THAT’S ALL THERE IS, AND THERE AIN’T NO MO’.
EXCERPTS:
The strange thing, Cardinal Bertone said in the new book, is that Pope John Paul decided to publish the secret precisely to put an end to the wild speculation that had surrounded it.
Good point!
"The most absurd theses" were being spread, mainly presuming that the secret predicted catastrophic world events or widespread heresy at the top levels of the church, Cardinal Bertone said.
"Clearing up the question was a pastoral concern," he said.
EXCERPT:
"There is no fourth secret," he declared yesterday. "Everything has been published and correctly interpreted."
AND HERE’S THE POPE’S FOREWORD TO THE BOOK.
And let it not be forgotten that when the Third Secret was revealed, His Awesomeness Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
Thus we come finally to the third part of the “secret” of Fatima which for the first time is being published in its entirety.
SOURCE: THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA.
Either B16 is a liar or not.
I know where my money is.
Some people will still insist that a duplicate key to the ward room ice box is being kept hidden in the Vatican.
Hopefully, the Vatican announcement will encourage some Catholics who have found themselves distracted by this to put the thing aside and move on to more constructive spiritual pursuits.
Unfortunately, for the hard-core conspiracy theorist, such a pronouncement will be meaningless. They already KNOW the truth, and are only in search of arguments to support it.
Using geometric logic, of course, bill. 😉
The secret was entrusted to the pope. John Paul II would have know the full secret and whether the Vatican disclosure was incomplete or misleading. It is a matter in which he had taken a special interest, even before he was shot. He attributed his survival to the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima. JP2 was also a proficient linguist and would have been able to master the Portuguese dialect it was written in. He had also met Sr Lucia.
JP2 would have known if there was a cover-up.
After the Fatima disclosure, JP2 spoke many times in public, including twice at Fatima. He had ample opportunity to expose any Fatima cover up or even sack the cardinal(s) responsible.
It is inconceivable that even if someone had attempted to place JP2 under duress or threat that he would be coerced by this – I imagine that the opposite would have occurred.
Sr Lucia knew the secrets better than anyone else. She too has appeared in public since the ‘alleged’ disclosure and had many opportunities to expose any cover up. The media, hungry for conspiracy and eager to bash the Vatican, would have protected and publicised ‘the scoop of the century’ had she wanted to do this. She has confirmed full disclosure.
Anyone who suggests that all the Fatima secrets have not been fully disclosed is calling both Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia liars.
The secret was entrusted to the pope. John Paul II would have know the full secret and whether the Vatican disclosure was incomplete or misleading. It is a matter in which he had taken a special interest, even before he was shot. He attributed his survival to the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima. JP2 was also a proficient linguist and would have been able to master the Portuguese dialect it was written in. He had also met Sr Lucia.
JP2 would have known if there was a cover-up.
After the Fatima disclosure, JP2 spoke many times in public, including twice at Fatima. He had ample opportunity to expose any Fatima cover up or even sack the cardinal(s) responsible.
It is inconceivable that even if someone had attempted to place JP2 under duress or threat that he would be coerced by this – I imagine that the opposite would have occurred.
Sr Lucia knew the secrets better than anyone else. She too has appeared in public since the ‘alleged’ disclosure and had many opportunities to expose any cover up. The media, hungry for conspiracy and eager to bash the Vatican, would have protected and publicised ‘the scoop of the century’ had she wanted to do this. She has confirmed full disclosure.
Anyone who suggests that all the Fatima secrets have not been fully disclosed is calling both Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia liars.
Unfortunately, for the hard-core conspiracy theorist, such a pronouncement will be meaningless.
Unfortunately, for the hard-core conspiracy theorist, the very fact that the Vatican is making such an announcement “proves” that they’ve got something to hide. Don’t you know that “Move along, there’s nothing to see here” really means there’s something to see here.
With Tim J. “using geometric logic” and Leo using the word “inconceivable”… I think the true conspiracy is that J.A. commentors are all “Pricess Bride” fanatics.
Prepare to die!
Actually, the “geometric logic” thing was a riff on bill912’s Caine Mutiny reference.
But, OF COURSE, The Princess Bride also pops up often, as is only fitting. I suppose if I WERE to riff on TPB in this instance I might say something like “Papal Fatima Conspiracies? I don’t think they exist”.
You know, this being released at the same time as the new study which says that it’s possible that there wasn’t a Lone Gunman in Dallas is pretty suspicious!
Grin.
Awesome Caine Mutiny reference, BTW! One of my all time fave movies – Bogie rocks!
TBS
BTW I didn’t know what a Grunerite was, so I looked it up: Grunerite is a member of the amphibole family. It occurs in relatively iron-rich rocks that have been subjected to moderate grades of metamorphism.
Amphibole! Them’s fightin’ words! 🙂
I also don’t know what Caine Mutiny is and have never seen The Princess Bride – wasn’t Andre the Giant in it or something? Older references lost on younger viewers – that’s from the Johnny Carson show right? I think I’ve seen that on reruns.
Jimmy, you summed it up perfectly. It all comes down to one thing: was John-Paull II (and now B16) a liar, or wasn’t he?
inconceivable
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Sorry for the double posting – my security programs must have been conspiring against me.
Perhaps ‘unimaginable’ or ‘unfeasible’ would have been better than ‘inconceivable’.
As I explained above, any conspiracy would cast doubt on Sr Lucia’s integrity. Which would then cast doubt on the veracity of any messages she ‘revealed’ – including any third or fourth secret.
A self-contradiction for the conspiracy theorists.
Unless, of course, the real Sister Lucia was done away with many years ago, and replaced by a brainwashed double.
Thanks Bill912
that’s given me a great idea for a book …
With all due respect to everyone, Jimmy included, who wish to think the best, it is simply undeniable that the entire words of Our Lady have not been revealed. If you think the choice is “either the Pope is a liar or he is not”, then you are not thinking it through. A person can tell the truth, technically, without stating everything that they mean.
I recommend checking out John Vennari’s article on the latest dispute between Cdl. Bertone and Antonio Socci. Google those names and see what you come up with.
No serious person can claim that Mary’s Immaculate Heart has triumphed as of yet. Russia is not converted. The church is in a mess. I do not call the Pope a liar. I think he is in a tough spot, and is trying to balance a lot of problems on one plate.
Which words of Our Lady have not been revealed? And how do you know?
It’s a sad individual who would put their faith in Nick Gruner (as a suspended, disobedient priest, he may not be called “Father”) rather than in Sister Lucia. “It is simply undeniable that the entire words of Our Lady have not been revealed,” Tim assures us, without the slightest shred of evidence, and in the face of Sister Lucia’s own denials.
From where I’m sitting, it seems to me that such persons really don’t care about the true message of Fatima. At heart, they’re really Fatimists or Grunerites, not Catholics. (Yes, ontologically, sacramentally, they’re Catholics — but their faith in an imaginary, nonexistent version of the Fatima message has warped their faith.)
Sir,
In Vatican many more freemasions are there. They must be identified and should be removed from the Vatican. All the declarations of the Council of Trend should be restored in all forms. Cardinal Ivan Diaz is a heretic like that so many bishops and priests are there in India. They sold so many Church properties and syphoned the money into their own pocket. Vatican has deaf ears.
tim,
Who’s word would you accept that the entire words of Our Lady has been revealed if not Sr. Lucia, Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI?
Why would a catholic not accept their word on the matter?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“In Vatican many more freemasions(sic) are there.”
Please name one, and tell us how you know.
Well, Bill, I “know” as much as you do, probably. Which is, what we have been told by others. Then, we analyze this information and decide if it makes sense. Then, we draw conclusions, tentative or otherwise. Many people who have read the secret, including John Paul, Benedict, Cardinals and prelates have made comments concerning its contents that are entirely inconsistent with the position that Mary’s words about the vision released (40 years after her request)in 2000.
In another vision to these children, the one of souls falling into hell, Mary explained to them that they were seeing hell, where poor sinners go. Yet, we are to believe that in the highly esoteric vision of the bishop in white, she offered no explanation of what the children saw.
Perhaps you can tell me, has Mary’s Immaculate Heart triumphed, and a period of peace been given to the world?
Alex Benziger G.,
Please explain why any of us should listen to you? Are you the Rock the Church is built upon? Do you hold the Keys to the Kingdom? Are you personally infallible because you say so?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
So, which words of Our Lady have not been revealed and how do you know? Or are you just going to ignore my question again?
I love the articles in many Traditionalist newspapers and magazines, but these conspiracy theories call the whole enterprise into question. It degrades the publication from legitimate to tabloid pabulum.
Not to mention that it demonstrates a disturbingly flippant lack of faith in the One True Church.
I am of the opinion that conspiracy theories are pointless. * Believe whatever you want.
* Discount all evidence to the contrary as part of the coverup.
* Never have to critically examine the veracity of your ideas.
This is Satan’s version of faith — an easy faith. A faith in pride in the specialness of the believer. But most importantly an impotent faith.
Ultimately it never matters if the conspiracy is real or not. It does not save you. Without substantial proof, you will never convince enough people for it to matter anyway. In the end, you are wasting your time.
And if you spend enough time foaming at the mouth about conspiracy theories, you start to really resent what a waste of life they are. Who wants to look back on their life and realize they wrote about and investigated absolutely nothing?
Not to mention the fact that I am personally convinced that once the conspiracy theorist comes into his own and is widely accepted, he will quickly drop that conspiracy and go on to something else. Because the whole allure of conspiracies is a gnostic-like sense of entitlement to secret knowledge.
Jordan, thanks for highly informed opinion about whether or not I am really a Catholic. Wow, that was helpful.
And,I am certainly not a fatima fanatic, nor a “grunerite”. I am just a person with a brain, and, according to you, a sad individual masquerading as a Cathoic.
Innocencio,
Did YOU hear Sister Lucia say that all had been revealed?
And if the Pope says that global warming exists, do I have to believe it just because he says it, when it has nothing to do with the deposit of faith.
Brian: The Princess Bride did indeed have Andre the Giant in it. I highly recommend standing up from your chair right now, walking to the nearest video rental place and renting a copy tonight. I don’t think I’ve personally met anyone who disliked this gem. And even if you do, you’ll still understand what the heck all these quotes are people constantly use from the movie. 🙂
Brian, while you’re there, rent “The Caine Mutiny” and a few other Bogart films, too.
stubblespark,
It never ceases to amaze me the incredible level of hubris of the neoconservative Catholic who dismisses any discussion of faith matters by belittling their opponent. The Catholic faith is not the contents of a press release from the curia.
Bill, fair enough.
The words of Our Lady at Fatima, never before released, are as follows:
“In the year 2007, when my son Benedict XVI is on the throne, some poster on Jimmy Akin’s blog will call himself Bill912, and seek to irritate the faithful. Do not waste time with him, but instead pray for his soul.”
Sr. Lucia sent me that.
tim,
No, she did not speak to me. I read her words. I would recommend her example of obedience to everyone.
Now please answer my simple question. Who’s word would you accept?
I look forward to your answer.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Does anyone consider that the conversion of Russia might have actually been the prediction of the Fall of Communism there?
The Icon of Our Lady of Kazan was returned to Patriarch Alexei.
The Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia have ended their schism. Yet there is no resolution to the SSPX problem.
Orthodox Christianity is a required course in all public and Christian schools. Whereas Americans lose ground everyday to the atheistic secular agenda.
President Putin attends the Divine Services regularly and receives the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments.)
Gay Pride parades are preempted by the Russian Orthodox Church, whereas they persist in Rome, San Francisco, Jerusalem, New York, etc…
I’d say that Russia has converted way more than the West!
If only the 1000 year old Schism would end! Ut Unim Sint!
Inocencio, I appreciate the logic of your position, and the respectful tenor of comments. I appreciate it. But, I think that the “who would you rather believe” argument is illusory here. Why? Because, first and foremost, I believe in Christ’s Church, that declared that the Fatima apparition was worthy of belief. Then, as a result, I trust foremost the words of Mary, the Mother of God. She said that if the Holy Father consecrated Russia to her Immaculate Heart, Russia would be converted and a period of peace would be granted to the world. As the consecration has not been done, so neither has Russia been converted.
Mary told Sr. Lucia that the third secret should be published in 1960, or at Sr. Lucia’s death, whichever came first. It was not. Why not? A Pope, John XXIII, decided not to. According to all of the “the Pope said it it must be true and best” crowd that populates the readership here, his decision to ignore Mary’s request was good.
Same logic applies here. Whom do I believe? Mary. The Church. The Pope is not “personally” infallible, as someone stated above. He is infallible when he defines a matter of faith or morals, which means he cannot err as a matter of faith or morals. He can be factually incorrect.
Dr. Eric, if indeed the situation in Russia today represents Russia’s “conversion”, then Fatima is meaningless.
Fatima is a private revelation meant for the seers primarily.
And the message is that Russia will be converted. It never says to what. All the Russians could convert to Zoroastrianism and it would still mean that Russia has converted.
Everything has been published and correctly interpreted… a “man dressed in white” shot down amid the rubble of a ruined city as a prophetic vision of the 1981 attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul.
The third secret is about a man “KILLED by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him.” Pope John Paul wasn’t killed, nor by soldiers and there were no arrows.
Dr. Eric, if indeed the situation in Russia today represents Russia’s “conversion”, then Fatima is meaningless.
How can Fatima, just because how things are today in Russia, be rendered meaningless?
That’s like saying if indeed the situation in Rome during the days after it had become a Christian Empire represents Rome’s “conversion” (as there were several atrocities being committed then even after it had actually been converted), then it becoming Christian was meaningless.
I’m confused, I thought the issue is whether or not all the secrets have been fully revealed not whether or not they’ve been fulfilled?
Does the fulfillment (or lack of fulfillment) of the prophecy about Russia’s conversion have any bearing on whether or not the third secret has been honestly revealed?
So, there will be a dragon with 7 heads and seven horns to rule over the nations at the end of time? Will it be a Scandanavian dragon, a Chinese dragon, an Arabian dragon, etc…
Will it have wings and breathe fire, or live in the water?
My comment was for Paul.
Does the fulfillment (or lack of fulfillment) of the prophecy about Russia’s conversion have any bearing on whether or not the third secret has been honestly revealed?
The article claims “Everything has been published and correctly interpreted.” If one considers the intepretation as part of the revelation, then even if it’s been published, the issue remains as to whether it’s been honestly revealed.
