I happened to chance upon this sermon on the weekend, while looking for material about Sunday's Feast, Christ the King.
I'd like feedback from others about this YouTube sermon from Sensus Fidelium regarding Crisis in the Church. The thesis is that the Crisis is a result not only of God's permissive Will but also of His positive Will. That is, the Crisis is less accurately the product of opportunism of sinister forces within the hierarchy and their political manipulations in the early 1960's and beyond, but more accurately God's punishment. This begins at 5:46, after an introduction featuring some words of Pope Pius XI and statements about the reign of Christ -- pertinent, incidentally, to yesterday's Feast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apoqGRyLIrk
That sermon was scatter brained and contradictory. First he reads St. Thomas saying that evil is only due to God's permissive will, then says its God's positive will to have evil in the Church (which is blasphemy). I could write a book on the errors in this sermon. So was it God's positive will for Wojtyla to protect Legion, whose leader was busy raping his own sons up the arse? Or for Begoglio to call Jesus a liar, that divorced people can remarry and commit perpetual adultery? That is God's positive will?
I get the savor of the Novus Ordos who were all pro Wojtyla, and claimed he was a strong conservative, then flipped and called Trads heretics when we condemned him for allowing Communion in the paw.
It is the sad end for Catholics who try to hold to Bergoglio being the Pope. Blame the Catholics in the pews. Blame "Americanism". Blame usury. On the last, I say this without bragging, actually more to illustrate the tragedy of the situation, I have done more to teach Catholics on usury than the Church in the past 200 years. Yeah, it is the pew sitters fault.
One final thing, did you catch he was anti-Trump? The most pro-Catholic president since JFK who may eventually overturn Roe v. Wade,
with zero support from the bishops.Here's the deal. The Church fell. It had a problem with evolution and with EENS. The Feeney affair is telling. So God permitted it to fall and for a prophet of anti-Christ to take the Chair of Peter.
If Father believes the Church will never be reduced to a woman hiding in the wilderness, I'll leave him with this from Pope Leo XIII:
Quote"These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.
Huh? Church filled with enemies? Pastor been struck? Causes the sheep to scatter? Exact opposite of this sermon.
This good priest has a way of humbling the listener.
I guess we do deserve the prelates that we get.
Yep, it's still His Church though.
Correction; humbling to some listeners. :)
Quote from: james03 on October 29, 2018, 01:40:12 PM
Blame usury. On the last, I say this without bragging, actually more to illustrate the tragedy of the situation, I have done more to teach Catholics on usury than the Church in the past 200 years.
Thank you for your efforts. On the other hand, it would not take much to surpass what the Church has done on usury in the past 200 years.
QuoteOn the other hand, it would not take much to surpass what the Church has done on usury in the past 200 years.
That was my point. A book read by perhaps 300 people is way more than what the Church has done. A true tragedy.
QuoteCorrection; humbling to some listeners.
Yeah, making excuses for queers, child rapists, heretics, and their enablers doesn't do much to make me humble. It pisses me off.
Quote from: james03 on October 29, 2018, 01:40:12 PM
...
One final thing, did you catch he was anti-Trump?
...
No, I didn't catch where he implied that he was anti-Trump. Can you point that out?
QuoteYep, it's still His Church though.
If a Catholic truly believes that the formal organization calling itself the Church is indeed the Catholic Church, then out of humility pray tonight to honor and ask intercession from St. JPII and St. Paul VI. If you can't do that, then you are an hypocrite.
25:30.
Note the person who puts up the video showed a picture of Obama. However Obama is not the President, so "that man in the White House" is Trump. This sermon is from 2018.
If Father was referring to Obama, I'll retract. I find that hard to believe.
For the others, if this video is too long, just start at 24:00 to get to his point.
I agree that this is a chastisement, but it was because our leaders fell. It is not God's positive will -- that is blasphemy. Go back and read the Pope Leo prophecy.
Mike,
I don't know if you were around for the old Angel Queen days, when the Novus Ordo people would debate us. When JPII (We Love You!!!) flipped on communion in the hand, they then went to defend the decision and called us the worst sort of heretics and schismatics.
This priest comes across the same way. He has a decision to make. Condemn Bergoglio for his heresies, or join him. The oil and water will no longer mix. It's obvious which way he has chosen and mark my words out of willful blindness to fend off shame, he'll become more and more strident condemning Trads. This former Trad priest is now preaching it is God's positive will for the Church to preach adultery. It is God's positive will for Catholics to follow this and become adulterers, so it is God's positive will for these people to go to hell. Trads on the other hand say that this is heresy and Catholics should not follow this heresiarch who calls himself Pope Francis.
I know Pope Leo's prophecy. Even regarding that prophecy is it not God's positive Will that He allowed Satan 100 years?
I don't think he was referring to Trump when he showed the photo of Obama at 25:30. When the photo of Obama is shown he asks, "After all, who's vote put that man in the White House?" Was it not the Catholic vote that originally put Obama in the White House?
Quote from: james03 on October 29, 2018, 02:31:45 PM
Mike,
I don't know if you were around for the old Angel Queen days, when the Novus Ordo people would debate us. When JPII (We Love You!!!) flipped on communion in the hand, they then went to defend the decision and called us the worst sort of heretics and schismatics.
This priest comes across the same way. He has a decision to make. Condemn Bergoglio for his heresies, or join him. The oil and water will no longer mix. It's obvious which way he has chosen and mark my words out of willful blindness to fend off shame, he'll become more and more strident condemning Trads. This former Trad priest is now preaching it is God's positive will for the Church to preach adultery. It is God's positive will for Catholics to follow this and become adulterers, so it is God's positive will for these people to go to hell. Trads on the other hand say that this is heresy and Catholics should not follow this heresiarch who calls himself Pope Francis.
James, I think you are reading a whole lot into what this priest says, without him even saying it.
If this was a slide show from the sermon, I hereby retract and apologize.
As far as the 100 years reign, that was God's permissive Will. Permissive/positive is very precise theological terminology. Since he knows these terms, he knows what he is saying. He even calls it a mystery. And yet he quotes St. Thomas who clearly states that evil is God's permissive Will. That is why I call this "scatter brained".
Now I'll throw him a bone. If his point is that God PERMITS evil, i.e. He withdraws Grace, I'll agree with him, but if this is the case he should not be preaching, because as preached with the words he chose, he is preaching heresy.
And even if this were his only point, God permitting the evil, I still disagree with him. I also caught a straw man -- Trads believe the errors in the Church are SOLELY due to Vee Poo and the modernist Popes. Nice straw man, we hold it is PRIMARILY due to these causes, and to be precise, they are the immediate efficient cause. You can trace it back to Adam and Eve if you want, but I'd say you can stop at EENS and evolution. Which were allowed to fester (Teihard de Chardin).
QuoteJames, I think you are reading a whole lot into what this priest says, without him even saying it.
On his points that the laity are to blame, and that these errors are due to God's POSITIVE Will, I disagree.
That he will degrade and become bitter, you might be right. That is just pattern recognition. The Novus Ordo's were huge fans of Wojtyla. Then he allowed Communion in the paw. They then became the worst strident enemies of Trads. Father is already castigating Trads, blaming the laity for this mess. Now I sin seven times a day, but I don't sodomize kids, I don't cover up for pedophiles, and I don't teach my kids that adultery is acceptable.
He's putting on a good show to keep from thinking about the heresies and crimes emanating from Rome. I believe it is called Cognitive Dissonance.
I wouldn't doubt that it was an older sermon that was just published to Youtube on Aug 17, 2018. In fact it has to be because it says this in the commentary below the video, "A sermon on the Feast of Christ the King on the Church in crisis."
OK. I hereby retract and apologize for saying he opposed Catholics who voted for Trump.
Quote from: james03 on October 29, 2018, 02:51:47 PM
QuoteJames, I think you are reading a whole lot into what this priest says, without him even saying it.
On his points that the laity are to blame, and that these errors are due to God's POSITIVE Will, I disagree.
That he will degrade and become bitter, you might be right. That is just pattern recognition. The Novus Ordo's were huge fans of Wojtyla. Then he allowed Communion in the paw. They then became the worst strident enemies of Trads. Father is already castigating Trads, blaming the laity for this mess. Now I sin seven times a day, but I don't sodomize kids, I don't cover up for pedophiles, and I don't teach my kids that adultery is acceptable.
He's putting on a good show to keep from thinking about the heresies and crimes emanating from Rome. I believe it is called Cognitive Dissonance.
You say, "Father is already castigating Trads, blaming the laity for this mess." I think this priest is an FSSP priest, is he not? When he is referring to the laity I don't think he is referring to just Trads, but the whole Church, Novus Ordo Catholics as well. So he is not just castigating Trads. Castigate me if you need to for also recognizing Novus Ordo Catholics as part of the Catholic laity.
And again, it's an old sermon, from before the McCarrick and Pennsylvania mess.
Look, if he had gotten up and recognized the horrible mess of the Church, in its Pope, bishops, and priests, and then preached that we can't do much about it, and that we should not get distracted, but instead work on our own lives, I would support him.
However he didn't do that. He blamed the mess in the Church on the laity. That is in error.
Why did Catholics vote for Obama? Because the bishops were silent. Heck Notre Dame gave the reprobate an honorary degree while jailing an 80 year old pro-life priest. Where was the Pope? Where was the bishop?
Why did Catholics go to ecumenical events? Because the bishops were hosting them.
Why did Catholics accept contraception? Because priests told them it was ok in the confessional and no longer condemned it from the pulpit.
Why do Catholics get divorced? Because the priests were silent and gave communion to them. Now they tell them it is fine.
Why did Catholics accept evolution? Because the Church said that was fine.
Why do Catholics accept fag marriage? Because priests are blessing such arrangements and refuse to preach that sodomites burn in hell.
Why do women kennel their children in strangercare? Because the Church dare not condemn feminism and will never tell women to obey their husbands.
He ignored all of that (and a heck of a lot more).
Quote from: james03 on October 29, 2018, 02:51:47 PM
He's putting on a good show to keep from thinking about the heresies and crimes emanating from Rome. I believe it is called Cognitive Dissonance.
Not sure this is exactly so, but for some reason I couldn't continue listening. He's a very powerful and good preacher, but there is something I can't put my finger on here.
To clarify, the reason I posted this was that it touched on a theme I have seen on SD in the past: the belief by many posters that Catholics "deserve" the Crisis and even (pre-V2) "brought it on by their own infidelity/lukewarmness." (The quotation marks indicate paraphrases.) And that supposedly (continuing along the same lines), the reason that the Church is not yet restored is at least partly (if not greatly) due to insufficient holiness on the part of contemporary Catholics.
I do not agree with the priest that the Crisis is largely, let alone entirely, an expression of Divine Justice. It's my opinion, however, that the hierarchy took a calculated but logical risk in proceeding as it did with the Council -- the risk obviously being that those men believed that they would find a receptive audience among the Church as a whole. And unfortunately they predicted correctly: a minority stayed within the Church and also stayed with Tradition, while the majority either abandoned Catholicism (and their religious vocations) altogether, or accepted a revolutionized, modernistic definition of the faith.
Where I differ most with him is assuming --this is a corollary of his premise-- that the majority who left or "accepted" the new religion (whether in bewilderment or submission) did so for reasons of moral/spiritual weakness rather than political weakness. I think most "went along" for two reasons: (1) helplessness/confusion and (2) the seductive language and promises in which the new religion was explained. Regarding the latter, the audience most receptive to such language and promises was the idealistic youth that came of age during the Council. That would include the young priests who were being ordained about that time. Laity and clergy that was just reaching adulthood at that time were Baby Boomers -- a very large population that would then "define" the Church for the foreseeable future after the Council and importantly constituted a majority.
Regarding the "seductive" part, many theologians would connect such language with how Satan does business and would refer to "the smoke of Satan entering the Church" as confirmation of it.
Moreover, the revolution would not have been successful without the political clout of the popes, cardinals, and bishops that orchestrated some of it and permitted the rest of it. If anything, it was the hierarchy's Permissive Will that was perhaps the strongest force enabling the deterioration and anarchy that followed, because the hierarchy rejected its own authority. Is the priest in question blaming the laity for the fact that clergy abandoned their flocks? If so, that's his weakest point.
His strongest point, i.m.o., is his reference to the OT and NT (Pauline) theology wherein God "gives men up" to their (immoral) desires and the consequences of those desires. However, many theologians would classify that demonstration of Divine Will as permissive, rather than positive.
Quote from: james03 on October 29, 2018, 03:20:13 PM
Look, if he had gotten up and recognized the horrible mess of the Church, in its Pope, bishops, and priests, and then preached that we can't do much about it, and that we should not get distracted, but instead work on our own lives, I would support him.
However he didn't do that. He blamed the mess in the Church on the laity. That is in error.
Why did Catholics vote for Obama? Because the bishops were silent. Heck Notre Dame gave the reprobate an honorary degree while jailing an 80 year old pro-life priest. Where was the Pope? Where was the bishop?
Why did Catholics go to ecumenical events? Because the bishops were hosting them.
Why did Catholics accept contraception? Because priests told them it was ok in the confessional and no longer condemned it from the pulpit.
Why do Catholics get divorced? Because the priests were silent and gave communion to them. Now they tell them it is fine.
Why did Catholics accept evolution? Because the Church said that was fine.
Why do Catholics accept fag marriage? Because priests are blessing such arrangements and refuse to preach that sodomites burn in hell.
Why do women kennel their children in strangercare? Because the Church dare not condemn feminism and will never tell women to obey their husbands.
He ignored all of that (and a heck of a lot more).
Well I can't disagree with any of that. He did ignore all of that. But it is not like he is saying something that we haven't heard before.
"The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI." Our Lady of Fatima
Quote from: james03 on October 29, 2018, 02:08:12 PM
25:30.
Note the person who puts up the video showed a picture of Obama. However Obama is not the President, so "that man in the White House" is Trump. This sermon is from 2018.
If Father was referring to Obama, I'll retract. I find that hard to believe.
For the others, if this video is too long, just start at 24:00 to get to his point.
I agree that this is a chastisement, but it was because our leaders fell. It is not God's positive will -- that is blasphemy. Go back and read the Pope Leo prophecy.
The sermon is from at least 2013. Steve at Sensus Fidelium posts older content sometimes, so you cannot go by the upload date on the channel.
http://www.veritascaritas.com/podcast/spiritual-contraception/
The remark is made at ~25:24 in the Veritas audio.
Quote from: mikemac on October 29, 2018, 04:17:53 PM
"The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI." Our Lady of Fatima
Sr Lucy wrote down this 'prediction' in 1941, after the war had started. She made no mention of it prior to that year, either verbally or in writing.
Predictions should be made before the event has taken place, not after.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on October 29, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 29, 2018, 04:17:53 PM
"The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI." Our Lady of Fatima
Sr Lucy wrote down this 'prediction' in 1941, after the war had started. She made no mention of it prior to that year, either verbally or in writing.
Predictions should be made before the event has taken place, not after.
QuoteSome have complained that the second prophecy was not disclosed until August 1941, after World War II had already begun. However, the provenance of the document is easily traced to 1935, when it was first written down, though Sister Lucia avowed that the three children first received it in June 1917.
Source - http://www.crystalinks.com/fatima.html
This is rather amazing. The light in the sky on the night of Jan. 25-26, 1938 took place at the very same hours of the Rakovsky interrogation (Stalin purges) in which the idea of the Hitler-Stalin pact to invade Poland came about which led directly to World War II.
QuoteAnd here again is Deidre Manifold on the coincidence in timing between the "unknown light" and the Rakovsky interrogation:
The exact timing of the questioning is significant. It took place from midnight to 6 A.M. on the night of January 25-26, 1938. It is important to note that Moscow time is three hours ahead of Western European time. As reported in the daily press all over Western Europe, and in the New York Times on January 26, 1938, a strange bright light lit up the sky all across Europe from 6:30 to 9:30 P.M. on the previous evening. This would have been between 9:30 P.M. and 12:30 A.M. Moscow time. The serious questioning of Rakovsky began at about 12:30 A.M. Moscow time.
When the bright light shone in the sky, Sister Lucia, the Fatima seer, in her convent in Spain, let it be known that this was the sign given by God, and foretold by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917, that a major war would soon occur.
Now we can conclude that the exact timing of the Rakovsky interview was astounding.
The "unknown light" shown in the Western Europe evening sky throughout the entire first half hour of the Rakovsky interview at which point it faded. But the same unknown light shown in the evening skies of North America almost till the end of the interview.
As Our Lady's prophesied "unknown light" illuminated the evening skies of Europe and North America, the top Communist, Freemason, and Rothschild agent Christian Rakovsky was giving Stalin's chief interrogator the strategy to approach Hitler with the idea of the Hitler-Stalin pact. This was the idea which led directly to World War II ...
Source - http://www.realnews247.com/rakovsky_interrogation.htm
QuoteThe sermon is from at least 2013. Steve at Sensus Fidelium posts older content sometimes, so you cannot go by the upload date on the channel.
Yeah, rub it in. I already apologized.
Joking aside, thanks for the confirmation.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on October 29, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 29, 2018, 04:17:53 PM
"The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI." Our Lady of Fatima
Sr Lucy wrote down this 'prediction' in 1941, after the war had started. She made no mention of it prior to that year, either verbally or in writing.
Predictions should be made before the event has taken place, not after.
I see you are a follower of "Evil Lucia" theory who made up many false prophecies.
Our Lady came to save us from what was coming and we throw bricks at her.
Quote from: mikemac on October 30, 2018, 09:50:45 AM
QuoteSome have complained that the second prophecy was not disclosed until August 1941, after World War II had already begun. However, the provenance of the document is easily traced to 1935, when it was first written down, though Sister Lucia avowed that the three children first received it in June 1917.
Source - http://www.crystalinks.com/fatima.html
This claim contradicts Sr Lucy's own words as written in her diaries.
Sr Lucy's diaries consist of four separate Memoirs. The first two were indeed written in the 1930s. But neither contains the text of the First and Second secrets, or indeed any mention of them.
In Sr Lucy's Third Memoir, written in 1941, she announces that she will reveal the Secrets. She also explains why she has kept silent about them until this time and why she didn't reveal the Secrets to the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima.
In Sr Lucy's Fourth Memoir, also written in 1941, she explains that she has promised to reveal everything about Fatima. Again she explains her silence about the Secrets until then, and writes down the First and Second Secrets, but not the Third.
Who are 'Crystalinks' anyway. You've quoted them as if they were an authority and yet a quick check shows that they have their dates mixed up.
Read Sr Lucy's own diaries. She revealed the First and Second Secrets containing the 'prophecy' about the war and the light in the sky for the first time in 1941, in her Third Memoir.
She says so herself.
How can a private revelation be validly approved when a Seer admits withholding pertinent information?
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 03:58:42 PM
How can a private revelation be validly approved when a Seer admits withholding pertinent information?
She didn't admit to witholding the Secrets until after the 1930 approval.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on October 30, 2018, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 03:58:42 PM
How can a private revelation be validly approved when a Seer admits withholding pertinent information?
She didn't admit to witholding the Secrets until after the 1930 approval.
Which is my point. It would seem to reopen the door and cast doubts on her viability.
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 04:55:56 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on October 30, 2018, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 03:58:42 PM
How can a private revelation be validly approved when a Seer admits withholding pertinent information?
She didn't admit to witholding the Secrets until after the 1930 approval.
Which is my point. It would seem to reopen the door and cast doubts on her viability.
Yes it would.
Here is part of Sr Lucy's explanation for withholding the Secrets until 1941, taken from her Fourth Memoir, written that year.
Quote
II. THE STORY OF THE APPARITIONS
PROLOGUE
Now, Your Excellency, we come to the most difficult part of all that you have commanded me to put in writing. First of all, Your Excellency has expressly required of me to write about the Apparitions of the Angel, putting down every circumstance and detail, and even, as far as possible, their interior effects upon us. Then, along comes Dr. Galamba to ask you to command me also to write about the Apparitions of Our Lady. "Command her, Your Excellency," he said a little while ago in Valença. "Yes, Your Excellency, command her to write everything, absolutely everything. She'll have to do the rounds of purgatory many a time for having kept silent about so many things!"
As for purgatory, I am not in the least afraid of it, from this point of view. I have always obeyed, and obedience deserves neither penalty nor punishment. Firstly, I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and secondly, I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name. This very thing was the first order and counsel which God deigned to give me through Your Excellency. Happy and content, I recalled the words I had heard long ago from the lips of that holy priest, the Vicar of Torres Novas: "The secret of the King's daughter should remain hidden in the depths of her heart." Then, beginning to penetrate their meaning, I said: "My secret is for myself." But now, I can no longer say so. Immolated on the altar of obedience, I say rather: "My secret belongs to God. I have placed it in His hands; may He do with it as best pleases Him."
Dr. Galamba said then: "Your Excellency, command her to say everything, everything, and to hide nothing." And Your Excellency, assisted most certainly by the Holy Spirit, pronounced this judgement: "No, I will not command that! I will have nothing to do with matters of secrets." Thanks be to God! Any other order would have been for me a source of endless perplexities and scruples. Had I received a contrary command, I would have asked myself, times without number: "Whom should I obey? God or His representative?" And perhaps, being unable to come to a decision, I would have been left in a state of real inner torment!
Extract starts on page 168 of this version of Sr Lucy's Diaries.
http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf
Who, then, does a visionary/seer obey? God or His representatives?
Sr Lucy said, "Firstly, I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and secondly, I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name."
This is why she did not reveal the Secrets of the Angel Apparitions to the Canonical Enquiry. She was obeying the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit first, and the commands of the men of the Church second.
Is this order of obedience appropriate for a Catholic visionary? Would the Holy Ghost really advise a visionary to withold information from the Church?
I may be wrong in thinking that the answer to both questions is no.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on October 30, 2018, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on October 29, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 29, 2018, 04:17:53 PM
"The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI." Our Lady of Fatima
Sr Lucy wrote down this 'prediction' in 1941, after the war had started. She made no mention of it prior to that year, either verbally or in writing.
Predictions should be made before the event has taken place, not after.
I see you are a follower of "Evil Lucia" theory who made up many false prophecies.
Our Lady came to save us from what was coming and we throw bricks at her.
Why the nastiness? I'll bet you encounter people who are nominal Catholics who, on a daily basis who overtly disagree with dogmas and clear undeniable doctrines of the Church and you probably don't get nearly as worked up over that as you do when people point out real, quantifiable problems with the Fatima narrative, which is not obligatory for any Catholic to believe.
"Our Lady came to save us..." is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
And if it was Our Lady, her apparition would stand up to scrutiny, it not, if it's false, it deserves to be taken down.
Hmmm... I think I have the answer to the first question. Maybe that's the reason why so many Catholics don't bother to get worked up when dogmas are undermined, they know they can't be toppled. But when the cracks begin to show in something not Divinely Revealed, not part of the Deposit of Faith, the panic of possibly being wrong sets in and the messenger must be attacked to prevent the truth of the message from getting out.
Quote from: Gerard on October 31, 2018, 12:50:01 AM
And if it was Our Lady, her apparition would stand up to scrutiny, it not, if it's false, it deserves to be taken down.
Exactly. And if Sr Lucy was a true visionary/seer, she would also stand up to scrutiny.
So let's scrutinise Sr Lucy's explanation for withholding the Secrets and the Angel Apparations from the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima, posted below
Does her explanation withstand such scrutiny? I don't think so. This extract is particularly dubious.
Quote
Then, along comes Dr. Galamba to ask you to command me also to write about the Apparitions of Our Lady. "Command her, Your Excellency," he said a little while ago in Valença. "Yes, Your Excellency, command her to write everything, absolutely everything. She'll have to do the rounds of purgatory many a time for having kept silent about so many things!"
http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf (p168)
As for purgatory, I am not in the least afraid of it, from this point of view. I have always obeyed, and obedience deserves neither penalty nor punishment. Firstly, I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and secondly, I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name.
Has there ever been a Saint, Visionary, Doctor, who has claimed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to withhold crucial information from the Church?
Is obeying the inspirations of the Holy Spirit first, and the men of the Church - God's representatives - second, the appropriate order of obedience for any Catholic, let alone a visionary/seer?
Was Sr Lucy right to be not in the least afraid of Purgatory?
I read from a saint (think it was John of the Cross), who said that purgatory is a horrible place, and your own realization that God doesnt want you in His presence the way you are would kill you if it wasnt for His mercy.
So its strange that Sr Lucy wasnt afraid, or she had a wrong view of purgatory.
Quote from: Sempronius on October 31, 2018, 09:23:40 AM
I read from a saint (think it was John of the Cross), who said that purgatory is a horrible place, and your own realization that God doesnt want you in His presence the way you are would kill you if it wasnt for His mercy.
So its strange that Sr Lucy wasnt afraid, or she had a wrong view of purgatory.
Or she knew that she wasn't doing wrong.
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 04:55:56 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on October 30, 2018, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 03:58:42 PM
How can a private revelation be validly approved when a Seer admits withholding pertinent information?
She didn't admit to witholding the Secrets until after the 1930 approval.
Which is my point. It would seem to reopen the door and cast doubts on her viability.
Yet Pope Pius XII didn't seem to have a problem with it. In fact he attempted a consecration of Russia in 1942.
From this site, page 179.
http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf
QuoteWhen you see a night illumined by an unknown light 14
...
14 This was the aurora borealis on the night of January 25th to 26th, 1938, which was unusual, and always regarded by Lucia as the God-given sign which had been promised.
That implies that Sister Lucy talked about the God-given sign when it happen on Jan. 25/26, 1938, like Deidre Manifold said and that I posted in Reply #24 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg460982#msg460982).
QuoteWhen the bright light shone in the sky, Sister Lucia, the Fatima seer, in her convent in Spain, let it be known that this was the sign given by God, and foretold by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917, that a major war would soon occur.
Quote from: mikemac on October 31, 2018, 09:32:20 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on October 31, 2018, 09:23:40 AM
I read from a saint (think it was John of the Cross), who said that purgatory is a horrible place, and your own realization that God doesnt want you in His presence the way you are would kill you if it wasnt for His mercy.
So its strange that Sr Lucy wasnt afraid, or she had a wrong view of purgatory.
Or she knew that she wasn't doing wrong.
Having been through being kidnapped and threatened with boiling oil and criminals as a little girl, not to mention having seen Hell itself, I'm betting Sr. Lucy behaved herself at all times!
Gotta be honest, this "revelation" of her withholding pertinent info is really swaying me into Gerard's position that Fatima is a diabolical trick.
Quote from: mikemac on October 31, 2018, 09:39:47 AM
QuoteWhen you see a night illumined by an unknown light 14
...
14 This was the aurora borealis on the night of January 25th to 26th, 1938, which was unusual, and always regarded by Lucia as the God-given sign which had been promised.
That implies that Sister Lucy talked about the God-given sign when it happen on Jan. 25/26, 1938, like Deidre Manifold said and that I posted in Reply #24 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg460982#msg460982).
QuoteWhen the bright light shone in the sky, Sister Lucia, the Fatima seer, in her convent in Spain, let it be known that this was the sign given by God, and foretold by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917, that a major war would soon occur.
Mikemac, Deidre Manifold is stating here that Sr Lucy waited until AFTER the aurora borealis of 1938 to reveal that this was the 'prophesied' unknown light of the Second Secret. Sister Lucy was in her convent in Spain and as soon as the aurora borealis happened, according to Deidre Manifold, she claimed that this was the 'unknown light' of the 'prophecy' given to her by Our Lady.
It's incredible really. Sr Lucy hears about the aurora borealis of 1938 and announces that it was prophesied in in 1917. And yet she has kept the prophecy to herself until that moment! And not revealed it to the Canonical Enquiry!
Withholding entire prophecies from the Church and the world until a natural event takes place which fits with the as yet unrevealed 'prophecy' - is this how prophecy works?
Deidre Manifold is also suggesting that Sr Lucy wasn't telling the truth when she wrote in her Third Memoir in 1941 that she was revealing the Secrets for the first time.
Incidentally, who is Deidre Manifold?
Further into her Fourth Memoir, Sr Lucy offers a more detailed explanation for not revealing the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions at the Canonical Enquiry.
Quote
2. Lucia's Silence
I do not know why, but the Apparitions of Our Lady produced in us very different effects. We felt the same intimate joy, the same peace and happiness, but instead of physical prostration, an expansive ease of movement; instead of this annihilation in the Divine Presence, a joyful exultation; instead of the difficulty in speaking, we felt a certain communicative enthusiasm. Despite these feelings, however, we felt inspired to be silent, especially concerning certain things.
Whenever I was interrogated, I experienced an interior inspiration which directed me how to answer, without either failing in truth or revealing what should remain hidden for the time being. In this respect, I still have just this one doubt: "Should I not have said everything in the canonical enquiry?" But I have no scruples about having kept silence, because at that time I had as yet no realization of the importance of this particular interrogation. I regarded it, at the time, as being just like the many other interrogations to which I was accustomed. The only thing I thought strange was the order to take the oath. But as it was my confessor who told me to do so, and as I was swearing to the truth, I took the oath without any difficulty. Little did I suspect, at that moment, that the devil would make the most of this, in order to torment me with endless scruples later on. But, thank God, all that is over now.
There was yet another reason which confirmed me in my conviction that I did well to remain silent. In the course of the canonical enquiry, one of the interrogators, Rev. Dr. Marques dos Santos, thought he could extend somewhat his questionnaire, and began therefore to ask more searching questions. Before answering, I looked enquiringly at my confessor. His Reverence saved me from my predicament, and answered on my behalf. He reminded the interrogator that he was exceeding his rights in this matter.
Almost the same thing happened when I was questioned by Rev. Dr. Fischer. He had the authorization of Your Excellency and of Rev. Mother Provincial, and seemed to have the right to question me on everything. But, thank God, he came accompanied by my confessor. At a given moment, he put to me a carefully studied question about the Secret. I felt perplexed, and did not know how to answer. I glanced towards my confessor; he understood me and answered for me. The interrogator understood also, and confined himself to picking up some magazines Iying nearby and holding them in front of my face. In this way, God was showing me that the moment appointed by Him had not yet arrived.
I shall now go on to write about the Apparitions of Our Lady. I shall not delay over the circumstances that preceded or followed them, since Rev. Dr. Galamba has kindly dispensed me from doing so.
http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf
(p 173)
What would the oath have been that Sr Lucy took at the Canonical Enquiry?
Did she break it?
Quote from: mikemac on October 31, 2018, 09:39:47 AM
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 04:55:56 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on October 30, 2018, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Gardener on October 30, 2018, 03:58:42 PM
How can a private revelation be validly approved when a Seer admits withholding pertinent information?
She didn't admit to witholding the Secrets until after the 1930 approval.
Which is my point. It would seem to reopen the door and cast doubts on her viability.
Yet Pope Pius XII didn't seem to have a problem with it. In fact he attempted a consecration of Russia in 1942.
From this site, page 179.
http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf
QuoteWhen you see a night illumined by an unknown light 14
...
14 This was the aurora borealis on the night of January 25th to 26th, 1938, which was unusual, and always regarded by Lucia as the God-given sign which had been promised.
That implies that Sister Lucy talked about the God-given sign when it happen on Jan. 25/26, 1938, like Deidre Manifold said and that I posted in Reply #24 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg460982#msg460982).
