Fatima is demonic

Started by Older Salt, March 15, 2018, 10:05:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Older Salt

The Church has approved it, but Gerard thinks it is demonic,  so he is right.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.

St.Justin

"Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,

    Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it's acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent.  That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,

    Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. [CCC 67]

However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text,

    it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]"

lauermar

#2
Just my 2 cents---the message of the 3 children in 1917 appears to be genuine Catholic, and I don't doubt it.

However, Fatima of today is diabolical. I've read that the shrine, under the custody of modernist rectors, was turned into a place of universal worship, complete with pagan pilgrimages and offerings to false gods. It's become an Assisi-type gathering place with no Catholic identity.

Then there's the letter supposedly written by Lucy, possibly fabricated, with its false and nebulous predictions. There was said to be a Lucy impersonator at one point. The real Lucy is deceased now. There's no sense in beating a dead horse (intended as an expression, not an insult to Lucy) by debating it further.

That said, it seems the prediction that the earthly church would be infiltrated by modernists and become a source of error rather than salvation is correct. The true church on earth lives on in a remnant of women and men in communities that still practice the original faith handed down by the apostles. The early church started with a remnant.
"I am not a pessimist. I am not an optimist. I am a realist." Father Malachi Martin (1921-1999)

Gerard

Quote from: Older Salt on March 15, 2018, 10:05:35 AM
The Church has approved it, but Gerard thinks it is demonic,  so he is right.

Gerard "thinks".....and has taken the facts and measured them against the truths of the faith and come to his conclusion which no one has been able to dispute. 

Can you put up a real, honest argument against mine or are you just interested in smearing me?  Do you think the BVM wants you to do that? 



Gerard

Quote from: St.Justin on March 15, 2018, 10:14:10 AM
"Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,

    Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it's acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent.  That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,

    Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. [CCC 67]

However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text,

    it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]"

So what happens when you have multiple Catholics all guided by the Magisterium of the Church, all with a sensus fidelium coming to a variety of conclusions?   The Churchmen in the Curia are under the Magisterium no differently than anyone else, they aren't invoking the Magisterium in these matters.  So, you are left with the only difference being human reason and what each brain picks up on. 

Larry

It's a private revelation, it binds no one, and we all can have myriad opinions about what it means. I think the safe course is to believe it happened, was a work of the Holy Spirit, and we should accept
at least the core message. But that's just me.
"At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love."-St. John of the Cross

St.Justin

Quote from: Gerard on March 15, 2018, 10:51:44 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on March 15, 2018, 10:05:35 AM
The Church has approved it, but Gerard thinks it is demonic,  so he is right.

Gerard "thinks".....and has taken the facts and measured them against the truths of the faith and come to his conclusion which no one has been able to dispute. 

Can you put up a real, honest argument against mine or are you just interested in smearing me?  Do you think the BVM wants you to do that?
Give us a  specific quote and what is wrong with it and I will do my best show you that your take is probably wrong.

Gerard

Quote from: St.Justin on March 15, 2018, 02:14:50 PM
Give us a  specific quote and what is wrong with it and I will do my best show you that your take is probably wrong.

"If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world"

The essence of that statement is a threat of extortion against the papacy. 

It's an "either do what I want...or you are going to be hurting and worldwide catastrophe will be your fault. " 



St.Justin

Quote from: Gerard on March 15, 2018, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on March 15, 2018, 02:14:50 PM
Give us a  specific quote and what is wrong with it and I will do my best show you that your take is probably wrong.

"If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world"

The essence of that statement is a threat of extortion against the papacy. 

It's an "either do what I want...or you are going to be hurting and worldwide catastrophe will be your fault. "

What is the difference?
The Promises of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary

(1) "I will give them all the graces necessary in their state of life.

(2) I will establish peace in their homes.

(3) I will comfort them in all their afflictions.

(4) I will be their secure refuge during life, and above all, in death.

(5) I will bestow abundant blessings upon all their undertakings.

