FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Re:Novus Ordo Masses
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(04-10-2010, 06:08 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ][Image: 169_BuddhaAssisi05.JPG] Boodha on the Altar at Assisi
[Image: 169_BuddhaAssisi03.JPG] More Booodha

These pictures really didn't look like a buddha statue to me but the pictures were too small and blurry to be sure.  But as I googled around I found a website that said this was a statue of Baby Jesus.  It really does look more like that to me.

I also found a copy of what the Pope actually said here:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...al_en.html
Here is an excerpt:
Quote: The challenge of peace, as it is presently posed to every human conscience, is the problem of a reasonable quality of life for all, the problem of survival for humanity, the problem of life and death.
In the face of such a problem, two things seem to have supreme importance and both of them are common to us all.

The first is the inner imperative of the moral conscience, which enjoins us to respect, protect and promote human life, from the womb to the deathbed, for individuals and peoples, but especially for the weak, the destitute, the derelict: the imperative to overcome selfishness, greed and the spirit of vengeance.

The second common thing is the conviction that peace goes much beyond human efforts, particularly in the present plight of the world, and therefore that its source and realization is to be sought in that Reality beyond all of us.

This is why each of us prays for peace. Even if we think, as we do, that the relation between that Reality and the gift of peace is a different one, according to our respective religious convictions, we all affirm that such a relation exists.

This is what we express by praying for it.

I humbly repeat here my own conviction: peace bears the name of Jesus Christ.
Assisi I & II was about syncretism, each religion praying to their false gods for peace, and the Vicar of Christ being on an equal basis with all false religious leaders.  One cannot mix Ba'al with Jesus Christ.  What is incredible is an implicit denial in the way you present yourself, that Peter can do no wrong, and if the message is bad, then the messenger is to blame.  If it does not bother you that JP2 provided the Altar of a basilica at Assisi to be used in the worship of Booodha, and by all accounts Assisi I & II was planned from start to finish by JP2, then no blasphemy or sacrilege of the NO will also bother you.  Not only did Paul VI not command the imposition of the NOM, he also a few years later fired its chief propagandist Bugnini.  If you insist in seeing no evil when the gods of the Gentiles (which are demons according to the Psalmist) are put on the same level as Christ-the-King (who is Prince of Peace) by the Vicar of Christ no less, then you will not be able to see the evil of the Novus Ordo Missae.  There are many Trads so-called, who like the smells, bells, and Latin on Sunday, but go on living like Novus Ordites the other six days.  I can only pray that this is not the case with you.

Sorry Jayne, but if you cannot see that there is something wrong with this picture, that JP2 can and did worship in communion with false gods, by requesting that the leaders of false religions pray to their gods for world peace (as if these gods were princes of peace), then I am afraid, that all is left is for me is to pray for you that you might see.

Our Blessed Lord appeared to His apostles after His resurrection and said: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. (Saint John 14:27)
(04-10-2010, 08:55 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]Assisi I & II was about syncretism, each religion praying to their false gods for peace, and the Vicar of Christ being on an equal basis with all false religious leaders.  One cannot mix Ba'al with Jesus Christ.  What is incredible is an implicit denial in the way you present yourself, that Peter can do no wrong, and if the message is bad, then the messenger is to blame.  If it does not bother you that JP2 provided the Altar of a basilica at Assisi to be used in the worship of Booodha, and by all accounts Assisi I & II was planned from start to finish by JP2, then no blasphemy or sacrilege of the NO will also bother you.  Not only did Paul VI not command the imposition of the NOM, he also a few years later fired its chief propagandist Bugnini.  If you insist in seeing no evil when the gods of the Gentiles (which are demons according to the Psalmist) are put on the same level as Christ-the-King (who is Prince of Peace) by the Vicar of Christ no less, then you will not be able to see the evil of the Novus Ordo Missae.  There are many Trads so-called, who like the smells, bells, and Latin on Sunday, but go on living like Novus Ordites the other six days.  I can only pray that this is not the case with you.