QuoteWhen the bright light shone in the sky, Sister Lucia, the Fatima seer, in her convent in Spain, let it be known that this was the sign given by God, and foretold by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917, that a major war would soon occur.
Apparitions cannot be approved of while ongoing. To withhold pertinent information is to effectively retroactively prolong them and should, in my understanding of the process, nullify the approval.
God NEVER demands disobedience to His own representatives who are merely following protocol and not commanding sin. All the great mystics went through some trial of obedience precisely because it was truly God leading them. They didn't lie or disobey.
Pius XII didn't seem to have a problem with a lot of stuff that hindsight reveals he should have.
Fatima has some problems. Portugal being the big one.
On the plus side:
1. the envelopes said to open in 1960. This is not a rumor, the Vatican displayed the envelopes with the writing. This was right before Vee Poo. That is a big deal to me.
2. The Vatican lying about Fatima. The 1960 announcement: "The words of Our Lady may never be revealed". So where are these words of Our Lady?
3. The Pius XII prophesy written when he was a Cardinal, a prophesy he links with Fatima. Included in this was the removal of the sanctuaries. A warning against altering the Faith and the Mass. This was early '30's, so evidently Sr. Lucy was already communicating with Rome at that time.
4. Cardinal Ciappi, who read the secret wrote: "In the Third Secret it is predicted, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." Unless ++Ciappi is a pathological liar, you have to say the prediction was spot on.
Quote
"Should I not have said everything in the canonical enquiry?" But I have no scruples about having kept silence, because at that time I had as yet no realization of the importance of this particular interrogation. I regarded it, at the time, as being just like the many other interrogations to which I was accustomed. The only thing I thought strange was the order to take the oath. But as it was my confessor who told me to do so, and as I was swearing to the truth, I took the oath without any difficulty.
In this quote taken from above, is Sr Lucy implying that she broke the oath she made to the Canonical Enquiry?
A quick Google search found nothing, but might the oath include something along the lines of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
In which case, Sr Lucy didn't. She withheld vital information and broke her oath.
There must be a way of checking this.
Quote from: james03 on October 31, 2018, 05:03:45 PM
Fatima has some problems. Portugal being the big one.
On the plus side:
1. the envelopes said to open in 1960. This is not a rumor, the Vatican displayed the envelopes with the writing. This was right before Vee Poo. That is a big deal to me.
2. The Vatican lying about Fatima. The 1960 announcement: "The words of Our Lady may never be revealed". So where are these words of Our Lady?
3. The Pius XII prophesy written when he was a Cardinal, a prophesy he links with Fatima. Included in this was the removal of the sanctuaries. A warning against altering the Faith and the Mass. This was early '30's, so evidently Sr. Lucy was already communicating with Rome at that time.
4. Cardinal Ciappi, who read the secret wrote: "In the Third Secret it is predicted, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." Unless ++Ciappi is a pathological liar, you have to say the prediction was spot on.
Number 3 alone should be suffice to answer awkwardcustomer's, Gardener's and even Gerard's questions about Fatima. Pope Pius XII's prophecy took place in 1933 while he was a Cardinal. So obviously, as James says Sr. Lucy was already communicating with Rome. Rome didn't have to wait until Sister Lucy's 1941 memoirs. Pope Pius XII's prophecy starts off with the following.
QuoteSuppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the Tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the media, literature, theater, and religion.
I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the alteration of the Faith, in its liturgy, its theology, and its soul, would represent.
...
Source - https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-suicide-altering-faith-liturgy/
Am I the only poster who really wishes that every piece of Catholic News on SD did not devolve into an alley brawl over Fatima?
I thank James for registering his opinion about the posted article.
Miriam, you are not the only one. It makes me feel ancient.
Maybe it's what Fr. Rip talks about: after 100 years the memory (of an important thing) just goes down the rabbit hole ?
It should be front page news across the world.
Fatima - probably the biggest deception ever perpetrated on the Church.
The fact that it succeeded is one of the reasons I'm convinced we're at the end, that it's all over.
^ Says the Protestant
Another reason, courtesy of Mikemac.
It's over. There can be no coming back from this.
Another one who places the conclusions of his reasoning ahead of his faith, never mind that this reasoning is filled with several inferences of a subjective nature which betray that these conclusions are just what he wants them to be. It's apparent you're desperate for a way out, one that will leave you feeling morally and intellectually justified, and it comes as no surprise that you've found it.
Nietzsche was so right about this aspect of human nature.
Quote from: mikemac on November 06, 2018, 11:24:03 AM
^ Says the Protestant
The spirit of readiness to publically ridicule Fatima, not just treat it with a fair private skepticism, is inevitably going to manifest in a falling away from the Catholic church and probably in time the Christian faith altogether - not because Fatima is necessarily some gospel truth, but because the mindset and intention behind the one is the same as that behind the other.
Classic cult-like behaviour coming from above posters.
Sr Lucy implies, in her own words, that she broke the oath she made to the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima. What's more, she openly admits that she withheld information from the Church. This is ignored or glossed over. The Cult is always right even when facts demonstrate otherwise.
Then shoot the messenger. Anyone who criticises the Cult belongs to the dark side.
It's pathetic.
If Fatima proposed nothing new (as it can't, since Public revelation ceased with the death of St. John), then anyone adhering to the Catholic Faith as always taught is in line with Fatima, simply. Disbelieving or believing in Fatima of itself is a moot point and would fall into an issue of error of fact (whether or not Fatima was a legitimate apparition of Our Lady).
As for me, I was never comfortable with the para-dogmatic weight of Fatima in its adherents who, more and more, seem to point and sift religion at Fatima rather than point and sift Fatima at religion.
Between the rabid, overzealous Fatima adherents -- off-putting in itself -- combined with unanswered questions and accusations of Sr. Lucy's seemingly obedience-violating withholding of information during an official inquiry -- I find it even more suspicious. Combine that with Gerard's position that it's an attempt by the Devil to force the hand of the Pope on doing something, thereby gaining some sort of control, I find Fatima even more suspicious. Especially given the lack of actual information regarding Fatima and things like the so-called Secrets (yet to be revealed in the 3rd).
It would seem like a Pyrrhic victory with all the extra rosaries being prayed, etc. But what if the Devil is willing to suffer those blows in order to get the white whale: the Papacy.
If he can establish that precedent, a syncretic "approved" apparition is on the way that the Pope must obey. And anyone who denies it will be a promethean neo-pelagian deplorable par-excellence.
I don't need a lying, story telling Portuguese girl to tell me to adhere to the Faith, pray the Rosary, and shun sin.
If Fatima is something beyond that, then I lack the desire and intellect for it, and it's bad for me anyway since it goes beyond what I, the individual, am responsible for in this life, and it equally doesn't apply to me.
I don't see why this is such a hard concept, except it cuts the cult's influence at its knees.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 07, 2018, 06:18:21 AM
Quote from: mikemac on November 06, 2018, 11:24:03 AM
^ Says the Protestant
The spirit of readiness to publically ridicule Fatima, not just treat it with a fair private skepticism, is inevitably going to manifest in a falling away from the Catholic church and probably in time the Christian faith altogether - not because Fatima is necessarily some gospel truth, but because the mindset and intention behind the one is the same as that behind the other.
What you refer to as ridicule is, for the most part, charitable skepticism because some are over the top concerning Fatima and never shut up about it. The answer to every problem is Fatima. It is literally the cause, and solution to, all of life's problems. Much like Homer Simpson once commented on the nature of alcohol.
For those who have a mature faith based on study and participation in the Sacramental life based on public revelation, ridiculing Fatima should have no effect. I could see it shattering the faith of those on the other side though, Those who never tire of talking about it.
Luckily, their appears to be a stalemate and a way to continue to believe Fatima no matter what logic is thrown at them so it shouldn't be a big problem for them. But, should they ever begin to doubt, they will be the first ones to overthrow it all over Fatima. And that's why they are so stubborn about it. Because deep down they know their Faith is immature and based on a house of cards.
Our Lady's apparition at Fatima is a great gift from God, and that's how great Saints regarded it; "Padre Pio daily expressed his special devotion to Our Lady of Fatima as he knelt and prayed at Her shrine within the monastery, before a large picture surrounded by burning candles. Indeed, he credited the Virgin of Fatima with saving his life." http://www.piercedhearts.org/theology_heart/padre_pio_our_lady_of_fatima.htm nobody started critiquing Fatima until some 5 or 10 years ago after despair about the crisis. Also read about St. Maximillian Kolbe and the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima. Not to mention the Popes and other holy and heroic men. Finally, the saintly lives of the children; Jacinta and Francesco gave so many signs of holiness for children so young that the theologians sent to investigate were astonished and full Church approval came very quickly. Fatima is fully approved by the Church, and approved apparitions, according to St. Montfort, St. Alphonsus etc are given an assent called "pious faith". To refuse to believe in them and attribute them to Satan is a mark of impiety and of temerity.
It was instrumental in defining the Catholic response against Communism, and it was also a warning against false ecumenism, and a preparation for a real triumph of the Church by the return of the Orthodox to the Catholic Church. All these graces would have been obtained through the Papal and Episcopal Consecration. As Jesus willed to honor the French Monarchy by asking France to be consecrated to His Heart, He asked Russia to be consecrated by the Pope to honor the Papacy; and also to defeat Communism and so that the Russian Orthodox would return to the Church. Also, the devil is never going to promote the Rosary. Remember when St. Dominic and the faithful prayed the Rosary, many demons were forced to flee. The Rosary always drives out Satan, and as the Lord so rightly said, Satan would not drive out himself; and therefore it is clear Our Lady of Fatima, where the Rosary, beside devotion to the Immaculate Heart, and consecration to Mary, is so much promoted, cannot be from Satan; but rather is from God.
He also believed in Garabandal. Last I checked, Joey died blind.
#ButMuhSpiritualEyes!
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 07, 2018, 09:02:39 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 07, 2018, 06:18:21 AM
Quote from: mikemac on November 06, 2018, 11:24:03 AM
^ Says the Protestant
The spirit of readiness to publically ridicule Fatima, not just treat it with a fair private skepticism, is inevitably going to manifest in a falling away from the Catholic church and probably in time the Christian faith altogether - not because Fatima is necessarily some gospel truth, but because the mindset and intention behind the one is the same as that behind the other.
What you refer to as ridicule is, for the most part, charitable skepticism because some are over the top concerning Fatima and never shut up about it. The answer to every problem is Fatima. It is literally the cause, and solution to, all of life's problems. Much like Homer Simpson once commented on the nature of alcohol.
For those who have a mature faith based on study and participation in the Sacramental life based on public revelation, ridiculing Fatima should have no effect. I could see it shattering the faith of those on the other side though, Those who never tire of talking about it.
Luckily, their appears to be a stalemate and a way to continue to believe Fatima no matter what logic is thrown at them so it shouldn't be a big problem for them. But, should they ever begin to doubt, they will be the first ones to overthrow it all over Fatima. And that's why they are so stubborn about it. Because deep down they know their Faith is immature and based on a house of cards.
"Logic" which depends upon premises which are not objectively determined facts.
I'm not a Fatima cultist, I don't intend on making a pilgrimage, I don't say its prayers after my Rosary, and I don't feel shaken or offended by some of the idiotic reasoning being thrown at it (e.g., my favourite: Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request - completele, mind-shattering logic fail and totally subjective impression). I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.
These
QuoteThe fact that it succeeded is one of the reasons I'm convinced we're at the end, that it's all over.
It's over. There can be no coming back from this.
are the words of an hysterical "cultist" resigned to doom and gloom, and I'll bet they don't end there.
Fatima has everything theologians call supernatural "motives of credibility". After appearing 5 times, the Virgin Mother prophesied to the children that there would be a great public event on Oct 13th, 1917. In front of 70,000 eyewitness, She kept Her word and Heaven worked a great miracle, with the sun dancing, the clothes of pilgrims being instantly dried, and the hostile secularist/masonic press being compelled to admit the event and check its skepticism. Atheists and skeptics have been converted by Our Lady of Fatima. Why oppose it, precisely? At least you could follow the Gamaliel rule, and leave it alone; it does no harm to the Faith, and rather promotes faith in God, love for Jesus, and devotion to Mary, and to the Twin Hearts, among Catholics. And since you believe, Gardener, in the well-documented and nigh impossible to deny fact of the (though some Fatima deniers have denied that also) infiltration of the Church by Communists that Bella Dodd gave sworn congressional testimony to, you know that Our Lady's words that Russia will spread her errors around the world, have come true to the letter. That is the second mark of supernatural revelation i.e. fulfilled prophesies. St. Jacinta also warned against immodesty and Our Lady of the dangers of the sins of the flesh, when She took the children to hell and to heaven; holy Priests like Fr. Bernard Kunkel in the 50's, who were fighting the "free love" movement with all their strength, but alas ultimately unsuccessfully, did so directed by Our Lady of Fatima. St. Pio, Fr. Kunkel, devotees of Fatima, read the "signs of the times" correctly. Others did not. Our Lady of Fatima is a prophetess, the Queen of Prophets. If we wish for a share in the prophetic spirit, at least to understand the spirit of the age, and the necessary means to oppose it, it is good to have a healthy veneration, devotion and love for Our Lady of Fatima.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Children/immodest-dress.htm
Thank you, Xavier. As a convert from atheism I have a dear place in my heart for Fatima.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 07, 2018, 09:47:26 AM
I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.
"Apparant fact"? Really?
You've made a study, have you? You have evidence? Or just your own speculation?
You assume the right to threaten anyone who questions Sr Lucy or the Fatimists with a loss of their Faith? This is appalling behaviour.
As for your other comments above. I'll just add it to my list of vicious replies.
In her Second Memoir, written in 1937, Sr Lucy describes how her mother arranged for them to visit their parish priest after morning Mass, in an effort to make Lucia confess that she had invented the story of the apparitions.
Quote
"Don't annoy me any more! Tell the Reverend Father now that you lied, so that on Sunday he can say in the church that it was all a lie, and that will be the end of the whole affair. A nice business, this is! All this crowd running to the Cova da Iria, just to pray in front of a holm oak bush!"
Without more ado, she knocked on the door. The good priest's sister opened the door and invited us to sit down on a bench and wait a while. At last, the parish priest appeared. He took us into his study, motioned my mother to a seat, and beckoned me over to his desk. When I found that His Reverence was questioning me quite calmly, and with such a kindly manner, I was amazed. I was still fearful, however, of what was yet to come. The interrogation was very minute and, I would even venture to say, tiresome. His Reverence concluded with this brief observation:
"It doesn't seem to me like a revelation from heaven. It is usual in such cases for Our Lord to tell the souls to whom He makes such communications to give their confessor or parish priest an account of what has happened. But this child, on the contrary, keeps it to herself as far as she can. This may also be a deceit of the devil. We shall see. The future will show us what we are to think about it all."
http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf
p.85
Interestingly, Sr Lucy describes the interrogation by her parish priest as "tiresome".
Sr Lucy's mother remained convinced that her daughter had fabricated her accounts of the apparitions and repeatedly urged her to confess this, as Sr Lucy explained in her Second Memoir.
Quote
My poor mother worried more and more, as she saw the crowds who came flocking from all parts. "These poor people," she said, "come here, taken in by your trickery, you can be sure of that, and I really don't know what I can do to undeceive them."
A poor man who boasted of making fun of us, of insulting us and of even going so far as to beat us, asked my mother one day: "Well, ma'am, what have you got to say about your daughter's visions?"
" I don't know," she answered. "lt seems to me that she's nothing but a fake, who is leading half the world astray."
Sr Lucy's mother also voiced many concerns about the effects of so many visitors trampling over the Cova da Iria and interfering with the family's ability to cultivate their land.
Quote
9. Trouble in Lucia's Family
In the intimacy of my own family, there was fresh trouble, and the blame for this was thrown on me. The Cova da Iria was a piece of land belonging to my parents. In the hollow, it was more fertile, and there we cultivated maize, greens, peas and other vegetables. On the slopes grew olive trees, oaks and holm oaks. Now, ever since the people began to go there, we had been unable to cultivate anything at all. Everything was trampled on. As the majority came mounted, their animals ate up all they could find and wrecked the whole place. My mother bewailed her loss: "You, now," she said to me, "when you want something to eat, go and ask the Lady for it!" My sisters chimed in with: "Yes, you can have what grows in the Cova da Iria!"
p90
Sr Lucy's attitude to priests and the men of the Church is evident throughout her Memoirs. Here, having describe how she and her cousins avoided some visitors who had come to see them, she explains how they would also hide when priests came to visit, something the priest of their parish "bitterly complained" about.
Quote
Another day, we were sitting in the shade of two fig trees overhanging the road that runs by my cousins' house. Francisco began to play a little way off. He saw several ladies coming towards us and ran back to warn us. We promptly climbed up the fig trees. In those days it was the fashion to wear hats with brims as wide as a sieve, and we were sure that with such headgear, those people would never catch sight of us up there. As soon as the ladies had gone by, we came down as fast as we could, took to our heels and hid in a cornfield.
This habit we had of making good our escape, whenever possible, was yet another cause for complaint on the part of the parish priest. He bitterly complained of the way we tried to avoid priests in particular. His Reverence was cerlainly right. It was priests especially who put us through the most rigorous cross-examinations, and then returned to question us all over again. Whenever we found ourselves in the presence of a priest, we prepared to offer to God one of our greatest sacrifices!
p 106
http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf
I don't know if you are aware of it or not awkwardcustomer but most if not all of what you posted on this page can be seen in the 1952 Warner Brothers production of 'The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima'. If anyone is interested they can watch the full movie in color from this page. It's pretty good.
https://gloria.tv/video/GAbERtuDr7ym31nUEw6iRBnGH
I cannot imagine what people would say and think about who I am were they to pick through details of my life.
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 07, 2018, 08:56:24 PM
I cannot imagine what people would say and think about who I am were they to pick through details of my life.
Well I can imagine what people would say and think about me, and the prospect of that is quite humbling.
Awkward,
I'm sure if any of us were to receive private revelation, most people, even sincerely devout Catholics, would doubt us -- but when it comes to family members, the bond and concern are more intense; there is much more enmeshment and intimacy. Thus, just because Lucy's mother urged this and that does not in itself make me doubt that Lucy received private revelation. If it were that doubtful, that shrouded in suspicion and lack of credibility as to the
basics, the Church would not have included Fatima among what are called "approved Marian apparitions." Again, though, however, the faithful are not bound to assent to and be devoted to any private revelation. But a private, legitimate doubt does not rise to the objective level of untruth that you seem to insist on pressing for.
A Catholic who has received a private revelation is bound by it, but no one else is. That is, if he or she receives a visitation and is commanded to do X, she'd better do X. If a declaration or prophecy (rather than a command) is part of the revelation, the receiver is bound to believe it. The real problem emerges if what is commanded involves coming forward publicly, involves public figures, etc. It's only one of many reasons why I'm so glad I've never received any private revelations, and it's unlikely I ever will! I say "glad" because, again, it would be hard to convince most others of the genuine nature of the experience -- for most of us.
The receiver also has an obligation to obey the dictates of Church authority in full honesty during proceedings.
If they are being "led" to not doing that, they should probably seriously question such an apparition's legitimacy from heaven.
Quote from: Gardener on November 07, 2018, 11:58:13 PM
The receiver also has an obligation to obey the dictates of Church authority in full honesty during proceedings.
If they are being "led" to not doing that, they should probably seriously question such an apparition's legitimacy from heaven.
Or question that particular
aspect of an apparition, rather than the entire event.
Sometimes what is reported in a revelation sounds vague to the receiver, not to mention to later hearers of it. I'm sure that in some cases, zeal on the part of the receiver could cause him or her to over-interpret and step over the line.
I think the point is that neither our faith nor our spirituality should revolve around any private revelation or all of them put together. They should supplement (or not) as the Holy Spirit leads us to respond. The way I regard them, individually and together, is this:
Visits, visitations, apparitions, etc., when given to others, confirm our faith relative to their genuine aspects. If they challenge the faith, or cause us to question/doubt what is orthodox, or to obsess about them but not about what is universal to Catholicism, then it seems to me we could be fostering something unhealthy. I said "could be." We should just be on alert that the drama of private revelation is sometimes more appealing or more persuasive than the truths we are always called to live, were there no private revelations.
Just remember that many of the traditional saints we revere so much were gifted with private revelations. Others were merely given mystical (unitive) experiences, but many of these revelations and experiences they wrote about. Yet we probably wouldn't call into question the veracity of those saints just because their own private revelations may seem fanciful. And some of those revelations happened during their childhoods.
I think one problem with Fatima is the level of scrutiny it has received, which tends to subject it and Sr. Lucy to exceptional analysis, dissection, verification, and doubt. But that's precisely because Fatima is so popular and visible. I don't think La Salette, Akita, and many other apparitions have suffered this level of examination. And when any public figure or public moment is scrutinized "to death," controversy inevitably arises, and with controversy, conflict.
I'm still hopeful we can get back to the subject of the article I posted.
:pray2:
Quote from: Gardener on November 07, 2018, 11:58:13 PM
The receiver also has an obligation to obey the dictates of Church authority in full honesty during proceedings.
If they are being "led" to not doing that, they should probably seriously question such an apparition's legitimacy from heaven.
Yes, Sr Lucy should have questioned the apparition's instruction to disobey and mislead the Church.
And so should everyone else. But they don't.
The question is - why?
Of course, Sr Lucy didn't admit much later that she had lied to the Canonical Enquiry. Alarm bells should have rung loud and clear when she wrote this in her Fourth Memoir of 1941.
Quote
Firstly, I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and secondly, I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name.
And this.
Quote
"Whom should I obey? God or His representative?"
Obey the instructions of an apparition first and the men of the Church second!! This goes against just about everything.
Fatimists everywhere have an obligation to explain this.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 08, 2018, 02:58:07 AM
I think the point is that neither our faith nor our spirituality should revolve around any private revelation or all of them put together. They should supplement (or not) as the Holy Spirit leads us to respond. The way I regard them, individually and together, is this:
Visits, visitations, apparitions, etc., when given to others, confirm our faith relative to their genuine aspects. If they challenge the faith, or cause us to question/doubt what is orthodox, or to obsess about them but not about what is universal to Catholicism, then it seems to me we could be fostering something unhealthy. I said "could be." We should just be on alert that the drama of private revelation is sometimes more appealing or more persuasive than the truths we are always called to live, were there no private revelations.
Just remember that many of the traditional saints we revere so much were gifted with private revelations. Others were merely given mystical (unitive) experiences, but many of these revelations and experiences they wrote about. Yet we probably wouldn't call into question the veracity of those saints just because their own private revelations may seem fanciful. And some of those revelations happened during their childhoods.
I think one problem with Fatima is the level of scrutiny it has received, which tends to subject it and Sr. Lucy to exceptional analysis, dissection, verification, and doubt. But that's precisely because Fatima is so popular and visible. I don't think La Salette, Akita, and many other apparitions have suffered this level of examination. And when any public figure or public moment is scrutinized "to death," controversy inevitably arises, and with controversy, conflict.
I'm still hopeful we can get back to the subject of the article I posted.
:pray2:
Miriam, why are you glossing over this?
Sr Lucy wasn't being, or seeming, merely "fanciful".
Sr Lucy mislead the Church. She lied to the Canonical Enquiry.
Name a single saint who would obey an apparition first and the men of the Church second to the extent of breaking an oath as Sr Lucy admits she did.
When you, or anyone else can do that, then you can compare Sr Lucy to the traditional saints.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 08, 2018, 02:58:07 AM
I think one problem with Fatima is the level of scrutiny it has received, which tends to subject it and Sr. Lucy to exceptional analysis, dissection, verification, and doubt. But that's precisely because Fatima is so popular and visible. I don't think La Salette, Akita, and many other apparitions have suffered this level of examination. And when any public figure or public moment is scrutinized "to death," controversy inevitably arises, and with controversy, conflict.
Who began the intense scrutiny? In my view it was the rad trads who wanted to use Fatima and our Lady as a battering ram against post-Conciliar popes and the Novus Ordo Mass. When it is pointed out that Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass without a complaint for 40 years, or that she testified to the consecration as being valid, the two Lucy theory then materializes.
In the past those who might begin to doubt Fatima, if properly scrutinized, most likely took it as a nice story and believed it. Reason being an outside agenda had not yet been attached to it. So you can thank the collective of people like Father Gruner, Michael Matt, and Chris Ferrara for that.
There is plenty of constructive criticism that can be leveled at post-Conciliar popes, the Novus Ordo Mass, and the state of the Church from reason and Tradition alone.
What follows is going to sound harsh but I believe it is 100% true.
Wilhelm Reich, father of the sexual revolution, noticed that he could not make properly formed Catholics doubt their faith by engaging in theological arguments. So he took an end run around it all by encouraging sexual sin like masturbation. Teach a boy to masturbate and he will soon forget to pray or simply drop the practice out of guilt.
I think the same is true of our trio of Catholic "heroes" mentioned above. Ferrara and Matt do engage in some high level analysis. Or at least higher level arguments that are intelligent. But for whatever reason, and it may have even been an unconscious choice, they also chose to bring along those who have not put in the time, nor have the intellectual gifts, to protest the current state of the Church outside of shaking their fists at popes and demanding a consecration. After all, revolutionary protest movements are great tactics for mobilizing those who don't do a lot of thinking.
You have to hand it to them as this is great propaganda. They managed to create a movement that even the most simple of people can understand and one in which the herd can always fall back on in order to reenergize during dull periods in the action. This is even better than the popular music that was adopted by the protest movements during the '60s. Those people eventually moved on and gave up on creating their version of utopia. But not so for the Fatimists who want their own personal utopia to come one day in the form of a "Period of Peace".
In my view this entire episode is an example of what Hegel would refer to as the cunning of reason in operation. The scrutiny over Fatima started by rad trads out of laziness, or wanting to build up a movement as fast as possible, has blown up in their faces as people now doubt the entire thing.
Ferrara and Matt better watch out or they may even end up putting all those trinket sellers out of business at the Shrine.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 08, 2018, 03:36:05 AM
Miriam, why are you glossing over this?
Because I am not obligated to participate in your personal cause, that's the simple answer. You want to command others to "take sides," and the Church would not necessarily suggest such a thing over an optional devotion -- optional both as to belief and practice.
Fatima is not dogma. But it seems that you would like to make everything about the modern church a referendum about Fatima. Neither rejecting Fatima (or "proving" it false) nor elevating an apparition to the level of dogma (without authority to do so) will undo the chaos in the Church. (
Topic of this thread) However, prayer just might do that, and perhaps that's why the devotion is important or at least helpful to some Catholics.
The sanctification of the Church Militant through prayer and virtue is probably a more sure way to work toward the restoration than arguing over the "facts" of Fatima. We will not have confirmation regarding what of any of it is genuine until Heaven. It's a waste of time to get into the equivalent of proof-texting.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 08, 2018, 10:47:01 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 08, 2018, 03:36:05 AM
Miriam, why are you glossing over this?
Because I am not obligated to participate in your personal cause, that's the simple answer. You want to command others to "take sides," and the Church would not necessarily suggest such a thing over an optional devotion -- optional both as to belief and practice.
Fatima is not dogma. But it seems that you would like to make everything about the modern church a referendum about Fatima. Neither rejecting Fatima (or "proving" it false) nor elevating an apparition to the level of dogma (without authority to do so) will undo the chaos in the Church. (Topic of this thread) However, prayer just might do that, and perhaps that's why the devotion is important or at least helpful to some Catholics.
The sanctification of the Church Militant through prayer and virtue is probably a more sure way to work toward the restoration than arguing over the "facts" of Fatima. We will not have confirmation regarding what of any of it is genuine until Heaven. It's a waste of time to get into the equivalent of proof-texting.
I take it you have nothing to say on the difference between being fancifull and being misleading.
Quote
The sanctification of the Church Militant through prayer and virtue is probably a more sure way to work toward the restoration than arguing over the "facts" of Fatima.
Surely the sanctification of the Church Militant requires that falsehoods be exposed.
At some point prayer and virtue have to translate into action if circumstances demand it.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 08, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
I take it you have nothing to say on the difference between being fancifull and being misleading.
You can interpret my comment (again) to mean that I have no intention of allowing you to manipulate me into artificially extreme debate points, particularly given how relatively subordinate Fatima is to The Crisis. (4th time now: topic of the thread.)
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 07, 2018, 09:47:26 AM
"Logic" which depends upon premises which are not objectively determined facts.
I'm not a Fatima cultist, I don't intend on making a pilgrimage, I don't say its prayers after my Rosary, and I don't feel shaken or offended by some of the idiotic reasoning being thrown at it (e.g., my favourite: Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request - completele, mind-shattering logic fail and totally subjective impression). I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.
Interesting that you don't actually demonstrate the validity of any or your criticisms. There's a lot of hyperbole and "mind-shattering" assertions but not a single proof. That's a bit of a "fail" on your part.
Luckily, I just happened to appear here today in order to stop you from making any further blunders.
I'm going to be charitable about it and give you a chance to obtain mercy.
Here's what you are going to do.....
1) You are going to believe my position on Fatima.
2) You are going to honor my position on Fatima.
3) You are going to make reparations for those that besmirch my position on Fatima.
4) And you're going to get me a jelly of the month club subscription.
If you do these things, I'll give you an incredible gift by stopping a hit man contracted by the Mafia from taking out you and your family. (You just have to trust me, there will be a contract taken out and only through my intercession will it be stopped.)
If you don't do these things...the Mob will take that contract out on you and your family will be snuffed out..and you're personally going to suffer much.
And I want my instructions followed exactly. I want jelly, not preserves, not jam, only jelly, not jelly and preserves, with marmalade and jam or any combination, I've "requested" specifically, "jelly."
Do what I tell you or suffer.....and remember...this is not a threat, I'm "saving" you, be grateful.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 07, 2018, 12:07:39 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 07, 2018, 09:47:26 AM
I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.
"Apparant fact"? Really?
You've made a study, have you? You have evidence? Or just your own speculation?
What part of "apparent" do you not understand? It's anecdote based in my own observations - obviously, if you know how to read English.
QuoteYou assume the right to threaten anyone who questions Sr Lucy or the Fatimists with a loss of their Faith? This is appalling behaviour.
As for your other comments above. I'll just add it to my list of vicious replies.
Now I've "threatened" someone? What?
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Ff6%2Ff67334bc58f2468bad15312669d5edaa0afe4c44de4eb56039994a47f00d296b.jpg&hash=8142b0c74f629af60cfd7202b6355bc580681ef7)
Quote from: Gerard on November 08, 2018, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 07, 2018, 09:47:26 AM
"Logic" which depends upon premises which are not objectively determined facts.
I'm not a Fatima cultist, I don't intend on making a pilgrimage, I don't say its prayers after my Rosary, and I don't feel shaken or offended by some of the idiotic reasoning being thrown at it (e.g., my favourite: Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request - completele, mind-shattering logic fail and totally subjective impression). I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.
Interesting that you don't actually demonstrate the validity of any or your criticisms. There's a lot of hyperbole and "mind-shattering" assertions but not a single proof. That's a bit of a "fail" on your part.