(6) Sinners will find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.

(7) Lukewarm souls shall become fervent.

(8) Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection.

(9) I will bless every place in which an image of my Heart is exposed and honored.

10) I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts.

(11) Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in my Heart.

(12) I promise you in the excessive mercy of my Heart that my all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the First Fridays in nine consecutive months the grace of final perseverance; they shall not die in my disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments. My divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment."

Copyright (c) 1996 EWTN

Gerard

Quote from: St.Justin on March 15, 2018, 09:19:49 PM
Quote from: Gerard on March 15, 2018, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on March 15, 2018, 02:14:50 PM
Give us a  specific quote and what is wrong with it and I will do my best show you that your take is probably wrong.

"If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world"

The essence of that statement is a threat of extortion against the papacy. 

It's an "either do what I want...or you are going to be hurting and worldwide catastrophe will be your fault. "

What is the difference?
The Promises of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary

(1) "I will give them all the graces necessary in their state of life.

(2) I will establish peace in their homes.

(3) I will comfort them in all their afflictions.

(4) I will be their secure refuge during life, and above all, in death.

(5) I will bestow abundant blessings upon all their undertakings.

(6) Sinners will find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.

(7) Lukewarm souls shall become fervent.

(8) Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection.

(9) I will bless every place in which an image of my Heart is exposed and honored.

10) I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts.

(11) Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in my Heart.

(12) I promise you in the excessive mercy of my Heart that my all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the First Fridays in nine consecutive months the grace of final perseverance; they shall not die in my disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments. My divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment."

Copyright (c) 1996 EWTN


The promises to devotees of the Sacred Heart don't contain a threat with an either/or proposition and there is no demand that the power of the papacy be exercised according to someone other than the Pope. 

With Fatima:

The claim is made that disaster is looming. 

A demand is made in exchange for protection from the disaster.

A threat is made for failure to fulfill the terms demanded. 

That is extortion.

And the nature of the payment to avoid punishment is that the Pope will submit his authority to use the power of the Keys of the Kingdom to fulfill the demands of the extortionist. 

"And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: 'Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.'"


An aspiring Thomist

Quote from: Gerard on March 16, 2018, 08:41:52 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on March 15, 2018, 09:19:49 PM
Quote from: Gerard on March 15, 2018, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on March 15, 2018, 02:14:50 PM
Give us a  specific quote and what is wrong with it and I will do my best show you that your take is probably wrong.

"If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world"

The essence of that statement is a threat of extortion against the papacy. 

It's an "either do what I want...or you are going to be hurting and worldwide catastrophe will be your fault. "

What is the difference?
The Promises of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary

(1) "I will give them all the graces necessary in their state of life.

(2) I will establish peace in their homes.

(3) I will comfort them in all their afflictions.

(4) I will be their secure refuge during life, and above all, in death.

(5) I will bestow abundant blessings upon all their undertakings.

(6) Sinners will find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.

(7) Lukewarm souls shall become fervent.

(8) Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection.

(9) I will bless every place in which an image of my Heart is exposed and honored.

10) I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts.

(11) Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in my Heart.

(12) I promise you in the excessive mercy of my Heart that my all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the First Fridays in nine consecutive months the grace of final perseverance; they shall not die in my disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments. My divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment."

Copyright (c) 1996 EWTN


The promises to devotees of the Sacred Heart don't contain a threat with an either/or proposition and there is no demand that the power of the papacy be exercised according to someone other than the Pope. 

With Fatima:

The claim is made that disaster is looming. 

A demand is made in exchange for protection from the disaster.

A threat is made for failure to fulfill the terms demanded. 

That is extortion.

And the nature of the payment to avoid punishment is that the Pope will submit his authority to use the power of the Keys of the Kingdom to fulfill the demands of the extortionist. 

"And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: 'Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.'"

The king of France threat? And seeinglu it came true.

Gerard

Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on March 16, 2018, 09:01:25 AM
The king of France threat? And seeinglu it came true.