So, there will be a dragon with 7 heads and seven horns to rule over the nations at the end of time? Will it be a Scandanavian dragon, a Chinese dragon, an Arabian dragon, etc…
Does the Church claim to correctly understand what all that means?
tim,
Yes, Fatima is worty of belief but not part of the deposit of faith. No private revelation is part of the deposit of faith.
Sr. Lucia wrote in her book
that the interpetation of the Message pertains to the God’s Church.
If “legitimate authority” has said the message is revealed in its entirety who are we to say that it is not?
If you believe that Christ’s Church has the authority to declare the message worthy of belief why wouldn’t you believe the same authority when it says that the entire message has been revealed?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dr. Eric, Zoroastrianism? Please.
Paul makes an interesting point. Not only, do we have to believe that everything has been revealed, but also that it has been correctly interpreted by those people who have said they revealed everything. Does no one see how unsupportable this is??
Brian:
Older references lost on younger viewers
Wow! You are really making me seem old today. 🙂
Seriously – please do rent The Princess Bride. It’s my #1 favorite movie in the Romantic/Comedy/Sarcastic/Fable category.
Plus Billy Crystal is GREAT in it.
tim,
No one is required to believe in ANY apparition.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not founded on the supposed apparitions at Fatima.
(Even though, I believe them to be true, they do not add to or subtract from my Faith.)
There is an anecdote from St. Louis. After Mass, a page came to him and said “Your Majesty, Our Lord Jesus is appearing at ____” (I’m not sure of the place)
To which, the Holy King replied, “I have already received Him in the Holy Eucharist, what more do I need.”
Inocencio,
You said, “If “legitimate authority” has said the message is revealed in its entirety who are we to say that it is not?
If you believe that Christ’s Church has the authority to declare the message worthy of belief why wouldn’t you believe the same authority when it says that the entire message has been revealed?”
This perfectly frames the point–the authority that stated the apparition was worthy of belief ISN’T THE SAME AUTHORITY that that says the whole secret is revealed. That’s the point. The declaration on the worthiness of Fatima was an official pronouncement of the Church and the comments about whether the secret is fully revealed is private statement. The cardinal is telling you what he wants you to believe about the secret. Great, that is one factor to take into account. He is not, and cannot compel me to believe his interpretation of the prophecy.
Brian, whether or not the prophecy has been fulfilled bears upon the veracity of the prophecy and the accuracy and completeness of the published account of Mary’s words.
To which, the Holy King replied, “I have already received Him in the Holy Eucharist, what more do I need.”
Until next Sunday.
Gee, if the secret has not been revealed, are you going to stop being a Catholic?
Dr. Eric, Nor is anyone required to believe in ANY cardinal’s private opinion about a private revelation.
Paul,
Do you get it now?
Stop chasing apparitions people!
If you have received Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, you need nothing else.
Save your soul first, then work on everyone else’s.
I really don’t get what the big deal is.
Does anyone fight about the Secret of Our Lady of LaVang?
Dr. Eric, according to Jordan, I am not a Catholic.
But, to answer your question, it is because I believe the secret has not been revealed, in conjunction with the fact that I am Catholic, that I care enough to debate it here. Mary is the most powerful intercessor with Christ we have. If we ignore her advice, it is to our peril.
Brian, whether or not the prophecy has been fulfilled bears upon the veracity of the prophecy and the accuracy and completeness of the published account of Mary’s words
Tim:
That’s just it; what would you consider a ‘converted’ Russia?
Some sort of ideal paradise where everybody is Christian and lives to Christian ideals to the letter?
No such thing on this world!
I would even dare say you don’t even fulfill the latter.
Prove that Bigfoot DOESN’T exist!
If the Fourth Secret is, well, a secret… how would anyone know it exists? How would we know there is not a Fifth Secret?… and a Sixth?
Does Our Lady bring a new gospel?
What do you care if Russia converts or not?
Have you reached the heights of divinization yet?
Work on that first, then worry about Russia. From what I know, Russia can take care of herself.
Eric, your comments to Jordan are not an accurate statement of the Catholic faith. Receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not enough. That’s Kurt Warner-land.
Read Matthew 25:31-46.
Esau, I would consider a converted Russia to be a country where the large majority of people were faithful Catholics and the government was a just one that acknowledged the faith.
You think that is impossible with Mary’s intervention? Hey, did you know that Someone actually rose from the dead on His own power?! Wild!
Dr. Eric,
You either are not serious or cannot be taken seriously.
Russia can take care of itself. Great point.
Sorry about that last one, Eric, that was a little uncharitable.
Esau, I would consider a converted Russia to be a country where the large majority of people were faithful Catholics and the government was a just one that acknowledged the faith.
Oh, puhleeze!
What ‘FAIRY TALE’ did you come from?
You are expecting a ‘Heaven on Earth’ type fantasy!
Not even the Roman Catholic Church consists of people who are faithful Catholics!
tim,
I already live in Kurt Warner-land, Cardinal Glennon Hospital has a whole wing donated by Mr. Warner.
Every time he comes to the St. Louis area, he brings Christian love with him.
How does this “4th Secret” have anything to do with feeding the hungry or clothing the naked?
I agree that the conversion of Russia couldn’t mean conversion to anything but the Christian faith… I can’t believe the Blessed Mother would play word games.
tim,
As I have written before, Russia has more characteristics of a Christian Nation than the United States or Italy.
Not that this “conversion” would mean COMPLETE conversion of all her institutions, just so that one could reasonably assert that Russia was a free Christian nation, as one could once say of the U.S..
Not a homogenous nation of Christians, but one founded on Christian principles.
I agree that the conversion of Russia couldn’t mean conversion to anything but the Christian faith… I can’t believe the Blessed Mother would play word games.
Tim J.:
What makes you think it hasn’t?
And, by the way, I was not even implying that she plays word games.
The original statement tim made was:
“Dr. Eric, if indeed the situation in Russia today represents Russia’s “conversion”, then Fatima is meaningless.”
I found it quite ridiculous since even after Rome converted to the Christian Faith, its people still lived very sinful and even faithless lives even after it had actually been converted; however, I wouldn’t call what brought it to convert to Christianity meaningless.
I was responding to the idea that the “conversion” could have meant conversion to Zoroastrianism, or whatever…
I should have pasted the relevant quote at the top of my post.
If you have received Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, you need nothing else.
Yet they felt a need to publish the “secrets.”
As previously noted:
Father Raymond Brown would say (about B16’s “new” book”), “Been there, done that” with my 878 page “imprimatured” review entitled “An Introduction to the NEW Testament”. Ditto for
Luke Johnson with his, The Real Jesus and NT Wright with his three volume set, The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection and the Son of God.
Or as some would say, “the Bible is true because it says it is”.
TimJ,
I only was pointing out that the apparition said Russia would convert, not that Russia would convert to the Roman Catholic Faith complete with Monday night Novenas, Saturday Rosaries, the St. Vincent De Paul Society, and Sunday night Bingo.
Russia’s reconversion back to Orthodoxy can be a legitimate fulfillment of said prophecy. Orthodoxy has a valid Episcopate, Priesthood, and Sacraments.
Paul,
I don’t see your point.
Corrigendum:
I found it quite ridiculous since even after Rome converted to the Christian Faith, a majority of its people still lived very sinful and even faithless lives even after it had actually been converted; however, I wouldn’t call what brought it to convert to Christianity meaningless or that it didn’t actually convert to Christianity.
Why?
Because even after one converts, there is still the fallen nature of man to contend with! It doesn’t somehow magically disappear after a person’s conversion!
…And for those who doubt Russia’s Conversion:
Russian church reunites, ending 80-year split
“Russia’s reconversion back to Orthodoxy can be a legitimate fulfillment of said prophecy”
I could buy that, sure. I just didn’t get that you were using hyperbole earlier.
Esau,
That was part of my point a few dozen posts ago.
Now if only the East/West Schism would end!
TimJ,
The world wide web is not the best of media to convey one’s meaning.
I wish this board had some smiley faces to help with the nuances involved. I think it would help.
The fact that there really are Grunerites (some of whom have posted above) helps me to understand how Slick Willy Clinton got elected and re-elected. The extent of stupidity in the world is mind-boggling.
Dr. Eric and Esau, the conversion of Russia cannot be “conversion” to Russian Orthodoxy– it is not the true faith, it is schismatic and does not acknowledge the authority of the Pope.
That is what I find so hilarious– see, I HAVE to believe the private statements of the Pope’s curial officials, or even the Pope’s private statements, but the orthodox can not only disbelieve them but also DENY his basis of authority, and that is not only ok, but would also be Mary’s intent at Fatima.
Who’s Catholic here?
I still find it hilarious that Realist uses that screen name.
Apparently what impresses him is not real authority, but things like the number of pages in a book.
Well, this book has 800 pages, so it MUST be true! And the guy who wrote it must be really SMART! He has college degrees, and everything!
And this he calls “realism”.
He doesn’t WANT to read the Pope’s book, because it is bad news for him and his delusory heroes. They become less relevant by the hour.
I know that I am Catholic enough not to have to base my Faith on a private apparition.
Brian,
Cajun Nick’s right – you’re making me feel old too!
As far as not having seen Princess Bride and the Caine Mutiny…Get thee to a Netflixery!
Seriously, they are both great movies, and thoroughly enjoyable, although in totally different ways…
TBS
Lino, your insult aside, I would bet that the “typical grunerite” would be far less likely to vote for Clinton than those unthinking individuals who buy the current line on Fatima.
But, keep those insults coming. It works a lot better than intelligent discourse.
tim,
While Orthodoxy may be schismatic, the Church does possess valid Episcopate, Presbyterate, and Sacraments.
Do you want the Russians to convert to Latin Catholicism?
I want the Russians to convert to the Catholic Church.
Guess what? So does Jesus.
(He’s our Lord).
Which Catholic Church?
(Hint, there are 22.)
The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, Eric.
(Check the Nicene Creed)
There are different rites, but one Church.
As to the rite, whichever they like is fine with me.
Do you want the Russians to convert to Latin Catholicism?
Dr. Eric, you’ve gone too far in your question. We all want the world to convert to Roman Catholicism. But Russia probably wouldn’t use the Latin rite.
Brian and tim,
You both missed the point, there are 22 Churches in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
There are 8 Rites.
A Church has a Patriarch or Catholicos as the head of the Church. Each of which is in Communion with the Roman Pontiff.
But to call them Rites when they are Particular Churches is an (unintentional insult.)
Eric, is the Church one?
I agree that I want the Russians to become Catholic.
But, the apparition does not say that the Russians will become Catholics.
Remember that the Russian Orthodox Christians give the Holy Theotokos the same hyperdulia that we Catholics do.
The conversion of Russia can mean that they will become a Christian nation again instead of being the Atheistic scourge that they once were.
The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
tim,
Please tell me what “legitimate authority” exists to say that the entire message has been revealed? The pope asked for the message to be revealed in its entirety to end speculation.
The local ordinary is the “legitimate authority” when it comes to private revelation. The local ordinary said it is worthy of belief and the local ordinary said Sr. Lucia wrote Calls from the Message of Fatima. Sr. Lucia wrote in her book that the Church has the authority to interpret the message. The Church has interpreted the message and the pope has said so. Who do you accept as the “legitimate authority” to end the matter if not the pope?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Eric, I have to do some work to justify my pay, so I unwillingly leave off for now.
But I would sum up my objections to your entire line of commentary with the following assertion:
If you are to be believed, then Mary’s prophecy at Fatima would be fulfilled today if she had said,
“If the Holy Father sort of consecrates Russia to my Immaculate Heart– I mean, if he says “Russia”, or “the world”, or something close– then I will intercede to produce a slightly less dangerous government there with an end to Communism for a time, even though crime and abortion continue to be rampant, and Russia will convert, sort of, to Orthodoxy, which must somehow comport with my Son’s words to Peter about the keys, but anyway, what was I saying…? Oh well, just celebrate God’s love and you’ll be fine.”
One thing I know is that I’m not competent to judge whether or not the prophecies of Fatima have been revealed and/or fulfilled. I’ll defer to the testimony of two Popes and the Sister who witnessed them.
tim,
First, you have not proven my point about a private revelation being binding on anyone.
Second, the apparition, assuming it really was the Theotokos and not the imagination of a child, said that Russia would be converted, period.
Not converted to Roman Catholicism with Monday Night Novenas, Thursday Night Knights of Columbus meetings, Saturday Rosaries and Sunday Night Bingo.
Not converted to Russian Catholicism with the Patriarch of Russia as the head of the Russian Church using the Byzantine Rite (there’s the difference between Rite and Church.)
Apparition says that Russia will be converted only. The rest is conjecture.
And the Orthodox only lack communion with the Pope and that’s it, and that really only goes back a few centuries.
In the middle east, the Orthodox and the Catholics enjoyed intercommunion until the 1700s.
“Jordan, thanks for highly informed opinion about whether or not I am really a Catholic. Wow, that was helpful.”
You’re welcome. You obviously needed to hear it, for all the good it was likely to do.
“And, I am certainly not a fatima fanatic, nor a ‘grunerite’. I am just a person with a brain, and, according to you, a sad individual masquerading as a Cathoic.”
Well, to that we must add that you’re someone who didn’t read what I said very carefully. “Masquerading as a Catholic” are your words, not mine.
Also, since we know you have a brain, I would encourage you to use it correctly. Just because your favored interpretation of the Fatima secrets does not match the one favored by the Church, that doesn’t mean the Church is wrong or the Church is hiding something. Please entertain the possibility that you could be wrong and the Church could be right. And please remember that if your interpretation is false, that doesn’t mean the Blessed Virgin lied or uttered a false prophecy.
So we are living in the period of peace and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart?
Russia has converted? Last I checked she is becomming more authoritarian every day. Freedom House has recently moved Russia from being classified as partially free to unfree.
We are left in a very confusing position! Either Gruner is right or Our Blessed lady was lieing.
I wouldn’t be one to claim therer is a 3rd secret cover up, the 3rd secret we have been given doesn’t look as if it has been fulfilled yet!
There are plenty of prophecies at Akita which say how cardinals will lose their way!
I think the most realistic response considering all the facts is to say that the full consecration has not happend. Perhaps we could say a partial consecration occured in the eighties (to end communism) like the partial consecration by Pius Xii which ended the 2nd world war. But we still await a full consecration which will usher in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
In the mean time we ought to follow the spirituality of St Louis Marie De Montfort who himself spoke of the coming triumph. We must consecrate ourselves to the Blessed Virgin.