The claim that Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request is a
non sequitur. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, which is why you can't write out a deductive proof of it showing the rules of inference employed at each step. A mere
warning of consequences of inaction is in principle distinct from a
threat in that the latter is of the form "if you don't do x then I will cause y", the former "if you don't do x then y will happen", which does not imply y is caused by the one giving the warning. This is a fact, whose truth I have demonstrated, and any child over the age of reason should be able to understand this, provided he doesn't count to potato.
threat: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not doneThe criteria for that definition are simply not explicitly expressed in nor logically implied by the words of Our Lady of Fatima, in particular, an intention to inflict the negative consequences of not following her request. End of. Any "threat" perceived in her words is not an objective fact but a subjective impression.
I already dealt with this elsewhere, as I dealt with the pathetic attempts to "prove" the contrary by some anologies about a kidnapped wife.
Quote
Luckily, I just happened to appear here today in order to stop you from making any further blunders.
I'm going to be charitable about it and give you a chance to obtain mercy.
Here's what you are going to do.....
1) You are going to believe my position on Fatima.
2) You are going to honor my position on Fatima.
3) You are going to make reparations for those that besmirch my position on Fatima.
4) And you're going to get me a jelly of the month club subscription.
If you do these things, I'll give you an incredible gift by stopping a hit man contracted by the Mafia from taking out you and your family. (You just have to trust me, there will be a contract taken out and only through my intercession will it be stopped.)
If you don't do these things...the Mob will take that contract out on you and your family will be snuffed out..and you're personally going to suffer much.
And I want my instructions followed exactly. I want jelly, not preserves, not jam, only jelly, not jelly and preserves, with marmalade and jam or any combination, I've "requested" specifically, "jelly."
Do what I tell you or suffer.....and remember...this is not a threat, I'm "saving" you, be grateful.
Whether this utterly bizarre rambling is meant to be sarcastic or not, it screams "lunatic".
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 08, 2018, 01:50:36 PM
You can interpret my comment (again) to mean that I have no intention of allowing you to manipulate me into artificially extreme debate points, particularly given how relatively subordinate Fatima is to The Crisis. (4th time now: topic of the thread.)
Oh for goodness sake. You do this a lot. You address a point directly to me, I respond in a way that questions your point, and you respond with nothing short of rudeness.
You made no distinction between the fancifullness of some traditional saints and the way Sr Lucy mislead the Church. Instead of explaining this, you launch into yet another round of insults. You still haven't addressed the point and now you accuse me of trying to manipulate you.
If you don't want to address the point - don't. But kindly stop making absurd insults.
What was that you said earlier about prayer and virtue saving the Church?
Those who reject Fatima. Go pound sand.
No better than Protestants who say it is from the devil.
33 AD. Our Lord returns Lazarus to life. Observant Jews: It is by the power of Beelzebub.
1917 AD. The miracle of the sun. Traditionalist: It is by the power of the devil.
So you are saying public revelation extended beyond the death of St. John the Apostle?
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 08, 2018, 03:52:16 PM
The claim that Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request is a non sequitur.
To claim it is simply a "warning" and a "request" (when no actual petition was ever made to the Pope) is what is a non-sequitur.
An alleged seer of an apparition simply claimed a disaster was coming.
The apparition allegedly wants to extract a price from the Pope for aid.
If the Pope refuses to give the apparition what it wants, the Pope will personally suffer. (Coercion)
Nothing of course happens and nothing is independently verifiable.
It's simply a protection racket scheme with a carrot and stick approach.
QuoteThe conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, which is why you can't write out a deductive proof of it showing the rules of inference employed at each step.
If you want a deductive argument, we can start from any number of premises.
Here's one.
1) The Pope has Supreme power over the Church on Earth. The Blessed Virgin Mary is incapable of attempting to usurp power from the Pope. The apparition at Fatima attempts to usurp that power through coercion. Therefore Fatima is not an apparition of the BVM.
QuoteA mere warning of consequences of inaction is in principle distinct from a threat in that the latter is of the form "if you don't do x then I will cause y", the former "if you don't do x then y will happen", which does not imply y is caused by the one giving the warning.
You're wrong. There are multiple types of threats not simply one that is convenient for your denial. Direct, Indirect, Veiled and Conditional are all common types of threats.
Your premise is false so, your conclusion is naturally false.
Do you know anything at all about coercion? Have you ever heard of a "protection racket?"
The "warning" (ie. threat of danger) is conditional and has no origin beyond the claimant of the danger: the apparition.
The threat only has existence in relation to the response of the target of coercion. In this case, the Pope. It is not some objectively verifiable danger that is inevitable.
It was/is an either /or proposition which directly exerts intimidation in the form of threats of suffering personally to the Pope and many innocents.
The dilemma presented has the final result to force the Pope under duress into exercising his unique power of consecration on a universal scale at the direction of another creature.
And frankly, it is doctrinally nonsensical that horrors will be unleashed on massive amounts of Catholics because of a Pope made a legitimate decision to maintain his autonomy in exercising the Keys to the Kingdom.
The Pope is not subject to the claims of "seers" of dubious apparitions claiming to be the Blessed Mother giving the Pope orders. Oh...I mean "requests" with "warnings" against him.
QuoteThis is a fact, whose truth I have demonstrated, and any child over the age of reason should be able to understand this, provided he doesn't count to potato.
No. You're wrong. I've demonstrated above that you're wrong and any child who has a lick of common sense about influence and power can see this unless they are blinded by sentiment....like you.
Quotethreat: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done
That's a narrow and incomplete definition of "threat." Probably deliberate on your part rather than a real display of ignorance.
Are you seriously claiming that your single dictionary definition of one type of direct threat is universal in application and no other type of threat exists?
Are you claiming there is no such thing as a conditional threat?
How do you justify that smug attitude while displaying such stupid methods of argumentation?
QuoteThe criteria for that definition are simply not explicitly expressed in nor logically implied by the words of Our Lady of Fatima, in particular, an intention to inflict the negative consequences of not following her request. End of. Any "threat" perceived in her words is not an objective fact but a subjective impression.
That's an example of cherry-picking your definition rather than engage in a legitimate discussion. Bad form.
"...for
that definition.." What about "that" definition? What about a different, more comprehensive and more applicable definition?
The criteria for a conditional threat is explicitly expressed by the claimed words of the alleged apparition.
The Apparition "intended" on intimidating and coercing the Pope into being extorted into obeying the apparition with the threat of chastisement. The origin of the tale of suffering of the Pope and annihilated nations is the Apparition itself.
You can't say the chastisement has nothing to with the Apparition. No one would entertain any thought of it without the apparition making the unsubstantiated assertion of its approach.
QuoteI already dealt with this elsewhere, as I dealt with the pathetic attempts to "prove" the contrary by some anologies about a kidnapped wife.
No. You didn't. You may think you have, but your rebuttals sucked.
QuoteQuote
Luckily, I just happened to appear here today in order to stop you from making any further blunders.
I'm going to be charitable about it and give you a chance to obtain mercy.
Here's what you are going to do.....
1) You are going to believe my position on Fatima.
2) You are going to honor my position on Fatima.
3) You are going to make reparations for those that besmirch my position on Fatima.
4) And you're going to get me a jelly of the month club subscription.
If you do these things, I'll give you an incredible gift by stopping a hit man contracted by the Mafia from taking out you and your family. (You just have to trust me, there will be a contract taken out and only through my intercession will it be stopped.)
If you don't do these things...the Mob will take that contract out on you and your family will be snuffed out..and you're personally going to suffer much.
And I want my instructions followed exactly. I want jelly, not preserves, not jam, only jelly, not jelly and preserves, with marmalade and jam or any combination, I've "requested" specifically, "jelly."
Do what I tell you or suffer.....and remember...this is not a threat, I'm "saving" you, be grateful.
Whether this utterly bizarre rambling is meant to be sarcastic or not, it screams "lunatic".
No. It doesn't scream "lunatic." That's just you being a drama queen to avoid the issue. Considering the model it's built on, I wonder if divorced from your sentiment to Fatima if you would see Fatima as "screaming lunatic." There's an implicit admission of the truth in your statement.
It's also not rambling, it's actually concise. Nor is it bizarre, it demonstrates the nature of the silliness of calling Fatima's threat a "request."
It's simply silly for you to mischaracterize it as such.
I will concede that it is sarcastic but it's also apt as an analog to the subject.
But I can see how some puffery on your part to dismiss it is necessary to avoid displaying the bankruptcy of your "pathetic" counterargument.
Either that, or you are simply too dumb to get it. Should I try to dumb it down to your level?
Have a nice day. ;D
Once again we are treated to a thoughtful, patient, and organized post by Gerard. ^^^
Gerard said:
Quote...any child who has a lick of common sense about influence and power can see this unless they are blinded by sentiment....like you.
Of course this sentiment or child like faith is also responsible for trying to turn the Church into a democracy since millions of Catholics demand the pope act in a certain way with precise words. By the way, I loved your insistence on jelly, not jam.
If this nonsense stopped with the "fruits" of JPII's consecration of the world to the BVM I think the entire fantasy would have been relatively harmless. For one thing the debate, or massive concern, was actually nothing in the '80s and it would have been thought over for 35 years.
But no, that's when they had to kick up the urgency into high gear. It's been disgusting and one of the reasons I am prone to be defensive when it comes to JPII.
The above I think is objectively true, now I will speculate since I took the trouble to open up a response box.
Much has been made of a "masonic" owned newspaper reporting the Miracle of the Sun. Therefore it must be true. It usually is said like this, "even a masonic newspaper admitted it happened". Implying that anyone who does not believe must have something wrong with them.
To me this screams masonic operation with Jewish influence. I say Jewish influence since they have hated Russia since the 19th Century and still do want to make war on the country. They've already looted it at least twice.
The Miracle of the Sun seems to be sun worship and in a subtle way comparing Jesus Christ the Son, as the Sun. St. Augustine called attention to, and dispelled, that particular heresy in the 5th Century.
Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out. You guys are fantastic. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mikemac on November 21, 2018, 09:33:32 AM
Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out. You guys are fantastic. :rolleyes:
Popes and the entire Catholic Church adopted Vatican II.
Quote from: Gerard on November 20, 2018, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 08, 2018, 03:52:16 PM
The claim that Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request is a non sequitur.
To claim it is simply a "warning" and a "request" (when no actual petition was ever made to the Pope) is what is a non-sequitur.
A
non sequitur is a conclusion not following from its argument - or a characterisation of the argument itself - not a false claim. Please consult a dictionary.
Quote
An alleged seer of an apparition simply claimed a disaster was coming.
The apparition allegedly wants to extract a price from the Pope for aid.
If the Pope refuses to give the apparition what it wants, the Pope will personally suffer. (Coercion)
In your subjective estimation it is "coercion". There is nothing in the words of the apparition which
logically implies that. One more time for the village idiot: without
logical implication from the given data, your claim is
mere opinion based in a subjective impression.
Quote
If you want a deductive argument, we can start from any number of premises.
Here's one.
1) The Pope has Supreme power over the Church on Earth. The Blessed Virgin Mary is incapable of attempting to usurp power from the Pope. The apparition at Fatima attempts to usurp that power through coercion. Therefore Fatima is not an apparition of the BVM.
A deductive argument, citing rules of inference employed at each step, showing that the words of the apparition at Fatima constitute a "threat". You haven't provided that - and you never will. You haven't even got the subject of the argument right - it's not the validity of the apparition.
Quote
QuoteA mere warning of consequences of inaction is in principle distinct from a threat in that the latter is of the form "if you don't do x then I will cause y", the former "if you don't do x then y will happen", which does not imply y is caused by the one giving the warning.
You're wrong. There are multiple types of threats not simply one that is convenient for your denial. Direct, Indirect, Veiled and Conditional are all common types of threats.
Learn to read. A threat is, in principle, of the form "I will cause y", or more fully and as in this supposed case "if you do x then I will cause y" whether the threat, as communicated, is direct, veiled or otherwise implied. What you distinguish does not concern the essence of the concept of a
threat but modes of expression of a threat. You insist that what is literally merely a warning is in fact a threat, and the "reasons" you adduce for this are just subjective impressions. A threat may have been intended or it may not have been, but you have not and will never prove the former, and that's just a plain fact.
QuoteYour premise is false so, your conclusion is naturally false.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat
Definition of threat
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 :
an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
My distinction between
threat and
warning is sound, and my claim that the words of the Fatima apparition do no logically imply a threat, is true, as is my claim that your reasons for considering it to be such are not matters of objective fact but subjective impression.
QuoteDo you know anything at all about coercion? Have you ever heard of a "protection racket?"
You have yet to prove that the warning issued by the apparition is coercive and that the apparition was threatening to cause what it warned about. Stop begging the question, doofus.
QuoteThe "warning" (ie. threat of danger) is conditional and has no origin beyond the claimant of the danger: the apparition.
The threat only has existence in relation to the response of the target of coercion. In this case, the Pope. It is not some objectively verifiable danger that is inevitable.
If you don't pray for God's salvic grace you will burn in Hell. "Objectively verify" that. There, I just "threatened" you according to the logical structure of your "argument".
QuoteOh...I mean "requests" with "warnings" against him.
The only true words uttered by you.
QuoteNo. You're wrong. I've demonstrated above that you're wrong and any child who has a lick of common sense about influence and power can see this unless they are blinded by sentiment....like you.
Oops. Try again.
QuoteThat's a narrow and incomplete definition of "threat." Probably deliberate on your part rather than a real display of ignorance.
No, it's actually
the essential definition of the concept of
threat as you will find it in both
Webster's and the
OED. I'm sorry that you
really are too dumb to distinguish between the concept of a
threat and the concept of types of its expression.
QuoteAre you seriously claiming that your single dictionary definition of one type of direct threat is universal in application ...
Yes.
Quoteand no other type of threat exists?
No, I didn't address "types of threats" (really ways of expressing a threat) but what a
threat is (i.e., what is common to all of them). Are you really too dumb to get this? Well, you were dumb enough to harp on as you have without getting it.
QuoteAre you claiming there is no such thing as a conditional threat?
I'm claiming that the defined concept characterises the essence of every kind of expression of itself, i.e., all kinds of
threatening, whether it's just giving someone a look, silently brandishing a knife, telling you I'm going to beat the crap out of you in a bar, or putting an explicit "Pay me 100k or I will murder your daughter. This is a threat!" down on paper and mailing it, signed and sealed, to you.
QuoteHow do you justify that smug attitude while displaying such stupid methods of argumentation?
I just did.
Quote
QuoteThe criteria for that definition are simply not explicitly expressed in nor logically implied by the words of Our Lady of Fatima, in particular, an intention to inflict the negative consequences of not following her request. End of. Any "threat" perceived in her words is not an objective fact but a subjective impression.
That's an example of cherry-picking your definition rather than engage in a legitimate discussion. Bad form.
"...for that definition.." What about "that" definition? What about a different, more comprehensive and more applicable definition?
Nope.
QuoteThe criteria for a conditional threat is explicitly expressed by the claimed words of the alleged apparition.
Nope.
QuoteThe Apparition "intended" on intimidating and coercing the Pope into being extorted into obeying the apparition with the threat of chastisement.
Nope. You haven't demonstrated this. Either the coercion part or the threat part. You have not demonstrated that the literal warning issued of the consequences of inaction by the Pope was in fact a threat of any kind. All you've done is claim it over and over again and then, as now, present as evidence of itself in the topsy turvy world of circular reasoning.
Note especially what he's done above: the criteria for a "conditional threat" were met ... because it's a "threat".
Quote
The origin of the tale of suffering of the Pope and annihilated nations is the Apparition itself.
You can't say the chastisement has nothing to with the Apparition. No one would entertain any thought of it without the apparition making the unsubstantiated assertion of its approach.
Nowhere does the apparition identify itself as the cause of the calamity of which it forewarns, either explicitly or by any kind of logical implication. It is your subjective impression, and it will forever remain your subjective impression.
QuoteNo. You didn't. You may think you have, but your rebuttals sucked.
No, in fact have, and your attempts at rebuttals only put on display your woeful command of logic and understanding of the nature of language, truth and logic.
QuoteNo. It doesn't scream "lunatic."
No, it's clearly indicative of nutbaggery.
Quote
There's an implicit admission of the truth in your statement.
Naturally. What you work with is always "implicit", i.e., subjective impression of the meaning of someone's words someohow becomes an "objective fact" because you repeat it often enough.
QuoteIt's also not rambling, it's actually concise. Nor is it bizarre, it demonstrates the nature of the silliness of calling Fatima's threat a "request."
It doesn't
demonstrate anything. It's just restating, albeit with the mindset of a certifiable lunatic, that your "argument" is "it's a threat because because", and it's ludicrous to see it otherwise, "because because".
QuoteIt's simply silly for you to mischaracterize it as such.
It's simply the truth. It's the rambling of a nutbag, but it's not a threat. Now, if a mafioso from an operation that is known to run protection racket shows up at the door of my business demanding payment for such protection, the implication of a threat is actually known to be there.
QuoteHave a nice day. ;D
See you next Tuesday.
Quote from: mikemac on November 21, 2018, 09:33:32 AM
Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out. You guys are fantastic. :rolleyes:
Indeed, it's funny how no pope, even before Vatican II, saw the apparition's words as threatening them, when they were supposedly the object of these threats.
Quote from: Josephine87 on November 07, 2018, 11:22:44 AM
Thank you, Xavier. As a convert from atheism I have a dear place in my heart for Fatima.
Wonderful, Josephine. I'm very happy for you. And I know millions of other new Catholics, cradle Catholics and returning Catholics have had the same wonderful experience of Our Lady of Fatima and the Immaculate Heart. Fatima is just an exemplary example where Our Lady Herself directs us to fulfil so many things urged by Popes and Saints for ages - many have noted how Our Lady's emphasis on consecration is similar to the power of consecration to the Twin Hearts emphasized by such Saints as Margaret Mary and Louis Montfort among others.
Fatima is a fully authorized and perfectly traditional devotion. Period.
QuoteIn her Second Memoir
So, no word about the (1) public miracle (2) on the prophesied date of Oct 13th, 1917 (beside the very year and significance of 1917 and the revolution happening at that time in Russia; Heaven began the counter-attack before it became apparent to other Catholics) (3) the fulfilled prophesies of Communism's influence both in countries and in the Church that was still hidden well into the 40s and 50s (4) the warnings of Bella Dodd (which you've dismissed as exaggerated, but which came true just as she warned, very soon, proving they were right about Soviet infiltration (5) Mother Mary's prophesies against impurity etc being especially urgent.
There are a few other incidental points: (1) the Church took a very strong stance against Communism in large measure because of the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima (2) the more traditional Fathers at Vatican II wanted a dogmatic condemnation of Communism; many also wished explicitly to obey Our Lady's request at that Council (3) among those who did nof want it (and negotiated with the Soviets badly and unfavorably for the Church) and instituted Ostpolotik there were some progressives and modernists opposed to Fatima. So which side are you?
Your other argument is amazing. So, if we have to obey the men of the Church, as you say, in preference to the voice of the Holy Spirit (not that Sr. Lucia ever said she would disobey the Church, but only that that the Holy Spirit would speak through His Church, and vindicate that her mission and prophetic spirit was from Him), then why do you persist in stubbornly disobeying those same men of the Church after they had all their doubts clarified and gave full approval? God speaks by His Spirit through His Church, and He also speaks by His Spirit through His Saints. There is no contradiction in His doing so; the contradiction is in you not wanting to believe that there even are Popes and Bishops any more, while also claiming men of the Church should be obeyed in each and every single thing. Many of those people there were manifestly trying to bully simple and Saintly Sr. Lucia, but the Holy Spirit vindicated His holy and humble seer through His Church. Anti-Fatimists should cease and desist.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 21, 2018, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: mikemac on November 21, 2018, 09:33:32 AM
Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out. You guys are fantastic. :rolleyes:
Indeed, it's funny how no pope, even before Vatican II, saw the apparition's words as threatening them, when they were supposedly the object of these threats.
How do you know? Perhaps they did perceive the threat and this explains, partly, why they have not carried out the consecration in the exact form requested by the apparition.
Perhaps they would have gladly laid Fatima to rest, were it not for the demands of the Fatimists.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 21, 2018, 11:14:28 AM
Quote from: Gerard on November 20, 2018, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 08, 2018, 03:52:16 PM
The claim that Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request is a non sequitur.
To claim it is simply a "warning" and a "request" (when no actual petition was ever made to the Pope) is what is a non-sequitur.
A non sequitur is a conclusion not following from its argument - or a characterisation of the argument itself - not a false claim. Please consult a dictionary.
Oh...where to begin?
Okay, first. To go back to the beginning. I've stated that the Fatima is a threat to the papacy, not the Pope. The threat to the Pope is a coercive act that is subordinate to the looming threat on the papacy.
You've failed to make that distinction in your previous statement.
Second: Non-sequitur literally means "...does not follow." I've stated that to call the words of the apparition, "warning" or "request" does not follow from the context and the totality of the words used.
Learn to comprehend.
QuoteQuote
An alleged seer of an apparition simply claimed a disaster was coming.
The apparition allegedly wants to extract a price from the Pope for aid.
If the Pope refuses to give the apparition what it wants, the Pope will personally suffer. (Coercion)
In your subjective estimation it is "coercion". There is nothing in the words of the apparition which logically implies that. One more time for the village idiot: without logical implication from the given data, your claim is mere opinion based in a subjective impression.
No.
The extraction of a price from the Pope for alleged aid, constitutes an ecclesiological threat to the papacy.
The promise that if the price is not given the Pope will suffer, is deduced directly from the words of the apparition.
There's nothing subjective about it.
The words of the apparition directly convey a fearful outcome for the Pope directly and the world at large, if the price is not paid.
You can't disprove that.
QuoteQuote
If you want a deductive argument, we can start from any number of premises.
Here's one.
1) The Pope has Supreme power over the Church on Earth. The Blessed Virgin Mary is incapable of attempting to usurp power from the Pope. The apparition at Fatima attempts to usurp that power through coercion. Therefore Fatima is not an apparition of the BVM.
A deductive argument, citing rules of inference employed at each step, showing that the words of the apparition at Fatima constitute a "threat".
I'm not trained in Mathematical Logic, so the deductive argument using a syllogism is what you have to deal with along with the other common sense arguments.
Any moron can see that an apparition and its proxy dictating how and when the Pope is to exercise his own unique power and authority constitutes a threat to the papacy.
QuoteYou haven't provided that - and you never will.
I have and you're full of crap.
QuoteYou haven't even got the subject of the argument right - it's not the validity of the apparition.
Hah! You presume to comment on my position and then tell me I don't' know my position?
What moronic hubris!
You're the one that can't distinguish between the threat to the papacy in Fatima and the personal threat to the Pope in the message of Fatima.
You don't have a clue.
Quote
QuoteQuoteA mere warning of consequences of inaction is in principle distinct from a threat in that the latter is of the form "if you don't do x then I will cause y", the former "if you don't do x then y will happen", which does not imply y is caused by the one giving the warning.
You're wrong. There are multiple types of threats not simply one that is convenient for your denial. Direct, Indirect, Veiled and Conditional are all common types of threats.
Learn to read. A threat is, in principle, of the form "I will cause y", or more fully and as in this supposed case "if you do x then I will cause y" whether the threat, as communicated, is direct, veiled or otherwise implied. What you distinguish does not concern the essence of the concept of a threat but modes of expression of a threat. You insist that what is literally merely a warning is in fact a threat, and the "reasons" you adduce for this are just subjective impressions. A threat may have been intended or it may not have been, but you have not and will never prove the former, and that's just a plain fact.
Learn to think. That is moronic reasoning on your part.
A "warning" is not conditional on extracting behavior from another party. A 'warning" is giving information. "A storm is coming." Not, "A storm is coming and I can't stop it, if you pay me 100 bucks."
Concerning what constitutes a "threat."
First, a threat can be external. A storm that threatens a town does not state, "I will blow away this town." It has no "intention" but it constitutes a threat to the safety of the town. (This is so friggin' obvious, I'm amazed you need it spelled out for you. )
Second, according to your own narrow argument concerning the principle of voluntary action, "I will cause..." does not have to be direct or overt or even stated. As Aquinas teaches, inaction is also a cause:
I answer that, Voluntary is what proceeds from the will. Now one thing proceeds from another in two ways. First, directly; in which sense something proceeds from another inasmuch as this other acts; for instance, heating from heat. Secondly, indirectly; in which sense something proceeds from another through this other not acting; thus the sinking of a ship is set down to the helmsman, from his having ceased to steer. But we must take note that the cause of what follows from want of action is not always the agent as not acting; but only then when the agent can and ought to act. For if the helmsman were unable to steer the ship or if the ship's helm be not entrusted to him, the sinking of the ship would not be set down to him, although it might be due to his absence from the helm.
Since, then, the will by willing and acting, is able, and sometimes ought, to hinder not-willing and not-acting; this not-willing and not-acting is imputed to, as though proceeding from, the will. And thus it is that we can have the voluntary without an act; sometimes without outward act, but with an interior act; for instance, when one wills not to act; and sometimes without even an interior act, as when one does not will to act.
In Fatima, the apparition claims to have the power to avert the catastrophe. It will voluntarily not act if the price is not paid by the Pope. The Pope by himself cannot avert the alleged catastrophe, the apparition claims to have that power and will voluntarily avert the catastrophe only if the Pope pays the price demanded.
QuoteQuoteYour premise is false so, your conclusion is naturally false.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat
Definition of threat
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
My distinction between threat and warning is sound, and my claim that the words of the Fatima apparition do no logically imply a threat, is true, as is my claim that your reasons for considering it to be such are not matters of objective fact but subjective impression.
No, You're distinction between threat and warning is absurd. Moreso, in light of the stupidity of relying solely on one definition from a dictionary.
Explain to me, since you are so erudite. What is the expression of intent to injure from a storm?
QuoteQuoteDo you know anything at all about coercion? Have you ever heard of a "protection racket?"
You have yet to prove that the warning issued by the apparition is coercive and that the apparition was threatening to cause what it warned about. Stop begging the question, doofus.
Read above doofus.
Stop avoiding the facts.
The apparition of Fatima demands a price from the Pope in order to avoid catastrophe.
The apparition of Fatima makes idyllic promises if the Pope pays the price.
The whole damned thing is coercive.
If you can't see it, you don't even know the meaning of coercion.
QuoteQuoteThe "warning" (ie. threat of danger) is conditional and has no origin beyond the claimant of the danger: the apparition.
The threat only has existence in relation to the response of the target of coercion. In this case, the Pope. It is not some objectively verifiable danger that is inevitable.
QuoteOh...I mean "requests" with "warnings" against him.
The only true words uttered by you.
Still waiting for some truth from you.
Oh, and the snark doesn't disguise the fact that you slither away from dealing with the points.
Fatima is a "transactional" phenomena, the Pope pays a price to the apparition in exchange for good times and lollypops and should he not pay the price, calamity will result because the apparition will withhold salvation.
QuoteIf you don't pray for God's salvic grace you will burn in Hell. "Objectively verify" that. There, I just "threatened" you according to the logical structure of your "argument".
Strawman.
You aren't extracting a price for your intercession on my behalf. You are simply giving objective doctrinal information. In other words, a "warning."
There is no ransom demand, no consecration demanded before you will act to save me.
In fact, you aren't giving yourself any leverage in that scenario comparable to Fatima.
A more analogous scenario is this:
You claim that space aliens are about to attack and I, must write you a check for everything I have, after that, you will stick a banana in your ear and the alien threat will be eliminated.
If I don't write that check, no banana will go in your ear and the aliens will run rampant over the planet and they will especially and painfully probe me for years.
That's a threat in the form of an act of coercion.
Does any of this start to work it's way into that thick noggin' you've got there?
This isn't difficult.
QuoteQuoteNo. You're wrong. I've demonstrated above that you're wrong and any child who has a lick of common sense about influence and power can see this unless they are blinded by sentiment....like you.
Oops. Try again.
Are you having even more trouble comprehending? I'll type slowly, so you can keep up.
Go read above, I'm repeatedly demonstrating that Fatima is a threat based on conditions set up by the apparition in order to get the Pope to pay a price for perceived aid.
Prove me wrong. You haven't done anything but make gratuitous assertions about Fatima being "only" a warning, but you haven't yet made an argument of substance.
QuoteQuoteThat's a narrow and incomplete definition of "threat." Probably deliberate on your part rather than a real display of ignorance.
No, it's actually the essential definition of the concept of threat as you will find it in both Webster's and the OED. I'm sorry that you really are too dumb to distinguish between the concept of a threat and the concept of types of its expression.
I take it back. It is a real display of ignorance on your part.
Either that or you can explain the expressed intentions of a storm, a disease, a drunk driver or any other number of "threats" that don't fit you're goofy and irrational position.
QuoteQuoteAre you seriously claiming that your single dictionary definition of one type of direct threat is universal in application ...
Yes.
Read above.
Quote
Quoteand no other type of threat exists?
No, I didn't address "types of threats" (really ways of expressing a threat) but what a threat is (i.e., what is common to all of them). Are you really too dumb to get this? Well, you were dumb enough to harp on as you have without getting it.
Right. I'm the dumb one and you can't distinguish between a threat to the papacy and a threat directed at the person of the Pope.
You've got nerve, I'll give you that. I wouldn't normally be okay with punching down to you like I am, but your arrogance and smugness is that much more irritating because of your brainless argument.
QuoteQuoteAre you claiming there is no such thing as a conditional threat?
I'm claiming that the defined concept characterises the essence of every kind of expression of itself, i.e., all kinds of threatening, whether it's just giving someone a look, silently brandishing a knife, telling you I'm going to beat the crap out of you in a bar, or putting an explicit "Pay me 100k or I will murder your daughter. This is a threat!" down on paper and mailing it, signed and sealed, to you.
You just don't have the candle power to comprehend.
Okay, how about "I'm the helmsmen of the ship. I'm not going to steer this ship away from the iceberg unless the captain of the ship renames the ship after me." ?
Man, each time I go down to your next response, you make an even bigger jackass out of yourself.
QuoteQuoteHow do you justify that smug attitude while displaying such stupid methods of argumentation?
I just did.
No. You demonstrated a smug attitude and stupid methods of argumentation.
There is no justification for a smug attitude and stupid argumentation.
QuoteQuote
QuoteThe criteria for that definition are simply not explicitly expressed in nor logically implied by the words of Our Lady of Fatima, in particular, an intention to inflict the negative consequences of not following her request. End of. Any "threat" perceived in her words is not an objective fact but a subjective impression.
That's an example of cherry-picking your definition rather than engage in a legitimate discussion. Bad form.
"...for that definition.." What about "that" definition? What about a different, more comprehensive and more applicable definition?
Nope.
First, the criteria for the definition you gave said nothing about "explicit" in it. That is just an add on from you in order to bolster your crumbling position.
Second, you failed to incorporate an external threat as a type of threat.
Third, Aquinas disagrees with you that inaction can be a voluntary cause of a disaster. The unwillingness to help when someone should help and is capable of helping.
Fourth, Fatima "explicitly" states that the inaction or action of the apparition is conditional on the Pope paying the price demanded. Fatima doesn't say, "The Church will triumph if my "requests" are heeded." It claims "My immaculate heart will triumph." (I won't capitalize it since it is not the BVM.)
QuoteQuoteThe criteria for a conditional threat is explicitly expressed by the claimed words of the alleged apparition.