It is not that I believe that the Pope can do no wrong.  It is that reading what I can find out about this I do not see evidence that the Pope did wrong.  The only evidence that you have given that a Buddha was on an altar is a blurry picture that could just as easily be showing a Baby Jesus statue as others claim it does. You didn't back up your claim he was praying with voodoo gods at Assisi and I don't think you can.  I found a list of the religions represented at Assisi and it did not include voodoo.  After reading through the information I could find on this, the worse that the Pope seems guilty of is taking actions that  were open to misinterpretation. I would not accuse him of anything worse than poor judgment based on the evidence that I could find and I'm not even sure about that.

Here is something written by our current Pope on the subject: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...si_en.html
Here is an excerpt:
Quote:In order not to misinterpret the meaning of what John Paul II wanted to achieve in 1986 and what, to use his own words, he habitually called the "spirit of Assisi", it is important not to forget the attention paid on that occasion to ensuring that the interreligious Prayer Meeting did not lend itself to syncretist interpretations founded on a relativistic concept.

For this very reason, John Paul II declared at the outset: "The fact that we have come here does not imply any intention of seeking a religious consensus among ourselves or of negotiating our faith convictions. Neither does it mean that religions can be reconciled at the level of a common commitment in an earthly project which would surpass them all. Nor is it a concession to relativism in religious beliefs" (ibid., n. 2).

(04-10-2010, 08:55 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry Jayne, but if you cannot see that there is something wrong with this picture, that JP2 can and did worship in communion with false gods, by requesting that the leaders of false religions pray to their gods for world peace (as if these gods were princes of peace), then I am afraid, that all is left is for me is to pray for you that you might see.

Our Blessed Lord appeared to His apostles after His resurrection and said: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. (Saint John 14:27)

Thank you very much for your prayers.  I greatly appreciate them. 
It never ceases to amaze me how neo-Caths defend John Paul "The Great."  His actions speak VOLUMES louder than his words.  Assisi I and II are pure examples of this.  Long did John Paul II rub elbows with those of false religions, and NEVER was it recorded that he tried to lead them to the only religion that can save a man's soul.  This is because he upheld the false ecumenism of the "spirit of Vatican II," which attests to all religions being on equal ground, having righteousness within them, and being on some level salvific.

Oh, Ex NO, you forgot a picture.  This should fly in the face of all those who say that the pope cannot be a part of a sacriligous Mass.




[Image: newguinea.jpg]

I know that this picture is vulgar, but I think that Catholics really need to see it regardless.  This shows the natural evolution of the "spirit of Vatican II."  Recall that this is during Mass, with Pope John Paul "The Great" in attendance.

If a topless woman reading the Epistle during Mass isn't a true definition of sacrilege, than I truly do not know what the term means.  Not only is a woman speaking during Mass, which is condemned in Sacred Scripture - she is doing so with her breasts hanging out!  What an outrage!

That is just sickening Nic... Never knew they even went that far with this topless pagan. Truly Sacraligious!! Why isn't stuff like this ever exposed??

To JP II credit his face looks extremely troubled..Seems, he was forced to attend these so called "Masses" as the affairs were beyond his control.... He had lost control of the Vatican and as you can see that Demon "Cardinal" Casaroli to the right of him controlled all functions as was dictated by the Masonic Communist infiltrators... I'm not giving Pope John Paul II a complete pass for condoning this stuff, but I  don't think it was entirely his fault as his arm was twisted more times then not.
(04-11-2010, 07:29 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]That is just sickening Nic... Never knew they even went that far with this topless pagan. Truly Sacraligious!! Why isn't stuff like this ever exposed??

To JP II credit his face looks extremely troubled..Seems, he was forced to attend these so called "Masses" as the affairs were beyond his control.... He had lost control of the Vatican and as you can see that Demon "Cardinal" Casaroli to the right of him controlled all functions as was dictated by the Masonic Communist infiltrators... I'm not giving Pope John Paul II a complete pass for condoning this stuff, but I  don't think it was entirely his fault as his arm was twisted more times then not.