Nothing came true. There was no prophecy of an incoming threat made against France.  (It's a weird letter anyway.  Mystics are prone to hyperbole and theologically "iffy" descriptions.)

Louis XVI eventually did do the consecration and the Revolution happened.  I don't think there is a particular correlation between the two.  The fruit of that consecration may yet ripen at a later time.

And the King of any country is not the Pope. The papacy is Divinely established and Christ doesn't reverse his promises.  He didn't make a carve out for His Mother or state He was going to micromanage the Church from Heaven through her.  He sent the Holy Ghost to complete and guard the Deposit of Faith through the office of the papacy. 

The BVM is highest Creation God has ever made, but there are things she cannot do.  She cannot forgive sins, she cannot confect the Eucharist, she cannot make a priest or a bishop or make a Pope, she doesn't have the power of Keys to the Kingdom.

When she was on earth she was subordinate to St. Peter, offering her immense aid to help him help the Church. She did not order him around then or do an end run around him by way of Christ.  She's no different now, she wields immense power in Heaven and on earth at the service of the Church under the Roman Pontiff.  St. Pius V invoked her aid at Lepanto, and she responded.  That's the order of things.

She is not the interlocutor between Christ and His vicar, she doesn't give marching orders to the Pope.  It's not her place and it's not the Pope's place to obey those orders, especially when they are dubious because of they constitute extortion. 


An aspiring Thomist

#12
Edit. Some of what I said in this post might have been factually wron so I want to check it.

Amos

First off, Sr. Lucia states that Christ told her the Church would go down the path of the King of France. You can believe this was the devil, made up, or authentic, but here's what happened:

Christ stated that the Pope will do the consecration, but it will be too late – just like the King of France. He did it too late and he was killed, the French revolution took his life.

The kings of France had 100 years exactly to consecrate France before the revolution – 100 years after St. Margert Mary was told this.

Sister Lucia indicates that 1929 was the cutoff point before it was "too late." If it correlates, then 2029 will be interesting to watch. BUT I don't play number games in such precision – I am just trying to say that making 2017 a cut off for a time limit does not hold ground.

Secondly, Pope Leo's vision could also not be true as much as Fatima could be false. They are two private revelations after all. BUT if Leo's vision is true, there is no indication when that 100 years started. Also, if the devil is bound again after 100 years, that doesn't mean everything will magically get better overnight either.

At this point, we are just making guesses – we are picking and choosing which apparitions are true, and then assigning dates to our liking.

Finally, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is not bound to the consecration only. It was also bound to a call of repentance: prayer, penance, and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This was a call of repentance for the Church and the world.

The failure of the Popes is the also the failure of the lay faithful, the lukewarm, and the sinner in praying and doing penance and/or turning their lives around and responding to this grace. This is a collective failure, not bound to just an ultimatum or exhortation towards a Pope to consecrate a country alone.

This is about repentance and grace. There have been many instances where something has been consecrated and grace follows: in persons, cities, and countries.
Quote from: Gerard on March 16, 2018, 09:44:16 AMShe is not the interlocutor between Christ and His vicar, she doesn't give marching orders to the Pope.  It's not her place and it's not the Pope's place to obey those orders, especially when they are dubious because of they constitute extortion.


It is God who is asking this of the world, not the Blessed Virgin alone. Her will is subordinate to God. It is God who controls the grace, the rewards, and the punishment. The Blessed Virgin is the messenger because she is the Mediatrix of grace. She desires the devotion to her and the consecration because it is the will of God. And no Pope is above God himself. The directions of Fatima are form the Holy Trinity; this certainly compels any Pope to obey.

Gerard

Quote from: Amos on March 16, 2018, 01:16:47 PM
First off, Sr. Lucia states that Christ told her the Church would go down the path of the King of France. You can believe this was the devil, made up, or authentic, but here's what happened:

Christ stated that the Pope will do the consecration, but it will be too late – just like the King of France. He did it too late and he was killed, the French revolution took his life.