The Consecration of Russia was accomplished by Pope John Paul II, as Our Lady requested, as per Sister Lucia. I post that for those who might not know this and might have believed that the above post to the contrary was correct.
Mark,
Russia is less authoritarian than the Holy Roman Empire or Franco’s Catholic Spain.
Another possibility is that Our Lady is right and Gruner is wrong.
Make that the above *posts* to the contrary.
Mark,
I think the most realistic response considering all the facts is to say that the full consecration has not happend.
Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (“Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984”: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA
I highly recommend anyone wishing to discuss this matter read this document which was issued by the legitimate authority of Pope John Paul II.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Sorry the link did not work.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA
I hope this does.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
It appears to me that the only authority some want to accept is the authority that tells them only what they want to hear.
If Dan Brown’s next novel were to reveal that the third secret was still being kept, well, secret, would they accept that authority over the Pope’s?
Hi, I’m back. Jordan, you said,
“Just because your favored interpretation of the Fatima secrets does not match the one favored by the Church, that doesn’t mean the Church is wrong or the Church is hiding something. Please entertain the possibility that you could be wrong and the Church could be right.”
Agreed. I do entertain this possibility. The point of my posts is that you should use your brain to entertain the opposite possibility. You probably won’t, since you know so much more than I do, but give it a shot, anyway.
Cajun Nick, you said,
“It appears to me that the only authority some want to accept is the authority that tells them only what they want to hear.”
Look in the mirror. Does anyone here understand that blind acceptance of anything anyone says who happens to be a prelate is not true obedience to the Holy Father? Lutherans did as much. Are you saying that no Cardinal ever made an incorrect statement? Would you be as convinced if Cardinal Mahoney stated that the secret was fully revealed? Or is it a case of being predisposed to like certain people because they already agree with you?
Inocencio, how reliable is that quote allegedly from Sr. Lucia? Where did it come from? Who produced it? What was the context, and how do you know it is accurate?
No. Actually, we know less. And we trust those who know more. “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
Jordan, by the way, I almost forgot to address the major problem with your helpful advice: you equate the statement of one cardinal, however wonderful, with the “Church”. In your conundrum posed, this cardinal’s opinion = the Church.
The secret was supposed to be revealed in 1960 but John XXIII clearly fearful it would derail his goal of apostasizing the church and “opening up the windows of the church so the world can see in”, decided to put it back in the draw
Sister Lucia never talked about the secret as she was cloistered for most of her life and as far as I know she never granted any interviews
The church after Vatican II placed the devotion to Our Lady on the backburner as it did not fit in with ecumenism and the distaste the Protestants have for Our Lady, devotion to her, or apparitions in general as witnessed on another thread about the apparition at La Salette
Prayers to Our Lady for the consecration of Russia were placed into the Low Mass by Leo XIII in 1884 and Pius XI and of course like everything else after the Catholic Reformation of Vatican II were quickly dismantled
Actually, we know less. And we trust those who know more. “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
When we truly know our limitations, we realize we don’t know who truly knows more.
John: We get it. Vatican II was bad. Everything since Vatican II was bad. Paul VI was bad. John Paul II was very bad.
We get it. Really. You’ve made your point. You seem incapable of making any other point. You come across as one who is obsessed.
God bless the Great “Converters” of Russia!!! Saint Ronald Reagan and the USA Taxpayers !!!!!!
And Tim J you are saying that B16 has some new NT passages and/or insights that were not addressed by Father Brown?? Have you read Father Brown’s book, An Introduction to the New Testament?
“When we truly know our limitations, we realize we don’t know who truly knows more.”
How do you know?
Bill, we get it. John Paul II was great. Really great. Really, really, really, super duper great!!
Benedict seems great, too, unless he gives in to the RAD TRADS, who are even worse than the Fatima nuts.
This thread needs to taken out of the hands of the children and handed back to the adults. Now.
Caritas/Veritas,
It’s o.k. I can handle these children.
Bill posted:
“John: We get it. Vatican II was bad. Everything since Vatican II was bad. Paul VI was bad. John Paul II was very bad. We get it. Really. You’ve made your point. You seem incapable of making any other point. You come across as one who is obsessed. ”
Bill-I dont quite recall seeing anything about JPII in my post.
Are you the one obsessed with me and all you can do is repeat time and time again in response to anything that does not go along with your reformist protestant guised as catholic (notice all lowercase) attitude as being “obssessed”? Quite possibly like Esau saves everyone of my posts like an internet stalker you are one as well????
P.S., I am going to take Memorial Day weekend off. Everyone who disagrees with me can go on doing so, I don’t mind discussion or argument. I ask that everyone remember we are on the same team. Pray for me, I for you, eat barbeque.
I also would close with a request that those of you who do believe this is all Fatima offered to us will pray for the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart that comes from the fulfillment of the predictions and promises in the apparition.
How do you know?
I didn’t say I did. Did you?
John, I am serious and sincere. You come across as one who is obsessed. Obsession is an illness. Please seek help.
Carl, if the statement I quoted was not intended as a statement of fact, what was it intended to be?
John, I am serious and sincere. You come across as one who is obsessed. Obsession is an illness. Please seek help.
One man’s dedication is another man’s obsession.
Carl, if the statement I quoted was not intended as a statement of fact, what was it intended to be?
Did I say it was a fact? Is everything you say intended as a statement of fact? Are all facts known and known to be facts?
tim,
I will certainly, and humbly, honor your request for prayer.
Enjoy your weekend. I’m putting up a (small) seasonal pool to enjoy with my family under the hot Louisiana sun. We’ll probably bar-be-que, too.
Carl sounds like (another) gnostic.
tim,
Again, who has the legitimate authority to decide if not the pope?
You seem to accept only the authority that you give a person.
Inocencio, how reliable is that quote allegedly from Sr. Lucia?
Whose authority will you accept as proof?
Where did it come from?
From a letter written by Sr. Lucia on November 8, 1989
Who produced it?
It is signed by Sr. Lucia
What was the context, and how do you know it is accurate?
The context seems clear. I accept that it is accurate because the pope approved it publication.
Have you read Calls from the Message of Fatima? There is a preliminary note by the bishop of Leiria-Fatima. He verifies that it was written by Sr. Lucia and that she had the permission of the Holy See to write the book as a general response to the many questions she received concerning the message of Fatima.
Sr. Lucia is a model of obedience. We should follow her example.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
How do you know?
TimJ sounds like (another) gnostic.
tim,
If you please, I’ll just bow out of this one. It seems that Inocencio is asking all the pertinent questions and providing all the relevant answers.
There is certainly nothing more that I can add.
Please just consider Inocencio’s most important question: Again, who has the legitimate authority to decide if not the pope?
Tim J, I agree. I figured he was earlier, but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
As long as we’re talking conspiracy theories, did you know the aparations at Fatima are contributing to global warming?
Once again, how is any supposed “suppression” of a “4th Secret” harming anyone’s Catholic Faith?
did you know the aparations at Fatima are contributing to global warming?
Does it have to do with all the hot air surrounding them?
Check out sspx Bishop Fellay talk on Rarate Caeli blog
“I do entertain this possibility. The point of my posts is that you should use your brain to entertain the opposite possibility.”
Actually I do consider that the Church’s favored interpretation of the Third Secret could well be wrong. However, since there’s not a shred of evidence that the Church is still hiding part of the Third Secret, or that there is a Fourth Secret, I do not entertain that possibility. That seems to be one of the important places where you and I part ways.
“You probably won’t, since you know so much more than I do, but give it a shot, anyway.”
As soon as someone produces evidence that Sister Lucia was mistaken when she affirmed that the entire Secret was released, then I will seriously consider the assertion that the Church is still hiding part of the Secret.
“Jordan, by the way, I almost forgot to address the major problem with your helpful advice: you equate the statement of one cardinal, however wonderful, with the ‘Church’. In your conundrum posed, this cardinal’s opinion = the Church.”
Well, in case you didn’t notice, that Cardinal wasn’t just giving his personal opinion. He was delegated to speak on behalf of the Church, to present the Church’s favored interpretation of the Secret — and Sister Lucia endorsed his interpretation too. It’s a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that we’re dealing with, not a Cardinal’s private theological discourses. Granted, the interpretation could still be wrong — but even so, if one of the Seers of Fatima cannot be trusted, then why should I trust you, or people like you, who didn’t receive any of Our Lady’s revelations?
We must also remember that, as has been stated here many times, no Catholic has any obligation to believe any private revelation. That means that even if the Church’s favored interpretation is wrong, ultimately it doesn’t matter, since the Catholic faith does not depend on Fatima. Rather, Fatima depends on the Catholic faith.
Aaron:
Does it have to do with all the hot air surrounding them?
Well, actually, when the sun danced, it got hotter. If you danced that kinetically for that long, your body temperature would rise, too. The excess heat energy was trapped in the atmosphere. Because we Catholics are packrats (think relics), the Vatican did everything under its power to keep the excess heat in. That‘s the fourth secret. It’s all a conspiracy, folks.
Waaaay back at the top when SubbleSpark first commented (that’s me). I got a response from tim saying that I was dismissing a discussion of faith matters through personal attacks.
Now I think the tenor of this discussion is getting a little too uncharitable and my words have unintentionally contributed to the hostility.
The fact is, both those who believe in a 4th Secret and those who take it that the secrets have all been revealed in their entirety are Catholic. I really disagree with this finger-pointing and saying the other guy is not Catholic when you know they have every right to call themselves Catholic until some bishop or the pope kicks them out of the Church. Period. So please knock that stuff off. We are allowed to have different opinions.
As far as my words constituting an ad hominum attack, I have to apologize if I offended but I would like to offer an apologia along with my apology.
I was raised Baptist and Evangelicals to this day are the type of people who read the book of Revelation into every single world event. They think the New Israel is a block of dirt in the Middle East when it is actually Christ’s Church. I have an Evangelical friend who would rather stay home and read Tim LaHaye while goofing on the thought of an imminent rapture instead of go with me to protest abortions. When I was a child, all we would hear from the pulpit was how it is the “End Times” anyway so never mind actually trying to do something to help someone.
In college, I was into the UFO conspiracy and thought the TV show The X-files had a secret agenda to inform the American populace of impending take over by aliens aided by top level officials in our government.
In time I just stopped believing these ideas. I watched the Cold War end and saw the same people mapping completely different politics back onto the same old tired predictions in Revelations. I saw Clinton succeed Bush Sr and suddenly all the talk about a vile and deceitful government cabal disappeared into a characteristically dopey administration.
Now I see our nation is in a crisis so desperate it could be interpreted as the death throes of Western Civilizaiton and we have these conspiracy buffs prowling the internet blogs and Youtube with “proof” the whole thing was an inside job and basically undermining our national unity and making the work of our soldiers that much more difficult.
You know those 9/11 conspiracies will never go away. Henceforth they will always remain the tools of our enemies in the recruitment efforts of each successive generation.
So I am sorry but when people come to me with these blasted conspiracies I cannot help but literally get a sick feeling in my gut. They make me want to retch. I chose not to believe them because they conjure up deep emotions of anger, regret, revulsion, and guilt.
I live my faith like it is a precious gift. I teach RCIA, and I preach anywhere and everywhere. But the conspiracies about “End Times” and disasters make me ill. I started going to the Tridentine Rite mass because I did not want to worship without kneeling like a Baptist, but I do not engage in conversations about secrets and ohmytheterriblebloodshedistocome because I do not want to talk like a Baptist.
And because, ultimately, there are more constructive things to be done before terrible bloodshed than to sit and worry about it.
Dear “tim,”
I did not state that Grunerites voted for Clinton. Instead, I stated, “The extent of stupidity in the world is mind-boggling” (as evidenced by both the existence of Grunerites and supporters of Clinton). Your failure to read my message carefully proves my point. Thank you.
stubblespark, thanks for the kind words, and I apologize if I said anything amiss.
As I have written before, Russia has more characteristics of a Christian Nation than the United States or Italy.
Eric, I agree that Russia isn’t quite as bad Christian-wise as it’s sometimes painted, but I’d really have to disagree here. Russia is the country with the highest abortion rate in the world. It’s not unusual for the average woman to have had six abortions. They’ve got a big struggle ahead of them, and depravity that Italy or the United States couldn’t even fathom.
For myself, I believe that Our Lady did not put a time limit on her promise. I don’t read anything where she said that once Russia was consecrated to her, everything would immediately sort itself out. I do believe that the Fall of Communism, religious freedom’s dawning, and now healing in the Russian Orthodox Church is the *beginning* of the fulfilment of her promise. But God works in centuries not the decades we often use to appraise his works.
My guess – and it is only a guess – is that Fatima will be looked back on as the first indication of the healing of the Great Schism. The restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church is not a step back for the unity of the Universal Church. How on earth could we ever achieve unity if the Eastern churches were in their present state of collapse and bickering? Let them regain health and holiness and they will be more able to engage in dialogue, reflection, and prayer for the Unity of the Church. It will take time to overcome the suspicions of the past, but this is an essential beginning.
I’m with Tim.
Firstly, the hoard of people chiming in with grossly uncharitable comments is anything but a “Catholic” response to a very reasonable question. Neo-Catholic rhetoric and condescension as offered during this discussion is enough to move any traditionalist to flee screaming from the illogical mess that is an attempted Fatima polemic.
Secondly, there are certain facts which, no matter the skill of the rhetorician and no matter his devotion to Cardinal Bertone, remain impossible to dismiss:
1. The Blessed Virgin asked for Russia to be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/FIRSTSAT.htm
2. In 1984, Russia was not consecrated: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/consecra.htm#John%20Paul%20II,%201984
(While it was clear that Pope John Paul wanted to do it properly, mentioning “especially the peoples for which by reason of their situation you have particular love and solicitude” for fears of offending the Russian Orthodox does not equal “We consecrate Russia to Your Immaculate Heart”).
3. Various popes tried to do this a number of times; Ven. Pius XII in 1942 and 1952, Pope Paul VI in 1964, Pope John Paul in 1982, and Pope John Paul again in 1984.
4. #3 shows that the Vatican has fouled up attempted consecrations in the past, and hence, could have done so again.