Although his "arms may have been twisted" concerning this wretched affair, and indeed he was surrounded by Modernist infiltrators of Masonic ties, there can be no hiding the fact that John Paul II was a Pope that gave MUCH bad example.  He advocated terrible things like the "Assisi Prayer Meetings" among many others.  He constantly preached and wrote about "the dignity of man," which further shows emphasis of the new relgion being centered on the superiority of "enlightened man" over God.  Also, even if his "arms were twisted" concerning some of the scandelous events that occured under his pontificate, the simple fact that he failed to rebuke them or speak out against such things is a HUGE failure on his part.  As John Vennari points out, "And nowhere can it really be seen the primary purpose of the papacy: unswervingly fidelity to the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church as taught and practiced throughout the centuries. Nowhere do we see him praised for preserving the purity of doctrine and the maintenance of discipline in the Church worldwide. Pope John Paul II was not praised for this because he did not achieve it. And for a Pope to fail in this area is to fail mightily.  True, Pope John Paul II held the line on the Church’s teaching against women priests, married priests, and spoke consistently against divorce, abortion and euthanasia. He is hated by ultra - liberals for maintaining these teachings, and this is to his credit.  But for the most part, amidst the seemingly endless adulation over Pope John Paul II after his death, no one seemed to judge his papacy by the only measuring rod that counts: the infallible and immutable Catholic Faith of all time. All was sentiment, all was emotion, all was feelings.  There are many reasons why Pope John Paul II was so loved by the modern world. The core reason, in my opinion, is because of a central aspect of his New Evangelization — a new approach that cut him loose from the one hard truth that made all pre-Vatican II popes unpopular. Unburdened by this fundamental truth, he could easily mix with men of all religions, and of no religion, with little fear of invoking their displeasure."
(04-11-2010, 07:29 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]That is just sickening Nic... Never knew they even went that far with this topless pagan. Truly Sacraligious!! Why isn't stuff like this ever exposed??

Things like this are not exposed because neo-Caths, although normally claiming that everything a pope says and does is infallible, cannot obviously reconcile things like this with any fraction of truth or righteousness, which they do other things concerning the "spirit of Vatican II" and the "New Evangelization."  Things like this will be hidden from mainstream Catholics to shelter them, so that they can continue in their false belief that every word uttered and every action taken by the pope is praiseworthy and infallible.
(04-11-2010, 08:25 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-11-2010, 07:29 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]That is just sickening Nic... Never knew they even went that far with this topless pagan. Truly Sacraligious!! Why isn't stuff like this ever exposed??

Things like this are not exposed because neo-Caths, although normally claiming that everything a pope says and does is infallible, cannot obviously reconcile things like this with any fraction of truth or righteousness, which they do other things concerning the "spirit of Vatican II" and the "New Evangelization."  Things like this will be hidden from mainstream Catholics to shelter them, so that they can continue in their false belief that every word uttered and every action taken by the pope is praiseworthy and infallible.

Correct, but it seems all the sacrilegious affairs of post Vatican II are just  another part of the diabolical disorientation that the devil so loves since he has infiltrated the church from within.. Modernism deludes the brain of the Neo-Caths, so they can't know the difference between correct church teaching and wrong church teaching. The same thing happened to John Paul, he became disoriented and deluded, so in my mind he thought the teachings of Vatican II were worthy of belief and his flock of sheep followed... So with regard to what John Paul II personally thought of these pagan rituals, I guess we will just  have to agree to disagree on the matter.
(04-11-2010, 08:44 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-11-2010, 08:25 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-11-2010, 07:29 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]That is just sickening Nic... Never knew they even went that far with this topless pagan. Truly Sacraligious!! Why isn't stuff like this ever exposed??

Things like this are not exposed because neo-Caths, although normally claiming that everything a pope says and does is infallible, cannot obviously reconcile things like this with any fraction of truth or righteousness, which they do other things concerning the "spirit of Vatican II" and the "New Evangelization."  Things like this will be hidden from mainstream Catholics to shelter them, so that they can continue in their false belief that every word uttered and every action taken by the pope is praiseworthy and infallible.

Correct, but it seems all the sacrilegious affairs of post Vatican II are just  another part of the diabolical disorientation that the devil so loves since he has infiltrated the church from within.. Modernism deludes the brain of the Neo-Caths, so they can't know the difference between correct church teaching and wrong church teaching. The same thing happened to John Paul, he became disoriented and deluded, so in my mind he thought the teachings of Vatican II were worthy of belief and his flock of sheep followed... So with regard to what John Paul II personally thought of these pagan rituals, I guess we will just  have to agree to disagree on the matter.