Nope.
Yep. I've quoted it and referred to it numerous times. Prove to me and everyone that Fatima is not a transactional proposition. That the Pope doesn't have to pay a price in order to gain the alleged aid of the apparition in order to avoid international disaster and his own personal suffering.
I've related these objective facts right above, in this post. Try to deal with it, or concede. Don't be a chicken and retreat with simple, unimaginative snark. That's your "tell" by the way. A little snarky comment to avoid getting into the details.
QuoteQuoteThe Apparition "intended" on intimidating and coercing the Pope into being extorted into obeying the apparition with the threat of chastisement.
Nope. You haven't demonstrated this.
Sure I have. If the Pope doesn't pay the price the apparition demands, the Pope will suffer.
QuoteEither the coercion part or the threat part.
Threats, in the plural, not a singular threat. You still haven't caught on that the Fatima demand for the Pope to act is one kind of threat against the papacy itself and the demand that the Pope pay the price or suffer is a second, threat against the person of the Pope.
Carrot of peace and stick of calamity is all determined by whether or not the Pope pays the price demanded by the apparition. That's coercion.
Since you are so fond of the dictionary.
coerce verb
co·?erce | \k?-??rs
\
coerced; coercing
Definition of coerce
transitive verb
1 : to compel to an act or choice
As I stated earlier, you're virtually clueless about this whole conversation. You didn't even quote me correctly when you sluggishly tried to present my position in your earlier post. You simply didn't grasp what you criticize.
QuoteYou have not demonstrated that the literal warning issued of the consequences of inaction by the Pope was in fact a threat of any kind.
By inaction of the Pope, you mean the price the Pope has to pay in order to get the apparition to avert the catastrophe?
"If not, (the Pope doesn't pay the price) ...wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated."
QuoteAll you've done is claim it over and over again and then, as now, present as evidence of itself in the topsy turvy world of circular reasoning.
Totally false and vacuous assertion on your part. You simply claim to have dealt with the points I've made when you've done no such thing but make asinine gibes.
As far as circular reasoning goes, You're the one promoting the idea: It's not a threat because she didn't say it's a threat! It's not a demand it's a request! with nothing to back up your statements.
QuoteNote especially what he's done above: the criteria for a "conditional threat" were met ... because it's a "threat".
What are you illiterate or something? Dyslexic?
The words of the apparition meet the criteria for what constitutes a conditional threat. That's what I stated.
What's the matter? You don't have the balls to deal with my arguments so you have to make up a straw man to attack?
QuoteQuote
The origin of the tale of suffering of the Pope and annihilated nations is the Apparition itself.
You can't say the chastisement has nothing to with the Apparition. No one would entertain any thought of it without the apparition making the unsubstantiated assertion of its approach.
Nowhere does the apparition identify itself as the cause of the calamity of which it forewarns, either explicitly or by any kind of logical implication. It is your subjective impression, and it will forever remain your subjective impression.
Bull.
The apparition claims to have the power to avert catastrophe and states, "My immaculate heart will triumph in the end." True or False?
This is based conditionally on the payment of the price demanded by the Pope. The apparition promises inaction if the Pope does not pay the price. True or False?
"If not, (the Pope doesn't pay the price) the Pope will suffer,nations will be annihilated." That's not my subjective statement. That's what is being stated by the apparition. True or False?
The helmsman of the boat is responsible if they do not steer the boat when they ought to steer the boat. - Aquinas True or False?
The Pope doesn't have the power to affect the predicted calamity in and of himself. So, he's not the helmsman, the apparition is. True or False?
Which is interesting because the whole point of Fatima is to relieve the Pope of being the helmsman.
So, stuff the subjective impression nonsense. You don't know what you're referring to.
QuoteQuoteNo. You didn't. You may think you have, but your rebuttals sucked.
No, in fact have, and your attempts at rebuttals only put on display your woeful command of logic and understanding of the nature of language, truth and logic.
You're critique is meaningless in light of the shitty showing you've put up so far.
It's obvious you're clueless about the actual argument presented. You've only got half-assed ignorant assumptions that you think you know.
You can't distinguish between the types of threats involved or even the number of threats.
You don't have a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes an actual "threat."
You can't even accurately provide suitable analogies to demonstrate why you're right and I'm wrong.
You can't address my analogies and debunk them at all so you ignore them and pretend they are beneath you, when in reality you can't overcome the points they make clearly (and cleverly).
You're a fraud.
QuoteQuoteNo. It doesn't scream "lunatic."
No, it's clearly indicative of nutbaggery.
Nonsense. It's just your "tell" showing again.
You don't want to deal with the analogy because it shows you to be wrong. So, you go schizo and start with the ad hominem attacks.
That's fine. I don't care about ad hominems. But the cowardice at using a good barb in order to hide your failure to deal with an idea is simply pathetic and an affront to insults everywhere.
QuoteQuote
There's an implicit admission of the truth in your statement.
Naturally. What you work with is always "implicit", i.e., subjective impression of the meaning of someone's words someohow becomes an "objective fact" because you repeat it often enough.
No. You missed the point again.
You don't want to deal with the analogy I presented because you see the nutbaggery of Fatima in the model. You can't face it so, you concede by failing to address it.
QuoteQuoteIt's also not rambling, it's actually concise. Nor is it bizarre, it demonstrates the nature of the silliness of calling Fatima's threat a "request."
It doesn't demonstrate anything.
Yes it does.
In the analogy I'm making the same demands on you that the Fatima apparition makes.
I promise goodies if you do my will. I promise you suffering if you don't give me what I want.
It's as plain as day.
So for you to claim it doesn't demonstrate anything is just you making a blatant lie.
QuoteIt's just restating, albeit with the mindset of a certifiable lunatic, that your "argument" is "it's a threat because because", and it's ludicrous to see it otherwise, "because because".
That's not even remotely accurate.
Read the answer directly above.
You're just coming off as pathetic at this point.
QuoteQuoteIt's simply silly for you to mischaracterize it as such.
It's simply the truth. It's the rambling of a nutbag, but it's not a threat.
Nah. You can't prove anything you're claiming. You're blathering because you don't want to deal with the fact that your position is ridiculous.
I'm telling you the phrase had the intention of a threat. (disclaimer: for educational purposes only) Now, you're claiming the intention doesn't matter?
You're inconsistency is sad to watch.
QuoteNow, if a mafioso from an operation that is known to run protection racket shows up at the door of my business demanding payment for such protection, the implication of a threat is actually known to be there.
My Lord what a stupid statement. I guess the first protection racket run by the first gang must have involved a lot of negotiations since the gang wasn't a known entity. Financial backers disclosed, presentations made, powerpoint, easels and blowup photos. "We hope you'll choose us as your favorite mob protection racket organization in this growing field of commerce."
As if the Mob advertises who they are overtly. "Ah...I see you are from the mob and you want me in your protection racket. Do you have proof of your mob membership? Okay. That's a nice picture on your mob ID card. Is that a terms of service page? Everything seems to be in order. What are the rates? And what are the specific tortures, I should be expecting to have offered to me in the near future?"
And by your standards, a threat doesn't exist if the threatened party doesn't know about it and isn't explicitly told about it. I wonder how assassins ever get a job done?
Fatima is a protection racket. The apparition makes a claim of an external threat. It promises to help but only if the Pope ponies up and pays the price demanded. If the Pope doesn't pay up, the apparition will voluntarily avoid doing what it claims to be able to do, namely save the world. Nothing is inevitable, it all hinges on the transaction between the Pope and the apparition. The apparition promises destruction if the Pope does not do its will.
That is inescapable and irrefutable.
Dodge and weave all you like, throw out as many ad hominems as you want (I can match you in number and easily outmatch you in wit ) but you can't prove me wrong and you never will.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 21, 2018, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 21, 2018, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: mikemac on November 21, 2018, 09:33:32 AM
Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out. You guys are fantastic. :rolleyes:
Indeed, it's funny how no pope, even before Vatican II, saw the apparition's words as threatening them, when they were supposedly the object of these threats.
How do you know? Perhaps they did perceive the threat and this explains, partly, why they have not carried out the consecration in the exact form requested by the apparition.
Perhaps they would have gladly laid Fatima to rest, were it not for the demands of the Fatimists.
Good point. I think that's what all the song and dance in 2000 was about. "Fatima is a thing of the past." At least that was what they'd hoped for.
Fr. Malachi Martin believed strongly in Fatima but he made another point about Rome. They never admit mistakes. They try to live with them. Fatima is most likely a giant mistake, John XXIII being a shrewd guy and knowing the ways of power probably saw right through it as did the later popes. We've probably been given skeptical liberal Popes precisely because they wouldn't risk the papacy by doing a consecration in a sentimental false obedience to an apparition.
Quote from: Gerard on November 23, 2018, 11:19:04 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 21, 2018, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 21, 2018, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: mikemac on November 21, 2018, 09:33:32 AM
Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out. You guys are fantastic. :rolleyes:
Indeed, it's funny how no pope, even before Vatican II, saw the apparition's words as threatening them, when they were supposedly the object of these threats.
How do you know? Perhaps they did perceive the threat and this explains, partly, why they have not carried out the consecration in the exact form requested by the apparition.
Perhaps they would have gladly laid Fatima to rest, were it not for the demands of the Fatimists.
Good point. I think that's what all the song and dance in 2000 was about. "Fatima is a thing of the past." At least that was what they'd hoped for.
Fr. Malachi Martin believed strongly in Fatima but he made another point about Rome. They never admit mistakes. They try to live with them. Fatima is most likely a giant mistake, John XXIII being a shrewd guy and knowing the ways of power probably saw right through it as did the later popes. We've probably been given skeptical liberal Popes precisely because they wouldn't risk the papacy by doing a consecration in a sentimental false obedience to an apparition.
On May 13, 2010 Benedict XVI seems to have been admitting his mistake when he said "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete (https://onepeterfive.com/on-fatima-story-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-breaks-silence/)." Benedict said this within days of Cardinal Bertone saying that Fatima is a thing of the past. Benedict was clearly contradicting Bertone here.
Gerard, the fact that some Popes have attempted the consecration of Russia blows your silly little hypotheses out of the water. Those Popes certainly did not think that attempting to do the consecration of Russia as Our Lady of Fatima requested would "risk the papacy". I mean. how would it? They attempted it and it didn't.
One day you may regret what you are saying here Gerard.
Quote from: mikemac on November 24, 2018, 10:48:20 AM
On May 13, 2010 Benedict XVI seems to have been admitting his mistake when he said "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete (https://onepeterfive.com/on-fatima-story-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-breaks-silence/)." Benedict said this within days of Cardinal Bertone saying that Fatima is a thing of the past. Benedict was clearly contradicting Bertone here.
Gerard, the fact that some Popes have attempted the consecration of Russia blows your silly little hypotheses out of the water. Those Popes certainly did not think that attempting to do the consecration of Russia as Our Lady of Fatima requested would "risk the papacy". I mean. how would it? They attempted it and it didn't.
One day you may regret what you are saying here Gerard.
They "attempted" to do something like the consecration of Russia in order to get past it. The fact that Fatima adherents aren't satisfied keeps bringing Church leaders back around to finding some way to "live with it" while at the same time not acquiescing to it.
Benedict's comments were the usual vague and ill-defined broad stroke comments that he was well known for. He never said, "We've got to get that consecration done correctly or we're in deep."
Quote from: Gerard on November 24, 2018, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 24, 2018, 10:48:20 AM
On May 13, 2010 Benedict XVI seems to have been admitting his mistake when he said "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete (https://onepeterfive.com/on-fatima-story-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-breaks-silence/)." Benedict said this within days of Cardinal Bertone saying that Fatima is a thing of the past. Benedict was clearly contradicting Bertone here.
Gerard, the fact that some Popes have attempted the consecration of Russia blows your silly little hypotheses out of the water. Those Popes certainly did not think that attempting to do the consecration of Russia as Our Lady of Fatima requested would "risk the papacy". I mean. how would it? They attempted it and it didn't.
One day you may regret what you are saying here Gerard.
They "attempted" to do something like the consecration of Russia in order to get past it. The fact that Fatima adherents aren't satisfied keeps bringing Church leaders back around to finding some way to "live with it" while at the same time not acquiescing to it.
Benedict's comments were the usual vague and ill-defined broad stroke comments that he was well known for. He never said, "We've got to get that consecration done correctly or we're in deep."
Yeah, right now there are more people calling for a proper consecration of Russia than at any time since 1984. Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider and a pile of priests. Even the Blue Army with over 20 million members have done a complete 180 recently. Benedict`s comments were referring to the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Quote from: mikemac on November 24, 2018, 04:58:13 PM
Yeah, right now there are more people calling for a proper consecration of Russia than at any time since 1984. Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider and a pile of priests. Even the Blue Army with over 20 million members have done a complete 180 recently. Benedict`s comments were referring to the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Well, the Church isn't a democracy and the Holy Ghost will stop any valid Pope from giving into an extortion demand from an apparition, no matter how many people call for it.
Benedict's comments were about how the Church will always be suffering and always will need renewal. He broadens out the message of Fatima until there is essentially nothing specific there. He eliminates the claims of specific calamities or a need for the Pope to pay a price demanded for security by expanding the message into Catholic generalities.
He tried to get rid of it in 2000 by stating that it referred to the past. And then, when that didn't convince anybody he flip flops and turns it into a symbolic image of the Church, hoping it will go away.
People are so erroneously hopped up on Fatima that he probably knows the scandal that would occur if he said, "Yeah. We read it and talked to Sr. Lucy and concluded that it was false. But the cult is still so widely accepted, we wanted to try to reframe it and change it so it would fit in with proper Catholic devotion."
It's amazing how people seem to think Benedict XVI was some kind of wonderful pope when he was pretty much every bit as bad as JPII and Francis when it comes to managing the reformation in the Church.
But, if he teases some kind of comment about Fatima that the Fatimists can glom onto, they think he's suddenly a saint.
Quote from: GerardThey "attempted" to do something like the consecration of Russia in order to get past it.
Not at all. Pope Pius XII made a consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart. Pope John Paul II, on March 25th, 1984, came the closest to doing it. For ecumenical reasons, his entourage did not want to - this is related by Fr. Amorth: "The Consecration has not yet been made. I was there on March 25 [1984] in St. Peter's Square, I was in the front row, practically within touching distance of the Holy Father. [Pope] John Paul II wanted to consecrate Russia, but his entourage did not, fearing that the Orthodox would be antagonized, and they almost thwarted him. Therefore, when His Holiness consecrated the world on his knees, he added a sentence not included in the distributed version that instead said to consecrate "especially those nations of which you yourself have asked for their consecration." So, indirectly, this included Russia. However, a specific consecration has not yet been made. You can always do it. Indeed, it will certainly be done". It is manifest that the Popes don't share your opinion at all; after his assassination attempt, Pope John Paul II spent much time talking to Sr. Lucia to ask how the consecration should be done, and clearly intended to, although those around him thwarted it. A Successor of his will complete the task.
Really, if we were serious about obtaining so many things promised to us in Scripture and by the Saints, like the return of the Orthodox, the defeat of Communism, the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, the conversion of the Jews to Christ, victory in the final battle where Our Lady and Our Lord crush the serpent's head etc etc, we should have consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart many times now.
God and our Mother have promised victory when this is done, and it will assuredly come. Here's a decent explanation of why Russia has to be mentioned specifically by name, "That is why the Holy Father and all the bishops must make this Consecration in a public way and must specifically mention Russia. The Russian people must know the source of the gift. This is also why I wait and wait, even though the Holy Father delays. I must have the Holy Father act in the name of the Catholic Church so the Russian people know that the Catholic Church has released this gift. In this way, they will desire and bring about union with the Catholic Church." Link (http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation)
Only those with authority over persons or things can consecrate them. E.g. a head of a family can consecrate his house and children. So when Our Lady asks the Holy Father to make the Consecration, that is a recognition of his authority. But all authority is under God.
Notice that Our Lady didn't ask the Russian Patriarch, or the Tsars or anyone else, but the Papacy to make the consecration. Fatima honors the Papacy. The Sacred Heart wanted to honor the French Monarchy in a similar way. They were the temporal rulers of France.
The French monarchs didn't want to obey God and so they lost almost everything. The same thing will happen to the Popes if they do not obey. No one is exempt from obeying God. The Pope should be the first to honor Heaven's request; the Popes did in fact do so partially.
The explicit consecration of Russia by name is and should be a top priority of Traditional Catholic Action. If we were serious about obtaining the return of the Orthodox to the Catholic Church, we would not neglect this.
Quote from: Xavier on November 25, 2018, 08:32:07 AM
Quote from: GerardThey "attempted" to do something like the consecration of Russia in order to get past it.
Not at all. Pope Pius XII made a consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart. Pope John Paul II, on March 25th, 1984, came the closest to doing it. For ecumenical reasons, his entourage did not want to - this is related by Fr. Amorth: "The Consecration has not yet been made. I was there on March 25 [1984] in St. Peter's Square, I was in the front row, practically within touching distance of the Holy Father. [Pope] John Paul II wanted to consecrate Russia, but his entourage did not, fearing that the Orthodox would be antagonized, and they almost thwarted him. Therefore, when His Holiness consecrated the world on his knees, he added a sentence not included in the distributed version that instead said to consecrate "especially those nations of which you yourself have asked for their consecration." So, indirectly, this included Russia. However, a specific consecration has not yet been made. You can always do it. Indeed, it will certainly be done". It is manifest that the Popes don't share your opinion at all; after his assassination attempt, Pope John Paul II spent much time talking to Sr. Lucia to ask how the consecration should be done, and clearly intended to, although those around him thwarted it. A Successor of his will complete the task.
Really, if we were serious about obtaining so many things promised to us in Scripture and by the Saints, like the return of the Orthodox, the defeat of Communism, the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, the conversion of the Jews to Christ, victory in the final battle where Our Lady and Our Lord crush the serpent's head etc etc, we should have consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart many times now.
God and our Mother have promised victory when this is done, and it will assuredly come. Here's a decent explanation of why Russia has to be mentioned specifically by name, "That is why the Holy Father and all the bishops must make this Consecration in a public way and must specifically mention Russia. The Russian people must know the source of the gift. This is also why I wait and wait, even though the Holy Father delays. I must have the Holy Father act in the name of the Catholic Church so the Russian people know that the Catholic Church has released this gift. In this way, they will desire and bring about union with the Catholic Church." Link (http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation)
Only those with authority over persons or things can consecrate them. E.g. a head of a family can consecrate his house and children. So when Our Lady asks the Holy Father to make the Consecration, that is a recognition of his authority. But all authority is under God.
Notice that Our Lady didn't ask the Russian Patriarch, or the Tsars or anyone else, but the Papacy to make the consecration. Fatima honors the Papacy. The Sacred Heart wanted to honor the French Monarchy in a similar way. They were the temporal rulers of France.
The French monarchs didn't want to obey God and so they lost almost everything. The same thing will happen to the Popes if they do not obey. No one is exempt from obeying God. The Pope should be the first to honor Heaven's request; the Popes did in fact do so partially.
The explicit consecration of Russia by name is and should be a top priority of Traditional Catholic Action. If we were serious about obtaining the return of the Orthodox to the Catholic Church, we would not neglect this.
Intrinsically, there is nothing wrong with a Pope consecrating anything to any Holy personage of his own volition. It's his authority and the Keys are in his hands to do with as he freely intends.
The idea that averting some calamity of incalculable proportions was thwarted because of ecumenism or politics is absurd. For noble or ignoble reasons, they do not believe Fatima.
The essential flaw in Fatima is the coercive nature of the dilemma given to the Pope in the message.
An apparition is attempting to coerce the power of the papacy for its own ends.
There never was a petition to the Pope, there was the announcement of a future threat and that the Pope must do what the apparition wants or personally suffer along with nations.
The real BVM is at the service of the Church and the Pope. She didn't appear prior to Lepanto or directly to St. Pius V beforehand and tell him what to do and in exchange she would be given the title "Our Lady of Victory." He as the head of the Church on earth appealed for her intercession at his request. There was no either/or regarding Lourdes or Knock or Walsingham. No apparition of the BVM has ever made demands that the Pope exercise his unique power in exchange for services rendered.
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
I'm not the party that has delusions about this. I'm the one looking at this phenomenon objectively.
It would be interesting if you could actually make an argument disputing what I've pointed out, but you're not capable of getting past your infantile emotions over it.
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
I not the party that has delusions about this. I'm the one looking at this phenomenon objectively.
It would be interesting if you could actually make an argument disputing what I've pointed out, but you're not capable of getting past your infantile emotions over it.
So you haven't. You should.
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
I not the party that has delusions about this. I'm the one looking at this phenomenon objectively.
It would be interesting if you could actually make an argument disputing what I've pointed out, but you're not capable of getting past your infantile emotions over it.
This won't happen. I've seen this kind of refusal and avoidance time and time again, and not just from mikemac.
It doesn't matter how many sound theological arguments against Fatima are produced, or how duplicitious Sr Lucy's behaviour is shown to be, and from her own writings too. Those who are heavily invested in the Fatima narrative will not listen, even to Sr Lucy's own words.
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 12:36:40 AM
People are so erroneously hopped up on Fatima .....
How did this happen? How did Sr Lucy manage to fool half the world, as her own mother feared she would?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 25, 2018, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 12:36:40 AM
People are so erroneously hopped up on Fatima .....
How did this happen? How did Sr Lucy manage to fool half the world, as her own mother feared she would?
I don't think people are hopped up on Fatima nearly as much as you characters think. It's just sickening watching you guys attack the Blessed Virgin every time Fatima is mentioned.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 25, 2018, 06:31:37 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
I not the party that has delusions about this. I'm the one looking at this phenomenon objectively.
It would be interesting if you could actually make an argument disputing what I've pointed out, but you're not capable of getting past your infantile emotions over it.
This won't happen. I've seen this kind of refusal and avoidance time and time again, and not just from mikemac.
It doesn't matter how many sound theological arguments against Fatima are produced, or how duplicitious Sr Lucy's behaviour is shown to be, and from her own writings too. Those who are heavily invested in the Fatima narrative will not listen, even to Sr Lucy's own words.
The same could be said for you guys. You just won't listen. Stuck on your little delusions.
Is Lucy short for Lucifer?
Ask your priest. I dare you.
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 25, 2018, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 12:36:40 AM
People are so erroneously hopped up on Fatima .....
How did this happen? How did Sr Lucy manage to fool half the world, as her own mother feared she would?
I don't think people are hopped up on Fatima nearly as much as you characters think. It's just sickening watching you guys attack the Blessed Virgin every time Fatima is mentioned.
Show where anyone here has attacked the Blessed Virgin, or retract that false accusation.
Your insults are sickening.
You guys are the ones that need to retract your false accusations against the Blessed Virgin.
You should talk to your priest about your concerns too.
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
Delusions? Just because he does not agree with your strange (and uncommon) beliefs about Fatima? Um outside of this echo chamber, most people think you are delusional for believing in Fatima at all. And among Catholics, most who have ever heard about Fatima think you are delusional for rejecting John Paul II's consecration and going on and on about the consecration needing to be done, since Sister Lucy herself is on record saying that heaven accepted John Paul II's consecration. And I can't even imagine what they would think about the two sister Lucy theory. So don't call each other crazy or delusional, because to people outside of this echo chamber you look like a schizophrenic husband arguing with his bipolar wife over which one of them is more crazy.
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 07:47:22 PM
You guys are the ones that need to retract your false accusations against the Blessed Virgin.
You should talk to your priest about your concerns too.
Which false accusations?
Are you capable of giving an answer?
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 06:14:10 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
I not the party that has delusions about this. I'm the one looking at this phenomenon objectively.
It would be interesting if you could actually make an argument disputing what I've pointed out, but you're not capable of getting past your infantile emotions over it.
So you haven't. You should.
When an opportune moment comes along, I will.
And when I say, "I don't believe in Fatima." What is he going to reply? Is he going to say I'm obligated to believe in it? Is he going to say I can't have a reason or reasons to disbelieve it?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 25, 2018, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 12:36:40 AM
People are so erroneously hopped up on Fatima .....
How did this happen? How did Sr Lucy manage to fool half the world, as her own mother feared she would?
God only knows, but you could make a guess as to the connection with Pope Leo's vision.
If Leo XIII's vision is true, the Devil was given 100 years, permission and power to try to bring down the Church.
Leo's vision never states when that 100 year period would start.
1917 to 2017 is as good as any time frame, the power to work the "miracle of the sun" and the permission to tempt the Church and the Pope with a false apparition of the BVM all fit the bill.
The term "diabolical disorientation" was floated right in front of everyone's noses. It wouldn't be beyond the devil to taunt people with misdirection.
Also, if you take Fatima as the fulfillment of Leo's vision, it's far more harmonious in terms of reconciling the two. Some people try to reconcile them both as authentic, but they run into the problem of God saying He's given the Devil, time and permission and power but then double crosses the Devil by sending the BVM to interfere with Fatima. As if the Devil was going to be able to take down the Church and God puts his thumb on the scale.
Other people simply choose to ignore Leo's vision rather than try to reconcile them or disbelieve Fatima.
And of course Catholics aren't obliged to believe in Leo's vision or Fatima or any other apparition.
It's an interesting thought experiment to apply Leo's vision to Fatima but even if Leo's vision is not authentic, Fatima still has its fatal flaws baked into its substance.
Quote from: Gerard on November 26, 2018, 12:32:45 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 25, 2018, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 12:36:40 AM
People are so erroneously hopped up on Fatima .....
How did this happen? How did Sr Lucy manage to fool half the world, as her own mother feared she would?
God only knows, but you could make a guess as to the connection with Pope Leo's vision.
If Leo XIII's vision is true, the Devil was given 100 years, permission and power to try to bring down the Church.
Leo's vision never states when that 100 year period would start.
1917 to 2017 is as good as any time frame, the power to work the "miracle of the sun" and the permission to tempt the Church and the Pope with a false apparition of the BVM all fit the bill.
The term "diabolical disorientation" was floated right in front of everyone's noses. It wouldn't be beyond the devil to taunt people with misdirection.
Also, if you take Fatima as the fulfillment of Leo's vision, it's far more harmonious in terms of reconciling the two. Some people try to make reconcile them as both authentic, but they run into the problem of God saying He's given the Devil, time and permission and power but then double crosses the Devil by sending the BVM to interfere with Fatima. As if the Devil was going to be able to take down the Church and God puts his thumb on the scale.
Other people simply choose to ignore Leo's vision rather than try to reconcile them or disbelieve Fatima.
And of course Catholics aren't obliged to believe in Leo's vision or Fatima or any other apparition.
It's an interesting thought experiment to apply Leo's vision to Fatima but even if Leo's vision is not authentic, Fatima still has its fatal flaws baked into its substance.
The connection you make between the Fatima apparition and the vision of Pope Leo XIII is potentially explosive. What? God gave Satan a hundred years to destroy the Church and Fatima is part of Satan's plan!
Funnily enough, it also occured to me that the term 'diabolical disorientation' might be a taunt. Typical psychopathic behaviour includes mocking those who believe their lies. Again, a potentially devastating claim.
There's no doubt in my mind that Sr Lucy's dissembling and manipulative behaviour alone renders Fatima unbelievable. Sr Lucy herself states in her third and fourth memoirs that the 'Holy Spirit' inspired her to withold vital information from the Canonical Enquiry when she was, in fact, under oath.
Do Fatimists really believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Sr Lucy to lie to the Church? Or has the Fatima narrative been spun in such a way as to obscure such awkward information? Why do Fatimists insist that Sr Lucy prophesied the 'light in the sky' and the outbreak of WW2, when she didn't reveal the prophesies until 1941, after the prophesied events has taken place?
The process by which the Fatima narrative gained such a hold on Catholics, particularly Trad, is something of a mystery. The whole thing resembles a carefully crafted demonic psy-op. If the very best human propagandists in the world had been given such a mission, I doubt they could have pulled it off.
The Fatima narrative is crumbling...
Its supporters are reduced to accusing the doubters of making "false accusations against the Blessed Virgin". But the doubting argument is, IF Fatima is true, THEN the Blessed Virgin did X. X is bad. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin did not do X; ergo, Fatima is false.
BTW, I don't believe in the 100-year vision of Leo XIII either. It has Jesus Christ more concerned with settling a score with and proving a point to Satan than the good of His Church and of souls, and appearing to care about a Satanic boast. And again, revisionism must be used (just like with Fatima) to try and reconcile it with the known facts. The 100-year time IS UP, and yet we don't see in fact any diminution whatsoever in Satanic attacks on the Church; they are in fact increasing. So, well, erm, maybe the 100 years didn't actually begin at the time of the vision. Yeah, right.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 26, 2018, 09:46:02 AM
The Fatima narrative is crumbling...
Its supporters are reduced to accusing the doubters of making "false accusations against the Blessed Virgin". But the doubting argument is, IF Fatima is true, THEN the Blessed Virgin did X. X is bad. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin did not do X; ergo, Fatima is false.
BTW, I don't believe in the 100-year vision of Leo XIII either. It has Jesus Christ more concerned with settling a score with and proving a point to Satan than the good of His Church and of souls, and appearing to care about a Satanic boast. And again, revisionism must be used (just like with Fatima) to try and reconcile it with the known facts. The 100-year time IS UP, and yet we don't see in fact any diminution whatsoever in Satanic attacks on the Church; they are in fact increasing. So, well, erm, maybe the 100 years didn't actually begin at the time of the vision. Yeah, right.
I don't believe in Cavalier Jesus either.
Have no doubt that the Fatima apparitions were real and true. Also have no doubt that the Devils is always busy after every true apparition trying to make the real apparitions appear false and to lead people astray. This has been the case of after every approved apparition even to the point of following the approved ones with false ones. Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
Proof texting you say. Have you read Sr Lucy's Memoirs? Has anyone?
But reading up on apparitions in general is a good idea. Perhaps we will find another visionary who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to lie to the Church.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 26, 2018, 11:20:37 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
Proof texting you say. Have you read Sr Lucy's Memoirs? Has anyone?
But reading up on apparitions in general is a good idea. Perhaps we will find another visionary who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to lie to the Church.
Perhaps this was just a demonic follow on to the true apparition?
Look closely at the dates:
Sister Lúcia wrote six memoirs during her lifetime. The first four were written between 1935 and 1941, and the English translation is published under the name Fatima in Lucia's Own Words. The fifth and six memoirs, written in 1989 and 1993, are published in English under the name Fatima in Lucia's Own Words II. These latter books were written in her own handwriting.
An additional book was published in 2001, variously known as Calls from the Message of Fatima and Appeals from the Message of Fatima, as announced by the Vatican on December 5, 2001.[24]
Sister Lúcia also wrote numerous letters to clergy and devout laypeople who were curious about the Third Secret of Fátima and about Lúcia's interpretation of what she had heard Virgin Mary request.[note 5] Two letters she supposedly wrote concerned the Consecration of Russia, in which she said Our Lady's request had been fulfilled. These letters turned out to be false, primarily from the fact that the letters were typeset, and Sister Lucy always wrote on handwriting, and because it was inconsistent with her constant plea that the consecration of Russia was not done as Our Lady requested[25]. [26] Any and all material written by Sister Lúcia is now held for study by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.[27]
Quote from: Gerard on November 26, 2018, 12:16:28 AM
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 06:14:10 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 25, 2018, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
I not the party that has delusions about this. I'm the one looking at this phenomenon objectively.