5. Sister Lucia–and this is the key point–repeatedly denied the acceptability of the 1984 consecration up until 1989, when she was visited by Vatican representatives. She stipulated three conditions for a proper consecration, clearly not met by the 1984 ceremony:
1. Explicit mention of Russia.
2. The consecration in union with all the world’s bishops.
#1 and #2 are both missing.
Sr. Lucia denied the efficacy of the 1984 consecration FIVE times; first she denied it in the September 1985 issue of Sol de Fatima (“There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia…Many bishops attached no importance to this act.”) Another well-known denial was made in 1987 to reporter Enrico Romero, evidently outside her convent. She reportedly also denied it as a reply to a question by Cardinal Law in the late 1980’s.
Then, true to her obedience, she sharply reversed course in 1989:
http://fisheaters.com/onfatima.html
So we are caught between the pre-and post-1989 Sr. Lucias.
6. Next–and this is EXTREMELY important–the words of Pope John Paul in 1980 establish that the 2000 version is not the same as the version which Sr. Lucia received.
Pope John Paul made a speech in Germany in 1980, which has evidently been tape-recorded, which made reference to the Third Secret and apocalyptic disasters: “”On the other hand, it should be sufficient for all Christians to know this much: if there is a message in which it is said that the oceans will flood entire sections of the earth; that, from one moment to the other, millions of people will perish … there is no longer any point in really wanting to publish this secret message.
“Many want to know merely out of curiosity, or because of their taste for sensationalism, but they forget that ‘to know’ implies for them a responsibility. It is dangerous to want to satisfy one’s curiosity only, if one is convinced that we can do nothing against a catastrophe that has been predicted.” (http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-feb14-05.htm)
Cardinal Ratzinger also said, in 1984, that the text had not been released because it added nothing to St. John’s writings in the Book of the Apocalypse.
7. Returning once more to Sr. Lucia, it is a well-publicized fact that part of the last secret includes the phrase “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved”: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/appariti/fatima.html
This appears nowhere in the 2000 Vatican version.
8. Those who condescendingly bash Tim for noting that Russia has NOT, in fact converted, that a period of peace has NOT, in fact, been forthcoming, and that Russia HAS, in fact, spread her errors, by deriding the idea of a “Heaven on Earth” vis-a-vis a converted, Catholic Russia are evidently unfamiliar with the events at Guadalupe and the millions of conversions of the pagan Mexican people.
Let it be said that to deride the possibility of a dramatic mass Russian conversion to Catholicism is to deride the intercessory power of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God. THAT, far from being “obedient Catholicism,”
9. Lastly, to frame the argument, as Mr. Akin has done, as “Either the Secret has been completely released, or Pope Benedict is a liar” is a false dichotomy for a number of reasons.
I’ll leave it there, anticipating a slew of replies denouncing me as a fanatical pope-hating, sedevacantist, disobedient Grunerite conspiracy theorist who kills kittens for amusement.
Mike,
May I ask two questions.
Do you acknowledge that as a private revelation Fatima is worthy of belief but belief is not required?
And from your evidence have you concluded that Pope John Paul II, Cdls. Ratzinger and Bertone and most especially Sr. Lucia (who you claim reversed her story) are liars?
I will wait for your response before I make the effort to research your evidence.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
tim,
I was including you.
Whether there is or there isn’t another,
with the three we have, not much people see the severity of them. Who has it clear that whole nations will cease to exist? That after terrible punishments, She will reign in a period so great like never in history, not even the Middle Ages?
The Cardinal has said bluntly there is no Fourth Secret. Benedict XVI has written the forward to his book saying there is no more. Let your heart be at Peace. If there is a Fourth Secret then it is….Secret. Leave it between a Mother and the Guardian of Her children.
God Bless
PS: If, in a family gathering, I dedicate my family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary others may not know that I mean my fallen away siblings but Mother Mary does. If in a mass the Holy Father dedicates “those in need” to the Immaculate Heart and She knows and he knows and we know just what he means who are you to argue, “he used the wrong words”. The Consecration requires specific language but prayers do not as the Holy Spirit puts meaning into our inarticulate groans.
Sir,
Mr.Bill 912,I quote one name in my write up.
Mr. Inocencio,
The Tamil Nadu Bishop’s Council never got permission from the Holy See into the Missal translation in 1993 as per canon 838(iii). So many aberations,deviations, dilutions, distortions, pervertions are there in the missal. Further I have sent many letters to the Hierarchies on various matters which are against the Vatican directions.
Alex Benziger.G ,
Would you care to clarify you above post? I can’t make head or tale of it.
Caritas/Veritas,
Turn off the irony filter on your browser, and re-read.
The Message already says enough about the punishments and Her eventual triumph.
Now the thing is, that maybe within those secrets or in a “universe of language”, something was not elaborated.
I would say it would have to do with who will be the instruments of the implantation of Her reign and who will help the Church pass through the tough days ahead. That is perfectly legit, as it does not really add a separate secret, but rather elaborating on the “anihaleted nations” and “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph” part.
According to Cardinal Ciappi (personal theologian at one time to Pope John Paul II), who read the Third Secret: “In the third secret it is written, among other things, that the apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” There is no mention of this in the vision that was revealed to the public by the Vatican on June 26, 2000.
“I’ll leave it there, anticipating a slew of replies denouncing me as a fanatical pope-hating, sedevacantist, disobedient Grunerite conspiracy theorist who kills kittens for amusement.”
Well, you don’t kill kittens for amusement, but as for the other things, yeah, I don’t know about fanatical pope-hating sedevacantist, but you are obviously a conspiracy theorist (Grunerite or not) — after all, you just posted arguments in favor of a massive conspiracy theory, with claims that Sr. Lucia is a liar (as if a vow of obedience could morally oblige a Christian to commit the sin of lying), and implications and insinuations that Pope John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and Cardinal Bertone are liars too, all involved in a massive cover-up intended to . . . . what exactly? Why do you think the Catholic Church (or at least all those apparently very wicked people like Sr. Lucia and John Paul II) wants so badly to keep the Real Truth About Fatima from coming out?
Sorry, but if you want people to take your conspiracy theory seriously, provide some real evidence. What proof is there that the Third Secret included a prophecy that Portugal would never defect from the Catholic faith? (Of course, if that really was a part of the Third Secret, then we would have to reject Fatima as spurious and unworthy of belief, since Portugal is hardly an exemplar of Catholicity any longer.) And what proof is there that Sr. Lucia ever denied that the 1984 consecration of Russia was done properly? Yes, I know Nick Gruner and his followers, and folks like them, claim that Sr. Lucia is a liar who changed her story (and if she is, it casts the Fatima private revelation into serious doubt), but where is their proof? They haven’t got anything better than rumors and just-so stories. Until they come up with better evidence than that, I will continue to give the Church the benefit of the doubt in this matter. And until Nick Gruner repents, I couldn’t care less what he and his adherents say about Fatima. To them, Fatima (or their imaginary version of Fatima) is more important to them than the Catholic faith is, and is practically a substitute for the Catholic faith.
“I really disagree with this finger-pointing and saying the other guy is not Catholic when you know they have every right to call themselves Catholic until some bishop or the pope kicks them out of the Church.”
No, there’s an awful lot more to being Catholic than not having been excommunicated by a bishop or pope. Neither does excommunication make someone a non-Catholic — it just makes him an excommunicated Catholic.
About Antonio Socci’s book:
Socci responds, “I don’t talk about apostasy, but Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Ciappi did.” (“In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” – Ciappi) Cardinal Ciappi, who read the third secret, was a personal theologian to Pope John Paul II.
Rich posted:
“John, I am serious and sincere. You come across as one who is obsessed. Obsession is an illness. Please seek help.
One man’s dedication is another man’s obsession”
Thank you Rich, I am indeed dedicated to the restoration of the church back to all things Catholic, as one can not be loved by the world as the church is trying to be these past 40 years at the same time hold up faith, morals, doctrine and tradition which go against everything this sinful secular world stands for
Our Lady who called for the consecration of her immaculate heart to Russia, not so we can worship together in the name of ecumenism, but to CONVERT which is no longer the goal of the Catholic church anymore. Fatima is now under the guidance of a rector who farms out the church at fatima to Hindus and alike, and one could only wonder what our lady thinks of the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principle and Norms of Ecumenism, from the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
This Directory “mandates” ecumenism into every aspect of Church life, and encourages numerous unprecedented interfaith practices at Fatima that have always been condemned by the Church before Vatican II as grave sins against Faith.
The Directory mandates/allows:
• Protestants to conduct the readings (except the Gospel) in a Catholic Church [#133]
• encourages common “spiritual exercises” and “retreats” between Catholics and Protestants [#114]
• allows non-Catholics to lecture in seminaries [#81]
• commands that young children be taught ecumenism in the schools [#68]
• mandates ecumenism for priests and religious in their years of formation [#’s 51, 70]
• commands priests to take part in the “continuous aggiornamento” of ecumenical teaching and practice [#91]
• encourages diocesan bishops to lend their parish churches to non-Catholics for their prayer services [#137]
• promotes interdenominational prayer-services among Catholics and Protestants in each other’s churches [#112]
• encourages the joint publication of an interdenominational Bible between Catholics and Protestants [#185]
• discourages Catholics from attempting to convert non-Catholics [#’s 23, 79, 81, 125]
• encourages Catholics to “rejoice in the grace of God” [sic] in Protestants [#206]
• recommends the construction of a single church to be owned and used by both Catholics and non-Catholics [#138]
• further recommends that in these joint churches, the Blessed Sacrament be placed in a separate chapel or room so as not to offend non-believers. [#139].
One can never be “to Catholic” as the Tims and Esaus seem to think I am. Obesessed? No, only committed to the full restoration of our beloved church. If that makes me a “Rad TRad”, than that is what I am.
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. (Matthew 5:11-12/DRV)
May I request that anyone who is going to make a claim on way or the other about this topic please cite your sources and if possible provide a link or a page number if quoting a book.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
Since you put quotation marks around the word mandates can you please cite the section number or numbers where the word mandate appears in the document? Because the word mandates is not used in section #51 or 70 as you stated in your comment.
Phrases like “it is very opportune” and should give careful attention to ecumenism along the following lines do not have the same meaning or weight as mandate and command.
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
I look forward to your response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I am always amazed at the fervor private revelation causes. Who cares whether the 3rd secret of Fatima was revealed perfectly or not? As Catholics, we already have the fullness of Revelation with the person of Christ and the teachings of the Church. Private revelation is not necessary for anyone’s salvation. It seems that there are much more important issues to debate.
Now, I recognize this will get some folks angry and I do not mean to disparage the Fatima apparition. My point is that it is not necessary for the work of the Church or for the salvation of anyone.
Jordan Potter:
What proof is there that the Third Secret included a prophecy that Portugal would never defect from the Catholic faith? (Of course, if that really was a part of the Third Secret, then we would have to reject Fatima as spurious and unworthy of belief, since Portugal is hardly an exemplar of Catholicity any longer.)
Not at all. Visionaries can get details wrong, and it’s happened many times in the history of the Church. Catherine Laboure is the famous example. Our Lady when she gave her the Miraculous Medal, also told her something of the events upcoming, and Laboure made some correct predictions of events and their years. She also made a completely wrong one. When this became apparent, she said humbly that she had got the Lady’s message wrong. Not every detail of even an authentic vision must be correct.
I really couldn’t care less about the Fatima secrets or any such thing. I got bigger fish to fry spiritually.
That having been said, the Holy See is the LAST entity I would trust to publish TRUE and ACCURATE information on anything pertaining to religion, let alone a private revelation.
I’m sorry, but the Holy See has done nothing to commend itself to our trust in the last several decades. I don’t beleive anything a churchman tells me.
If Pope Ratzinger told me the sky was blue, I’d have to check before believing it.
I hate feeling this way; please, pray for me and for our Church! She is alive; but then, so are zombies. Our Church is an animated corpse, who has whored herself to every untruth and debauchery imaginable . . . and our “good, orthodox Popes and Bishops” refuse to do anything about it!
Oh, and I have no sympathies for Fr. Gruner or any other idiot schismatic entity.
Oh, and I have no sympathies for Fr. Gruner or any other idiot schismatic entity. They’re just as wicked as the spineless, ball-less bishops and Popes of our Church.
Wow! I thought I’d never find someone who gives You Know Who a run for his money in the Bitter Disaffected RadTrad department, but Eric has proven me wrong for thinking that. Actually, considering Eric’s animosity towards schismatics, which You Know Who wholly lacks, Eric might just have more total bitterness and disaffection (though, admittedly, some of it is pointed in the right direction). Again, wow!
I don’t see how anyone could love the Church with a passion and not be bitter and/or disaffected.
I think it’s inaccurate to say I’m bitter per se; I’m actually a very light-hearted, sociable guy. I’m only bitter at evil: my own sinfulness, that of my society, and that of my Church.
Erik G.,
In your idea of holiness where does your offensive language fit in?
The Church is the Bride of Christ and our Mother. If you refuse to listen to those whom Christ sent with His authority you refuse to listen to Christ. Everyone of us is fallen and sinful. If you wait for churchmen to be perfect in your eyes before you obey you will jeapordize your own salvation. Obedience is better than sacrifice.
I will pray for you, please pray for me.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Since you put quotation marks around the word mandates can you please cite the section number or numbers where the word mandate appears in the document?
Quotation marks are not always used to indicate an actual quote but also as scare, sneer, shock, or distance quotes.
Anon.
Very true about quotation marks. But the information that John, as usual cut and pasted from another website, also used the word mandates.
“mandates ecumenism for priests and religious in their years of formation [#’s 51, 70]”
I wanted John to admit that he doesn’t read the actual documents but only what other people write about them.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Bitterness is not the mark of a Christian; joy is. When we are perpetually bitter, it is a sign that there is something wrong inside us.
Finally, I get to be the person who turns italics off.
Sir,Mr. Eric,
Your comment,”Fr. Gruner or any other idiot schismatic entity”.Please don’t forget St. Athanesius was excommunicated from the Church two times.
Saint Athanasius was excommunicated by people who had no canonical right to excommunicate him. Athanasius was always in communion with Rome.
Next moronic defense of the idiot Gruner?
I’m sorry, but is there some magic incantation that will call down the Theotokos to convert Russia?
What is this junk about a consecration not being done properly?
Is the True God a tyrant who refuses to hear our requests unless we follow the minutiae of protocol?
Can we begin to wonder why non-Catholics complain that we are superstitious and follow traditions of men when we argue about this stuff?
Fatima was not, is not, and will not be an essential part of the Faith people!
