referred to in my original post: (emphasis are mostly mine) "PART OF THE WORK of reassessing the liturgical reform and correcting or rejecting its mistakes consists in making known, as widely as possible, the damage and destruction that was visited upon the unbroken liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church. It has been my experience that far too many Catholics today have simply no idea how much violence was done to the liturgy in the 1960s and 1970s — and that, when they do find out about it, they are rightly and properly scandalized, stirred up with a righteous indignation, and conscious of a new desire to know how they can reconnect with the great tradition that was and is ours as Catholics. A notable example of such damage would be the omission of so many psalms and psalm verses from the Liturgy of the Hours published in 1970 to replace the Breviarium Romanum. This fact, while well known among scholars, has received far too little attention in the public sphere. In addition to the unprecedented novelty of praying the Psalter over four weeks rather than in the course of a single week, there was the equally unprecedented novelty of skipping verses that had been deemed “difficult” or problematic for modern Christians. Three Psalms (57/58, 82/83, and 108/109 [*]) were expunged in their entirety from the pages of the Liturgy of the Hours (have a look at them some time), while three others (77/78, 104/105, 105/106) were confined to Advent, Christmastide, Lent, and Eastertide. The following verses were permanently omitted from other psalms[**]: Psalm 5 – 10 Make them bear their guilt, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; because of their many transgressions cast them out, for they have rebelled against you. Psalm 20/21 – 8 Your hand will find out all your enemies; your right hand will find out those who hate you. 9 You will make them like a fiery furnace when you appear. The LORD will swallow them up in his wrath, and fire will consume them. 10 You will destroy their offspring from the earth, and their children from among humankind. 11 If they plan evil against you, if they devise mischief, they will not succeed. 12 For you will put them to flight; you will aim at their faces with your bows." [....] (many more examples in the article) [...] "For 2,000 years, Christians Eastern and Western had been praying the psalter of David in its full integrity. In 1970, Catholics were handed an expurgated version, with verses removed by “experts” who knew better than the Holy Spirit, knew better than the Israelites, knew better than the Church Fathers and Doctors, knew better than Tradition." [...] "These verses appear many times in the old lectionary, but never once in the new lectionary. Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form are not merely getting “more” Scripture, they are getting different Scripture — and the principles of selection are politically correct, ecumenical, sensitive, excluding much that is dark or difficult. In other words, the principles are rather unlike Scripture itself." [...] "This scandal (for let us not mince words: it is a scandal of the first order) was brought to you by the Liturgical Reform — the very same reform that deliberately omitted from the new lectionary spiritually demanding verses in the New Testament. The removal from the sacred liturgy of Scriptural passages judged too “difficult” is truly one of the great crimes committed against the Christian people in the last century. There is, however, an alternative: a Latin liturgy that has lasted for centuries, which has suited the palates of simple and distinguished folk and shows no signs of going out of date."
Cardinal Sarah’s address on the 10th Anniversary of “Summorum Pontificum” Excerpts: "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger tirelessly repeated that the crisis that has shaken the Church for fifty years, chiefly since Vatican Council II, is connected with the crisis of the liturgy, and therefore to the lack of respect, the desacralization and the leveling of the essential elements of divine worship. “I am convinced,” he writes, “that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” Certainly, the Second Vatican Council wished to promote greater active participation by the people of God and to bring about progress day by day in the Christian life of the faithful (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 1). Certainly, some fine initiatives were taken along these lines. However we cannot close our eyes to the disaster, the devastation and the schism that the modern promoters of a living liturgy caused by remodeling the Church’s liturgy according to their ideas. They forgot that the liturgical act is not just a PRAYER, but also and above all a MYSTERY in which something is accomplished for us that we cannot fully understand but that we must accept and receive in faith, love, obedience and adoring silence. And this is the real meaning of active participation of the faithful. It is not about exclusively external activity, the distribution of roles or of functions in the liturgy, but rather about an intensely active receptivity: this reception is, in Christ and with Christ, the humble offering of oneself in silent prayer and a thoroughly contemplative attitude. The serious crisis of faith, not only at the level of the Christian faithful but also and especially among many priests and bishops, has made us incapable of understanding the Eucharistic liturgy as a sacrifice, as identical to the act performed once and for all by Jesus Christ, making present the Sacrifice of the Cross in a non-bloody manner, throughout the Church, through different ages, places, peoples and nations. There is often a sacrilegious tendency to reduce the Holy Mass to a simple convivial meal, the celebration of a profane feast, the community’s celebration of itself, or even worse, a terrible diversion from the anguish of a life that no longer has meaning or from the fear of meeting God face to face, because His glance unveils and obliges us to look truly and unflinchingly at the ugliness of our interior life. But the Holy Mass is not a diversion. It is the living sacrifice of Christ who died on the cross to free us from sin and death, for the purpose of revealing the love and the glory of God the Father. Many Catholics do not know that the final purpose of every liturgical celebration is the glory and adoration of God, the salvation and sanctification of human beings, since in the liturgy “God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 7). Most of the faithful—including priests and bishops—do not know this teaching of the Council. Just as they do not know that the true worshippers of God are not those who reform the liturgy according to their own ideas and creativity, to make it something