It would be interesting if you could actually make an argument disputing what I've pointed out, but you're not capable of getting past your infantile emotions over it.
So you haven't. You should.
When an opportune moment comes along, I will.
And when I say, "I don't believe in Fatima." What is he going to reply? Is he going to say I'm obligated to believe in it? Is he going to say I can't have a reason or reasons to disbelieve it?
You mean to tell me that after all this time, what has it been, over a year or so that you have been calling Fatima demonic that you have not talked to a priest about it? No opportune moment in the past year or so?
If and when you talk to a priest about it you should at least be honest with him. If all you say to the priest is "I don't believe in Fatima" then that is not being honest. Obviously if that is all you say to the priest he will tell you that you don't have an obligation to believe in Fatima. If you are going to be truthful with the priest then you need to tell him everything that you have posted in here about Fatima over the past year or so. You need to tell him that you believe that Fatima is false, that you believe Sister Lucy was a liar, that you believe the miracle of the sun in 1917 was from the devil, that you believe Our Lady of Fatima is from the devil, that you believe all the Popes and the Church have been duped by the Fatima story for just about a century, that you believe the request of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia undermines the papacy and that you have been posting all of the above in an online Catholic forum for a year or so. Be a man Gerard, tell your whole story to a priest. I mean if you have the guts to. Let us know what your priest has to say about it.
I'd suggest that your few cohorts that have posted on this page do the same.
Quote from: mikemac on November 26, 2018, 12:20:15 PM
Quote
When an opportune moment comes along, I will.
And when I say, "I don't believe in Fatima." What is he going to reply? Is he going to say I'm obligated to believe in it? Is he going to say I can't have a reason or reasons to disbelieve it?
You mean to tell me that after all this time, what has it been, over a year or so that you have been calling Fatima demonic that you have not talked to a priest about it? No opportune moment in the past year or so?
If and when you talk to a priest about it you should at least be honest with him. If all you say to the priest is "I don't believe in Fatima" then that is not being honest. Obviously if that is all you say to the priest he will tell you that you don't have an obligation to believe in Fatima. If you are going to be truthful with the priest then you need to tell him everything that you have posted in here about Fatima over the past year or so. You need to tell him that you believe that Fatima is false, that you believe Sister Lucy was a liar, that you believe the miracle of the sun in 1917 was from the devil, that you believe Our Lady of Fatima is from the devil, that you believe all the Popes and the Church have been duped by the Fatima story for just about a century, that you believe the request of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia undermines the papacy and that you have been posting all of the above in an online Catholic forum for a year or so. Be a man Gerard, tell your whole story to a priest. I mean if you have the guts to. Let us know what your priest has to say about it.
I'd suggest that your few cohorts that have posted on this page do the same.
For one, most of the priests that I'm friends with on the conversational/theological level have been in Rome studying for the past few years. When they come home, and want to visit and have lunch, I can bring it up to them. Second, most of my regular conversations with priests are confined to the confessional and frankly, I'm not interested in getting anything done other than my confession, absolution and penance.
Third, I'm not interested in potentially starting an argument out of the blue with a priest after mass since I would anticipate the possibility of a gut reaction of , "NOOOOOO!!!!" as opposed to thoughtful evaluations. Also, it's not fair to the priest for one thing. I prefer to thank the priest for mass when I do address them.
When I first came to the conclusions about Fatima that I hold, I went right to the Remnant as the "go to-guys" and anticipated that Ferrara or Michael Matt would show me the "ah ha!" element that I missed. And that would be the end of it.
Instead, they wouldn't go near it and banned me from their site. But you know, they have a lot of monetary considerations to address with their devotion to Fatima, books, articles, conferences, pilgrimages etc. Remove all of that and the urgency of a consecration and everyone suddenly only has to worry daily about the salvation of their souls over the course of their lives and not worry about "annihilation" like many of us did in the 1980s over nukes.
With that said, If anyone knows a priest that would like to correspond with me on the matter or here on the forum, I'm open to it.
Quote from: Gerard on November 26, 2018, 12:43:08 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 26, 2018, 12:20:15 PM
Quote
When an opportune moment comes along, I will.
And when I say, "I don't believe in Fatima." What is he going to reply? Is he going to say I'm obligated to believe in it? Is he going to say I can't have a reason or reasons to disbelieve it?
You mean to tell me that after all this time, what has it been, over a year or so that you have been calling Fatima demonic that you have not talked to a priest about it? No opportune moment in the past year or so?
If and when you talk to a priest about it you should at least be honest with him. If all you say to the priest is "I don't believe in Fatima" then that is not being honest. Obviously if that is all you say to the priest he will tell you that you don't have an obligation to believe in Fatima. If you are going to be truthful with the priest then you need to tell him everything that you have posted in here about Fatima over the past year or so. You need to tell him that you believe that Fatima is false, that you believe Sister Lucy was a liar, that you believe the miracle of the sun in 1917 was from the devil, that you believe Our Lady of Fatima is from the devil, that you believe all the Popes and the Church have been duped by the Fatima story for just about a century, that you believe the request of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia undermines the papacy and that you have been posting all of the above in an online Catholic forum for a year or so. Be a man Gerard, tell your whole story to a priest. I mean if you have the guts to. Let us know what your priest has to say about it.
I'd suggest that your few cohorts that have posted on this page do the same.
For one, most of the priests that I'm friends with on the conversational/theological level have been in Rome studying for the past few years. When they come home, and want to visit and have lunch, I can bring it up to them. Second, most of my regular conversations with priests are confined to the confessional and frankly, I'm not interested in getting anything done other than my confession, absolution and penance.
Third, I'm not interested in potentially starting an argument out of the blue with a priest after mass since I would anticipate the possibility of a gut reaction of , "NOOOOOO!!!!" as opposed to thoughtful evaluations. Also, it's not fair to the priest for one thing. I prefer to thank the priest for mass when I do address them.
When I first came to the conclusions about Fatima that I hold, I went right to the Remnant as the "go to-guys" and anticipated that Ferrara or Michael Matt would show me the "ah ha!" element that I missed. And that would be the end of it.
Instead, they wouldn't go near it and banned me from their site. But you know, they have a lot of monetary considerations to address with their devotion to Fatima, books, articles, conferences, pilgrimages etc. Remove all of that and the urgency of a consecration and everyone suddenly only has to worry daily about the salvation of their souls over the course of their lives and not worry about "annihilation" like many of us did in the 1980s over nukes.
With that said, If anyone knows a priest that would like to correspond with me on the matter or here on the forum, I'm open to it.
Yeah it would be nice if a priest (not a sede priest) would confront you here in a public forum about what you think about Fatima, but I doubt that would happen in public. Maybe though. I would be interested in hearing what the priest has to say about your "thoughtful evaluations" when you get a chance to talk to one.
It would also have been nice if Matt and Ferrara would have directly addressed my concerns. Their silence tells me they don't have any substantive rebuttals.
Quote from: Gerard on November 26, 2018, 01:18:14 PM
It would also have been nice if Matt and Ferrara would have directly addressed my concerns. Their silence tells me they don't have any substantive rebuttals.
Well I imagine with your questions Matt and Ferrara were thinking that you were a Protestant or some form of Catholic hater that was just trying to make trouble for them.
Quote from: james03 on October 31, 2018, 05:03:45 PM
Fatima has some problems. Portugal being the big one.
Would you be able to explain?
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Have no doubt that the Fatima apparitions were real and true. Also have no doubt that the Devils is always busy after every true apparition trying to make the real apparitions appear false and to lead people astray. This has been the case of after every approved apparition even to the point of following the approved ones with false ones. Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
You may want to read up on what St. John of the Cross has to say about apparitions. If they are actually happening it's most likely the Devil in the first place.
Quote from: mikemac on November 26, 2018, 01:24:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 26, 2018, 01:18:14 PM
It would also have been nice if Matt and Ferrara would have directly addressed my concerns. Their silence tells me they don't have any substantive rebuttals.
Well I imagine with your questions Matt and Ferrara were thinking that you were a Protestant or some form of Catholic hater that was just trying to make trouble for them.
I dunno about that. The whole point of my position is commensurate with defending the institution of the papacy.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 26, 2018, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Have no doubt that the Fatima apparitions were real and true. Also have no doubt that the Devils is always busy after every true apparition trying to make the real apparitions appear false and to lead people astray. This has been the case of after every approved apparition even to the point of following the approved ones with false ones. Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
You may want to read up on what St. John of the Cross has to say about apparitions. If they are actually happening it's most likely the Devil in the first place.
I have never read very much o St John of the Cross. I do know that the devil can't perform Supernatural Miracles. So if the Church declares something to be Supernatural then it ain't demonic.
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 26, 2018, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Have no doubt that the Fatima apparitions were real and true. Also have no doubt that the Devils is always busy after every true apparition trying to make the real apparitions appear false and to lead people astray. This has been the case of after every approved apparition even to the point of following the approved ones with false ones. Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
You may want to read up on what St. John of the Cross has to say about apparitions. If they are actually happening it's most likely the Devil in the first place.
I have never read very much o St John of the Cross. I do know that the devil can't perform Supernatural Miracles. So if the Church declares something to be Supernatural then it ain't demonic.
The Blessed Mother can't perform supernatural miracles either. Nobody but God can do the Supernatural. All other creatures that do anything "miraculous" are performing preternatural acts.
The Church doesn't have an infallible protection on declaring whether acts are supernatural or not. And they can't bind any Catholic to believing an optional apparition.
Quote from: Gerard on November 27, 2018, 12:25:10 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 26, 2018, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Have no doubt that the Fatima apparitions were real and true. Also have no doubt that the Devils is always busy after every true apparition trying to make the real apparitions appear false and to lead people astray. This has been the case of after every approved apparition even to the point of following the approved ones with false ones. Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
You may want to read up on what St. John of the Cross has to say about apparitions. If they are actually happening it's most likely the Devil in the first place.
I have never read very much o St John of the Cross. I do know that the devil can't perform Supernatural Miracles. So if the Church declares something to be Supernatural then it ain't demonic.
The Blessed Mother can't perform supernatural miracles either. Nobody but God can do the Supernatural. All other creatures that do anything "miraculous" are performing preternatural acts.
The Church doesn't have an infallible protection on declaring whether acts are supernatural or not. And they can't bind any Catholic to believing an optional apparition.
No one has claimed she could, as with all miracles, they are by God through the entity He chooses to work through. He certainly does not work through the devil.
Yes Apparitions are not binding and that is a fact. I would prefer to believe what the Church has to say about whether something is Supernatural or not then random people on forums giving their opinions as error seems to favor random posters..
Quote from: Gerard on November 27, 2018, 12:25:10 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 26, 2018, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on November 26, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Have no doubt that the Fatima apparitions were real and true. Also have no doubt that the Devils is always busy after every true apparition trying to make the real apparitions appear false and to lead people astray. This has been the case of after every approved apparition even to the point of following the approved ones with false ones. Seems some need to read up on apparitions in general. Proof texting is not how you resolve this issue.
You may want to read up on what St. John of the Cross has to say about apparitions. If they are actually happening it's most likely the Devil in the first place.
I have never read very much o St John of the Cross. I do know that the devil can't perform Supernatural Miracles. So if the Church declares something to be Supernatural then it ain't demonic.
The Blessed Mother can't perform supernatural miracles either. Nobody but God can do the Supernatural. All other creatures that do anything "miraculous" are performing preternatural acts.
The Church doesn't have an infallible protection on declaring whether acts are supernatural or not. And they can't bind any Catholic to believing an optional apparition.
Well the Church must believe that the Blessed Mother and saints can perform supernatural miracles threw God, otherwise the Church would not have approved Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima and such. Our Lady of the Pillar is an approved bilocation of the Blessed Mother to St. James in 40 AD when she was still alive. Although not approved most of us have heard of the bilocations of María de Ágreda, Padre Pio and others. Even though St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Ávila both wrote against looking for personal apparitions they are both recognized as mystics, as well as both of them being named as Doctors of the Church. You are right, as Catholics we are not obligated to believe in apparitions, even the ones that are approved by the Church.
Gerard I love reading stories like María de Ágreda bilocating from Spain to the Jumano Indians of New Mexico and Texas in the 17th century. Whether legends like these are true or not they were obviously passed down to us by the Jumano Indians. They are just nice Catholic legends. Nobody is saying that Catholics have to believe these stories. They are just nice stories to be shared. We should be able to have discussions about these traditional Catholic legends without them being attacked. That's all we are asking. I'm sure there are a lot of members of this forum that like to read about these traditional Catholic stories. It certainly is not going to destroy anyone's Faith by reading them.
Quote from: mikemac on November 27, 2018, 12:51:23 PM
Well the Church must believe that the Blessed Mother and saints can perform supernatural miracles threw God, otherwise the Church would not have approved Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima and such. Our Lady of the Pillar is an approved bilocation of the Blessed Mother to St. James in 40 AD when she was still alive. Although not approved most of us have heard of the bilocations of María de Ágreda, Padre Pio and others. Even though St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Ávila both wrote against looking for personal apparitions they are both recognized as mystics, as well as both of them being named as Doctors of the Church. You are right, as Catholics we are not obligated to believe in apparitions, even the ones that are approved by the Church.
Gerard I love reading stories like María de Ágreda bilocating from Spain to the Jumano Indians of New Mexico and Texas in the 17th century. Whether legends like these are true or not they were obviously passed down to us by the Jumano Indians. They are just nice Catholic legends. Nobody is saying that Catholics have to believe these stories. They are just nice stories to be shared. We should be able to have discussions about these traditional Catholic legends without them being attacked. That's all we are asking. I'm sure there are a lot of members of this forum that like to read about these traditional Catholic stories. It certainly is not going to destroy anyone's Faith by reading them.
I appreciate your comments mikemac, I don't have a problem with people personally believing stories, legends and tales provided they are orthodox and don't contradict, established authoritative teaching. (Charismatics have been known to come up with some ludicrous "revelations.")
But I do run into a problem where the optional beliefs start to dictate the who, what, where and why of how the Pope is to utilize the Keys of the Church.
Apparitions fall into a particular category in the Church, I have no reason to disbelieve in the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes. I would put it down to cynicism but not heresy if someone didn't believe it, especially if they didn't have a doctrinal reason for their disbelief.
But over the last few years, you have advocates of Fatima pushing the boundaries of orthodoxy in their enthusiasm and wishes for political stability and world peace and the avoidance of temporal calamities. Even when Fr. Gruner was alive the push to have Fatima categorized as something more than an apparition was a dangerous path to go down. One that puts the foundational beliefs of the Church at stake.
The faith comes first above any and all phenomena, miracles, conversion stories and claims of any party or event. It has to come first or nothing means anything.
The Blessed Mother loses nothing if Fatima is demonstrated to be false. There should be no fear at all if a contradiction in Fatima is found even at a late date that invalidates it doctrinally.
Stepping in, under the Fatima rabbit trail brawl......
The priest who gave this sermon is very edifying. I listen to him often. That being said, he had a sermon years ago on the now defunct Audio Sancto where he ripped JRR Tollken and his books to shreds, saying that no traditional Catholic, ever, anywhere had any business reading those wicked novels...ect ect ect. That sermon was taken down before I even had a chance to chat with my husband about it. My point is, every good priest may have opinions that are not necessarily true, but can package them in a way that make us think that every thing that comes out of their mouths is Gospel truth.
Im not saying that is how the OP viewed this sermon. But I will say again, in my experience, this priest has said outrageous things before, as well as many amazing, edifying and very helpful things.
oh, and regarding the Fatima rabbit trail...I honestly never knew there were trads who did not take Fatima seriously, or thought it was false. This is news to me in my 13 years of Traditional Catholic life.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 27, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
Stepping in, under the Fatima rabbit trail brawl......
The priest who gave this sermon is very edifying. I listen to him often. That being said, he had a sermon years ago on the now defunct Audio Sancto where he ripped JRR Tollken and his books to shreds, saying that no traditional Catholic, ever, anywhere had any business reading those wicked novels...ect ect ect. That sermon was taken down before I even had a chance to chat with my husband about it. My point is, every good priest may have opinions that are not necessarily true, but can package them in a way that make us think that every thing that comes out of their mouths is Gospel truth.
Im not saying that is how the OP viewed this sermon. But I will say again, in my experience, this priest has said outrageous things before, as well as many amazing, edifying and very helpful things.
The sermon you referenced regarding Tolkien was trash. It caused a big brouhaha at OLMC in Littleton. Fr. Jackson had so many people asking him about it that he wrote a 2 (or 3?) part series on it. He listened to the sermon and realized the priest had mistaken certain terms (such as myth) and misunderstand their usage, and also made a number of philosophical errors. In short, it was reactionary and not based in objective usage of vocabulary, nor the reality of Tolkien's work.
Quote from: Gardener on November 27, 2018, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 27, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
Stepping in, under the Fatima rabbit trail brawl......
The priest who gave this sermon is very edifying. I listen to him often. That being said, he had a sermon years ago on the now defunct Audio Sancto where he ripped JRR Tollken and his books to shreds, saying that no traditional Catholic, ever, anywhere had any business reading those wicked novels...ect ect ect. That sermon was taken down before I even had a chance to chat with my husband about it. My point is, every good priest may have opinions that are not necessarily true, but can package them in a way that make us think that every thing that comes out of their mouths is Gospel truth.
Im not saying that is how the OP viewed this sermon. But I will say again, in my experience, this priest has said outrageous things before, as well as many amazing, edifying and very helpful things.
The sermon you referenced regarding Tolkien was trash. It caused a big brouhaha at OLMC in Littleton. Fr. Jackson had so many people asking him about it that he wrote a 2 (or 3?) part series on it. He listened to the sermon and realized the priest had mistaken certain terms (such as myth) and misunderstand their usage, and also made a number of philosophical errors. In short, it was reactionary and not based in objective usage of vocabulary, nor the reality of Tolkien's work.
Yes, my husband had much the same to say about it. So, we listen to that particular priest with an ear of discernment....as well as to a few other "famous" Traditional priests.
Let us hear a Sainted Priest, a Saintly Bishop and a holy Pope considered a scholar among the Pontiffs on the proper Catholic response to well-attested miracles and approved apparitions. Note that these theologians teach that a human assent of pious faith is to be given them and to stubbornly refuse to do so, and even with temerity to attribute them to the devil savors of presumption, infidelity and impiety.
The safe Catholic thing to do is to accept them as good and faithful children of the Church would. At the very least, don't attack the heavenly apparitions and public miracles or attribute them to Satan.
St. Montfort: ""Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories. To stories from Holy Scripture we owe divine faith; to stories on non-religious subjects which are not against common sense and are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of human faith; and to stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in any way contrary to reason, to faith or to morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary), we pay the tribute of a pious faith.
I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical, and that we should keep a happy medium in all things in order to find just where truth and virtue lie. But on the other hand, I know equally well that charity easily leads us to believe all that is not contrary to faith or morals: "Charity believes all things" (1 Cor. 13:7), in the same way as pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in Holy Scripture.
This is one of the devil's traps; heretics of the past who denied tradition have fallen into it, and over-critical people of today are falling into it too, without even realizing it. People of this kind refuse to believe what they do not understand or what is not to their liking, simply because of their own spirit of pride and independence."
And "I have thought it expedient for the edification of pious souls to introduce into it, after the manner of the Holy Fathers, both some revelations made to certain Saints and several miraculous facts concerning this mystery. I know there are some persons who, boasting of being free from prejudices, take great credit to themselves for believing no miracles but those recorded in the Holy Scriptures, esteeming all others as tales and fables for foolish women. But it will be well to remember here a remark of the learned St. Alphonsus, who says, "that the bad are as ready to deride miracles as the good are to believe them; adding that as it is a weakness to give credit to all things, so on the other hand, to reject miracles which come to us attested by grave and pious men, either savors of infidelity, which supposes them impossible to God, or of presumption, which refuses belief to such a class of authors. We give credit to a Tacitus, a Suetonius, and can we deny it without presumption to Christian authors of learning and probity. There is less risk in believing and receiving what is related with some probability by honest persons and not rejected by the learned, and which serves for the edification of our neighbor, than in rejecting it with a disdainful and presumptuous spirit?" (Glories of Mary) Hence Pope Benedict XIV (De Canoni. Sanct.) says: "Though an assent of Catholic faith be not due to them, they deserve a human assent according to the rules of prudence by which they are probable and piously credible." (Fr. Michael Müller, C.S.S.R. Baltimore, Maryland December 8, 1867)
Quote from: Xavier on November 27, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
Let us hear a Sainted Priest, a Saintly Bishop and a holy Pope considered a scholar among the Pontiffs on the proper Catholic response to well-attested miracles and approved apparitions. Note that these theologians teach that a human assent of pious faith is to be given them and to stubbornly refuse to do so, and even with temerity to attribute them to the devil savors of presumption, infidelity and impiety.
The safe Catholic thing to do is to accept them as good and faithful children of the Church would. At the very least, don't attack the heavenly apparitions and public miracles or attribute them to Satan.
St. Montfort: ""Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories. To stories from Holy Scripture we owe divine faith; to stories on non-religious subjects which are not against common sense and are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of human faith; and to stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in any way contrary to reason, to faith or to morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary), we pay the tribute of a pious faith.
I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical, and that we should keep a happy medium in all things in order to find just where truth and virtue lie. But on the other hand, I know equally well that charity easily leads us to believe all that is not contrary to faith or morals: "Charity believes all things" (1 Cor. 13:7), in the same way as pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in Holy Scripture.
This is one of the devil's traps; heretics of the past who denied tradition have fallen into it, and over-critical people of today are falling into it too, without even realizing it. People of this kind refuse to believe what they do not understand or what is not to their liking, simply because of their own spirit of pride and independence."
And "I have thought it expedient for the edification of pious souls to introduce into it, after the manner of the Holy Fathers, both some revelations made to certain Saints and several miraculous facts concerning this mystery. I know there are some persons who, boasting of being free from prejudices, take great credit to themselves for believing no miracles but those recorded in the Holy Scriptures, esteeming all others as tales and fables for foolish women. But it will be well to remember here a remark of the learned St. Alphonsus, who says, "that the bad are as ready to deride miracles as the good are to believe them; adding that as it is a weakness to give credit to all things, so on the other hand, to reject miracles which come to us attested by grave and pious men, either savors of infidelity, which supposes them impossible to God, or of presumption, which refuses belief to such a class of authors. We give credit to a Tacitus, a Suetonius, and can we deny it without presumption to Christian authors of learning and probity. There is less risk in believing and receiving what is related with some probability by honest persons and not rejected by the learned, and which serves for the edification of our neighbor, than in rejecting it with a disdainful and presumptuous spirit?" (Glories of Mary) Hence Pope Benedict XIV (De Canoni. Sanct.) says: "Though an assent of Catholic faith be not due to them, they deserve a human assent according to the rules of prudence by which they are probable and piously credible." (Fr. Michael Müller, C.S.S.R. Baltimore, Maryland December 8, 1867)
Both saints were going on the best teaching available to them at the time. Vatican I clarified the infallibility of the Church on the areas of faith and morals alone as well as clarifying the office of Peter.
I doubt St. Alphonsus or St. Louis de Montfort would have thought Vatican II even a possibility and we can only speculate as to what they would have thought or done when presented with the Novus Ordo as their new form of Mass.
As it is, they didn't have Fatima to contend with concerning the doctrinal issues at play. The last thing I think they would have condoned would have been apparitions dictating to the Pope what he is to do with his authority. And if they would have encountered numerous groups of people trying to pressure the Popes to "obey our Lady!" or accuse the Pope of "disobeying our Lady!" I think the "rules of prudence" would have made them pause.
They speak about the harm caused by someone doubting something, but we have a case now where believing something is causing harm to the structure of the Church and putting the papacy at risk.
As it stands, St. Montfort talks about "people of this kind..." but that doesn't cover all people or actual valid reasons for using your brain and seeing a doctrinal problem. There's no pride or personal opinion when it comes to looking at the math and seeing that things don't add up. It's pride and refusal to see that truth that causes people to accept something that is blatantly wrong and do nothing about it.
That's not piety, that's stupidity and dogged refusal to face the truth.
Medjogorje is a hoax not because of the "holiness" of people judging it, or opposing it, or following it, it's a hoax because it is in conflict with the doctrine of the Catholic faith. People had rosaries turning to gold, that doesn't make Medjugorgje Catholic. It doesn't matter how big or small the deviation from the Catholic faith is, any deviation instantly tells you its false regardless of the miracles or the enthusiasm of the supporters.
As I stated, I don't deride the miracles at Lourdes, or doubt the many miraculous stories of Padre Pio that are often related even though some of them are conflated with anecdotes concerning St. John Vianney. But the rules of prudence dictate that there can be no compromise with anything that deviates from the doctrine or established structures of the Church.
QuoteBoth saints were going on
Sigh. There you go again arguing with the Popes, Saints and Doctors, Gerard, my friend. It would be much wiser to say, "I believed X but the Church teaches Y. I therefore retract my opinion and conform my thinking to the teaching of Saints, Doctors and Popes." But alas.
Vatican I confirmed what Pope Benedict XIV and St. Alphonsus taught about Papal infallibility, and that infallible statements are owed divine faith; the teaching above about public miracles and approved apparitions requiring the human assent of pious faith is a distinct but related teaching.
QuoteThere's no pride or personal opinion
Of course there is. The very thought, we moderns know better than Doctors of the Church, is pride and presumption. If that is not pride, what is?
Quoteany deviation instantly tells you its false regardless of the miracles
False. Your pretended "deviation" may be just a misunderstanding of yours. Protestants think there are "deviations" in Church teaching compared to the Bible. They are mistaken.
Theology enlists two primary supernatural signs, miracles and prophecies, as the clearest indicators of heavenly revelation.
Vatican I explains, "divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all. Hence Moses and the Prophets, and especially Christ our Lord Himself, worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies" (Vatican I, on faith)
The very first public miracle on Oct 13th, 1917 was in fulfilment of a prophecy at the foretold time. If Satan had been behind it, God would have allowed it to fail, and the world would know it had been a hoax. Only God knows and has perfect power over all future events with absolute certainty.
There are also many other ways to exclude the blasphemy of demonic influence. It's just a lazy excuse of people of a certain kind unwilling to acknowledge the manifest work of God. The Pharisees saw Christ's miracles and called it the work of the devil. But Jesus answered by showing Satan cannot cast out Satan, ans because the truth of His doctrine was evident in the sanctity of His deeds and life. It is the same with Our Lady of Fatima and the 3 Saintly seers.
The theologians sent to investigate Fatima were astonished at how often the 3 children, who were victim souls, spoke of the need to make reparation, and undertook gladly the most severe penances in expiation, offering everything to God as sacrifices to save sinners from going to hell, which they had seen, and as they had been taught to do by God, Our Lady and the Angel. Not even the theologians knew or lived these doctrines and truths of faith as well as the 3 children did, including the 2 Saints who died young, Jacinta and Francesco.So approval came fast.
Little children around the age of 10 are usually concerned with toy cars and toy dolls, not with making severe sacrifices to save souls.
Jn 10:21 "...These are not the words of one that hath a devil ..."
The devil also cannot work certain kinds of miracles. It is absurd to attribute a public miracle that demonstrates power over nature, with the sun moving, clothes being dried, a promise being kept and a prophesy fulfilled, to Satan. Satan was at work with Communism and Fatima was Heaven's counter-attack. You who see the work of Heaven in Our Lady of Fatima and attribute it to the devil are sinning in a similar fashion as did the Pharisees who saw Christ's miracles but impiously and wickedly attributed it to the devil, against all justice and truth, becomimg blind.
Be careful with going down that road. Fatima is from God. He will vindicate it.
Just so we're clear.
I don't care what the Saints say, I don't care what the Popes say, I don't care what the Doctors say, and I don't care what any priest says. Yes, I think for myself. Oh the horror.
If God could avert a great calamity, including the loss of millions, if not billions of souls, and He refuses to do so just because the Pope didn't take 5 minutes (or less) to say "I consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart" then He is pathetic. He is a five-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because He didn't get His way - unfortunately a very powerful five-year-old able to cause a lot of damage, like that one episode of "The Twilight Zone". Doubly so if the Church's beloved Thomism a la Garrigou-Lagrange is true and He simply needed to will that the Pope make the consecration - and then punishes the earth as a result of what He failed to do.
This is an absolute and categorical refusal.
NO.
Quote from: Xavier on November 28, 2018, 07:06:23 AM
The very first public miracle on Oct 13th, 1917 was in fulfilment of a prophecy at the foretold time. If Satan had been behind it, God would have allowed it to fail, and the world would know it had been a hoax. Only God knows and has perfect power over all future events with absolute certainty.
Are you sure about that? Are you absolutely certain that God would never allow Satan to work his deceits?
St Paul warns that God will do just that.
Quote
Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
2Thess 2: 9-10
And here is the explanation as to why God might 'send them the operation of error, to believe lying'.
Quote
"God shall send": That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.
What if Fatima is one of the 'signs and lying wonders' that God will allow Satan to deceive people with as punishment for not receiving 'the love of the truth'?
Sr Lucy deceived the Church into approving the 1917 apparitions at Fatima. Yet you insist that Fatima is from God and threaten with Divine retribution those who point out its many errors.
Have you been deceived by 'lying wonders and false miracles', Xavier? Are you prepared to acknowledge even the most remote possibility that you might have been?
QuoteThe Pharisees saw Christ's miracles and called it the work of the devil. But Jesus answered by showing Satan cannot cast out Satan, ans because the truth of His doctrine was evident in the sanctity of His deeds and life. It is the same with Our Lady of Fatima and the 3 Saintly seers.
Thanks for bringing it all back to Jesus. And no, I am not a Protestant. Don't you find it interesting that the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are so quiet in comparison with Fatima? Even those he rose from the dead were only witnessed by a limited amount of people in comparison to the so-called Miracle of the Sun. I suppose the miracle of the loaves and fishes was the most witnessed miracle performed by Jesus.
QuoteLittle children around the age of 10 are usually concerned with toy cars and toy dolls, not with making severe sacrifices to save souls.
This is a weak argument. These were not 10 year olds from the late '50s to the present in a place like America. These were poor shepherd children from a destitute country that not only did not have TV, it didn't even have radio or movie houses yet. Nor did they sell Hot Wheels or Barbies at the stores in their village. The 3 seers sure sold a lot of dolls and trinkets, albeit indirectly, didn't they?
QuoteSatan was at work with Communism and Fatima was Heaven's counter-attack.
Over 100 million were killed by Communists in the next 30 years following the events of 1917. This doesn't even count World War II deaths. If Fatima was Heaven's counter attack to Satan's communism then Heaven is pretty weak.
Everybody but Noah and his family died in the flood..... So don't think for a minute it isn't possible for God to allow people tp perish or do you not believe the Scriptures?
Xavier- I PM'd you. I do not see a PM to you in my sent box....I PM'd someone a few weeks ago and do not see that one either and never got a response. So let me know if you get a PM from me :)
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 28, 2018, 09:16:13 AM
Xavier- I PM'd you. I do not see a PM to you in my sent box....I PM'd someone a few weeks ago and do not see that one either and never got a response. So let me know if you get a PM from me :)
You have to check the box "Save a copy in my outbox" to the lower left.