If the communists are tunneling under your house and your aluminum foil hat doesn’t fit anymore, maybe you need some professional help.
Even if all the cardinals had sold their souls to Satan and Iran has nuclear missiles pointed at your house, as long as you have no serious sins on your soul and have received the Sacraments who cares???!!!
Inocencio:
Answers to your questions:
Do you acknowledge that as a private revelation Fatima is worthy of belief but belief is not required?
It is not but the Church which deems Fatima a private revelation worthy of belief. That’s the highest endorsement of a private revelation which the Church will give.
Of course, given the 70,000 people who saw the Miracle of the Sun, and given that 3 popes (Venerable Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II) all thought the revelation important enough to merit 5 separate tries at doing the Consecration correctly, I’d say the Church (i.e., the pope and most devout Catholics, myself included) have no doubt about the veracity of the Fatima apparition. Indeed, there are churches named “Our Lady of Fatima,” and I would imagine the Church would not permit churches to be named after false apparitions (e.g., “Our Lady of Medjugorje” or “Our Lady of Bayside”).
Venerable Pius XII in particular took the Fatima apparition very seriously, particularly for its predictive value for the future of the Church:
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.
“A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?”
– Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Historie, p. 52-53”
I must say that the above pegs the post-1960 Church to a T, almost as though Ven. Pius XII were given the gift of prophecy.
And from your evidence have you concluded that Pope John Paul II, Cdls. Ratzinger and Bertone and most especially Sr. Lucia (who you claim reversed her story) are liars?
This is, as you must know, a loaded question.
I said nothing about the Holy Father or anyone else lying. I merely provided you the evidence that Sr. Lucia denied the validity of the consecration pre-1989. After 1989, some would have us believe there is a change.
As far as I can see, and others have already mentioned, there is a problem here. I will not accept your attempt to bait me into calling someone high in the Curia a liar.
I will say, however, that the “Vatican” (whatever that term means, precisely) has seen fit to mislead, deceive, and—yes—even lie on past occasions when some unfavorable outcome might otherwise have resulted.
To give an example:
1. The Holy Father, upon seeing Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ, is reported by many, papal biographer Peggy Noonan among them, to have remarked “It is as it was”: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004442
Now you well know about the furor put forth by many Jews regarding the alleged anti-Semitism in the film. You also well know that Pope John Paul went out of his way, on many occasions, to appease or otherwise carry on ecumenical “dialogue” with the Jews; he prayed at the Western Wall, he issued an infamous “apology” for the Church’s “mistreatment” of Jews (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,230447,00.html), urged Jewish attendees at the Newark airport in 1995 to leave before sundown to arrive home for their Jewish “holy days,” prayed in synagogues, held the Assisi prayer meetings twice in which Jewish requests to remove crucifixes from prayer rooms were honored…I need not go on.
What did Rome do? They lied. Peggy Noonan was evidently just as disturbed as anyone else should be that, in order to appease the Jewish backlash, Rome denied that the pope had approved: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004587
Let it be noted, too, that the desire to appease and ecumenize with the Jews is an utter novelty in the history of Catholic papal interaction with the Jews. Past popes would never have accepted the train of scandalous interactions a la Assisi or the entering into synagogues.
If you want proof, we’ll look to a pope whose example and fidelity to the faith is unquestionable: St. Pius X. The following can be found in Niccolo Dal-Gal’s “Pius X: The Life Story of the Beatus,” on page 88:
“[Mantuan authorities were accustomed to celebrate King Umberto’s birthday both in the Cathedral of Mantua and in the town’s Jewish synagogue—that is, until Bishop Giuseppe Sarto took control of the see of Mantua]: “Putting the Synagogue on the same level as the Catholic Cathedral could not but be offensive to Msgr. Sarto, and in 1889, a few days before March 14th, he decided to put an end to it. He sent the usual invitation to the Municipal authorities, but added politely but clearly the dilemma: “It must be either the Cathedral or the Synagogue, the Bishop or the Rabbi.” ”
To return to the point about Gibson’s film; a small point, you might say. Yet it happened, and it is enough to show you that some in the Vatican will indeed LIE when the stakes are high enough.
Many other examples exist of the same kind, however small they might be. You might consider, for instance, the fact that the Vatican lied about who found the dead body of Pope John Paul I. It was Sister Vincenza, an elderly nun, who found him. Reportedly the Vatican did not wish to give “scandal” to the faithful, although nuns had tended the papal rooms for years. What they succeeded in doing was fueling various conspiracy theories about the Holy Father having been murdered. Regardless, they lied, and suffice it to say that the circumstances surrounding the sudden death of a pope are fairly weighty times requiring truth, not deception.
One more example; Brother Roger’s reception of Holy Communion at the funeral of Pope John Paul. Various lies were circulated claiming that Brother Roger had converted to the Catholic Faith.
This is not true: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3865.html
A sacrilegious Communion is a monstrous crime. The “Vatican,” however (word in quotes to denote the fact that no one really knows who calls the shots in these situations) sought to backpedal in all ways, thereby deceiving once more in order to avoid reaching the obvious conclusion: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/images/roger.gif
Now that we’ve established that SOMEONE who has power in the Vatican is indeed capable of lying, we should proceed to examine Fatima.
What of Sr. Lucy? The Blessed Virgin promised she would go to Heaven years after Blessed Jacinta and Blessed Francisco. We know, then, as far as private revelation allows us, that Sr. Lucia is a saint. Saints do not commit deliberate venial sins and remain in their sanctity. I therefore doubt that Sr. Lucia willfully told a lie. It must also be said, however, as others have noted, that Sr. Lucia very highly valued obedience. It is not at all difficult to imagine that, under obedience, Sr. Lucia could have been persuaded by some Vatican official to retract her earlier disagreements with the efficacy of the consecration.
She repeatedly denied the efficacy of the Consecration. She denied in it September 1985 in Sol de Fatima magazine. Here’s the interview excerpt: http://www.fatima.org/crusader/cr33/cr33pg13.asp
If you’d like, you can contact Sol de Fatima and ask for a back issue: http://www.soldefatima.com/
Note that September 1985 is AFTER the March 25, 1984 consecration by the Holy Father.
Her cousin, speaking of Sr. Lucia, said in 1986 that it had not been done: http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=671
Again, in 1987, Sr. Lucia denied, to journalist that the Consecration had been accomplished before journalist Enrico Romero: http://www.fisheaters.com/onfatima.html
Do you realize how easy it would have been to dispel this? A simple open-air interview with Sr. Lucia, in which she said “The Holy Father did the Consecration” would have done the trick.
Now, many cardinals have spoken of the contents of the Secret. Cardinal Ciappi and Cardinal Oddi have spoken of its contents involving the loss of the Catholic Faith: http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/fatima18.htm
Cardinal Stickler, in 1987, said that because the bishops had not obeyed the pope, the Consecration had not been done: http://www.olrl.org/prophecy/fatima.shtml
Fr. Fuentes, who conducted interviews with Sr. Lucia in the 1950’s, has also written a great deal on the topic. Vittorio Messori, who co-authored “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” with Pope John Paul, interviewed Cardinal Ratzinger in 1984 about this Secret: http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr64/cr64pg35.asp
Sr. Lucia, in her memoirs, notes that third secret contains the words “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved” (and the Vatican notes it in the 7th footnote here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html)
Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 2003 interview with Raymond Arroyo, noted that the interpretation of Fatima need not be a closed case: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/RATZINTV.HTM
Russia remains a grossly anti-Catholic country with one of the highest abortion rates in the world. She has spread her errors of atheism far and wide, and no period of peace has been granted the world since 1984.
And yet the 2000 Vatican version would have it that the Blessed Virgin of God descended from Heaven to tell us—wait for it—that, in 1981, a lone gunman in St. Peter’s square would shoot and injure the Holy Father, who would subsequently recover.
That’s it, right? That’s the whole secret? That’s why Sr. Lucia said the secret would be “clearer” in 1960, nicht? Because, in 1960, it would have been really, really clear that 21 years later, in 1981, someone would shoot the pope, he would recover, and a cataclysmic miracle and 40 years of Vatican evasions were necessary to set it up? And that the lone gunmen shooting the pope twice represents, in some way, a volley of arrows and bullets killing a bishop in white and a bunch of nuns and priests?
It all makes a great deal of sense, right?
Well if you buy that, there’s a nice bridge I’d like to sell you. This simply does not accord with reason, however stealthily you’d like to unearth my opinions about then-Cardinal Ratzinger (to be clear, I am not a sedevacantist, nor a schismatic, and, like many Catholics, I offer the prayer for the Holy Father’s intentions daily) and Sr. Lucia (who is surely, as the Blessed Virgin assured us, a saint).
All of this and much more demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that what was released in 2000 WASN’T THE WHOLE SECRET.
http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/appendix.htm
I would encourage you to view the situation objectively, leaving aside the question of personality cults. Pope John Paul himself, as I already mentioned, gave to a German audience the reason why the Secret was not published: http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-feb14-05.htm
In it he mentioned the fact that the secret contained notice of certain disasters, which accords with what the Blessed Virgin spoke of (nations being “annihilated”): http://www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/Third_Secret/Fatima.htm
You will notice, again, that none of this appears in the year 2000 version.
I apologize if you dislike my method or the conclusions here reached, but I would again urge you to dispense with personality cults, false dichotomies (“The Third Secret has been released or Pope Benedict must be lying”), and other tactics designed to provoke you to overlook the obvious.
I’ll leave with some words from Mother Angelica, delivered on her television show on May 16, 2001: “As for the Secret, well I happen to be one of those individuals who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing.”
Jordan Potter:
you just posted arguments in favor of a massive conspiracy theory, with claims that Sr. Lucia is a liar (as if a vow of obedience could morally oblige a Christian to commit the sin of lying), and implications and insinuations that Pope John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and Cardinal Bertone are liars too, all involved in a massive cover-up intended to . . . . what exactly?
Please retract your statement. Nowhere in my first post on this topic did I say that Pope John Paul is a liar, nor did I say so of Cardinal Ratzinger, nor of Sr. Lucia. Do not impute to me slanderous detraction which I did not, in fact, make.
Why do you think the Catholic Church (or at least all those apparently very wicked people like Sr. Lucia and John Paul II) wants so badly to keep the Real Truth About Fatima from coming out?
Leaving aside your continuing falsification of what I said, I’ll let Pope John Paul himself reveal what the Church had to gain by keeping the Secret, well, secret:
“Many want to know merely out of curiosity, or because of their taste for sensationalism, but they forget that ‘to know’ implies for them a responsibility. It is dangerous to want to satisfy one’s curiosity only, if one is convinced that we can do nothing against a catastrophe that has been predicted.”
http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-feb14-05.htm
Further, if, as seems quite likely, the Secret said SOMETHING about the crisis in the Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council (recall that Sr. Lucia stipulated that it be released in 1960, when it would be “clearer”; 1960 happened to be the year when schemata for the Second Vatican Council were being drawn up), the quote from Sr. Lucia’s memoirs is all the more intriguing: “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
As others have noted, speaking of a place where the dogma WILL be preserved implies that in other places it will NOT be preserved. Cardinal Oddi, the friend of Blessed John XXIII who read the secret, spoke to this connection of the Secret with a “revolution” in the Church.
(3) Silvio Oddi, Il Tenero mastino di Dio, (Rome: Progetti Museali Editore, 1995), p. 217.
Cardinal Ciappi spoke similarly of a “great apostasy” in the Church: http://www.franciscan-archive.org/ThatChristMayReign.html
Of course, if it all sounds too far-fetched, you may freely dismiss it. The atheists standing in the Cova on October 13, 1917 no doubt thought the claimed forthcoming miracle was hogwash—that is, until the sun started spinning.
What proof is there that the Third Secret included a prophecy that Portugal would never defect from the Catholic faith?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
(See footnote #7)
Sr. Lucia’s 4th Memoir
http://www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/Third_Secret/Fatima.htm
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=51121
I’d keep going, but I think you understand that the proof is ample.
(Of course, if that really was a part of the Third Secret, then we would have to reject Fatima as spurious and unworthy of belief, since Portugal is hardly an exemplar of Catholicity any longer.)
Perhaps you were not aware that Portugal is 97% Catholic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal#Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations#By_proportion
To the rest, I know little about Fr. Gruner. I am certainly not one of his “followers,” nor can it be considered legitimate to elevate Fatima to the status of dogma.
But this discussion is about Fatima, and suffice it to say that the completely story remains at large.
Saint Athanasius was excommunicated by people who had no canonical right to excommunicate him. Athanasius was always in communion with Rome.
Actually, it was Pope Liberius who confirmed the excommunication: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
Next moronic defense of the idiot Gruner?
I’m not out to defend Fr. Gruner, but let it be noted that the most visibly “moronic” commentary present on this thread must be your attempt to dress up your slander of a Catholic priest as “Catholic.”
If you’d be so kind as to point me to the papal writing which legitimate referring to priests as “idiots,” I’d be greatly obliged.
As far as I can see, and others have already mentioned, there is a problem here. I will not accept your attempt to bait me into calling someone high in the Curia a liar.
I will say, however, that the “Vatican” (whatever that term means, precisely) has seen fit to mislead, deceive, and—yes—even lie on past occasions when some unfavorable outcome might otherwise have resulted.
Posted by: Mike | May 27, 2007 12:30:38 PM
Now that we’ve established that SOMEONE who has power in the Vatican is indeed capable of lying, we should proceed to examine Fatima.
Posted by: Mike | May 27, 2007 12:31:43 PM
These are in direct contradiction of each other. Which one would you like to retract?
Sorry, italics off.
I’m sorry, but is there some magic incantation that will call down the Theotokos to convert Russia?
This sounds uncomfortably similar to those who refer to the words of Consecration as “hocus pocus.”
The Blessed Virgin asked that Russia (not Mexico, not Portugal, not the world, not “those people in special need of your solicitude”) be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. If Russia is consecrated, Russia will convert to Catholicism: http://www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/Third_Secret/Fatima.htm
Russia has not converted to Catholicism, therefore, Russia was not consecrated: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
Is the True God a tyrant who refuses to hear our requests unless we follow the minutiae of protocol?
The Form of Consecration of the Sacred Body of Christ is: “Hoc est enim corpus meum” (“For this is My Body”).
If a priest fails to pronounce these words during the Mass and no consecration therefore takes place, thereby rendering the Mass invalid, do you think it fitting to blame God or the priest?