The kings of France had 100 years exactly to consecrate France before the revolution – 100 years after St. Margert Mary was told this.

Sister Lucia indicates that 1929 was the cutoff point before it was "too late." If it correlates, then 2029 will be interesting to watch. BUT I don't play number games in such precision – I am just trying to say that making 2017 a cut off for a time limit does not hold ground. 


If there was no threat issued by way of St. Margaret Mary (...i.e., if the King of France doesn't consecrate, He's going to suffer much...)  then there is no comparison with Fatima on that particular aspect.

QuoteSecondly, Pope Leo's vision could also not be true as much as Fatima could be false. They are two private revelations after all. BUT if Leo's vision is true, there is no indication when that 100 years started. Also, if the devil is bound again after 100 years, that doesn't mean everything will magically get better overnight either.

At this point, we are just making guesses – we are picking and choosing which apparitions are true, and then assigning dates to our liking.

I stated as much when I pointed out the tension between believing Leo XIII and Fatima.  Fatima is intrinsically flawed in and of itself.  Whether Leo's vision is true doesn't change that, but Leo's vision applied to Fatima as being false dovetails very well and the tension is resolved.  A person can believe one or the other or both or neither, but there are serious tensions involved in believing both. 

QuoteFinally, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is not bound to the consecration only. It was also bound to a call of repentance: prayer, penance, and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This was a call of repentance for the Church and the world.

None of that is new to Fatima and quite laudable but the poison pill is the treatment of the papacy. 

QuoteThe failure of the Popes is the also the failure of the lay faithful, the lukewarm, and the sinner in praying and doing penance and/or turning their lives around and responding to this grace. This is a collective failure, not bound to just an ultimatum or exhortation towards a Pope to consecrate a country alone.

Now, you are interpreting things the way you want them.  The Pope not doing what he has the authority alone to do or not do is not a "failure."  There are no new orders from Heaven that the Pope is bound to obey.  He has the Keys on Earth. He has the authority given to him by Christ.  Christ does not "suspend" Popes to micromanage things.  If He did, He would be a liar.

The command/request/threat is specific and precise, if it were as "collective" and imprecise as you describe the Fatima devotees wouldn't be so concerned about "obeying our Lady" to the letter. 

QuoteThis is about repentance and grace. There have been many instances where something has been consecrated and grace follows: in persons, cities, and countries.

The emphasis isn't on the consecration.  It's the demand for the consecration enrobed in a threat.  It's not surprising that many people don't get it.  It's a single poison thorn in a vast array of roses. 

Quote
Quote from: Gerard on March 16, 2018, 09:44:16 AMShe is not the interlocutor between Christ and His vicar, she doesn't give marching orders to the Pope.  It's not her place and it's not the Pope's place to obey those orders, especially when they are dubious because of they constitute extortion.

It is God who is asking this of the world, not the Blessed Virgin alone. Her will is subordinate to God. It is God who controls the grace, the rewards, and the punishment. The Blessed Virgin is the messenger because she is the Mediatrix of grace. She desires the devotion to her and the consecration because it is the will of God. And no Pope is above God himself. The directions of Fatima are form the Holy Trinity; this certainly compels any Pope to obey.

Devotion to her is not the problem.  Consecrations in and of themselves are not wrong.  Repentence and reparations are great. 

It is not the Popes job to wait for private instructions from seers of apparitions on how to wield the Keys of Peter.  It's antithetical to the office.  It's incumbent on them not to shirk their duty and "obey" whatever apparitions want them to do no matter how laudable or believable. 

There is no one responsible for the Church on Earth other than the Pope.  He's the only man with a Divinely established office to Hold.  To him alone is the authority to govern the Church given.

He can't cede that authority, especially under threat to an apparition, no matter how many people believe it.  He'd be an utter fool to do it. 

And Christ as I've said is not about to do an end-run around the papacy to coerce an exercise of papal authority.  He would be making a mockery of His own establishment of the Church.