You can modify this by going to:
Messages > Preferences > check the box next to "Save a copy of each personal message in my sent items by default."
Quare re. Your argument: Couldn't you also say the same about the fall of the Angels and Adam and Eve? Also, since the fall of Adam necessitated the suffering redemption accomplished by Our Lord, could you also not say that The Father was cruel and wicked for not preventing it with His omnipotence?
Quote from: St.Justin on November 28, 2018, 09:08:57 AM
Everybody but Noah and his family died in the flood..... So don't think for a minute it isn't possible for God to allow people tp perish or do you not believe the Scriptures?
The Scriptures don't say the flood could have been averted had but Noah said seven magic words, but God failed to prevent the calamity because Noah failed to say them. If it did, I would not believe them but conclude, along with atheists, that the Scriptures are the musings of ignorant bronze age goat-herders.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 28, 2018, 10:53:07 AM
Quare re. Your argument: Couldn't you also say the same about the fall of the Angels and Adam and Eve? Also, since the fall of Adam necessitated the suffering redemption accomplished by Our Lord, could you also not say that The Father was cruel and wicked for not preventing it with His omnipotence?
You could, many atheists do, and Christianity has nothing remotely resembling a satisfying theodicy for sin, having to take refuge in the appeal to mystery or else redefining terms like "omnipotence" or "omniscience" to mean something else.
However, none of these things (problematic as they are) have God acting like a spoiled five-year-old child, letting the entire house burn down because he didn't get his piece of candy.
I have to say that I'm really enjoying Quaremerepulisti 2.0.
Quote from: Gardener on November 27, 2018, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 27, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
Stepping in, under the Fatima rabbit trail brawl......
The priest who gave this sermon is very edifying. I listen to him often. That being said, he had a sermon years ago on the now defunct Audio Sancto where he ripped JRR Tollken and his books to shreds, saying that no traditional Catholic, ever, anywhere had any business reading those wicked novels...ect ect ect. That sermon was taken down before I even had a chance to chat with my husband about it. My point is, every good priest may have opinions that are not necessarily true, but can package them in a way that make us think that every thing that comes out of their mouths is Gospel truth.
Im not saying that is how the OP viewed this sermon. But I will say again, in my experience, this priest has said outrageous things before, as well as many amazing, edifying and very helpful things.
The sermon you referenced regarding Tolkien was trash. It caused a big brouhaha at OLMC in Littleton. Fr. Jackson had so many people asking him about it that he wrote a 2 (or 3?) part series on it. He listened to the sermon and realized the priest had mistaken certain terms (such as myth) and misunderstand their usage, and also made a number of philosophical errors. In short, it was reactionary and not based in objective usage of vocabulary, nor the reality of Tolkien's work.
This is why I hate the concept of celebrity priests.
Quare,
thanks for your response; but I don't see the difference; God tells the Children of Fatima that because of the consequence of so many sins, wars and other disasters will happen; His justice requires this (I suppose); but by the act of reparation done by the Pope and bishops, His justice will be satisfied and those things that were going to happen will no longer take place. I don't see the "spoiled child" child analogy holding here.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 28, 2018, 03:16:23 PM
Quare,
thanks for your response; but I don't see the difference; God tells the Children of Fatima that because of the consequence of so many sins, wars and other disasters will happen; His justice requires this (I suppose); but by the act of reparation done by the Pope and bishops, His justice will be satisfied and those things that were going to happen will no longer take place. I don't see the "spoiled child" child analogy holding here.
Well I do.
1. It is philosophically false to say God MUST punish something in a certain way.
2. Catholic theology holds that even a single Mass (or Divine Liturgy) completely satisfies Divine justice.
So, just because the Pope doesn't say the seven magic words, He CHOOSES to ignore the satisfaction made by the Masses and CHOOSES that the disasters should happen.
Pathetic.
"1. It is philosophically false to say God MUST punish something in a certain way."
What ever God does or doen't do is based on His nature. Plus no one ever said that God must do anything but if He says He will do something by His Nature He will.
"2. Catholic theology holds that even a single Mass (or Divine Liturgy) completely satisfies Divine justice."
You are misunderstanding and misapplying this teaching. The efficacy of the Mass is finite.
"So, just because the Pope doesn't say the seven magic words, He CHOOSES to ignore the satisfaction made by the Masses and CHOOSES that the disasters should happen."
Again, You are misunderstanding and misapplying this teaching. The efficacy of the Mass is finite.
And that is pathetic.
Quote from: Xavier on November 28, 2018, 07:06:23 AM
QuoteBoth saints were going on
Sigh. There you go again arguing with the Popes, Saints and Doctors, Gerard, my friend. It would be much wiser to say, "I believed X but the Church teaches Y. I therefore retract my opinion and conform my thinking to the teaching of Saints, Doctors and Popes." But alas.
Vatican I confirmed what Pope Benedict XIV and St. Alphonsus taught about Papal infallibility, and that infallible statements are owed divine faith; the teaching above about public miracles and approved apparitions requiring the human assent of pious faith is a distinct but related teaching.
The doctors and saints are not the Church, they are Churchmen, some learned ones and others less so. They are all fallible with few exceptions. I believe what the Church teaches, if an apparition tries to undermine what the Church teaches, I don't' believe it, no matter how many Churchmen want me to believe it.
Vatican I confirmed that the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone. Not to apparitions and their proxies so they could tell the Pope how to use them.
QuoteQuoteThere's no pride or personal opinion
Of course there is. The very thought, we moderns know better than Doctors of the Church, is pride and presumption. If that is not pride, what is?
No. 2+2 = 4 is not a personal opinion. The fact is, the Doctors of the Church knew nothing of events that had not yet happened. So, they can't comment on it. Trying to read into their commentaries ideas about specific events of which they had no knowledge is simply dishonest.
Furthermore, not all Doctors and saints agree with each other, none of them are irresistible in their opinions and they were not exempt from pride.
Do you want examples? St. Jerome complaining about St. Ambrose? St. Thomas Aquinas disagreeing with St. Augustine on certain matters like the state of unbaptized souls, or the perfections of humanity in the Garden before the Fall?
QuoteQuoteany deviation instantly tells you its false regardless of the miracles
False. Your pretended "deviation" may be just a misunderstanding of yours. Protestants think there are "deviations" in Church teaching compared to the Bible. They are mistaken.
Protestants can be shown that their misinterpretations of Scripture or the whole idea of Sola Scriptura are wrong. I have yet to see anyone actually point out exactly how I'm wrong on the coercion of the Pope in Fatima. I'm open to it, it simply has to be something more substantial than, "you're wrong!"
QuoteTheology enlists two primary supernatural signs, miracles and prophecies, as the clearest indicators of heavenly revelation.
Vatican I explains, "divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all. Hence Moses and the Prophets, and especially Christ our Lord Himself, worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies" (Vatican I, on faith)
Public Divine Revelation closed with the death of the Apostle John. That is dogma.
QuoteThe very first public miracle on Oct 13th, 1917 was in fulfilment of a prophecy at the foretold time. If Satan had been behind it, God would have allowed it to fail, and the world would know it had been a hoax. Only God knows and has perfect power over all future events with absolute certainty.
Fatima does not fall under the definition of Vatican I for revelation.
QuoteThere are also many other ways to exclude the blasphemy of demonic influence. It's just a lazy excuse of people of a certain kind unwilling to acknowledge the manifest work of God. The Pharisees saw Christ's miracles and called it the work of the devil. But Jesus answered by showing Satan cannot cast out Satan, ans because the truth of His doctrine was evident in the sanctity of His deeds and life. It is the same with Our Lady of Fatima and the 3 Saintly seers.
Nonsense. It's sheer sentimentality to avoid dealing with the actual facts concerning Fatima. It reads much like the temptation of Christ when the Devil shows him all of the cities of the world, "I will give all of these to you, if you will just bow down and worship me." Political peace, a total this-worldly offering in exchange for the Devil to have a taste of Divine power.
QuoteThe theologians sent to investigate Fatima were astonished at how often the 3 children, who were victim souls, spoke of the need to make reparation, and undertook gladly the most severe penances in expiation, offering everything to God as sacrifices to save sinners from going to hell, which they had seen, and as they had been taught to do by God, Our Lady and the Angel. Not even the theologians knew or lived these doctrines and truths of faith as well as the 3 children did, including the 2 Saints who died young, Jacinta and Francesco.So approval came fast.
A little too fast. The Devil can play the long con. The theologians obviously weren't concerned about how the apparition was threatening the Pope with personal suffering or world wide calumity if he didn't do the bidding of the apparition.
QuoteLittle children around the age of 10 are usually concerned with toy cars and toy dolls, not with making severe sacrifices to save souls.
Well, we can get into the issues surrounding their "communion" given them by the angel and the undermining of the rules established by St. Pius X not to mention the local parish priests and the parents.
QuoteJn 10:21 "...These are not the words of one that hath a devil ..."
The devil also cannot work certain kinds of miracles. It is absurd to attribute a public miracle that demonstrates power over nature, with the sun moving, clothes being dried, a promise being kept and a prophesy fulfilled, to Satan. Satan was at work with Communism and Fatima was Heaven's counter-attack. You who see the work of Heaven in Our Lady of Fatima and attribute it to the devil are sinning in a similar fashion as did the Pharisees who saw Christ's miracles but impiously and wickedly attributed it to the devil, against all justice and truth, becomimg blind.
Be careful with going down that road. Fatima is from God. He will vindicate it.
I don't care about the "miracle of the sun" in the slightest. It is the attempt at coercing and extorting the Pope and extracting influence and power over the papacy that is the grave matter concerning Fatima.
Demons or air and darkness can also be "angels of light" Lucifer is literally the "light bringer"
A "miracle of the sun" is right up his alley when it comes to producing a light show.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 28, 2018, 08:20:06 AM
Just so we're clear.
I don't care what the Saints say, I don't care what the Popes say, I don't care what the Doctors say, and I don't care what any priest says.
Oh dear. This is not a Catholic attitude at all. Catholics could answer, if you don't care what the Popes, Saints and Doctors say, then, your thinking is, at best, insufficiently Catholic and remains pagan in spirit.
You've said, QMR, that you became a Catholic after you had a mystical experience. Very well. We accept your word, even without asking any public sign or miracle. But the Fatima visionaries are much more entitled to be accepted by Catholics because (1) their mystical experiences were attested and confirmed by public supernatural signs, and even more important (2) the Church formally authorized the revelations as credible.
QuoteIf God
The sins of man are the cause of all the evils on the Earth. If God, King of kings, chooses in His Merciful Love to give us a way out from what our own sins have caused (no reasonable person will fail to see the analogy between the wicked agnostic French Revolution caused by the sins of men to which the Sacred Heart provided a potential merciful remedy, through St. Margaret Mary; and the even more wicked atheistic Soviet Revolution caused by the sins of men to which the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts together provided a remedy, through Sr. Lucia), we are obliged to obey Him to the letter. Read the Holy Scriptures and you will see God often requires man's strict obedience before taking him under His Sovereign Protection.
Recall the institution of Passover in the old testament. It was necessary for the blood of the Paschal lamb to be sprinkled on houses that sought the protection of God from what their own sins had caused. It foreshadowed Christ as the true Lamb, Who takes away all sins, and delivers us from its just penalty; and also shows us we must obey God if we desire His protection. When we consecrate ourselves, a Priest consecrates our house to the Sacred Heart, or the Pope consecrates a nation to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart, that is a public profession and declaration that that nation is specially entrusted to Almighty God. When that is done, God will save that country.
He respects our free will and will not intervene miraculously unless asked. The reasons Jesus gives are perfectly clear, just and reasonable.
http://www.1260.org/Mary/Apparitions_Fatima/Fatima_Heart_Triumph_of_the_Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary_en.htm
Quote"Intimately I have spoken to Our Lord about the subject, and not too long ago I asked Him why He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father making that consecration?
"Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart."
"PRAY VERY MUCH FOR THE HOLY FATHER!"
"But my God, the Holy Father probably won't believe me, unless You Yourself move him with a special inspiration."
"The Holy Father! Pray very much for the Holy Father. He will do it, but it will be late!"
AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE.
"Nevertheless the Immaculate Heart of Mary will save Russia. It has been entrusted to Her."
Awkwardcustomer, let me ask in turn: are you sure the Sacred Heart was revealed by God? That the Rosary came by private revelation from heaven. Yes, there are modernists (who hardly believe in or deny everything supernatural) who deny all that as well; what saddens me is that there are trads who agree with them. If you are certain those came from God, I am equally certain Our Lady of Fatima and the Immaculate Heart (already in St. Margaret Mary, St. John Eudes etc, devotion to the Heart of Mary had begun; St. Mary and St. John confirm, and faced opposition in their day, for teaching devotion to the Heart of Mary is inseparable from, and a necessary complement to, devotion to the Heart of Jesus. Fatima also confirms the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that had recently been defined. Hence, Immaculate Heart.) also came from God. Do you know the First Saturdays practice had already been sanctioned as good and holy by Pope St. Pius X? But hardly anyone kept it at that time. Thanks to Sr. Lucia and Our Lady of Fatima, hundreds of millions of Catholics have performed it.
All these are good fruits. Where are the good fruits from the anti-Fatima movement? Beside some misguided trads, those against Fatima are either (1) modernists (2) protestants (3) communists (a Catholic bishop in China recently said the Chinese fear Our Lady of Fatima and complain Her statues frm that apparition are "anti-communist". (4) secularists of some kind, who disbelieve miracles and the supernatural. (5) some sedevacantists. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of Catholics have believed in, embraced and accepted Fatima; it has good spiritual fruits.
These considerations suffice to exclude the possibility of the demonic.
Quote from: AwkwardcustomerSr Lucy deceived the Church into approving the 1917 apparitions at Fatima.
An absurdity. A poor uneducated shepherdess is not likely to trick trained theologians, Priests and exorcists. If she was misled by the devil, the signs of that would be evident. Instead theologians soon and quite unanimously pronounced it of supernatural origin; many Popes confirmed the judgment. It is irreformable, safe and morally certain.
Quote from: Innocent Smith]Don't you find it interesting that the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are so quiet in comparison with Fatima?
Well, it is true there were fewer observers; e.g. around 5000 even at the miracle of the loaves as you mention. However, we know from other historical sources that other miracles (e.g. the extra-canonical Gospel of the converted Pharisee Nicodemus, who preserves some ancient letters of Pontius Pilate for us; where it is documented that after the miracle of the Resurrection, many of the ancient Patriarchs from Limbo appeared publicly and lamented that Jerusalem had rejected Jesus; warned of impending consequences in the sight of many thousands of people. This event is also mentioned in passing in the Gospel of St. Matthew) were witnessed by many more thousands. So, the number of witnesses is not an argument against Fatima. Guadalupe also had many public miracles and conversions beside the main apparitions to St. Juan Diego.
Jesus also warned of and prophesied the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem for the sin of having rejected, crucified and disobeyed Him which came true to the letter about 40 years after He began to preach. All this goes to show disobedience has consequences; God's warnings are acts of His Merciful Love to save us from the penalties of our sins.
Quare stated:
QuoteWell I do.
1. It is philosophically false to say God MUST punish something in a certain way.
2. Catholic theology holds that even a single Mass (or Divine Liturgy) completely satisfies Divine justice.
So, just because the Pope doesn't say the seven magic words, He CHOOSES to ignore the satisfaction made by the Masses and CHOOSES that the disasters should happen.
Pathetic.
Nobody is saying that God "must" punish in a certain way; the premise is that sins not only result in the eternal punishment in Hell but also for temporal punishments in this life.
2. The Sacrifice of the Cross also satisfies completely Divine Justice, yet these merits must be applied; also we must obtain a share in these merits through our co-operation.
Otherwise nobody would go to Hell, no?
Also, look at other 'ridiculous' request in S.Scripture, such as the prophet demanding that the king hit an arrow on the ground several times in order to obtain the favor of victory over his enemies; or again, the prophet demanding that General Aman bathe in the Jordan seven times in order to obtain a cure, that he could just as easily done with a prayer, as the General himself noted.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 29, 2018, 07:20:00 AM
Quare stated: QuoteWell I do.
1. It is philosophically false to say God MUST punish something in a certain way.
2. Catholic theology holds that even a single Mass (or Divine Liturgy) completely satisfies Divine justice.
So, just because the Pope doesn't say the seven magic words, He CHOOSES to ignore the satisfaction made by the Masses and CHOOSES that the disasters should happen.
Pathetic.
Nobody is saying that God "must" punish in a certain way; the premise is that sins not only result in the eternal punishment in Hell but also for temporal punishments in this life.
2. The Sacrifice of the Cross also satisfies completely Divine Justice, yet these merits must be applied; also we must obtain a share in these merits through our co-operation.
Otherwise nobody would go to Hell, no?
Also, look at other 'ridiculous' request in S.Scripture, such as the prophet demanding that the king hit an arrow on the ground several times in order to obtain the favor of victory over his enemies; or again, the prophet demanding that General Aman bathe in the Jordan seven times in order to obtain a cure, that he could just as easily done with a prayer, as the General himself noted.
or marching around the walls of Jericho...(veggie tails does a great job at getting you to see how crazy that sounded to Joshua and his men)
Moses was supposed to speak to the rock and thought he knew better than God so he hit the rock instead and was not allowed to enter the promised land.
How about Adam and Eve, specific instructions not followed with pretty terrible consequences......
Quote from: Gerard on November 28, 2018, 11:47:35 PM
... I have yet to see anyone actually point out exactly how I'm wrong on the coercion of the Pope in Fatima. I'm open to it, it simply has to be something more substantial than, "you're wrong!"
...
Oh come on Gerard. Nobody is just saying "you're wrong" about this. You have been told time and time again that if the Popes thought Our Lady of Fatima's request for a consecration of Russia undermined the papacy then the Popes would not have attempted the consecration. So clearly the Popes did not and do not think the request to consecrate Russia undermines the papacy. You have not addressed this, so you are the one that is simply saying "you're wrong". We are in an endless circle simply because you are not listening. And because you are not listening that is why I suggested that you go talk to a priest about it. It's just all in your mind Gerard.
There are more Catholics requesting a proper consecration of Russia now than at any time since 1984. The devil has to know that his time is running short. Obviously our unsuspecting friends here don't seem to realize how demonic this relentless attack against Our Lady of Fatima actually sounds.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
... if the Popes thought Our Lady of Fatima's request for a consecration of Russia undermined the papacy then the Popes would not have attempted the consecration.
They were hedging their bets and/or trying to close down Fatima.
If not, why did they only attempt the consecration? If they truly believed in Fatima, surely they would have carried out the consecration exactly as the apparition stated - to the letter.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 10:23:06 AM
There are more Catholics requesting a proper consecration of Russia now than at any time since 1984. The devil has to know that his time is running short. Obviously our unsuspecting friends here don't seem to realize how demonic this relentless attack against Our Lady of Fatima actually sounds.
If the Popes had truly believed in Fatima, surely they would have carried out a 'proper' consecration by now.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 08:02:26 AM
or marching around the walls of Jericho...(veggie tails does a great job at getting you to see how crazy that sounded to Joshua and his men)
Moses was supposed to speak to the rock and thought he knew better than God so he hit the rock instead and was not allowed to enter the promised land.
How about Adam and Eve, specific instructions not followed with pretty terrible consequences......
No one of these individuals was a Pope.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 10:23:18 AM
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
... if the Popes thought Our Lady of Fatima's request for a consecration of Russia undermined the papacy then the Popes would not have attempted the consecration.
They were hedging their bets and/or trying to close down Fatima.
If not, why did they only attempt the consecration? If they truly believed in Fatima, surely they would have carried out the consecration exactly as the apparition stated - to the letter.
JP II wanted to mention Russia in the 1984 consecration but his advisors said that it would upset Russia, you know in this ecumaniac time since VII. There really does seem to be a diabolical attempt to prevent a proper consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 08:02:26 AM
or marching around the walls of Jericho...(veggie tails does a great job at getting you to see how crazy that sounded to Joshua and his men)
Moses was supposed to speak to the rock and thought he knew better than God so he hit the rock instead and was not allowed to enter the promised land.
How about Adam and Eve, specific instructions not followed with pretty terrible consequences......
No one of these individuals was a Pope.
I was just chiming in on more "ridiculous" requests from God in scripture.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 10:33:59 AM
JP II wanted to mention Russia in the 1984 consecration but his advisors said that it would upset Russia ...
This is hardly a ringing endorsement of Fatima though. JPII wanted to
mention Russia, despite the clear instructions of the apparition. Did he truly believe in Fatima?
And all his advisors had to do was warn him that merely mentioning Russia would upset the ecumenical apple-cart.
There's nothing like putting earthly considerations before heavenly imperatives to reveal a lack of committment to the cause.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 08:02:26 AM
or marching around the walls of Jericho...(veggie tails does a great job at getting you to see how crazy that sounded to Joshua and his men)
Moses was supposed to speak to the rock and thought he knew better than God so he hit the rock instead and was not allowed to enter the promised land.
How about Adam and Eve, specific instructions not followed with pretty terrible consequences......
No one of these individuals was a Pope.
I was just chiming in on more "ridiculous" requests from God in scripture.
Yes, but none of the "ridiculous" requests from God in Scripture were made to a Pope.
The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. Moses wasn't.
Moreover, they were made directly by God to the individual and did not prima facie, or even essentially, contradict that which God had already said to do or had given authority therein.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
Quote from: Gerard on November 28, 2018, 11:47:35 PM
... I have yet to see anyone actually point out exactly how I'm wrong on the coercion of the Pope in Fatima. I'm open to it, it simply has to be something more substantial than, "you're wrong!"
...
Oh come on Gerard. Nobody is just saying "you're wrong" about this. You have been told time and time again that if the Popes thought Our Lady of Fatima's request for a consecration of Russia undermined the papacy then the Popes would not have attempted the consecration. So clearly the Popes did not and do not think the request to consecrate Russia undermines the papacy. You have not addressed this, so you are the one that is simply saying "you're wrong". We are in an endless circle simply because you are not listening. And because you are not listening that is why I suggested that you go talk to a priest about it. It's just all in your mind Gerard.
Not so. I've demonstrated numerous times that the "carrot" and "stick" coercive tactic is baked into the consecration part of the Fatima message. People simply denying that aspect and refusing to prove me wrong.
I'm also saying that the "attempted" consecrations by the Popes were ultimately prevented by the Holy Ghost, either through a movement of grace or illumination or simply the fact that the liberal Popes are too wilely about personal power and they recognize an attempt to co-opt papal power more readily than a "conservative" pope would.
Quote from: Gardener on November 29, 2018, 12:21:24 PM
Moreover, they were made directly by God to the individual and did not prima facie, or even essentially, contradict that which God had already said to do or had given authority therein.
They were also direct warnings about something inevitable or they addressed problems that manifested themselves already. They didn't make conditional threats based on how a particular person would react to their demands.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 11:48:04 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 08:02:26 AM
or marching around the walls of Jericho...(veggie tails does a great job at getting you to see how crazy that sounded to Joshua and his men)
Moses was supposed to speak to the rock and thought he knew better than God so he hit the rock instead and was not allowed to enter the promised land.
How about Adam and Eve, specific instructions not followed with pretty terrible consequences......
No one of these individuals was a Pope.
I was just chiming in on more "ridiculous" requests from God in scripture.
Yes, but none of the "ridiculous" requests from God in Scripture were made to a Pope.
The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. Moses wasn't.
I don't know how to break it to you, but there were no popes back in those days. Although Moses and the other leaders that Traditionallyruralmom mentions were the leaders in their time of the Church to come, you know like a Pope.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 11:48:04 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 08:02:26 AM
or marching around the walls of Jericho...(veggie tails does a great job at getting you to see how crazy that sounded to Joshua and his men)
Moses was supposed to speak to the rock and thought he knew better than God so he hit the rock instead and was not allowed to enter the promised land.
How about Adam and Eve, specific instructions not followed with pretty terrible consequences......
No one of these individuals was a Pope.
I was just chiming in on more "ridiculous" requests from God in scripture.
Yes, but none of the "ridiculous" requests from God in Scripture were made to a Pope.
The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. Moses wasn't.
I don't know how to break it to you, but there were no popes back in those days. Although Moses and the other leaders that Traditionallyruralmom mentions were the leaders in their time of the Church to come, you know like a Pope.
That's the point I'm making. The Pope, as Supreme Pontiff, as Christ's Vicar on Earth, as the holder of the Keys, has a Divinely appointed authority that Moses and the other leaders didn't, couldn't, posess.
Therefore the comparisons don't work.
But Moses' authority was as great as the Pope's; he was not only the vicar of God, and ruled the people of God; he spoke directly with God (which no Pope has claimed); so the comparison does hold.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 29, 2018, 02:31:00 PM
But Moses' authority was as great as the Pope's; he was not only the vicar of God, and ruled the people of God; he spoke directly with God (which no Pope has claimed); so the comparison does hold.
So, did someone come up to Moses with a deal concerning an event like Fatima did?
A shepherd boy tells Moses that he's seen an apparition of St. Michael that says that God wants Moses to do X to avoid a calamity that is not present but only the apparition is predicting? And if Moses doesn't do what the boy says the apparition wants, nations will fall and Moses himself with suffer greatly? But if Moses does do what the apparition wants, everyone gets a fast car and a day at the spa?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 29, 2018, 02:31:00 PM
But Moses' authority was as great as the Pope's; he was not only the vicar of God, and ruled the people of God; he spoke directly with God (which no Pope has claimed); so the comparison does hold.
Was Moses the 'vicar of God'? I've never heard that before.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 03:01:27 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 29, 2018, 02:31:00 PM
But Moses' authority was as great as the Pope's; he was not only the vicar of God, and ruled the people of God; he spoke directly with God (which no Pope has claimed); so the comparison does hold.
Was Moses the 'vicar of God'? I've never heard that before.
It wasn't his official title, I just decided to call him that for the effect. Ha! But seriously, he interviews God all the time and gets personal messages from Him, and he is the "go to guy" if you want to have God answer any question, such as: "How come there isn't any water?" or "How do we cure snake bite?" etc.
I would agree with Michael that Moses was a prototype of the Pope. However, the comparison fails once one looks at the particulars of the chain of custody in Fatima for the information vs how Moses was dealt with by God: directly.
Quote from: Xavier on November 29, 2018, 06:40:35 AM
Quote from: AwkwardcustomerSr Lucy deceived the Church into approving the 1917 apparitions at Fatima.
An absurdity. A poor uneducated shepherdess is not likely to trick trained theologians, Priests and exorcists. If she was misled by the devil, the signs of that would be evident. Instead theologians soon and quite unanimously pronounced it of supernatural origin; many Popes confirmed the judgment. It is irreformable, safe and morally certain.
Sr Lucy was under oath when she withheld both the Secrets and the Angel apparitions from the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima.
The Fatima approval only covers the apparitions that took place in the Cova da Iria in 1917. It doesn't include the Secrets or the Angel apparitions because Sr Lucy didn't reveal these until after the approval had been given in 1930
She explains all this in her third and fourth memoirs. Have you read them?
Her reason for not revealing everything she knew about Fatima during the enquiry was that she was acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Can you name one other visionary who has withheld vital information from the Church on the instructions of the Holy Spirit?
Incidentally, Sr Lucy's family was not poor. And I think you underestimate the intelligence of those who live off the land.
Quote from: Gardener on November 29, 2018, 03:21:10 PM
I would agree with Michael that Moses was a prototype of the Pope. However, the comparison fails once one looks at the particulars of the chain of custody in Fatima for the information vs how Moses was dealt with by God: directly.
A prototype of the Pope, okay, but did Moses have the authority of a Pope, or the charism of infallibility.
I don't think the comparison holds, and besides it's a favourite tactic of the madman/cult leader/ fanatic to point to well known scriptural examples of prophets who have been disbelieved. You know how it goes.
I am the son of god. You don't believe me. They didn't believe Jesus Christ either.
I am a prophet of the most high. You don't believe me. Prophets are never believed.
That kind of thing.
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me ....
The devil might say this though. Because it's not true.
Our Lady is in perfect bliss along with the company of heaven. She does not suffer, thank goodness, and her heart is not pierced by thorns.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 08:08:10 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me ....
The devil might say this though. Because it's not true.
Our Lady is in perfect bliss along with the company of heaven. She does not suffer, thank goodness, and her heart is not pierced by thorns.
Why do you think we say prayers of reparation?
You didn't answer my question.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
do those who "don't do" Fatima not say the "O my Jesus" prayer at the end of every decade?
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 10:33:18 PM
do those who "don't do" Fatima not say the "O my Jesus" prayer at the end of every decade?
I no longer say it. And to be frank, I'd always had problems with that prayer.
"..lead all souls to Heaven..." smacks of the same universal salvation that has plagued the Church in recent decades. Much like the "for all" vs "for many" crisis in the consecration formula of the Novus Ordo.
Why petition Jesus for something the He already revealed will not happen? He clearly explained that not all souls would get to Heaven and the sheep and goats would be separated at the final judgment.
Also, there seemed to be controversy about the actual prayer itself. According to Dr. Tom Drolesky, the actual ending was "...especially those most in need." Not "...especially those most in need of thy mercy." since everyone is in need of His mercy. It seems the redundant part had been added by someone, somewhere.
Better just to stick to saying the rosary the most traditional way and avoid all of the modern innovations attached to it.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
The Devil already owns every non-Catholic religion. There's a lot of piety out there being promoted by him in order to allow fatal errors to get through the cracks and people to die outside of the one, true Church.
Evil can't exist without good. The Devil is perfectly capable of doing a lot of apparent good when his long term strategy is evil.
Quote from: GerardThe Devil already owns every non-Catholic religion.
Correct. And pretty much every non-Catholic religion opposes Fatima. Protestants oppose it because they dislike veneration of Our Lady, and devotion to the Immaculate Heart and the Rosary. Even Orthodox are not too fond of it because, unlike modern ecumenism, it implies they too have to retract errors (since about 100 years ago, the Orthodox Churches deny the Immaculate Conception) and end the schism by returning to Rome. Non-Christians reject it because they reject Christ and His Mother. So, which side are you on? The side of non-Catholics.
On the other hand, Fatima greatly bolsters the Church and confirms Catholics in the Faith and in devotion to Our Lady and Lord. What you are doing is like a Mexican in Gaudalupe saying, "Even though the Bishop approved the apparition to St. Juan Diego, I personally believe it was the devil that appeared". Satan does not cast out Satan. Do you know how the devils screamed in torment when the Rosary was revealed to St. Dominic and some 15,000 devils were driven out when a crowd of mere thousands prayed the Rosary? Well, hundreds of millions of Catholics have prayed the daily Rosary thanks to the urgent admonitions of Our Lady of Fatima. Many nations including Poland were delivered from Communism by this means. If then Fatima is from Satan, as your blasphemy claims, the Word of God lied, and Satan does cast out Satan.
Since that is impossible, clearly youre mistaken. The first thing Catholics ask, "Is the apparition approved by the Bishop?" If yes, that should be enough. No? Fine. Appeal to the Pope. Is it approved by the Pope? Yes. Then inquire no further, as it is certainly from God. And approved by Him through His Vicars. The Church will never change, re-open or revise Her judgment through Her Pontiffs that Fatima is from God.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 09:28:58 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 08:08:10 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me ....