Fatima was not, is not, and will not be an essential part of the Faith people!
And what is the topic of this comment box about?
If something is not a dogma of the Faith, does that, in your view, disqualify it from serious discussion?
If the communists are tunneling under your house and your aluminum foil hat doesn’t fit anymore, maybe you need some professional help.
And if someone views anti-Catholic Russia, which has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, as not precisely “converted” to Catholicism, do they, in your view, merit professional help?
Russia was a Communist country, and most of the abortions that Russian women had were under Communism. The Russian people are by the millions are reconverting to Orthodoxy.
Another question is, do you really believe Fatima to be on the same level as the Mass? The words of consecration come from the words of Scripture. Does Fatima?
Dr. Eric:
I said someone high in the Vatican is capable of lying (which is true) and that, in the past, the Vatican (meaning, a Vatican spokesperson) has lied (which is true; I provided examples).
I then said that I would not be baited into calling someone high in the Curia a liar. You’ll note that there is no such contradiction.
There is no name-calling here, nor detraction. Someone has lied, but we don’t who it is. I’ve named no names, and you’ll note that I rejected the idea of calling Pope John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger, or Sr. Lucia a liar. I continue to reject that tactic, which I do not think to be fair or accurate.
Mike,
You still haven’t answered my question from 12:57.
Another question is, do you really believe Fatima to be on the same level as the Mass? The words of consecration come from the words of Scripture. Does Fatima?
You already know the answer to this question.
Inasmuch as you have made it clear by this question that you are not interested in serious discussion, I am finished replying to you.
“slander of a Catholic priest”
Surely you meant to say, “Slander of a suspended, disobedient Catholic priest who promotes irrational and irresponsible views about Fatima,” right?
“Please retract your statement. Nowhere in my first post on this topic did I say that Pope John Paul is a liar, nor did I say so of Cardinal Ratzinger, nor of Sr. Lucia. Do not impute to me slanderous detraction which I did not, in fact, make.”
No, you didn’t explicitly call them liars. You just claimed they said one thing at one point, and then later said something different that cannot be reconciled with what they allegedly said before. It’s pretty clear what you said, and what you wish people to conclude from your insinuations and wild conspiracy theorising.
By the way, I thank you for reminding me that the official Vatican in 2000 actually acknowledges the existence of the prophecy that Portugal would always preserve the Catholic faith. It’s frankly hilarious how you tried to make something of the fact that the Third Secret was supposed to include that prophecy, and then you direct us to the official text of the Third Secret which doesn’t have that prophecy — but includes a footnote pointing out that very fact. Well, those wicked Vatican conspirators sure did botch that one, eh? Why did they produce a spurious copy of the Third Secret and then point out to everyone, “This copy is fake — we took this part out: . . . .” Did they want their conspiracy to fail? Are they really that inept?
How about this: Maybe Sr. Lucia forgot what was in the Third Secret, and the prophecy about Portugal was never a genuine part of the Third Secret? Or maybe it was a genuine part, and she forgot to include it when she first wrote down the Third Secret?
As for POrtugal, yes, I know that most Portuguese are Catholic — at least nominally. I also know that their government just pushed through the legislation of prenatal infanticide . . . .
“I’ll let Pope John Paul himself reveal what the Church had to gain by keeping the Secret, well, secret”
That explains (in part) why the Church delayed revealing the Third Secret prior to 2000. It does nothing to support your claim that since 2000 some important parts of the Third Secret have been deliberately and deceitfully withheld. (And please, no more of that, “I didn’t accuse anyone of lying or deceit” song and dance. Your words are recorded here for all to read. You may not remember what you said, but just scroll back up and refresh your memory.)
I also note that you reason that because Russia is not yet Catholic, that means Russia has not yet been consecrated properly. Well, yes, it could mean that — or it could mean that you’re misinterpreting the prophecy, or it could mean that you are impatient and aren’t looking at things from God’s perspective on human history. Again, it could mean that the prophecy is false, perhaps because the Fatima Seers misheard Our Lady or misinterpreted what they heard.
Speaking of conspiracies, does anyone here think it odd that the old Secretary of State, Sodano, is still in his office and shows no signs of leaving despite having been replaced by Bertone nearly a year ago?
Eileen R.,
I am wondering what prophesy St. Catherine Laboure got wrong? I was not aware of any.
Please tell.
Sir,
Somebody saying Fr. Gruner is idiot.Let it be there.
6 Protestant fellows defined the Novus Ordo it leads to the Holy Mass is a drama in the altar.
Who is responsible for this mockery,Paul VI and the college of Cardinals. Since the 2nd Vatican Council good priests are sidelined or suspended or dismissed influential fellows appointed as bishops.
I can give so many names of priests and bishops, their writings and their actions against the scripture as well as dogmas of the Church. But they are not suspended.
Athanasius himself tells us this Liberius’s “condemnation” of Athanasius (if such it was) was insincere and made only under durress.
ABG: You have a talent for making vague accusations.
Just my personal opinion, but with all due respect, (and I am not Roman Catholic, but Orthodox), I think all of the confusion and nonsense generated by these private “revelations” is strong evidence that we should give them no credence. I hate to say it but I think that all of this Fatima stuff is just fodder for Jack Chick cartoons. Instead of worrying about what little peasant children imagine in their heads, we should be reading Scripture, obeying the Tradition (with a capital T), going to confession, asking for humility, and receiving the sacraments. There is no need for these alleged revelations, since all that we need to know has been revealed and is present in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Just my two cents.
“….I think all of the confusion and nonsense generated by these private “revelations” is strong evidence that we should give them no credence.”
Excuse me, but… You do realize you’ve just argued for ignoring the Bible, religion, science, and the difference between dishes in the dishwasher being dirty or clean? All of these things continually breed confusion and controversy — or rather, freewill and human nature does, and uses everything else as an excuse.
No, you shouldn’t take even approved private revelation _too_ seriously, because it says right here on the box that private revelation’s not essential to salvation. But if people dispose themselves to make good use of any of God’s good non-essential gifts, they can and should get a lot of good out of them. It’s all a matter of discernment, good sense, and keeping things in perspective — and that’s whether we’re talking about the proper use of chocolate, sunshine, or private revelation. If you’re not able to use something responsibly, learn to do so or leave it alone.
God is not the author of confusion. The Epistle to the Hebrews says that God spoke in many ways through the prophets, but in these days he has spoken through His Son. Revelation was complete with the death of the last apostle. There is no more need to for any revelations. The task of the Church is to preserve the revelation, the faith that the apostle says “was delivered once and for all.” What possible benefit is there in any so-called private revelation? What is it that one can learn from an apparition that one does that not already know from the Scriptures and from living the Liturgical life of the Church. If you read the fathers of the early Church, they are clear that we should be doubly suspicious of any apparitions or imaginings as they are most likely caused by demons and given to us to work up our pride and feelings of self righteousness. I know not where the visions of Fatima come from but I see no reason to believe that they are from God. I am not saying that they are demonic. But I do think that they do more harm than good.
Sorry, that was me. My computer settings must have reset.
Why no comments on the Tridentine Mass indult???
You guys are slow!!!
Well I also knew before most as well.
Being a Herald of the Gospel gets you insiders info.
But that Mr. Jimmy has not posted surprises me, as I assume you have friends in Rome.
You’re not referring to the baseless and almost certainly false rumor in Der Spiegel that the Motu Proprio will be released this week, are you?
As for Joe S. wondering what’s the point of private relevations, I suppose he’ll have to ask God, because the saints have been seeing visions and receiving private revelations from the very beginning of the Church (note Joel’s prophecy quoted by St. Peter in Joel 2). St. Paul received many private revelations — he mentions them, but does not say what they are. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus saw a vision of the Blessed Virgin and St. John in which he received from St. John a creed that is directly ancestral to the Nicene Creed. I could easily multiply the examples of saints — even saints recognised by the Eastern Orthodox Churches — received private revelations. I’m simply amazed that someone who says he is an Orthodox Christian would altogether dismiss the divine grace of private revelations.
Duh, make that Acts 2, not Joel 2. . . .
AND NOW ANTONIO SOCCI’S RESPONSE:
Cardinal Bertone, on the occasion of the 90th Anniversary of the First Apparition of Our Lady to the Children of Fatima, took the opportunity to state that the whole secret of Fatima has been published and interpreted correctly, and that nothing more remains; claiming that Sr. Lucia of Fatima had confirmed this to him in person, in his private, yet unverifiable interview, which he had with her before she died.
The controversy is this: Antonio Socci, a respected Italian Journalist, has recently published a Book in which he brings forward the evidence to prove that when the Vatican “revealed” the Third Secrete of Fatima some years ago, that a vision which St. Lucia had was put forward as the secret, when in truth, according to the verifiable testimony of many men, including Cardinal Ratzinger himself, the Third Secret was not this vision, but a warning about the loss of the Faith at the very highest levels of the Church.
There are some excellent and informative articles at http://www.fatima.org and http://www.cfnews.com and in the Spring 2007 edition (Issue 85) of The Fatima Crusader about Antonio Socci’s book and this controversy. But to add some clarity to the matter, I will publish here, my own unofficial translation of Antonio Socci’s May 12, 2007 response to Cardinal Bertone:
– – – – – – –
Dear Cardinal Bertone, between me and you, which of us knows in his heart that he is lying? And let’s not talk about Freemasonry . . .
Cardinal Bertone: Today, on the 90th anniversary of the Apparition of Fatima (May, 13, 1917), has come the hour to tell the whole truth and to give ear to Our Lady . . .
How erroneous! Who knows why Cardinal Bertone has been caught in this shameful affair, involving the Vatican itself in this mess. Personally, I ought to be very happy that the Secretary of State (hence the number 2 man in the Church) has published a book, L’ultima veggente di Fatima (The Last Visionary of Fatima), to refute my own, Il quarto segreto di Fatima (The Fourth Secret of Fatima). It’s unique! Dan Brown did not even receive such an honor.
Evidently something of what I had written had to have shocked many. The Cardinal, though, has escaped the fray because — with every respect for Christian charity — he inveighed against me: my own would be “pure ravings”, my investigation played along “with the ancient Masonic game of discrediting the Church”. And “I am amazed”, the Cardinal adds in a threatening tone, “that journalists and writers that proclaim themselves Catholics, hastened to play this game!” In fine my own book was “the threat”, and I would be the one who “knows in his heart that he is lying”.
Unfortunately, he does not show where and how I would have lied. I had asked him only to explain — for example — why in his own presentation on the Third Secret, published by the Vatican, he cited a letter of Sr. Lucia, omitting however (without saying so) one decisive phrase that undermines his entire presentation. As I point out in my book, I searched in every way to preserve the reputation of the Cardinal regarding this “discrepancy” (one of many). But Bertone in his tome no only does not give any explanation of the fact, but cites again the same letter “whitewashed” in the same manner. This is shocking. One should not use documents in this manner to make these sort of self-declarations.
But what is at the heart of our disagreement? It stands in this question: the famous “third secret” of Fatima, containing the prophecy concerning what would befall the Church and the world in the near future: “What it published in its entirety in 2000?” I began my investigation convinced that it perhaps was so. Then I had to admit that the facts pointed the other way. I did not want to take the initiative, out of loyalty, to declare and reveal the incredible quantity of “holes” and contradictions in the official version. Since the Third Secret is a mystery which from decades has produced a true psychosis in the mass media (and even among governments and secret agents), a prophetic text of enormous importance for Catholics (and for our own future), a text accredited by the Church that has recognized the most important Marian apparition in history, I pointed out the necessity that there be clarified — on the part of the Vatican — the entire enormous mess of the official version or that there be published the hidden text (just as the recent Appeal to the Pope of Solideo Paolini did). To Bertone, who since becoming a Bishop, has been a protagonist in the publication made of the secret in 2000, I asked for an interview during the course of my investigation. Even though he knows me well, he denied it to me, and moreover, he took steps immediately to publish a book to respond to my own. As he has done in recent days (May 13, the 90th Anniversary of the Apparitions).
The problem is that this book does not even give a response to my questions. And moreover it puts forward further problems. It has proved, in a word, an embarrassment to read such a messed up work and one which destroys its own author. For any author it ought to be an exceptional coup to seem himself attacked personally by the Secretary of State of the Vatican without even a trace of rational argument. But for me it is a disaster, because I consider myself first a Catholic and then a journalist. I would have preferred to loose the point and be refuted. Or I would have even wished that the Holy See had decided to reveal the whole truth about the “third secret” of Fatima, by publishing — as Our Lady requested — the part which is as of yet hidden. Otherwise I would have preferred to be ignored, snobbed off, and boycotted. The only mistake, the only thing to be avoided is precisely what Bertone has done: to put himself on public display without responding to anything and even to add more fuel to the fire. For him and for the Vatican.
On top of it all there is the problem of the “management” of the witness of Fatima: for years everyone had to make divinations about Fatima on account of the fact that she had been silenced by the Vatican since 1960. What was feared? Before the publication of the text, in 2000, the Pope sent Bertone to the sisters, at Coimbra. He sent him again another time in November of 2001. Finally the prelate returned to her in December 2003. These three interviews were great occasions because the sole visionary still alive, nearly a centenarian, had left all Catholics and all humanity her complete and most precious testimony on the most important Marian apparition in history. It was the opportunity of the century.
Even to silence so many voices and legends and to protect the Vatican from the accusations of manipulation, these interviews where neither recorded, nor filmed, nor transcribed. The Cardinal explains now that he took “precise notes”. Thus in the official documents of Fatima there are reported only a few phrases attributed to the Sister, phrases of questionable credibility and satisfying in nothing because the decisive questions, those which would have served to clarify all doubts, where not even posed, or at least are not reported by Bertone. In which regard, in my book I had asked: “Why throughout 10 hours of conversation had you taken note of only a few of the phrases of the sister, which would comprise at the most 4 minutes of dialogue?” “What else did she say in all those hours?” “Why did you not pose to Lucia the decisive questions, or why did you not report her answers?” Bertone in his book does not furnish any clarification. And what is worse he attributes today to the sister — who is now dead and cannot at all lie — some phrases which were not reported in the official account of 2000.
