Pre-Vatican II [Non Caucus Open thread]

“Pinging” is simply what we say on FR when we send a reply to one person or multiple people. So for example, while I’m replying to Trad Bishop’s post #71 in this reply, I’m “pinging” you, Little Blue Nun, to this reply since I believe it may interest you as well. We also “ping” someone to a reply if we mention them by FR screenname (as a courtesy, it’s an unwritten rule), even if we don’t necessarily believe they would be interested in the reply. If you use someone’s screen name in your post it’s common FR courtesy to add their name to the “To” field (or to “ping” them).

I believe the term “ping” is a Navy term, when you are in a sub for example a “ping” of sound waves is sent out in the SONAR system to locate other ships/objects so that’s where the term comes from on FR. Since when you send a reply to a specific name or names those people get the reply. So kind of like a SONAR ping.

Some maintain “ping lists” kind of like subscription lists so that if the topic or topics they usually post about interest you you can usually ask to be added to their ping list then when they post an article you will get notified and see it in your “New Posts to You” section at the top of the page. When you have a new ping that turns red. When you don’t, when you’ve seen all the replies addressed to you it isn’t red any more and just says “Pings” at the top of the page.

Hope this helps!

Thank you so much for this information. It however does not help me in the dilemma that I have at this time. I truly do want all those who I inadvertently scandalised by my unadvised attempt at a Pre-Vatican II caucus, to be able to see and read my apology. How can I best accomplish this since I don’t know who these people are? And because I don’t want to step on any more land mines if I can help it, it would be great if you, in your generosity could help me to find a written source that I could study along with all the other common practices that it would be good for me to know so I don’t once again trip all over myself. I thank you once again for coming forth in this truly Christ like way. May God bless you and keep you.

If you feel that you would like to apologize to everyone involved in this thread, the only way you can do that, so that they will definitely get your post, is to go back to each post and copy each screen name into a “To” field of such a post, separating each screen name with a semicolon. That’s how ping lists are created by the way. People keep a copy of screennames separated by semicolons thwt they made before and then copy and paste that list in the “To” field of a reply to their own thread.

Sorry that’s the only way everyone in this thread or any thread will get such a post delivered to their reply notification (the “New Posts to You” I talked about earlier which are pings to them). Anyone who checks this thread to see new posts on their own will see your post 51 to “All”, so it’s not like that’s lost or anything like that. But if someone who participated in this thread doesn’t check this thread manually in the future then they won’t see your post #51 in their pings.

Personally I wouldn’t worry about it, but it’s up to you if you want to go through the labor of adding everyone’s name to another post like your #51. That’s the only way everyone will get it delivered to them personally though. It’s kind of a pain but it also cuts down on SPAM otherwise it would be too easy to flood everyone’s pings with posts they don’t necessarily want.

There aren’t many documents for “help” other than http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm I guess.

The operative word from your quote of St. Athanasius is "faithful to Tradition". I'm confused because of your concern, for the people in Rome in Vatican II essentially jettisoned Tradition and the Scriptures for their new Gospel in their new church of man. Obviously this points to Apocalypse 18:1~8: " And after these things, I saw another angel come down from Heaven, having great power: And the Earth was enlightened with his glory. And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the Earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the Earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto Heaven, and the Lord has remembered her iniquities."

As this is a more detailed and accurate description of the Benedict and Francis Show that you mention, it seems imperative to follow its very clear instruction to go out from her. Join a pre-Vatican II Traditional Catholic Church and concentrate on becoming as St. Athanasius says one of those: "who are the true Church of Jesus Christ" and don't look back once you put your hand to the plough. St.Luke 9:62: "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

(Thank you God. Your timing is perfect.) Please read the comment 188 by Little Blue Nun in the thread "Jesus Christ in The Early Catholic Church". You and I are not alone.

My brother, I have in my possession a book called "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber": A History of Vatican II. It was written by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D. I have read it a couple of times and in the back of the book is an index of the topics and the Attendees at Vatican II. There is no mention anywhere in this book of a Bishop Karol Wojtyla. His superior, the Patriarch of Poland at the time, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski did however attend. I fail to see how Pope John Paul II could be " Mr. Vatican II" when he never attended. He was in a communist country and no doubt did not get communist permission to come to the council. (See "Windswept House" for his position on Vatican II by Vatican insider, Malachi Martin.) He was also an auxilliary of Cardinal Wyszynski and therefore no doubt also had responsibilities given him in the absence of the Cardinal. A very prominent actor, however, was a Fr. Joseph Ratzinger. I try, with the help of God's grace to not lead others astray. In the last twenty years I have spent literally hours reading about and researching and reading the works of Pope John Paul II. I've also spent time, thanks to several donors going through photographs from L'Osservatore Romano, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and others because some of the differences in the people I saw in the pictures were, for me, as familiar as I am with his face, astoundingly dissimilar to the original. Unlike with Pope Paul VI whom I could only detect one imposter for, I found seven distinctly different people being purported to being Pope John Paul II. (Even to one with a very distinct wine mark on his face.) In fact, I have three pictures dated the same year with a man old and stoop shouldered, close to 200 lbs., no noticeable neck, and a slight droop to his mouth; one about 140 lbs. standing erect, with no droop to his mouth, seemingly in good heath; another picture, the same year, a man in an oversized high chair looking very frail and ill.