The devil might say this though. Because it's not true.
Our Lady is in perfect bliss along with the company of heaven. She does not suffer, thank goodness, and her heart is not pierced by thorns.
Why do you think we say prayers of reparation?
Yes, and this mistaken way of thinking also goes against the reparation asked for by the Sacred Heart. The Sacred Heart also asked for reparation to St. Margaret Mary and it is clear the Lord deeply felt and is aggrieved by the coldness and lukewarmness shown Him in the Sacraments.
""Behold this Heart," Jesus said sorrowfully, as He held His pierced Heart out to St. Margaret Mary. "Behold this Heart which has so loved men, that it has spared nothing, even to exhausting and consuming itself in order to testify to its love. In return, I have received from the greater part only ingratitude, by their irreverence and their sacrilege, and by the coldness and contempt they have for Me in this sacrament of Love."
http://heartsofjesusandmary.com/behold-this-heart-3/
In the Bible, we see Jesus ask St. Paul "Why are you persecuting Me"? God is persecuted when His Sacraments and holy dwellings are profaned, when His saints in whom He lives are oppressed. Heaven also suffers as a Father or Mother suffers out of love when the prodigal child is far from home; not as the child suffers out of his own fault, but as love and compassion in willing the child to come home quickly and praying for him or her causes a kind of loving suffering. The greater the love, the greater the suffering. But love is greatest in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. Therefore, their Hearts suffer more than that of all other Saints in heaven. And so it is our duty not to offend and oppress them further with untrue and unjust denials of their wonders and miracles, but to believe, console and make reparation to The Twin Hearts.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 09:28:58 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 29, 2018, 08:08:10 PM
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me ....
The devil might say this though. Because it's not true.
Our Lady is in perfect bliss along with the company of heaven. She does not suffer, thank goodness, and her heart is not pierced by thorns.
Why do you think we say prayers of reparation?
You didn't answer my question.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
I did answer your question, although perhaps not as directly as necessary. Of course the devil would recommend all manner of prayer and piety if he could sneak in one little falsehood. The devil can quote the scriptures, as can anyone. The devil believes in God, unlike the atheist. Even Satan can appear as an angel of light. You don't seem to have much understanding of hidden cunning, or deceit as employed by the malevolent. Poison, naturally bitter to the taste, has to be sweetened or people wouldn't drink it.
The idea that Our Lady is suffering and in distress
now is a common feature of the modern Marian apparitions which focus on reparation. Our Lord is likewise often represented as angry or sorrowful as a result of the blasphemies of modern man. We are called, therefore, to make reparation for these outrages, to comfort and console the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to avert God's anger.
Devotions to the Heart of Mary originally showed Our Lady's heart pierced by a sword. Devotions to the Sacred Heart have a long history prior to the revelations of St Mary Margaret Alacoque. At any rate, these are symbolic representations of love, and of suffering because of that love. The Sacred Heart carries the thorns, the Immaculate Heart is pierced by a sword. Our Lord's love for mankind pierced His Heart with thorns. Our Lady's love for Christ pierced her heart with a sword. Devotion to the Immaculate Heart was intended to increase our love for Christ.
You ask why we make prayers of reparation? This is a question that requires some examination. Surely the answer is because Divine Justice requires them, without implying in any way that prayers of reparation ease Our Lady's 'suffering' in the here and now.
Of course, if you are led to believe that Our Lady suffers now, when she doesn't, you might understandably become very attached to the idea of relieving that suffering. And consequently very attached to any devotion with reparation to the Immaculate Heart at its core.
I've said elsewhere that something feels very 'off' about the modern Marian apparitions. They seem to encourage passivity. Our Lord is blasphemed and Our Lady insulted at a 'modern' Mass, so make reparation for this, to lessen their sufferings, and who wouldn't be emotionally invested in doing that. But don't say anything, make no visible protest, don't rise up and drive the modernists from the sanctuary. Make reparation. Pray, but never act.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 29, 2018, 07:20:00 AM
Nobody is saying that God "must" punish in a certain way; the premise is that sins not only result in the eternal punishment in Hell but also for temporal punishments in this life.
You just did say that. Glad to see you admit your mistake. God could, then, not punish the world in this particular manner even if the Pope doesn't say the seven magic words. There's no intrinsic connection between seven magic words and a particular punishment of the world.
And we aren't just talking about temporal punishment. So the story goes, if the Pope just but says the seven magic words, many souls will be saved - implying they wouldn't be without those seven magic words. This implies God could save the souls even without the seven magic words, but He refuses to do so. So, countless millions of souls must suffer eternal punishment because God didn't get the seven magic words.
This makes God like the tyrannical child in the Twilight Zone episode. I
ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to worship such a monster, and I have the
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of conscience that I am correct in so doing. This is why, I have concluded, a lot of trads often behave like petulant children. They're only imitating the God they claim to worship.
Of course, there's another possibility: Fatima is just one big hoax from start to finish. It's not a point in its favor that its devotees lie through their teeth about the Miracle of the Sun being "witnessed by 70,000". That number is a reasonable estimate of the people present at the Cova, but it doesn't say anything about what they saw or didn't see. In fact, some of the witnesses saw nothing, and for those that did see something, they didn't all see the same thing. Or lying about Father Dhanis being a "Modernist" when he was nothing of the sort. These are some of the "wonderful fruits" of Fatima. Lying. Calumny. Lucia initially said (when questioned by the parish priest, I think) that Mary appeared in a knee-length skirt (at a time and place where such dress would have been considered scandalous). That in itself is enough evidence to toss the entire thing out.
Quote
2. The Sacrifice of the Cross also satisfies completely Divine Justice, yet these merits must be applied; also we must obtain a share in these merits through our co-operation.
Otherwise nobody would go to Hell, no?
Well, the theological band-aid of merits being "applied" is a subject for another day. But anyway, the main point here is that you can't say Divine Justice DEMANDS such-and-such punishment of the world in the same way that it demands eternal punishment for a sinner who dies unrepentant.
QuoteAlso, look at other 'ridiculous' request in S.Scripture, such as the prophet demanding that the king hit an arrow on the ground several times in order to obtain the favor of victory over his enemies; or again, the prophet demanding that General Aman bathe in the Jordan seven times in order to obtain a cure, that he could just as easily done with a prayer, as the General himself noted.
But the fate of the entire world doesn't hang in the balance, now does it? Again, if it did, and God punishes the entire world (including eternal torment for countless millions) because someone refused to take a bath in the Jordan, I would again conclude along with atheists that the Old Testament is just the ignorant musings of bronze age goat herders.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 29, 2018, 10:33:18 PM
do those who "don't do" Fatima not say the "O my Jesus" prayer at the end of every decade?
I do not.
A.C. Stated:
QuoteA prototype of the Pope, okay, but did Moses have the authority of a Pope, or the charism of infallibility.....
I don't think the comparison holds,
That kind of thing.
As far as I can see Moses had more authority than any Pope. How many Popes spoke directly with God? Also, Moses was not only infallible, but also he was a source of new revelation; the whole Jewish religion was based on the prescriptions that Moses claimed to have received from God.
As far as this discussion goes; I agree that Fatima is not obligatory for any Catholic to hold, it is a private revelation; and while I do not agree with the so called "Fatima I" & "Fatima II" theory, I can see that the narration is open to this criticism.
Gerard,
I have read your argument about Fatima being an attempt on the authority of the Papacy, and I just don't agree with this. But since other people have done a better job than I could have done in responding, and you still hold to your position, I just don't see any point in continuing to discuss this particular issue.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 30, 2018, 07:20:53 AM
This makes God like the tyrannical child in the Twilight Zone episode. I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to worship such a monster, and I have the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of conscience that I am correct in so doing. This is why, I have concluded, a lot of trads often behave like petulant children. They're only imitating the God they claim to worship.
Perfectly stated. And they are an absolute embarrassment.
Ferrara and Matt sound like ninnies. Because they are.
Quote from: Xavier on November 29, 2018, 06:12:25 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 28, 2018, 08:20:06 AM
Just so we're clear.
I don't care what the Saints say, I don't care what the Popes say, I don't care what the Doctors say, and I don't care what any priest says.
Oh dear. This is not a Catholic attitude at all. Catholics could answer, if you don't care what the Popes, Saints and Doctors say, then, your thinking is, at best, insufficiently Catholic and remains pagan in spirit.
Too bad. I refuse to succumb to groupthink and propaganda. No matter what. Now, you will of course scream how awful it is that I would classify some of what they say as that, but it was clearly recognized as such by me both before and after my conversion - and my radar for that also allowed me to ferret out anti-Catholic and atheist groupthink and propaganda as well.
The desire for power is very strong in fallen human nature, and no human, even if he is a Saint, Pope, or Doctor, is exempt from it. Even if it doesn't lead to outright dishonesty, it causes one to stretch the truth, exaggerate, polemicize to death, see the world in stark black-and-white terms, and engage in an orgy of self-righteous breast-beating. These are, frankly, qualities I see in you, which you hide behind all your pious rhetoric.
And, there is more than a little hypocrisy here in traddom.
THE POPE has said, for instance, that the consecration of the four Bishops by Msgr. Lefebvre was a schismatic act. But
this time it isn't necessary to listen to what the Pope says.
THE POPE has said that Vatican II was promulgated "with Apostolic authority". But
this time it isn't necessary to listen to what the Pope says. I could multiply examples like this for pages and pages.
QuoteYou've said, QMR, that you became a Catholic after you had a mystical experience. Very well. We accept your word, even without asking any public sign or miracle. But the Fatima visionaries are much more entitled to be accepted by Catholics because (1) their mystical experiences were attested and confirmed by public supernatural signs, and even more important (2) the Church formally authorized the revelations as credible.
Well, I don't care whether you accept my word or not. And I don't deny the Fatima visionaries had some sort of experience. What I do deny is what was related by them is an accurate representation of what was experienced. The very definition of a "mystical" experience is that it is beyond words, beyond the capacity of human language and reason to describe.
QuoteThe sins of man are the cause of all the evils on the Earth. If God, King of kings, chooses in His Merciful Love to give us a way out from what our own sins have caused...
He already did. It's called conversion or repentance. That what's He wants, over and above anything else. Burnt offerings and holocausts He no longer wishes. Read the Scriptures, right? That's what it says there.
Quote....we are obliged to obey Him to the letter.
What do you mean "we", kemosabe? It is the Pope and only the Pope who can make this consecration.
But again, so the Pope disobeys. Really, so what? God desires our conversion more than anything but He is not going to bring it about because the Pope "disobeyed" and didn't say seven magic words? Really?
Quote"Intimately I have spoken to Our Lord about the subject, and not too long ago I asked Him why He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father making that consecration?
"Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart."
Seriously. This makes Our Lord look like a blithering idiot and an impotent doofus. Why do you believe in such garbage? To have devotion to the Immaculate Heart (which already exists) extended this consecration is NECESSARY, even for an omnipotent God?
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
Quote from: Xavier on November 30, 2018, 06:06:14 AM
Quote from: GerardThe Devil already owns every non-Catholic religion.
Correct. And pretty much every non-Catholic religion opposes Fatima. Protestants oppose it because they dislike veneration of Our Lady, and devotion to the Immaculate Heart and the Rosary. Even Orthodox are not too fond of it because, unlike modern ecumenism, it implies they too have to retract errors (since about 100 years ago, the Orthodox Churches deny the Immaculate Conception) and end the schism by returning to Rome. Non-Christians reject it because they reject Christ and His Mother. So, which side are you on? The side of non-Catholics.
Ah....so Fatima is now the line by which Christ determines who is for Him and who is against Him?
Muslims by the way, are devoted to the BVM in their own way and Fatima is the name of the daughter of Mohammed. So some Catholics mistakenly think Fatima is how the Muslims will convert to Catholicism.
I'm on the side of Our Lady of Lourdes, but I don't believe in Fatima. How's that?
QuoteOn the other hand, Fatima greatly bolsters the Church and confirms Catholics in the Faith and in devotion to Our Lady and Lord. What you are doing is like a Mexican in Gaudalupe saying, "Even though the Bishop approved the apparition to St. Juan Diego, I personally believe it was the devil that appeared". Satan does not cast out Satan. Do you know how the devils screamed in torment when the Rosary was revealed to St. Dominic and some 15,000 devils were driven out when a crowd of mere thousands prayed the Rosary? Well, hundreds of millions of Catholics have prayed the daily Rosary thanks to the urgent admonitions of Our Lady of Fatima. Many nations including Poland were delivered from Communism by this means. If then Fatima is from Satan, as your blasphemy claims, the Word of God lied, and Satan does cast out Satan.
Now St. Dominic is the fruit of Fatima? Now the Rosary is exclusively a part of Fatima? Nobody was ever encouraged to say the rosary prior to Fatima or outside of Fatima? Amazing. It's like Vatican II with John Paul II and the modernists. Michael Davies used to say they loved Vatican II so much it was a bigger deal for JPII than becoming Pope.
QuoteSince that is impossible, clearly youre mistaken. The first thing Catholics ask, "Is the apparition approved by the Bishop?" If yes, that should be enough. No? Fine. Appeal to the Pope. Is it approved by the Pope? Yes. Then inquire no further, as it is certainly from God. And approved by Him through His Vicars. The Church will never change, re-open or revise Her judgment through Her Pontiffs that Fatima is from God.
Right. Like the Novus Ordo.
The first thing a Catholic asks about anything is, "Is it in line with the faith?"
Why appeal to the Pope? If the apparition tells the Pope what to do, the apparition is obviously the more important representative of God? Right?
Or, if the Pope tells you an apparition is worthy of belief, inquire no further. Except if the Pope decides to run the Church according to his authority and opts not to take orders from the apparition, well then, badger the Pope relentlessly, right?
There's an incredible inconsistency to your position.
Quote
In the Bible, we see Jesus ask St. Paul "Why are you persecuting Me"? God is persecuted when His Sacraments and holy dwellings are profaned, when His saints in whom He lives are oppressed. Heaven also suffers as a Father or Mother suffers out of love when the prodigal child is far from home; not as the child suffers out of his own fault, but as love and compassion in willing the child to come home quickly and praying for him or her causes a kind of loving suffering. The greater the love, the greater the suffering. But love is greatest in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. Therefore, their Hearts suffer more than that of all other Saints in heaven. And so it is our duty not to offend and oppress them further with untrue and unjust denials of their wonders and miracles, but to believe, console and make reparation to The Twin Hearts.
Just because someone is persecuted does not mean they are suffering. Someone shooting an arrow at a battleship may be "persecuting" the battleship but the battleship isn't suffering. God is omnipotent and infinitely happy in and of Himself.
The BVM and all saints are beholding the beatific vision, they are incapable of suffering.
There is no suffering in Heaven.
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 08:36:34 AM
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
You are aware that after the Last Supper and the Sacrifice of God at the Cross that we are now living in the Age of Grace?
Are you aware of that?
But thanks for helping to reveal that Fatima is not only kind of Protestant, but also very Old Testament. Which, of course, is always a symptom of Protestantism. Where to go for authority when you are a Protestant except the Old Testament? As you know they have no pope nor do they have connections to the Apostles.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 30, 2018, 09:26:43 AM
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 08:36:34 AM
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
You are aware that after the Last Supper and the Sacrifice of God at the Cross that we are now living in the Age of Grace?
Are you aware of that?
But thanks for helping to reveal that Fatima is not only kind of Protestant, but also very Old Testament. Which, of course, is always a symptom of Protestantism. Where to go for authority when you are a Protestant except the Old Testament? As you know they have no pope nor do they have connections to the Apostles.
Why is it that half the time I ask a legitimate question here someone decides to respond in the most smug, condescending manner they can muster? What's your problem, exactly?
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 08:36:34 AM
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
Pharaoh was directly opposed to God being a pagan and calling himself a diety. And he was already causing a great strife among the Hebrews by holding them in bondage.
I also don't believe God offers any kind of carrot to the Pharaoh. It's pretty clear they are enemies to the core.
Also, the office of the pharaoh wasn't Divinely established by God or even the "god" Ra or Osiris or whatever. So God could and would run roughshod over a man-made creation, not His own.
God's actions towards the Pharaoh and the Egyptians are punishments that are Divine retributions for any number of injustices already done to the Hebrews.
Christ's action on Calvary is what satisfies the Justice of God for the sins of man. So, I don't think the actions of God vis a vis Moses, Pharaoh and Egypt and the Hebrews are analogous to Fatima and the Pope.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 30, 2018, 07:23:30 AM
Gerard,
I have read your argument about Fatima being an attempt on the authority of the Papacy, and I just don't agree with this. But since other people have done a better job than I could have done in responding, and you still hold to your position, I just don't see any point in continuing to discuss this particular issue.
Fair enough. And thank you for always being civil in the discussions.
God Bless.
Quote from: Gerard on November 30, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 08:36:34 AM
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
I also don't believe God offers any kind of carrot to the Pharaoh. It's pretty clear they are enemies to the core.
This is one of the areas I genuinely struggle with in Scripture. It seems that God
willed that Pharao's heart was hardened. Why would He do that, if He could just have easily willed that his heart be softened and lead the Jews out of Egypt in a more pacific manner?
This is why I asked Quare what I asked him. I'm assuming this isn't actually tyrannical and that there must be some reason for it that I'm just failing to grasp.
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 10:03:29 AM
Quote from: Gerard on November 30, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 08:36:34 AM
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
I also don't believe God offers any kind of carrot to the Pharaoh. It's pretty clear they are enemies to the core.
This is one of the areas I genuinely struggle with in Scripture. It seems that God willed that Pharao's heart was hardened. Why would He do that, if He could just have easily willed that his heart be softened and lead the Jews out of Egypt in a more pacific manner?
This is why I asked Quare what I asked him. I'm assuming this isn't actually tyrannical and that there must be some reason for it that I'm just failing to grasp.
I've heard that described as a "withholding of grace" because God knew ultimately where the free will of the Pharaoh and the Egyptian population was. Perhaps the brutality of the punishments were what was needed to move the will of the maximal number of Egyptians and Hebrews to take heed and take God seriously. Whatever it was, we can be sure the end goal of God's action was the salvation of souls.
Quote from: Gerard on November 30, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 08:36:34 AM
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
Pharaoh was directly opposed to God being a pagan and calling himself a diety. And he was already causing a great strife among the Hebrews by holding them in bondage.
I also don't believe God offers any kind of carrot to the Pharaoh. It's pretty clear they are enemies to the core.
Also, the office of the pharaoh wasn't Divinely established by God or even the "god" Ra or Osiris or whatever. So God could and would run roughshod over a man-made creation, not His own.
God's actions towards the Pharaoh and the Egyptians are punishments that are Divine retributions for any number of injustices already done to the Hebrews.
Christ's action on Calvary is what satisfies the Justice of God for the sins of man. So, I don't think the actions of God vis a vis Moses, Pharaoh and Egypt and the Hebrews are analogous to Fatima and the Pope.
Of course He did.
"After these things Moses and Aaron went in, and said to Pharao: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Let my people go that they may sacrifice to me in the desert." Exodus 5:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=2&ch=5&l=1#x)
If Pharao would have simply let the Israelites go God would not have punished the Egyptians like He did. Similarly if the Pope and bishops do a proper consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart we will see the promised period of peace and avert the annihilation of nations. There is a very clear correlation between the two.
Quote from: mikemac on November 30, 2018, 11:08:17 AM
Quote from: Gerard on November 30, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: Optatus on November 30, 2018, 08:36:34 AM
Quare - what do you make of God's treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus? He unleashed horrific catastrophe upon an entire kingdom because Pharao refused to subordinate his will to that of God's. This doesn't strike me as being especially different from refusing to say "seven magic words" in the prescribed manner. Was God a tyrannical child in dealing with Egypt the way He did?
Pharaoh was directly opposed to God being a pagan and calling himself a diety. And he was already causing a great strife among the Hebrews by holding them in bondage.
I also don't believe God offers any kind of carrot to the Pharaoh. It's pretty clear they are enemies to the core.
Also, the office of the pharaoh wasn't Divinely established by God or even the "god" Ra or Osiris or whatever. So God could and would run roughshod over a man-made creation, not His own.
God's actions towards the Pharaoh and the Egyptians are punishments that are Divine retributions for any number of injustices already done to the Hebrews.
Christ's action on Calvary is what satisfies the Justice of God for the sins of man. So, I don't think the actions of God vis a vis Moses, Pharaoh and Egypt and the Hebrews are analogous to Fatima and the Pope.
Of course He did.
"After these things Moses and Aaron went in, and said to Pharao: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Let my people go that they may sacrifice to me in the desert." Exodus 5:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=2&ch=5&l=1#x)
If Pharao would have simply let the Israelites go God would not have punished the Egyptians like He did. Similarly if the Pope and bishops do a proper consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart we will see the promised period of peace and avert the annihilation of nations. There is a very clear correlation between the two.
That's more than a stretch to say that the Pharaoh was offered a period of peace or prosperity if he let the Hebrews go. The Pharaoh pointed out immediately that it would impact their economy negatively and then he doubled down on their burden and took away the straw as an added bit of spite.
Well if Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR FRIDAY.
O Mary, thou art the noblest, highest, purest, fairest creation of Coil, the holiest of all creatures! O, that all men knew thee, loved thee, my Queen, as thou deservest to be loved! Yet great is my consolation, Mary, that there are blessed souls in the courts of Heaven, and just souls still on earth, whose hearts thou leadest captive with thy beauty and thy goodness. But above all I rejoice in this, that our God himself loves thee alone more than all men and angels together. I too, O Queen most loveable, I, miserable sinner, dare to love thee, though my love is too little; I would I had a greater love, a more tender love: this thou must gain for me, since to love thee is a great mark of predestination, and a grace which God grants to those who shall be saved. Moreover, O my Mother, when I reflect upon the debt I owe thy Son, I see He deserves of me an immeasurable love. Do thou, then, who desirest nothing so much as to see Him loved, pray that I may have this grace - a great love for Jesus Christ. Obtain it, thou who obtainest what thou wilt. I covet not goods of earth, nor honours, nor riches, but I desire that which thine own heart desires most, - to love my God alone. O, can it be that thou wilt not aid me in a desire so acceptable to thee? No: it is impossible! even now I feel thy help, even now thou prayest for me. Pray for me, Mary, pray; nor ever cease to pray, till thou dost see me safe in Paradise, where I shall be certain of possessing and of loving my God and thee, my dearest Mother, for ever and for ever. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
I honestly thought that Fatima was one thing that all trads agreed on, in our sadly splintered trad world.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 30, 2018, 08:16:22 AM
Ferrara and Matt sound like ninnies. Because they are.
Im not sure name calling is really necessary.
Perhaps since you are an authority on the realities of the situation, you need to have a youtube channel to get your views out there.
I fail to see how one could say disbelief in Fatima (which Fatima?), and expressing those reasons, is blasphemy against Our Lady. One is simply not bound to believe in any private revelation, and any they choose to believe in, whether or not approved by the Church (which doesn't mean what so many seems to think it means), is their prerogative (though one shouldn't adhere to those not approved by the Church, and especially those disapproved by the Church).
Seems a little melodramatic. Otherwise, mere lack of adherence would be classed under what exactly? Impiety? Faithlessness?
If one is free to take it or leave it, then that's that.
Moreover, it seems problematic to just lump Fatima into one whole event, since it seemingly was several events, wherein the main seer apparently withheld information.
Even Saints with extraordinary gifts have been wrong about things. Padre Pio could read souls and had many insights into things, yet, he believed in Garabandal. As far as I know, no miracle took place as claimed would take place ( a la Joey receiving his sight).
We shouldn't make a religion out of things which are not of religion.
We should be careful not to let our Faith become something which is not of the Faith, to which we are bound.
When those things happen, and we start interweaving binding religion and non-binding, we create spiritual knots which are hard to undo.
ETA: (though one shouldn't adhere to those not approved by the Church, and especially those disapproved by the Church).
Quare stated:
Quote
You just did say that. Glad to see you admit your mistake. God could, then, not punish the world in this particular manner even if the Pope doesn't say the seven magic words. There's no intrinsic connection between seven magic words and a particular punishment of the world.
And we aren't just talking about temporal punishment. So the story goes, if the Pope just but says the seven magic words, many souls will be saved - implying they wouldn't be without those seven magic words. This implies God could save the souls even without the seven magic words, but He refuses to do so. So, countless millions of souls must suffer eternal punishment because God didn't get the seven magic words.
Re. "Mistake"; I made no such admission, but I do so now after re-reading my post.
Re. 7 magic words: Imagine that bread and wine become Our Lord through some "magic words" or that our sins are also forgiven through the same? It happens. The collegial act of Consecration would gain the graces for men that would not otherwise be given. The graces are extra-ordinary, so the act has to be so. I really don't see the problem with this.
Re. "Hardening Faro's heart"; I've read commentaries that state that God doesn't "harden" anybody's heart; that men reject so many graces that they become impervious to conversion; therefore its their rejection of God's graces that 'hardens' their heart.
Quote from: Gerard on November 30, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Christ's action on Calvary is what satisfies the Justice of God for the sins of man.
I'm gonna try to stay out of the major debate here, because this really, REALLY isn't the appropriate place for me, but considering that nobody else has addressed this yet, I want to.
I find this argument kind of erroneous.
Christ's action of Calvary certainly grants repentance for the sins of man - but this doesn't extend to all people and all sin, for if this were the case, the Last Judgment wouldn't be a thing at all, neither would hell be.
It certainly does allows forgiveness and repentance who choose to follow Christ (and who really mean it, not just nominal Christians who still live a life of grave sin and don't see the problems of such sin) through the Sacraments, and allows one to find Salvation - but not everyone is going to be saved, nor is every sin going to be justified and forgiven if left unrepentant.
It's also a grave mistake to think that God hasn't intervened with history since Pentecost - I find it hardly a coincidence that one of the most Pagan and Vile Empires in history (the Roman Empire) with all it's persecutions and disgusting tortures of the Saints eventually converts to Christianity, making it the official religion of the Empire.
The fact that God does intervene in history is attested by the Eastern-Rite prayer of the "Small Paraklesis to the Theotokos," where the Priest asks God that He may "deliver us from His impending, justified chastisement, and have mercy on us."
I think it's also a massively grave mistake to think that the Saints - including the Virgin Mary - would have no concerns or cares about the people on this earth because of their current spiritual state. There is a reason we pray to them, right?
That's all I'm gonna say - this isn't an appropriate conversation for me to intervene, especially given my theological beliefs - but I don't get why anybody else has brought this up, because the implications of some of Gerard's beliefs (that the Saints don't watch over us or that God doesn't intervene with the sins of human history anymore because of Christ) are foreign to both my religious beliefs and everyone else involved in this discussion.
If I'm speaking something that isn't true, correct me on it.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 30, 2018, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 30, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Christ's action on Calvary is what satisfies the Justice of God for the sins of man.
I'm gonna try to stay out of the major debate here, but I find this argument kind of erroneous.
Christ's action of Calvary certainly grants forgiveness for the sins of man - but this doesn't extend to all people and all sin, for if this were the case, the Last Judgment wouldn't be a thing at all, neither would hell be.
You say this because you have a very myopic and legalistic sense of what justice actually is (reward and punishment), and therefore are caught in a contradiction. You have to deny that Christ fully satisfies the justice of God - because people can still sin and go to hell - yet it is certainly Church teaching that not only does Christ fully satisfy the justice of God, He
superabundantly satisfies the justice of God.
Instead, justice is the restoration (or maintenance) of right order. To be sure, reward and punishment are part of that, but they aren't all of that. I'm kind of surprised at this; for the East is even still farther away from the idea of Redemption as vicarious punishment - "By death He destroyed our death" and so on.
As for forgiveness, it is
metaphysically impossible without repentance. It's not the case, as some Catholics seem to think, that God is just arbitrarily refusing to forgive sin.
QuoteIt's also a grave mistake to think that God hasn't intervened with history since Pentecost...
Which has exactly what to do with this discussion? Who is saying He has not?
QuoteI think it's also a massively grave mistake to think that the Saints - including the Virgin Mary - would have no concerns or cares about the people on this earth because of their current spiritual state. There is a reason we pray to them, right?
Again, who is saying this?
QuoteThat's all I'm gonna say...
OK.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 30, 2018, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Gerard on November 30, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Christ's action on Calvary is what satisfies the Justice of God for the sins of man.
I'm gonna try to stay out of the major debate here, because this really, REALLY isn't the appropriate place for me, but considering that nobody else has addressed this yet, I want to.
I find this argument kind of erroneous.
Christ's action of Calvary certainly grants repentance for the sins of man - but this doesn't extend to all people and all sin, for if this were the case, the Last Judgment wouldn't be a thing at all, neither would hell be.
It certainly does allows forgiveness and repentance who choose to follow Christ (and who really mean it, not just nominal Christians who still live a life of grave sin and don't see the problems of such sin) through the Sacraments, and allows one to find Salvation - but not everyone is going to be saved, nor is every sin going to be justified and forgiven if left unrepentant.
It's also a grave mistake to think that God hasn't intervened with history since Pentecost - I find it hardly a coincidence that one of the most Pagan and Vile Empires in history (the Roman Empire) with all it's persecutions and disgusting tortures of the Saints eventually converts to Christianity, making it the official religion of the Empire.
The fact that God does intervene in history is attested by the Eastern-Rite prayer of the "Small Paraklesis to the Theotokos," where the Priest asks God that He may "deliver us from His impending, justified chastisement, and have mercy on us."
I think it's also a massively grave mistake to think that the Saints - including the Virgin Mary - would have no concerns or cares about the people on this earth because of their current spiritual state. There is a reason we pray to them, right?
That's all I'm gonna say - this isn't an appropriate conversation for me to intervene, especially given my theological beliefs - but I don't get why anybody else has brought this up, because the implications of some of Gerard's beliefs (that the Saints don't watch over us or that God doesn't intervene with the sins of human history anymore because of Christ) are foreign to both my religious beliefs and everyone else involved in this discussion.
If I'm speaking something that isn't true, correct me on it.
Well, first, Calvary satisfies the Justice of all sins, that allows for repentance and the forgiveness of sins. If not, the Last Judgement would simply be shuttling people off to Hell.
The fact that some people don't respond to the graces Christ merited on Calvary and some do is what everyone's particular and the Last Judgement recognize.
Second: No one as far as I know, has stated that God does not intervene nor that the saints don't intercede for mankind. I pointed out in this thread that I believe in the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes but not Fatima. Fatima and Lourdes are very different. Fatima runs into serious problems with its announcement of calamities and its provisions of solutions all conditional on the Pope doing what the apparition wants. That's not how the Lord set up His papacy. So, He certainly isn't going to send His mother to upset the structure He established and make Him a liar concerning how His Church is to be run.
Lourdes has none of that baggage.