I would agree that JPII probably was a bit urked at the situation of a topless woman reading during Mass.  But as far as unknowingly promoting pagan religions and other false religious systems, I cannot agree.  John Paul II had every opportunity NOT to do many of the scandelous things that he did -- but he did them anywary, and not once was it known that he preached Christ and His Church to the people of the false religions in which he frequented.  Having "ecumenical" dialogue is fine and dandy, and long as it leads to a dialouge with the people who practice the false religions that Christ and His Church are the only route to salvation, and anyone who rejects this truth perishes.  As a matter of fact, Jesus tells us to go into the nations, to convert and baptize, so "ecumenical dialouge" is the will of Our Lord - but what John Paul II did was NOT the will of Our Lord, for John Paul II did NOT plainly and publicly preach Christ to them, thus showing to the faithful that he, in some way, supported these false religions, which has given scandal to millions of Catholics.
(04-11-2010, 05:34 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]It never ceases to amaze me how neo-Caths defend John Paul "The Great."  His actions speak VOLUMES louder than his words.  Assisi I and II are pure examples of this.  Long did John Paul II rub elbows with those of false religions, and NEVER was it recorded that he tried to lead them to the only religion that can save a man's soul.  This is because he upheld the false ecumenism of the "spirit of Vatican II," which attests to all religions being on equal ground, having righteousness within them, and being on some level salvific.

Oh, Ex NO, you forgot a picture.  This should fly in the face of all those who say that the pope cannot be a part of a sacriligous Mass.




[Image: newguinea.jpg]

I know that this picture is vulgar, but I think that Catholics really need to see it regardless.  This shows the natural evolution of the "spirit of Vatican II."  Recall that this is during Mass, with Pope John Paul "The Great" in attendance.

If a topless woman reading the Epistle during Mass isn't a true definition of sacrilege, than I truly do not know what the term means.  Not only is a woman speaking during Mass, which is condemned in Sacred Scripture - she is doing so with her breasts hanging out!  What an outrage!

Thanks Nic for that pic. 

It is truly amazing that con-servative Catholics (smells, bells & latin, and a sprinkle of holy water and a litlle TLM on the side)  would deny Assisi I & II or they would say, well this can be misinterpreted or poor JP2 (he is a prisoner of liberal blah blah blah).  JP2 planned this very explicitly on 3 different occasions.  And yes, it was BOOODHA that was install on the Altar for all to adore.  In addition to pictures, we have the testimony of Cardinal Oddi:

Cardinal Oddi, “Confissões de um Cardeal,” Interview granted by Cardinal Oddi to Tommasco Ricci 30 Dias Magazine Nov 1990, p 64 Wrote:On that day, I went as the Pontifical Legate for the Basilica of St Francis, and I saw true profanations in some places of prayer. I saw Buddhists dancing around the altar, on which they had put Buddha in the place of Christ, and they were burning incense to the Buddha and venerating it. A Benedictine protested – he was thrown out by the police. I did not protest, but my heart was scandalized. Confusion was apparent on the faces of the Catholics who were attending the ceremony. I thought: if at this moment the Buddhists were to distribute bread consecrated to Buddha, these people would be capable of agreeing to eat it, perhaps with a greater devotion than when they receive the Host.

As to JP2 having trouble with custody of the eyes with Epistle Babe, refer to these pictures of young girls in performance at JP2 messes:

[Image: 002_JPIIAcrobats1.jpg]
[Image: 032_Acrobatics3.jpg]
[Image: 021_AcrobatsB-w.jpg]
[Image: 025_Circo_ActualidadGrafica1-25-85.jpg]
[Image: 021_PalmDancers.jpg]
[Image: bv067_SaintWojtyla07.jpg]
[Image: bv067_SaintWojtyla05.jpg]
[Image: bv067_SaintWojtyla01.jpg]
[Image: 128_WojtylaCamping02.jpg]
L'Osservatore Romano  -  photos by Arturo Mari, April 12, 1984 - Roman girls at Papal event.
[Image: 113_LeotardsForJPII01b.jpg]
[Image: 113_LeotardsForJPII02.jpg]

Garnett Westchester Newspapers, April 14, 1984
[Image: 046_DancingLikeWind_GannettWestchesterNews_4-14-84.jpg]





Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21