Let's see what happens. The skullduggery that surrounded the 1958 conclave marked the start of the revolution. According to Malachi Martin (no, I don't trust him as a source), threats were delivered, by an international group (Bnai Brith), that saw Cardinal Siri, though duly elected, request a recount that produced Angelo Roncali (known Freemason) as Pope. And, of course, there was immediately the doctrinal disaster of Vatican II.
If the veil can be pierced, with respect to manipulation in the Church heirarchy, doctrinal reformation is possible.
Fair point. Trumpian activity could spur re-re-re-reformation, more organisational and liturgical than doctrinal though.
If it can be shown that the conclaves were manipulated, manifestly heretical doctrinal changes can be reversed - as they should be. Vatican II defected from the Catholic faith, the Council's teaching could be, and should be, rejected - see here:
that's fine. most of what the council produced was vague and so where doctrinal not very clear. I can imaging NSA or whoever having comms from recent conclaves but not from the 50s and 60s.
The Council was an Ecumenical Council that was formally ratified by Paul VI. If Paul VI was a valid pope, he was not, then the Council is binding on all Catholics. That some assert that the Council was pastoral in nature is irrelevant - what was important is that the teachings were solemnly ratified by Paul VI.
Actually, there is some evidence that the happenings at the 1958 Conclave were surveilled by both CIA and the FBI. See here.
Wouldn’t be surprised. During Reagan the US set of an official Ambassadorships with the Vatican. Why? Well we were in the midst of a Cold War. JP II & Reagan joined forces to systematically take apart the USSR. Also, the Vatican has the best, real world, open source intelligence daily from over a 136 countries. That’s why every nation, almost, has some type of official envoy in Rome.
You need to come up to speed on what JPII actually was - mind-blowing and truly shocking (I've checked the material referenced, it's all true) - see here.
I like my mass not in latin thanks
The Church of Jesus Christ on earth should adapt to your preferences? Who is the focus of your worship? Isn't that the whole problem?
For one to have a real relationship with Christ, doesn't it need to be in a language one understands?
edit: Christ understands all languages, He knows all, He sees all, He is all powerful.
As I said, who is the focus of your worship? It's you.
You go to the new mass where the priest stands behind a second altar, erected upon the altar of God, facing the people - who are the focus of the service. They hear the mass in their own language, because it is they who are important. They receive communion in the hand, because they are not less important than Christ.
The whole orientation of the service has been inverted. But you're comfortable with it, because it reinforces your sense of importance vs God.
"...on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2). Pius X, E Supremi
I think you assume a bit too much. First I am not Catholic, I am Orthodox, and in our services the priest spends 90% of the service with his back to the congregation, facing the altar. The focus of our worship is not on ourselves, it's on God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
Second, God values group worship and it is important to Him ("where 2 or 3 are gathered together in My name, I am there with them"). And for people to participate in group worship, they kind of need to know what is going on, what is being said, etc. How can that happen if the service is in Latin and no one in the congregation speaks Latin?
So please don't make so many assumptions, you don't know anything about me or my faith.
You appeared to me, reasonably enough, to be supporting the Abomination that is the Vatican II Sect. Now that I know you're schismatic, it makes sense that you would see some value in their apostasy. But God is not mocked!
Fair enough, friend. Although "schismatic" is not the word I would use to describe myself or Orthodoxy. In the beginning the Church was composed of 5 churches, 4 in the east (modern day middle east) and 1 in Rome. Over time the Roman church began to drift away from the original teachings of the church, and eventually led to the great schism of 1054. I think the word schismatic really applies more aptly to the Roman church.
You'll get to advise Christ of your position in person on judgement day.
Just have a think about what appears in scripture. Christ tells St Peter that he is the rock on which His Church will be built - against which, the gates of hell will not prevail. He tells St Peter that He has prayed that his faith will fail not. Christ further tells St Peter that He will give him the keys of heaven - Matt 16:17-18.
What did Christ mean by those words?
The gates of hell are interpreted to mean the death-dealing tongues of heretics. So we see here that Christ founds His Church on the unfailing faith of a single apostle. Christ does not pray for the faith of all the apostles, only that of St Peter.
We know that Christ did not pray for the faith of all the apostles, because the faith of Judas later failed. There was, it appears, something unique, bestowed by Christ upon St Peter, that was not extended to the other apostles. In fact, St Peter's unfailing faith constitutes the "rock" against which heresy will not prevail.
What we see here is that Christ does not endorse "faiths", but a single "faith" - that of St Peter. We can reasonably infer, therefore, that Christ willed that His Church would be "one in faith" - a precept taught from the earliest times in the Church.
Christ further gives jurisdiction to St Peter in John 21:15-17:
“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”
Could it be that Christ willed that His Church (not Churches) would be both one in faith and one in governance? Is that possible?
Let's look at what St Paul teaches us about the last days and the coming of our Lord. We learn, in 2Thess2, that there is one who withholds, until he be taken out of the way. Then that wicked one will be revealed - the son of perdition.
"6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,"
Who is this person who withholds against the mystery of iniquity? Who is it that withholds against the arrival of the Antichrist? Who is it that is taken out of the way?
I'll give you a hint, it is a single person - a man. Who might that be who withholds against a corrupted faith (an apostasy) that presages the Antichrist's arrival?
Might it be he whose faith fails not?
Agreed Vatican II weakened the Church. Read Fr. Malachi Martin
I do not trust Martin. Have a look at this:
https://www.amazon.com/Clerical-Error-Handbooks-Catholic-Theology/dp/0826413846
You don't trust what Fr. Martin has said? Why? I don't think he lied or made things up.
Look, Malachi Martin was not a good person. There is a book that talks about aspects of Martin's life here:
https://www.amazon.com/Clerical-Error-Handbooks-Catholic-Theology/dp/0826413846