According to Bertone the sister said, in the presence of the text of the official statement of 2000, that “this is the Third Secret”, “the only text” and “I have not written anything else”. Why was a phrase so important not reported by Bertone in the official publication? And why did the prelate not ask the visionary if he had ever written the conclusion to the mysterious words of Our Lady hidden in the et cetera (“In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be conserved et cetera”) which have always been considered by the experts as the opening lines of the Third Secret? Truly strange. Like the other phrase which today — and only today, with the death of the visionary — the prelate attributes to her, according to which Sr. Lucia, when she came to know of the attempt on the pope in 1981, “thought immediately that what the Third Secrete contained had happened”. Why was such a decisive confirmation never reported in the official account? Why in the Vatican dossier, which published the text of the visionary (with “the bishop dressed in white slain”), did no one — neither Sister Lucia, nor Cardinals Sodano and Ratzinger, nor even Bertone himself —write explicitly that the attempt of 1981 was the realization of the Third Secret? And why did Ratzinger say that such an interpretation was only a hypothesis and was not the “official interpretation” of the Church, while today Bertone pretends to impose it as the official version? And why did Sister Lucia, in her letter to the Pontiff included in the Vatican dossier, and written in 1982, that is a year before the attempt, explain that “we have not yet seen the final consummation of this prophecy” (of the Third Secret), but that “we are walking bit by bit towards it with big steps”? Why in this letter to the Pontiff did Lucia not make mention of the attempt, so as to verify in fact that it would be the realization of the Secret?
There are those who have sustained that Bertone has not recorded, nor transcribed the conversations with the visionary so that the psychological pressures, which were employed upon the cloistered sister in order to induce her to discount certain texts, would not emerge. This returned to my mind while I read the page of Bertone’s book where the Cardinal remembers that at a certain point the visionary was “irritated” and said to him: “I am not in the confessional!”1 Whatever could have Lucia been responding to, with these harsh words? Perhaps someone reminded the elderly, cloistered sister of the power of the Church or mentioned “that one would not be absolved”? No one knows, why the Cardinal — who remembers well the sister’s answer (among the tomes of discourse) — says that he “removed” (a direct quote) his own question.2
It is evident that the “Fourth Secret” of Fatima (or rather the hidden part of the Third Secret” does exist and in my book I think that I have demonstrated that. There is not only the clamorous revelation of an exceptional witness, monsignor Loris Capovilla, the secretary of John XXIII (who was present at the opening of the “third secret”), in regard to which words, gathered by Solideo Paolini — unbelievably — Cardinal Bertone, in his own book, says not a word. But there is even more. We know, of that “censored” part, that it was written on a single page and not upon 4 pages as the text of the vision revealed in 2000 is (Cardinal Ottaviani, the right arm of Pius XII and John XXII revealed this, and today Bertone buries it in this manner: “the words of Ottaviani, I do not know what they are referring to”). But we know even of the measurements of the page (9 by 14 cm), we know that it was contained in an envelope measuring 12 by 18 cm, we know that there are 20-25 written lines upon it, we know also the date (diverse from the text of the vision) in which it came to Rome and was read by diverse Pontiffs. And we know that — beginning with Pius XII — it was conserved not at the Holy Office (as the text of the vision revealed in 2000 was), but rather in the papal apartments. There is the proof of the photograph published on October 18, 1958 in “Paris Match” by Robert Serrou, there is the testimony of the closest collaborator with Pius XII, Sister Pasqualina (“here inside is the Third Secret of Fatima”) and there is the testimony of Bishop Capovilla (I published the page from the archive) which on June 27, 1963 it was sought out by Paul VI who wanted to know where the “the File on Fatima” was kept: the response: “in the right drawer of the desk called the Barbarigo, in the bed room”. And in fact, there he found it.
To all these testimonies Bertone makes no response in his book, but in one interview he says: “The cinematographic reconstructions of the envelope hidden in the night table are pure fantasy”. And why? He does not explain. In his tome he adds an attack on myself, that I had insinuated that such a Secret prophesizes the “Apostasy of the Church of Rome” and of its hierarchy. First: Bertone is trying to reinterpret something, in the apparition of August of 1931, which Jesus said to Sr. Lucia. Beside it was not I who spoke of apostasy, but Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Ciappi (“in the third secrete there is prophesized, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin from the top”). An similarly transparent understanding of the words of Lucia to Father Fuentes and of the two declarations of Cardinal Ratzinger. I am only a journalist, who explains that many interpret the apostasy in reference to the effects of the Council.
I do not have space where to list all the gaffs of his book. But some of them, yes. Bertone informs us, for example, that “Sister Lucia did not work ever with a computer”. A precious note, because in the interview with La Repubblica on Feb. 17, 2005, he declared that Lucia “used until the end even the computer”. The fact today serves to give credibility to certain letters of 1989 from Sister Lucia which were not autographs and which contradicted what she had said before regarding the “consecration of Russia”.
It is curious that the Secretary of State in his book gives more credence to the voice of Gorbachev, on the occasion of his historic visit to Pope John Paul II on the first of December, 1989, “I made a mea culpa” before the Pope, when this was officially denied by the Sala Stampa Vaticana on March 2, 1998. Concerning the rest, Bertone today recognizes as indeed authentic the explosive declarations attributed by John Paul II on the Third Secret, which he gave in November of 1980 at Fulda (Germany), when they were denied both by the Sala Stampa Vaticana and by Cardinal Ratzinger (“this talk at Fulda is false, it never happened and the Pope did not say those things”).
Moreover Bertone takes pains to say that “the interpretation of cardinal Ratzinger” relative to the Third Secret “is not a dogma of the Faith”. But let’s allow the Bertone-think present itself: “his words, before so many interpretations of the message of Fatima . . ., are the imprimatur of a definitive version.”
Without doubt a man who is Ratzinger’s superior. Obviously the letters of the Pope to the Cardinal have been used in the book as the Presentation, even if the Pontiff speaks only in general terms. I, for my part, hold that the letter which Benedict XVI has written to me on the occasion of my book, thanking me “for the sentiments which (your words) have suggested”. Words which give comfort in the fact of the insults and the disorganized accusations that I was up to “the game of Freemasonry”.
Antonio Socci
(unauthorized, unofficial translation, © 2007 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo)
——————-
1 Translator’s note: where the priest has a right to question and contradict so as to reveal the true state of the soul)
2 From the report of the conversation in his new book.
The difference between the visions of the patristic saints and those of Fatima is that the visions of St. Paul, the apostles, and the saints did not have esoteric content, meant for a chosen few, that made strange predictions about historical events and that were couched in ambiguous terms. The visions of the saints were not revelation, in the sense of new content or new knowledge that was not disclosed before. All revelation has ended with the Apostles.
I agree that the conversion of Russia couldn’t mean conversion to anything but the Christian faith… I can’t believe the Blessed Mother would play word games.
I agree.
I’m no conspiracy theorist. I believe the Third Secret has been fully revealed. But I’m not sure it’s been fully fulfilled.
Our Lady is not a schismatic. Russia’s re-conversion to Orthodoxy is “almost there, but not quite.” There are a LOT of problems with the Putin-Aleksi axis, not the least of which is systematic repression of non-Orthodox religions (including Catholicism). Not to mention resurgent nationalism and anti-semitism. I have a hard time believing that this was Our Lady’s idea of re-conversion.
Our Lord founded One Church, and, as Lumen Gentium attests, He calls all people to belong to it. I presume that would include Russians. 😉
“The visions of the saints were not revelation, in the sense of new content or new knowledge that was not disclosed before. All revelation has ended with the Apostles.”
That is pretty close to what the Church teaches. All “public” revelation ceased with the death of St. John. But there are still private revelations. They add nothing to the deposit of faith, but of course not everything that is true is contained in the deposit of faith.
As for the “respected Italian journalist” Antonio Soccio and his rumors and innuendo, I’ve seen real journalism and what the ultratraditionalist Brother Bugnolo has translated is not journalism.
The visions of the saints were not revelation, in the sense of new content or new knowledge that was not disclosed before. All revelation has ended with the Apostles.
Joe S, no Catholic dispites this. In fact, it has been repeatedly asserted in this very thread.
The apparitions at Fatima–including the Miracle of the Sun, witnessed by 70,000 people across a 32-mile radius–were not, repeat NOT, “new revelation.” They were meant to re-emphasize the primitive Deposit of the Faith, closed at the death of the last apostle c. 100 AD.
Hope this clarifies.
The message of Fatima is a restatement of Christ’s message from the first moment of His public ministry: Repent of your sins.
The message of Fatima is a restatement of Christ’s message from the first moment of His public ministry: Repent of your sins.
Exactly! Thank you!
Joe S.: I would humbly and respectfully sugget that you get the facts about Fatima before dismissing it. These facts are readily available online, e.g., at theotokos.org
Inocencio posted:
“Since you put quotation marks around the word mandates can you please cite the section number or numbers where the word mandate appears in the document? Because the word mandates is not used in section #51 or 70 as you stated in your comment.
”
Inoncencio stop playing your word games, the post provided with link to a clear vatican document which promulgates the heresy and desecration of the blessed sacrament to appease the Protestants, Hindus (which JPII was very fond of worshipping with along with Buddhists) and others is appaling and your continued defense of this is strikingly non catholic
As someone posted above, it is those who TRULY love the church that show the most anger for good reason, because they remember and have learned what is and was catholic. Many of the so called “converts” like Scott Hahn who has only been a “catholic” for a decade or so has taken it upon himself to blast traditionals and to be the standardbearer for Catholicism and as a former Protestant his own admission of his hatred for the Blessed Mother as many other uncatechised “former Protestants” who frequent this blog show time and time again as well as thinking that the Catholic church started with JPII, which many in the Vatican II camp would wish it did as they cant sell today what they are selling as Catholic because thank G__ there are many many more like me who remind them every day that no, this is not Catholic
John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII miscalulated the Traditional strength and resiliency as they thought that the oldies would die off and then they can sell ecumenism off to the new generation of uncatechised catholics taught by liberal lay persons everything from catechism to pre-cana but they hit a bump in the road….a crater called Archbishop Lefebvre
John,
I am not playing word games. As usual you cut and paste from another website without actually reading the document you were attempting to quote from. I like many others have simply pointed out that fact. I can not help it if you simply do not know what you are talking about.
You miscalculated Christ when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He founded upon the rock of the papacy with His authority to bind and loose. The only person you have the authority to excommunicate is yourself and you should remember that.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
I admire your patience — as well as your Society, of which I have been a member for a number of years.
John says: “blah blah blah… Pope John Paul II evil blah blah blah… John XXIII evil… blah blah blah… Paul VI evil too… blah blah blah… I don’t know what I’m talking about… blah blah blah… Could somebody get me help for my psychosis… blah blah blah”
Mike,
Good morning! I am glad that we both have the correct understanding of private revelation. As the CCC #67 states; “They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.”
For anyone following along the Catholic Encyclopedia article on private revelation is very informative.
The article you provided a link for about Pope Liberius talks about forged letters claiming that Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius and implies that Pope Liberius did not excommunicate him. The article on Athanasius makes no mention of any excommunication by any pope.
Now for my other question. It is not a loaded question if you don’t believe they are lying we are in agreement.
I am simply asking if you have concluded from the information you have provided that Pope John Paul II, Cdl. Bertone, then Cdl. Ratzinger now Pope Benedict and Sr. Lucia have lied when they say that the secret was revealed, interpreted correctly and that the consecration of Russia was done.
If you do not believe they are lying then we both believe them and there is no need for me to research your evidence of nothing.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Many of the so called “converts” like Scott Hahn
If Scott Hahn is a “convert” (I assume the quotes mean someone who hasn’t truly converted) who are the real converts? They must be living saints, exuding the same level of holiness as, say, Mother Angelica.
who has only been a “catholic” for a decade or so
I don’t care if someone is fresh out of RCIA, he must only read the encyclicals and documents you often cite here with an objective mind and average level of reading comprehension to be a better Catholic than you. If you would simply read the sources you cite instead of letting other people tell you what they mean, you’d be much better off.
has taken it upon himself to blast traditionals
Isn’t Scott Hahn a member of Opus Dei? I’d be shocked if he speaks harshly about the Traditional Mass. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if he speaks harshly against dissenting RadTrads.
and to be the standardbearer for Catholicism
Aren’t we all the Church Militant? Is our job not to evangelize the world? You can criticize Dr. Hahn’s theology if you disagree with it, but don’t criticize him for carrying out the great commission better than you do.
and as a former Protestant
We all have times in our lives when we don’t see clearly. It’s not where we start but where we end that God is concerned with. You seem to be one of the few on this blog who is incapable of giving up false beliefs in favor of true ones.
his own admission of his hatred for the Blessed Mother
That’s why he wrote a book called Hail Holy Queen.
as many other uncatechised “former Protestants” who frequent this blog show time and time again
The “former Protestants” on this blog show a better understanding of the Church then you do. Most of them researched deep into the Church’s history and teachings of the Fathers (you know the pre-Vatican II part you claim to know so well) in order to make the swim.
as well as thinking that the Catholic church started with JPII,
John, I dare you to search the archives and find one quote by one of the Magisterium-following Catholics on this site which asserts this.
which many in the Vatican II camp would wish it did
If by Vatican II camp you mean the people who ran away the “Spirit of Vatican II” and have caused all the dissent of the past 50 years, you’re right. I haven’t seen many, if any, of that sort on this blog.
as they cant sell today what they are selling as Catholic
That’s right, they’re old and withering away. They have nothing to offer the youth of today who have grown up with more relativism and secularism than anyone could ever want.
because thank G__ there are many many more like me who remind them every day that no, this is not Catholic
I thank God for the true traditionalists who struggle to preserve traditional Catholic piety from the scourge of modernism *AND* at the same time remain loyal to Him, His Church, and His Pope.
Brian,
Scott Hahn, like Jimmy Akin, should no longer even be considered “converts”.
To me, they have demonstrated to be CATHOLICS in the very sense of the word and shouldn’t be relegated to such a pejorative status; which is far more than I could say for a pathetic “Catholic” imposter like John.
Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin (likewise Tim Staples and all others in this regard) have done things for the Catholic Church that are far more demonstrably “Catholic” (“faithful” Catholics at that) than a whimpering stooge like John who only pretends to be one.
As Pre-Vatican II Catechesis Teaches:
Jesus Christ commanded all men to listen to and obey the Church, under pain of damnation. If His Church can teach error, then He is responsible for the error, by commanding all to obey. Jesus sent forth His Apostles with full powers to preach His Gospel: “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.” – “Make disciples of all nations teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” – “Preach the Gospel to every creature.”