pleasing to the world, but rather those who reform the world in depth with the Gospel so as to allow it access to a liturgy that is the reflection of the liturgy that is celebrated from all eternity in the heavenly Jerusalem. As Benedict XVI often emphasized, at the root of the liturgy is adoration, and therefore God. Hence it is necessary to recognize that the serious, profound crisis that has affected the liturgy and the Church itself since the Council is due to the fact that its CENTER is no longer God and the adoration of Him, but rather men and their alleged ability to “do” something to keep themselves busy during the Eucharistic celebrations. Even today, a significant number of Church leaders underestimate the serious crisis that the Church is going through: relativism in doctrinal, moral and disciplinary teaching, grave abuses, the desacralization and trivialization of the Sacred Liturgy, a merely social and horizontal view of the Church’s mission. Many believe and declare loud and long that Vatican Council II brought about a true springtime in the Church. Nevertheless, a growing number of Church leaders see this “springtime” as a rejection, a renunciation of her centuries-old heritage, or even as a radical questioning of her past and Tradition. Political Europe is rebuked for abandoning or denying its Christian roots. But the first to have abandoned her Christian roots and past is indisputably the post-conciliar Catholic Church. Some episcopal conferences even refuse to translate faithfully the original Latin text of the Roman Missal. Some claim that each local Church can translate the Roman Missal, not according to the sacred heritage of the Church, following the methods and principles indicated by Liturgiam authenticam, but according to the fantasies, ideologies and cultural expressions which, they say, can be understood and accepted by the people. But the people desire to be initiated into the sacred language of God. The Gospel and revelation themselves are “reinterpreted”, “contextualized” and adapted to decadent Western culture. In 1968, the Bishop of Metz, in France, wrote in his diocesan newsletter a horrible, outrageous thing that seemed like the desire for and expression of a complete break with the Church’s past. According to that bishop, today we must rethink the very concept of the salvation brought by Jesus Christ, because the apostolic Church and the Christian communities in the early centuries of Christianity had understood nothing of the Gospel. Only in our era has the plan of salvation brought by Jesus been understood. Here is the audacious, surprising statement by the Bishop of Metz: The transformation of the world (change of civilization) teaches and demands a change in the very concept of the salvation brought by Jesus Christ; this transformation reveals to us that the Church’s thinking about God’s plan was, before the present change, insufficiently evangelical…. No era has been as capable as ours of understanding the evangelical ideal of fraternal life.3 With a vision like that, it is not surprising that devastation, destruction and wars have followed and persisted these days at the liturgical, doctrinal and moral level, because they claim that no era has been capable of understanding the “evangelical ideal” as well as ours. Many refuse to face up to the Church’s work of self-destruction through the deliberate demolition of her doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral foundations. While more and more voices of high-ranking prelates stubbornly affirm obvious doctrinal, moral and liturgical errors that have been condemned a hundred times and work to demolish the little faith remaining in the people of God, while the bark of the Church furrows the stormy sea of this decadent world and the waves crash down on the ship, so that it is already filling with water, a growing number of Church leaders and faithful shout: “Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise!” ["Everything is just fine, Milady,” the refrain of a popular comic song from the 1930’s, in which the employees of a noblewoman report to her a series of catastrophes]. But the reality is quite different: in fact, as Cardinal Ratzinger said: What the Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension which—to use the words of Paul VI—seems to have passed over from self-criticism to self-destruction. There had been the expectation of a new enthusiasm, and instead too often it has ended in boredom and discouragement. There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence that to a large measure has been unfolding under the sign of a summons to a presumed “spirit of the Council” and by so doing has actually and increasingly discredited it. “No one can seriously deny the critical manifestations” and liturgy wars that Vatican Council II led to. Today they have gone on to fragment and demolish the sacred Missale Romanum by abandoning it to experiments in cultural diversity and compilers of liturgical texts. [...] I would like to conclude this introduction with the luminous words of Benedict XVI at the end of the homily that he gave in 2008, on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul: “When the world in all its parts has become a liturgy of God, when, in its reality, it has become adoration, then it will have reached its goal and will be safe and sound.”
God bless Cardinal Sarah. We are blessed to have the Cardinal. The arrogance, and breathtaking ignorance and stupidity of that Bishop of Metz is hard to believe. How did that hippy generation come to have such regard for itself? Was it a consequence of infection by the anthropomorphic theories of Teilhard de Chardin, with their scientific bunkum and theological heresy? With Teilhard, Christ was represented as having the good fortune of man evolving into Him. It represents an example of the insane progressivist tendency which dismisses all previous generations as stupid and clueless, unlike our own 'gifted' generation. All previous generations, according to this madness, are outdated and ignorant, but mankind has evolved into the modern geniuses. The irony now, is that, on that basis, the generation of the sixties have in their turn become outdated and old hat. It's long gone the time for us to throw out their primitive ideas. Forget the intellectual pygmies of the past, like Socrates, Aristotle, St John, St Paul, Augustine, Aquinas and Chesterton-we have the genius of Pope Francis and his 2+2=5 cohort to evolve us to better things now. Give us this day our daily bread (it has dawned on me that this part of the Our Father is becoming very much more urgent. It now represents a plea that there be at least one valid Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated on Earth each day, something that is becoming increasingly threatened).