I also read enough of his encyclicals and exhortations and books from his early papacy as well as his biography by Jonathan Kwitny, called "The Man of the Century" and literally studied "Windswept House" and "The Keys of This Blood" and other books by Malachi Martin so that I could almost pick out things that have been put out in his name fraudulently.

In the pedophile priest scandal, Pope John Paul II demanded the US Cardinals to come to Rome and when they did, they hid behind the head of the NCCB. And he, after Pope John Paul II had decreed to the Cardinals that they were no longer allowed to let their Bishops to simply send their priests to a shrink, or to move them from parish to parish, but rather to defrock them, and turn them over to the law for their heinous crime. Bishop Gregory, the then president of the NCCB on the Vatican steps told his pope that the American Bishops would take that under advisement when they held their meeting on pedophile priests. This actually came as no surprise since on the ocassion of Pope John Paul II's election, Michael Davies reported that the NCCB had sent their pope a one lined telegram that said in Latin: "The Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this Republic". I have done my homework. If you want a quick and exciting read to give you more of the detail on how Pope John Paul II was treated by his Cardinals, read " Windswept House", and afterwards, if you have the time, read "Man of the Century" and see what REALLY happened at Assisi.

I am in the business of saving souls and not selling them down the river, especially not from the Rhine to the Tiber. By the way, Joseph Ratzinger was the primo periti for Cardinal Fringe of Germany, the head of the Rhine Bishops who took over the council.

Are you trying to tell me that the only hierarchs responsible for Vatican II are the ones who actually attended it??? You have got to be kidding me. JPII CODIFIED Vatican II in his 1983 Code of Canon Law, Sacrae Discipline Leges:

Therefore, the new Code, which is promulgated today, necessarily required the previous work of the Council; and although it was announced together with the Ecumenical Council, nevertheless it follows it chronologically, because the work undertaken in its preparation, since it had to be based upon the Council, could not begin until after completion of the latter.

and:

The instrument, which the Code is, fully corresponds to the nature of the Church, especially as it is proposed by the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general, and in a particular way by its ecclesiological teaching. Indeed, in a certain sense, this new Code could be understood as a great effort to translate this same doctrine, that is, the conciliar ecclesiology, into canonical language. If, however, it is impossible to translate perfectly into canonical language the conciliar image of the Church, nevertheless, in this image there should always be found as far as possible its essential point of reference.

and there is more where that comes from and this doesn't even touch on his "ecumencial" Assisi prayer gatherings, kissing the book of a false diabolical religion, etc.

IMO, anyone who can assert that JPII is not a man of the Second Vatican Council is not someone I can take seriously as a "Traditional Catholic" let alone a "Traditional Bishop".

It is very interesting that the source that you quote says that the new Code or Canon Law was based on the Council. Redoing the Canon Law is at least a twenty year process. And you want a person, who never even attended the Council to take responsibility, even though he did not attend, and was all but sequestered in a communist country, just because he got elected Pope in 1978, the Council having ended in 1964, and twenty four years later, you want a Pope who could not possibly have had an affect on its writing as a newly elected Pope, he was even shot in 1981, you want to lay it on his door step and make him totally responsible for it three papacies later! It seems as though you have already assigned blame and by the amount of time between when I posted this and your answer, there was not enough time for you to check out even one of my references. You have nothing but bad things to say about the people in Rome but you swallow every lie they want to tell you. If that’s your idea of consistency, I’ll go to my judgement and defend my own idea of consistency. You’re stuck with them by your own choice. I am not.

The source was JPII’s very own official Apostolic Constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges. I’m sure you will offer up some “source” to deny this as well.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges.html

I am a Traditional Catholic who lays responsibility on any and all hierarchs that promote the non-Catholic Vatican II Religion and, contrary to what you say, I rarely if ever believe a word Rome says. You just need to follow my posts for awhile to see that.

So, yeah, I am VERY consistent. JPII or any other post Vatican II pope who went along with the robber council are equally responsible. Any Catholic pope would have stopped the madness long ago.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.