Christ said: “If he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt. 18:17) “He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
He said, “And whoever does not receive you, or listen to your words-go forth outside that house or town, and shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that town” (Matt. 10:14-16).
Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples; all of these believe in the Catholic Church and all that Pre-Vatican II teaches here.
What of John???
I don’t think so!
I’ve got to give it to Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Tim J., and the many other converts associated with this blog and Catholic Answers: their response to Jesus’ call blows away my pathetic attempt to evangelize.
I was born a Catholic, and by the grace of God I have remained so, even when I didn’t even think about why.
Because of Jimmy and the others, I have come not only to love my Catholic faith, but to practice it more fully, more deeply.
God bless them.
Scott Hahn is a charismatic who needed another audience to sell his books to. If Mr Hahn was such a “devout” Catholic, I would expect him then to act like Jesus and donate ALL of his monies to charity which of yet I have not heard of him doing. The same for all of these so called “high profile conversions”.
Charismatics such as Mr Hahn is the same as other heresies pre V2 but now fully embraced such as gnosticism which basically is a heresy where one proclaims secret knowledge that that make those
Charismatics like Hahn teach that emotional experience always accompanies the conferral
of grace, whereas the Catholic teachings that the only conferral of grace is the Sacramental sign itself.
Charismatics back in 1901 when if I recall Methodists began “experiencing the spirit.” Soon John XXIII accepted this as Catholic as part of the infiltration that now has Scott Hahn running EWTN and hawking his books
The reason why Catholics who adhere to the true Magisterium are called and they distinguish themselves as “traditional,” is because tradition is what is “handed down.” Those adhering to the post-Conciliar magisterium have no right nor do they attempt to use this label. John XXIII established the “Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity” and note how Ecuemism and John XXIII used the word “Unity” not reunion.
Therefore the goal is for a “unity” by claiming all Christian bodies that accept baptism are now part of the true Church. The Documents of Vatican II state that the Church that Christ established subsists in the Catholic Church rather than is this Church.
With respect to obedience, obedience is a moral
virtue. Faith Hope and Charity are theological virtues. Obedience without the theological virtues is impossible because it is always
possible to give obedience to a wrong authority, even to Satan himself. Faith Hope and Charity are the proper objects of obedience
The authority of obedience and its teaching authority as to whether or not it is to be followed is whether it is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be
believed by everyone as true. If a teaching such as ecumenism in any way be false, then a clear contradiction is evident, for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.
That is why the council Fathers of Vatican I cleary defined that a pope is not allowed to teach nothing new, but follow and “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”
Traditionlists as the Catholic church has always taught are to “think correctly” rather than the Protestant version of to “think for themselves”. That is the difference.
Once again John, STOP PRETENDING TO BE A TRADITIONALIST, Mr. IMPOSTER!
You’re doing a great dis-service to the REAL Traditionalists out there who I, in fact, work with! You’re like a pinto trying to pass yourself off for a Porsche!
A ‘TRUE’ Traditionalist is somebody who believes the following from a GENUINE Pre-Vatican II Catechesis book (not your TRASH!):
When Our Lord said to Peter, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” He clearly meant: “I will give you supreme authority over My Church. You shall be My representative.” The true test of loyalty to Christ is not only to believe in Him and worship Him, but to honor and obey the representatives He has chosen. Our Lord chose St. Peter as His Vicar. It is rebellion against Christ to say to Him: “I will worship You, but I will not recognize Your representative.” This is what Christians do, who deny the authority of the successor of Peter.
Again, for something to be infallible and for obedience to follow, one must ask themselves, would God or Jesus Christ himself teach that?
Would he teach that ecumenism is Good? JPII’s worshipping of false faiths at Assissi? Placing Buddah and Hindu pagan idols on the “altar” at Assissi and removing the blessed sacrament? On and On the answer is NO
Remember Good and faithful Catholics, think “correctly” of what is Catholic
Scott Hahn-when are you going to make that first donation to a good and deserving charity instead of your bank account?
“one must ask themselves, would God or Jesus Christ himself teach that?”
If they are a Protestant, sure. That’s the whole Protestant method of operation in a nutshell; “What’s important is that the Pope agree with ME. I understand what ‘God or Jesus Christ’ would teach better than he does, anyhow.”.
Pope John has spoken (again).
So, in other words, John just said that “for something to be infallible and for obedience to follow”, he has to agree with it. It has to measure up to his own personal judgment.
Protestantism, pure and simple.
John, I don’t have time to give your comments the full treatment. I hope that the contradictions in the lies you spew (in addition to the unnatural line breaks caused by your cut and paste job) are obvious to the average reader. But here are two quick points:
If Mr Hahn was such a “devout” Catholic, I would expect him then to act like Jesus and donate ALL of his monies to charity which of yet I have not heard of him doing. The same for all of these so called “high profile conversions”.
Why don’t you follow your own advice before placing burdens on others. Besides, have you seen Scott Hahn’s tax returns? Do you know how he spends his money? As I said earlier I believe he’s Opus Dei. Don’t Opus Dei members give a large proportion of their money to the prelature?
With respect to obedience, obedience is a moral
virtue. Faith Hope and Charity are theological virtues. Obedience without the theological virtues is impossible because it is always
possible to give obedience to a wrong authority, even to Satan himself. Faith Hope and Charity are the proper objects of obedience
Which Church are you obedient to? Which Church did Jesus give his Authority to?
And John hijacks another discussion . . .
Why hasn’t his IP been banned here yet? The guy only ever talks about one thing, over and over and over and over and over again. He evidently has nothing worthwhile or relevant to contribute.
All John is saying that the gates of hell have prevailed.
You know, I should start a yarmulke business. With all these schiz-trads saying the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church, there should be this big stampede to the local synagogues, and I can make some cash 🙂
All John is saying that the gates of hell have prevailed.
Against what though.
Why hasn’t his IP been banned here yet? The guy only ever talks about one thing, over and over and over and over and over again. He evidently has nothing worthwhile or relevant to contribute.
I know. Fighting with him serves no purpose, either to enlighten him or anyone else. In fact, it drives him deeper into his itty-bitty theological box of severe RadTradism. And makes him nastier. For the sake of John’s soul, and everyone else’s blood pressure, he ought to be banned.
With what John has said here:
Again, for something to be infallible and for obedience to follow, one must ask themselves, would God or Jesus Christ himself teach that?
John is not even Catholic, but a CLOSET PROTESTANT!
I just can’t wait until he FINALLY posts his 95 THESIS on this blog!
It’ll make for good comedy!
“All John is saying that the gates of hell have prevailed.”
Against what though.
That’s what we’d like to know. John seems to say that Catholic Church has gone apostate and no longer preaches the Truth. He knows this must mean that either the Catholic Church never was never the true Church or that Jesus was wrong when he claimed to found a Church that the gates of Hell would not prevail against. But John firmly believes the Catholic Church is the true Church and that Jesus is the only Son of God. What’s the term Tim J. used for a situation like this – cognitive dissonance?
I know I’ve been there before, and I’m sure some others on the blog have too. I made the decision that I must have been wrong in thinking that the post-Conciliar Church taught incorrect doctrine. But John seems to be stuck in this endless loop. He can’t accept Vatican II, but he can’t outright leave the Church either.
“one must ask themselves, would God or Jesus Christ himself teach that?”
If they are a Protestant, sure.
John may actually be stuck in a worse position than Protestants. At least they come to the logical conclusion of their beliefs and leave the Church when they decide She’s preaching heresy.
In reality, he’s a Cafeteria Catholic. He’s a practicing Catholic, but he believes what he wants to believe regardless of what the Church teaches. Pray for him.
I just want to say something. I realize that my opinion of private apparitions and revelations will not be well received. Perhaps, it would have been better not to say anything at all. I do want to say that no matter my opinion of them, I make no judgments regarding the piety or holiness of anyone either on this blog or anywhere. It is an unquestionable fact that many people who believe things I don’t agree with are far closer to God and far more holy than I.
Joe, I don’t think your comments offended anyone or were taken as a judgment of their piety. Being Roman Catholics we’re not likely to agree with your opinion of private revelation, but we’re glad to debate the issue with you.
Here’s something that popped into my mind and is mildly related to the original topic: A few days ago I watched the movie The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima. Has anyone else seen it? I liked it so much I borrowed it so my Grandma could watch it. I can’t believe it was made by Warner Brothers. You won’t see a major studio make a movie like that today.
Joe S.,
There’s a BIG difference between PUBLIC revelation and PRIVATE revelation.
PRIVATE revelation is NOT BINDING on the Faithful. In fact, we cannot put divine faith in an apparition. Why? Because it is a private revelation – it DOES NOT merit divine faith. That is what the Catholic Church actually teaches!
Even those that are approved, we have to remember to keep circumspect. How much more so with those that have not been approved at all?
I say the Rosary myself, but I would not force fellow Christians to believe in the Apparitions since they’re not binding on the Faithful or even part of the Deposit of Faith.
Brian,
I agree that most major studios do not make movies like that anymore. I very much enjoyed that movie when I saw it. But there are still movies that we can see and look forward to. I recently saw INTO GREAT SILENCE with my son and we enjoyed it very much. I am looking forward to BELLA which is supposed to be released August 15 the feast of the Assumption.
I personally enjoy much older movies because they were done well and family friendly.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mike Petrik,
I share a name with a Society? Is it a Society of St. Inocencio de Immaculada?
I am named after my father who is named after his father, Inocencio Sr. I also named my eldest son Inocencio. I am very lucky to have my grandfather visiting us in June. It will be wonderful to have an updated picture of the four generations.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Bob “catholic” posted:
“All John is saying that the gates of hell have prevailed.
You know, I should start a yarmulke business. With all these schiz-trads saying the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church, there should be this big stampede to the local synagogues, and I can make some cash :)”
As has always been the case throughout the history of the Church, there is always a small group of Catholics who have stood up against a corrupt pope, Bishop or group and retained the fullness of the faith. The true Church is to be found among those who believe and continue to believe in the manner of their ancestors. It is they who bear witness to the truth of Christ’s promise. It is they who provide the proof that “the gates of hell have not prevailed.” We are not all money seekers like Scott Hahn or theologians, we are not sinless, but we clearly can be recognized by our insistence on true priests, true doctrine, and the true Mass.
Many here like to accuse traditional Catholics – those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the V2 of being in “schism.” The accusation is a lie.
In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the truth, then so be it
But in reality, it is not the trad who is in schism, but those who are responsible for changing the Catholic faith. Then trads are accused of being Protestants because they disobey the pope. Such accusations are of course not true.
Unlike those of the V2 church, we do not “pick and choose” what we wish to believe, we are adhering to ALL of what the Church has always taught and always done. The Pope being Christ’s vicar on earth is to be obeyed. When the Pope speaks he is infallible because it is Christ who speaks through him. But to obey modernist and Popes who promulgate error is not to be done as that would be placing man above God and his bride. To obey “ecumenism” and the continued false teachings is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely which is impossible
Inocencio,
I apologize if I was unclear. The Society to which I refer is the Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy (the publisher of Adoremus), to which your name is hyper-linked. I have been a member fo quite a few years. I applaud you for your patience in dealing with John. Myself, as a lawyer my (more limited than yours) patience is exhausted professionally long before I visit comboxes.
Cheers and God bless,
we do not “pick and choose” what we wish to believe, we are adhering to ALL of what the Church has always taught and always done. The Pope being Christ’s vicar on earth is to be obeyed.
But wait! That’s not all!
to obey modernist and Popes who promulgate error is not to be done as that would be placing man above God and his bride.
So sayeth John, who has God-given authority to condemns the popes what pope promulgates. Wow!
BTW, John, if you don’t stop obsessing about me, I’ll contact the feds. ;-(
Correction: “who has the God-given authority to condemns what the pope promulgates.
Unlike those of the V2 church, we do not “pick and choose” what we wish to believe, we are adhering to ALL of what the Church has always taught and always done.
John you’re the “pick and choose” Catholic. Vatican II was primarily pastoral.
It provided a radical new perspective on Church doctrine, but didn’t change any of it. As I’m sure you RadTrads know, it didn’t create any new doctrine. Yet you reject the post-Conciliar Church. How can you claim to adhere to ALL of what the Church has always taught and done when you reject the very Church who administers your sacraments today.
The Pope being Christ’s vicar on earth is to be obeyed. When the Pope speaks he is infallible because it is Christ who speaks through him.
Agreed.
But to obey modernist and Popes who promulgate error is not to be done as that would be placing man above God and his bride.
Bulldung! Infalliblity was defined way before Vatican II. Are you saying you “pick and choose” from the pre-Conciliar Church as well? Either the Pope is infallible when teaching the Magisterium or he’s not. If the Pope promulgates error, then he’s not infallible and the First Vatican Council declared heresy as dogma. Which is it John? You can’t have it both ways.
To obey “ecumenism” and the continued false teachings is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely which is impossible
I have no idea what you mean by “one hierarchical person” but I agree with your conclusion. If the Church is declaring false teachings then Christ teaches falsely, which is impossible. You’ve continually showed that today’s Church is not Christ’s Church. So where is Christ’s Church which you follow?
It’s not a hard question to answer – any Christian should be able to do it. I’ll give you my answer so you won’t be alone. I am a follower of the Catholic Church with Pope Benedict XVI as it’s Pontiff. I believe this is the Church that Christ founded. Ok, now you go…
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I know that discussions such as these can be vexing and irritating. But please refrain from resorting to name-calling. And please remain charitable in your words towards one another.
Respectfully,
K8
My money is on this Pope being a liar. He either lied in his 1984 statement or he is lied in 2000 because the two statements are NOT compatible.
[Thus we come finally to the third part of the “secret” of Fatima which for the first time is being published in its entirety]. Not true. This is lie. Not mental reservation, a lie. It has not been published in its entirety.
I’ll also bet that B16 is the Bishop in white who is killed by soldiers firing bullets and arrows at him. JP2 wasn’t killed. The Pope after B16 (in exile from Rome) consecrates Russia using the word “Russia” in the consecration, which clear thinking people would agree is necessary. When did you last make a meat stew without meat in it?
Thank you for such a clear example of the sin of calumny.
Greg’s got it all figured out.
Greg, if I asked God to help you, but I didn’t use your name, don’t ya think God Almighty would know who I’m talking about!?!
Greg, God doesn’t like it when his children fall prey to the lie of thinking they can know the future. FYI.