Third: We are obviously having divergent views on the thread about what entails the beatific vision and God's characteristics. The Virgin Mary did all of her suffering on earth, during her life. She does not suffer now. She is glorified in Heaven. Our problems and our sins do not have any negative effect on her. That does not mean she doesn't intercede, obtain graces or provide solace and comfort to the afflicted. She is not torn apart in sympathies, that does not render her incapable of being loving. The same is true to an infinite degree with God. He will never be unhappy or "angered" in the way that we understand anger. His "anger" to us is the consequences of our sin. He has built sanctions into not living a life of grace. They are the "wages of sin." But if everyone who is alive now or to be born ends up in Hell. God will not be any less joyful than He is now, nor as He was before the creation of the world.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 30, 2018, 02:25:42 PM
I honestly thought that Fatima was one thing that all trads agreed on, in our sadly splintered trad world.
How Fatima became so instrinsic to being a Trad is a puzzle. There's a story there that's worth telling.
In anwer to your earlier question, I used to say the Fatima prayer, but not any more.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SATURDAY.
Most holy Mary, I know the graces which thou hast obtained for me, and I know the ingratitude which I have shown thee. The ungrateful man is unworthy of favours; and yet for all this I will not distrust thy mercy. O my great Advocate, have pity on me. Thou, Mary, dost dispense the graces which God vouchsafes to give us sinners, and therefore did He make thee so mighty, rich, and kind, that thou mightest succour us. I will that I may be saved: in thy hands I place my eternal salvation, to thee I consign my soul. I will to be associated with those who are thy special servants; reject me not. Thou goest up and down seeking the wretched, to console them. Cast not away, then, a wretched sinner who has recourse to thee. Speak for me, Mary; thy Son grants what thou askest. Take me beneath thy shelter, and it is enough for me; for with thee to guard me I fear no ill; no, not even my sins; because thou wilt obtain God's pardon for them: no, nor yet devils; because thou art far mightier than all hell: no, nor my Judge Jesus Christ; for at thy prayer He will lay aside His wrath. Protect me, then, my Mother; obtain for me pardon of my sins, love of Jesus, holy perseverance, a good death, and Heaven. It is too true, I merit not these graces; yet do thou only ask them of our God, and I shall obtain them. Pray, then, to Jesus for me. O Mary, my Queen, in thee I trust; in this trust I rest, I live; and with this trust I will that I may die. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her, then the Litanies, it being Saturday, for which there is the indulgence.
74. THE LITANIES
The Litanies commonly called " Litanies of our Lady" are named "Litanies of Loretto" in the Constitutions of several Sovereign Pontiffs, - viz. Reddituri, of Sixtus V., July11, 1687; Sanctissimus, of Clement VIII., Sept. 6, 1601; and In supremo, of Alexander VII., May 28, 1664 - by reason of their being sung with great solemnity every Saturday in the Holy House of Loretto. They are composed of humble supplications and devout prayers to Almighty and (this being the meaning of the word "Litanies"), offered up through the intercession of our Blessed Lady, who is honoured therein by the application to her of the mystic figures, high titles, and glorious appellations whereby she is invoked. That these Litanies, when said by the faithful, in church in public, or at home in private, might always remain word for word exactly as they have been handed down to us from ancient tradition, Pope Alexander VII., in the Constitution above named, strictly forbade the making of any alteration in them.
To encourage the faithful often to have recourse to the intercession of most holy Mary in their behalf with Almighty (and, and at the same time to do her honour, Pope Sixtus V., in the above-named Constitution, granted -
i. An indulgence of 200 days, every time these Litanies are said with devotion and contrition.
Pope Benedict XIII., by a decree of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Jan. 12, 1728, confirmed this Indulgence; and Pope Pius VII., confirming it afresh by a decree of the same S. Congr. of Sept 30, 1817, extended it to 300 days.
He granted, moreover, to all who say them daily -
ii. A plenary Indulgence on the five Feasts of our Blessed Lady, of Obligation according to the Roman Calendar, viz, the Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Assumption, on condition that, being truly contrite for their sins, and after Confession and Communion, they visit a public church, and pray according to the intention of the Pope.
LITANY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN;
Commonly called the Litany of Loretto.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ hear us.
Christ graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.
Mother of Christ, pray for us.
Mother of divine grace, pray for us.
Mother most pure, pray for us.
Mother most chaste, pray for us.
Mother inviolate, pray for us.
Mother undefiled, pray for us.
Mother most amiable, pray for us.
Mother most admirable, pray for us.
Mother of our Creator, pray for us.
Mother of our Redeemer, pray for us.
Virgin most prudent, pray for us.
Virgin most venerable, pray for us.
Virgin most renowned, pray for us.
Virgin most powerful, pray for us.
Virgin most merciful, pray for us.
Virgin most faithful, pray for us.
Mirror of justice, pray for us.
Seat of wisdom, pray for us.
Cause of our joy, pray for us.
Spiritual Vessel, pray for us.
Vessel of honour, pray for us.
Special Vessel of devotion, pray for us.
Mystical Rose, pray for us.
Tower of David, pray for us.
Tower of ivory, pray for us.
House of gold, pray for us.
Ark of the covenant, pray for us.
Gate of heaven, pray for us.
Morning star, pray for us.
Health of the sick, pray for us.
Refuge of sinners, pray for us.
Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.
Help of Christians, pray for us.
Queen of Angels, pray for us.
Queen of Patriarchs, pray for us.
Queen of Prophets, pray for us.
Queen of Apostles, pray for us.
Queen of Martyrs, pray for us.
Queen of Confessors, pray for us.
Queen of Virgins, pray for us.
Queen of all Saints, pray for us.
Queen conceived without stain of original sin, pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
Christ hear us,
Christ graciously hear us.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion + and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord. R. Amen.
V. May the divine assistance remain always with us. R. Amen.
Mikemac, you need to grow up.
I very much doubt the Blessed Mother is appreciative of you deliberately mischaracterizing (i.e. lying) anyone who doesn't buy into Fatima as "blasphemous" nor do I believe she appreciates being used by you as a way of skirting around an argument you can't win by pretending to defend her against an attack that doesn't exist. (strange parallel to Fatima itself, you invent the crisis and then want to coerce people into doing what you want in order to "make things right." )
Not one person in this thread nor on any other thread disputing Fatima has ever made any disrespectful statement against the Blessed Mother much less committed any kind of blasphemy.
You are either going to accept what the Catholic Church teaches about believing or not believing apparitions or you're not.
If not, you have a serious problem with your faith and you need to avoid these temptations towards heresy on your part and you need to talk to a priest about your excesses and lack of acceptance of the boundaries of doctrine.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 01, 2018, 11:27:16 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 30, 2018, 02:25:42 PM
I honestly thought that Fatima was one thing that all trads agreed on, in our sadly splintered trad world.
How Fatima became so instrinsic to being a Trad is a puzzle. There's a story there that's worth telling.
In anwer to your earlier question, I used to say the Fatima prayer, but not any more.
Same for me. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the recitation of this prayer that initialized my doubt about the entire thing.
In group prayers it just dawned on me that there was immediate buy in without discernment.
Quote from: Gerard on December 02, 2018, 12:47:29 AM
Mikemac, you need to grow up.
I very much doubt the Blessed Mother is appreciative of you deliberately mischaracterizing (i.e. lying) anyone who doesn't buy into Fatima as "blasphemous" nor do I believe she appreciates being used by you as a way of skirting around an argument you can't win by pretending to defend her against an attack that doesn't exist. (strange parallel to Fatima itself, you invent the crisis and then want to coerce people into doing what you want in order to "make things right." )
Not one person in this thread nor on any other thread disputing Fatima has ever made any disrespectful statement against the Blessed Mother much less committed any kind of blasphemy.
You are either going to accept what the Catholic Church teaches about believing or not believing apparitions or you're not.
If not, you have a serious problem with your faith and you need to avoid these temptations towards heresy on your part and you need to talk to a priest about your excesses and lack of acceptance of the boundaries of doctrine.
Gerard you are changing the narrative, just like Gardener did in his last post. That is why I included my November 29th post with my Saturday prayers for reparation yesterday. And that is why I will be including my November 29th post with my daily prayers for reparation from now on, so that everyone knows what they are for.
You know yourself Gerard that this is not about whether you believe Fatima or not. That is your choice, and I don't care whether you do or not.
It will be up to your priest, not me to tell you whether or not it is a sin when you allow your pride to carry on with your ridiculous notion of saying that Our Lady of Fatima's request for a consecration of Russia some how undermines the papacy. I mean if you ever get the nerve to talk to a priest about it.
But when you and your cohorts say that Our Lady of Fatima is from the devil, even though Our Lady of Fatima has asked us to cease offending God, to say the Rosary every day and do the first Saturday devotions for reparation for sins committed against her, then that is clearly a blasphemy. And this blasphemy of yours needs prayers of reparation, specifically in this thread where you have said it.
I will be posting the daily prayers of reparation in this thread for the full month until the new year so that myself and any forum member or even non forum member that wants to join me can receive a plenary indulgence, like Pope Pius VII granted. The prayers are different for each day of the week and the Litany of Loretto is added on the Saturdays.
I want to have a peaceful Advent so I will not be posting to this forum, other than posting my weekly Rosaries to Xavier's thread in the prayer forum as well as these daily prayers of reparation in this thread.
The only thing that may stop me from posting these daily prayers of reparation in this thread for the next month is if Kaesekopf bans me. I can't accuse Kaesekopf of being your cohort for allowing you to post these blasphemies in his forum because he may not have noticed them. But he will be your cohort if he bans me from posting these prayers of reparation in this thread. If you do Kaesekopf then make it permanent.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SUNDAY.
Mother of my God, look down upon a poor sinner, who has recourse to thee, and puts his trust in thee. I am not worthy that thon shouldst even cast thine eyes upon me; but I know that thou, beholding Jesus thy Son dying for sinners, dost thyself yearn exceedingly to save them. O Mother of Mercy, look on my miseries and have pity upon me. I hear it said by all that thou art the refuge of the sinner, the hope of the desperate, the aid of the lost; be thou, then, my refuge, hope, and aid. It is thy prayers which must save me. For the love of Jesus Christ be thou my help; reach forth thy hand to the poor fallen sinner who recommends himself to thee. I know that it is thy consolation to aid the sinner when thou canst do so; help me then, thou who canst help. By my sins I have forfeited the grace of God and my own soul. I place myself in thy hands; O, tell me what to do that I may regain the grace of God, and I will do it. My Saviour bids me go to thee for help; He wills that I should look to thy pity; that so, not only the merits of thy Son, but thine own prayers also, may unite to save me. To thee, then, I have recourse: pray thou to Jesus for me; and make me experience how great good thou canst do for one who trusts in thee. Be it done unto me according to my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: mikemac on December 02, 2018, 10:16:14 AM
Quote from: Gerard on December 02, 2018, 12:47:29 AM
Mikemac, you need to grow up.
I very much doubt the Blessed Mother is appreciative of you deliberately mischaracterizing (i.e. lying) anyone who doesn't buy into Fatima as "blasphemous" nor do I believe she appreciates being used by you as a way of skirting around an argument you can't win by pretending to defend her against an attack that doesn't exist. (strange parallel to Fatima itself, you invent the crisis and then want to coerce people into doing what you want in order to "make things right." )
Not one person in this thread nor on any other thread disputing Fatima has ever made any disrespectful statement against the Blessed Mother much less committed any kind of blasphemy.
You are either going to accept what the Catholic Church teaches about believing or not believing apparitions or you're not.
If not, you have a serious problem with your faith and you need to avoid these temptations towards heresy on your part and you need to talk to a priest about your excesses and lack of acceptance of the boundaries of doctrine.
Gerard you are changing the narrative, just like Gardener did in his last post. That is why I included my November 29th post with my Saturday prayers for reparation yesterday. And that is why I will be including my November 29th post with my daily prayers for reparation from now on, so that everyone knows what they are for.
You know yourself Gerard that this is not about whether you believe Fatima or not. That is your choice, and I don't care whether you do or not.
It will be up to your priest, not me to tell you whether or not it is a sin when you allow your pride to carry on with your ridiculous notion of saying that Our Lady of Fatima's request for a consecration of Russia some how undermines the papacy. I mean if you ever get the nerve to talk to a priest about it.
But when you and your cohorts say that Our Lady of Fatima is from the devil, even though Our Lady of Fatima has asked us to cease offending God, to say the Rosary every day and do the first Saturday devotions for reparation for sins committed against her, then that is clearly a blasphemy. And this blasphemy of yours needs prayers of reparation, specifically in this thread where you have said it.
I will be posting the daily prayers of reparation in this thread for the full month until the new year so that myself and any forum member or even non forum member that wants to join me can receive a plenary indulgence, like Pope Pius VII granted. The prayers are different for each day of the week and the Litany of Loretto is added on the Saturdays.
I want to have a peaceful Advent so I will not be posting to this forum, other than posting my weekly Rosaries to Xavier's thread in the prayer forum as well as these daily prayers of reparation in this thread.
The only thing that may stop me from posting these daily prayers of reparation in this thread for the next month is if Kaesekopf bans me. I can't accuse Kaesekopf of being your cohort for allowing you to post these blasphemies in his forum because he may not have noticed them. But he will be your cohort if he bans me from posting these prayers of reparation in this thread. If you do Kaesekopf then make it permanent.
I don't know what you're talking about. I've not changed my narrative.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on December 02, 2018, 04:42:36 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 01, 2018, 11:27:16 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 30, 2018, 02:25:42 PM
I honestly thought that Fatima was one thing that all trads agreed on, in our sadly splintered trad world.
How Fatima became so instrinsic to being a Trad is a puzzle. There's a story there that's worth telling.
In anwer to your earlier question, I used to say the Fatima prayer, but not any more.
Same for me. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the recitation of this prayer that initialized my doubt about the entire thing.
In group prayers it just dawned on me that there was immediate buy in without discernment.
Immediate buy in without discernment seems to be the order of the day. I don't understand it. People repeatedly claim that Sr Lucy prophesied this or that event, and yet her own diaries show that she didn't. What's going on?
I've tried very hard to believe in Fatima.
Well, you'll all know what was right in the end. We hope you wake up before it is too late. When the king of France was driven out, he wept bitterly hoping to have had again the time in which he could have freely and publicly made the consecration - but it was too late. You can wait till something like an invasion of Rome takes place and the Pope is in a similar situation if you want. Those intent on Catholic action to forestall that will not wait but seek to prevent that.
"5. Lastly, I resolve to renew every year, wherever I may be, on the day upon which the feast of the Sacred Heart is celebrated, the Act of Consecration contained in the third article, and to assist at the public procession that shall follow the Mass of that day.
To-day I can pronounce this engagement only in secret, but I am willing, if necessary, to sign it with my blood. The most beautiful day of my life will be that on which I shall be able to publish it aloud in the church.
O Adorable Heart of my Saviour: may my right hand be forgotten, and may I myself be forgotten, if ever I forget Thy benefits and my promises"
http://www.1260.org/Mary/Heart/Heart_of_Jesus_Alacoque_Consecration_France_en.htm
Now, I want to show some of Rome's own locutionists agree with us that Russia's consecration to the Immaculate Heart is to be completed soon.
"There was to be a great victory and an exultation of the Catholic Church which would provide such a great power. None of this has happened because my request for the Consecration of Russia has not been fulfilled ... As these events culminate, Catholics will see before their eyes what I have been describing. They will also remember that my words always carried a message of hope. There was always time, always a way, because of the mystery of my Immaculate Heart. So, the clamor will grow. Prayers for the consecration will increase. More important, I will hear these cries. I will use the evil events themselves to open the door. Finally, the Consecration will take place according to my request.
In all things, a timetable exists. These are not fixed hours or days, but rather the goal that will be reached as the forces of good or evil are released. The timetable depends on the free will of every single person. When many hearts deeply desire and pray for the Consecration, the time of its fulfillment grows closer and comes sooner. To pray and sacrifice for that moment is everyone's task ...
When Russia is Consecrated
The Stirring in Russian Hearts
Sunday, August 17th, 2014
Mary
When Russia is consecrated to my Immaculate Heart, there will be a stirring in the hearts of all, but especially in the souls of the Russian people. They will receive an inner light and will understand what forces of evil were planted in their nation by Satan's instruments.
As their hearts are stirred, more and more light will fill them. They will reject both what has been forced upon them and what, to some degree, they themselves have chosen. All of these evils have formed their nation and their leaders into instruments of darkness, death and destruction. In this new stirring, they will fully reject what they have become and what they had been forced to accept.
This stirring will grow greater as it manifests itself in outward demonstrations of a growing desire to return to its religious roots and, especially, to return to their devotion of my Immaculate Heart.
No one will be able to stop this movement because their nation will have been specifically consecrated by the Holy Father and by all the Catholic bishops of the world. I have put my seal of promise upon this act of Consecration, and the graces flowing from it will not be turned back. Even though the most frightful opposition will arise, the stirring in the hearts of the Russian people for this new light will not be turned back.
http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-17/2-the-stirring-in-russian-hearts
What a very strange website.
Quote from: mikemac on December 02, 2018, 10:16:14 AMBut when you and your cohorts say that Our Lady of Fatima is from the devil, even though Our Lady of Fatima has asked us to cease offending God, to say the Rosary every day and do the first Saturday devotions for reparation for sins committed against her, then that is clearly a blasphemy. And this blasphemy of yours needs prayers of reparation, specifically in this thread where you have said it.
As Suárez defined it, blasphemy would be "any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1)." And the CE expounds on it, noting that
"it is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service."Doubting or even rejecting an approved apparition, or parts of it, is not blasphemy. We must keep in mind that divine revelation ceased with the death of St. John.
Quote from: Xavier on December 03, 2018, 12:51:12 AM
Well, you'll all know what was right in the end. We hope you wake up before it is too late.
And the same to you Xavier.
While you're waiting for others to wake up, could you answer a question I have already put to you, and mikemac, more than once.
Sr Lucy withheld vital information from the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima. Despite being under oath, she did not tell the Canonical Enquiry about the Secrets or the angel apparitions. She explained in her 1941 memoirs that the 'Holy Spirit' inspired her to stay silent on this.
Can you name another saint or visionary who has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to lie to the Church?
I know your tendency is to avoid such questions, then start another thread about yet another apparition. So while I have your momentary attention, could you answer another question?
Why do you believe a visionary who claims that the 'Holy Spirit' inspired her to lie to the Church? Why does anyone? How did this happen?
That's three more questions.
Try not to run this time.
In the category if questions not answered, go back to the beginning of this thread and you will find at least 3 of mine that you did not answer, Awkwardcustomer. Here are some, again: "So, no word about the (1) public miracle (2) on the prophesied date of Oct 13th, 1917 (beside the very year and significance of 1917 and the revolution happening at that time in Russia; Heaven began the counter-attack before it became apparent to other Catholics) (3) the fulfilled prophesies of Communism's influence both in countries and in the Church that was still hidden well into the 40s and 50s (4) the warnings of Bella Dodd (which you've dismissed as exaggerated, but which came true just as she warned, very soon, proving they were right about Soviet infiltration (5) Mother Mary's prophesies against impurity etc being especially urgent.
There are a few other incidental points: (1) the Church took a very strong stance against Communism in large measure because of the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima (2) the more traditional Fathers at Vatican II wanted a dogmatic condemnation of Communism; many also wished explicitly to obey Our Lady's request at that Council (3) among those who did nof want it (and negotiated with the Soviets badly and unfavorably for the Church) and instituted Ostpolotik there were some progressives and modernists opposed to Fatima. So which side are you?
Your other argument is amazing. So, if we have to obey the men of the Church, as you say, in preference to the voice of the Holy Spirit (not that Sr. Lucia ever said she would disobey the Church, but only that that the Holy Spirit would speak through His Church, and vindicate that her mission and prophetic spirit was from Him), then why do you persist in stubbornly disobeying those same men of the Church after they had all their doubts clarified and gave full approval?" That will do for now.
Edit: also "Awkwardcustomer, let me ask in turn: are you sure the Sacred Heart was revealed by God? That the Rosary came by private revelation from heaven. Yes, there are modernists (who hardly believe in or deny everything supernatural) who deny all that as well; what saddens me is that there are trads who agree with them. If you are certain those came from God, I am equally certain Our Lady of Fatima and the Immaculate Heart (already in St. Margaret Mary, St. John Eudes etc, devotion to the Heart of Mary had begun; St. Mary and St. John confirm, and faced opposition in their day, for teaching devotion to the Heart of Mary is inseparable from, and a necessary complement to, devotion to the Heart of Jesus. Fatima also confirms the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that had recently been defined. Hence, Immaculate Heart.) also came from God. Do you know the First Saturdays practice had already been sanctioned as good and holy by Pope St. Pius X? But hardly anyone kept it at that time. Thanks to Sr. Lucia and Our Lady of Fatima, hundreds of millions of Catholics have performed it.
All these are good fruits. Where are the good fruits from the anti-Fatima movement? Beside some misguided trads, those against Fatima are either (1) modernists (2) protestants (3) communists (a Catholic bishop in China recently said the Chinese fear Our Lady of Fatima and complain Her statues frm that apparition are "anti-communist". (4) secularists of some kind, who disbelieve miracles and the supernatural. (5) some sedevacantists. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of Catholics have believed in, embraced and accepted Fatima; it has good spiritual fruits.
These considerations suffice to exclude the possibility of the demonic.
Quote from: Awkwardcustomer
Sr Lucy deceived the Church into approving the 1917 apparitions at Fatima.
An absurdity. A poor uneducated shepherdess is not likely to trick trained theologians, Priests and exorcists. If she was misled by the devil, the signs of that would be evident. Instead theologians soon and quite unanimously pronounced it of supernatural origin; many Popes confirmed the judgment. It is irreformable, safe and morally certain.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR MONDAY.
Most holy Mary, Queen of heaven, I who was once the slave of the Evil One now dedicate myself to thy service for ever; and I offer myself, to honour and to serve thee as long as I live. Accept me for thy servant, and cast me not away from thee as I deserve. In thee, O my Mother, I place all my hopes. All blessing and thanksgiving be to God, who in His mercy giveth me this trust in thee. It is true that in past time I have fallen miserably into sin; but by the merits of Jesus Christ, and thy prayers, I hope that God has pardoned me. But this is not enough, my Mother. One thought terrifies me; it is, that I may yet lose the grace of God. Danger is ever nigh; the devil sleeps not; fresh temptations assail me. Protect me, then, my Queen; help me against the assaults of my spiritual enemy. Never suffer me to sin again, or to offend Jesus thy Son. Let me not by my sin lose my soul, heaven, and my God. This one grace, Mary, I ask of thee; this is my desire; may thy prayers obtain this for me. Such is my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: mikemac on December 03, 2018, 11:28:05 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
Assuming, of course, it was actually the Blessed Virgin Mary saying those things.
It can be believed either way.
Quote from: Xavier on December 03, 2018, 10:31:59 AM
Quote from: Awkwardcustomer
Sr Lucy deceived the Church into approving the 1917 apparitions at Fatima.
An absurdity. A poor uneducated shepherdess is not likely to trick trained theologians, Priests and exorcists. If she was misled by the devil, the signs of that would be evident. Instead theologians soon and quite unanimously pronounced it of supernatural origin; many Popes confirmed the judgment. It is irreformable, safe and morally certain.
Hogwash.
There are so many irrational and gratuitous assertions in those statements, it's simply wishful thinking.
Who has the superior intellect? The Devil or trained theologians, priests and exorcists? That should be a no-brainer. There is little difference intellectually between an uneducated shepherd child and a theologian when compared to angelic intellect, even fallen angels.
What are the names of the theologians, how many were there and what makes their unanimity of any value concerning an apparition? I'll bet they never even considered what has been brought up concerning the coercion and threat to the papacy. More than likely due to confirmation bias.
The fact that Popes "confirmed" their judgement doesn't mean anything. Popes imprudently giving permission was the biggest problem of the 20th century.
As it stands though, Popes can't bind the faithful to an apparition. They aren't even required to obey apparitions and thankfully they haven't when it comes to obeying this apparition's demands.
Therefore, it is quite reformable and should a future pope have the fortitude and prudence to revoke the approval, it will be no problem at all.
If it's not reformable than neither would all of the other ridiculous claims about Vatican II that are irreformable, ecumenism, the opposition to the death penalty, the Novus Ordo.
Just when you thought you were a bad rad trad to name you child Faustina, now add Jacinta to the list as well :cheeseheadbeer:
Hubs and I were discussing this. He was wondering where those who do not accept Fatima attend Mass. He was wondering if it is a independent or sede thing. Not trying to be dismissive or anything...just that at the SSPX, Institute, diocese and FSSP parishes we have been to, we have never heard anything preached or spoken against it. We were wondering if it was part of something we were not familiar with in the traditional Catholic world.
Pretty much the entire trad world, as far as I am aware, has bought into Fatima. Thanks to Gerard for all his efforts since otherwise I'd be calling for a consecration of Russia with the best of them.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR TUESDAY.
Most holy Mary, Mother of Goodness, Mother of Mercy; when I reflect upon my sins and upon the moment of my death, I tremble and am confounded. O my sweetest Mother, in the Blood of Jesus, in thy intercession, are my hopes. Comforter of the sad, abandon me not at that hour; fail not to console me in that great affliction. If even now I am so tormented by remorse for the sins I have committed, the uncertainty of my pardon, the danger of a relapse, and the strictness of the judgment, how will it be with me then? O my Mother, before death overtake me, obtain for me great sorrow for my sins, a true amendment, and constant fidelity to God for the remainder of my life. And when at length my hour is come, then do thou, Mary, my hope, be thyself my aid in those great troubles wherewith my soul will be encompassed. Strengthen me, that I may not despair when the enemy sets my sins before my face. Obtain for me at that moment grace to invoke thee often, so that I may breathe forth my spirit with thine own sweet name and that of thy most holy Son upon any lips. This grace thou hast granted to many of thy servants; this, too, is my hope and my desire.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on December 04, 2018, 07:04:46 AM
Hubs and I were discussing this. He was wondering where those who do not accept Fatima attend Mass. He was wondering if it is a independent or sede thing.
Perhaps some of those who reject Fatima, or have doubts about it, are sitting next to you in the pews at whichever Mass you go to.
But they keep their doubts to themselves because they don't want to be subjected to insults and vitriol from the Fatimists.
Quote from: Glencora on December 04, 2018, 08:15:51 AM
Pretty much the entire trad world, as far as I am aware, has bought into Fatima.
And that's the problem, or part of it. Tradition will never flourish until it drops the Fatimist illusion.
It might be too late, though.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 05, 2018, 04:08:57 AM
Quote from: Glencora on December 04, 2018, 08:15:51 AM
Pretty much the entire trad world, as far as I am aware, has bought into Fatima.
And that's the problem, or part of it. Tradition will never flourish until it drops the Fatimist illusion.
It might be too late, though.
why do you think it is keeping it from flourishing?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 05, 2018, 04:07:18 AM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on December 04, 2018, 07:04:46 AM
Hubs and I were discussing this. He was wondering where those who do not accept Fatima attend Mass. He was wondering if it is a independent or sede thing.
Perhaps some of those who reject Fatima, or have doubts about it, are sitting next to you in the pews at whichever Mass you go to.
But they keep their doubts to themselves because they don't want to be subjected to insults and vitriol from the Fatimists.
And that happened on forums for the longest time. Kudos to this one for the ice melting a bit and the subject being allowed to be discussed by the participants in a way that was conducive to actual debate vs robotic allegiance. Some will remember the hornets nest kicked at places like Fisheaters over the subject when I pointed out that the so-called "errors of Russia" could have been the "errors of the America" or even, gasp, the "errors of the Jews", etc.
It's amazing that what gives Fatima all of it's power is that those who talk about it and have it at the forefront of their mind also mock popes and the hierarchy of the Church. Complaining about popes not saying prayers correctly also directly lines up an is in synergy, if you will, with the correct complaints about everyday normal liturgical abuses within the Novus Ordo.
And that is why Tradition will never flourish as long as we have these sour puss Fatimatistas complaining about the violation of the rules put out by our Lady.
Sorry got to go so I cannot refine my post anymore at this time. Admittedly it's a little rough around the edges. But the ideas are there.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR WEDNESDAY.
Mother of God, most holy Mary, how often by my sins have I merited hell! Long ago, perhaps, judgment would have gone forth against my first mortal sin, hadst not thou in thy tender pity delayed the justice of God, and afterwards attracted me by thy sweetness to have confidence in thy prayers. And O, how very often should I have fallen in the dangers which beset my steps, hadst not thou, loving Mother that thou art, preserved me by the graces thou by thy prayers didst obtain for me. But O, my Queen, what will thy pity and thy favours avail me, if after all I perish in the flames of hell? If there was once a time when I loved thee not, yet now, next to God, I love thee before all. Wherefore, henceforth and for ever, suffer me not to turn my back upon thee and upon my God, who through thee has granted me so many mercies. O Lady, most worthy of all love, let it not be that I thy child shall have to hate and to utter maledictions for ever in hell. Thou wilt surely never endure to see thy servant lost who loves thee. O Mary, say not that I ever can be lost! Yet I shall assuredly be lost if I abandon thee. But who could ever have the heart to leave thee? Who can ever forget thy love? No; it is impossible for that man to perish who faithfully recommends himself to thee, and has recourse to thee. Only leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost! Let me but cling to thee! Save me, my Hope! save me from hell; or rather, save me from sin, which alone can condemn me to hell.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on December 05, 2018, 06:59:51 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 05, 2018, 04:08:57 AM
Quote from: Glencora on December 04, 2018, 08:15:51 AM
Pretty much the entire trad world, as far as I am aware, has bought into Fatima.
And that's the problem, or part of it. Tradition will never flourish until it drops the Fatimist illusion.
It might be too late, though.
why do you think it is keeping it from flourishing?
Because Trads are offering prayers and rosaries in the name of a demonic apparition which has the aim of, i) undermining the Papacy and, ii) inducing Catholics into a state of disorientated and agitated passivity as they wait for the false promise of a period of peace to come true.
Fatima, or more accurately, Fatimism, calls on Catholics to hector and berate the Vatican into carrying out the consecration. But this is the very act which, as Gerard explains so well, is specifically designed to attack the Papacy. Satan has co-opted Catholics into his attack on the Papacy. Catholics, particularly Trads, are being used.
The Fatima narrative is so full of holes and its only human witness so dubious, that the almost complete absence of any critique of this narrative together with its almost wholesale acceptance by Trads, raises serious questions. How did this happen, being just one.
Trads have somehow become one of the prime consumers of a demonic psy-op. It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
Tradition needs a dark night of the soul.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on December 05, 2018, 09:09:56 AM
And that happened on forums for the longest time. Kudos to this one for the ice melting a bit and the subject being allowed to be discussed by the participants in a way that was conducive to actual debate vs robotic allegiance. Some will remember the hornets nest kicked at places like Fisheaters over the subject when I pointed out that the so-called "errors of Russia" could have been the "errors of the America" or even, gasp, the "errors of the Jews", etc.
Yes, lots of kudos to SD for allowing this discussion.
You spotted the 'errors of Russia' problem too! I thought I was the only one. Perhaps there are more questions in the pews than we think. I'm not familiar with Fisheaters. But there have been a number of discussions on this forum about the 'errors of Russia' problem, my argument being that communism was not an error of Russia, instead communism was born in Western Europe and imposed on Russia by force.
When did Fatima really ramp up, at least in the West? Without research and just lobbing a guess, I'd say during the post-WW2 Cold War. Since Tradition in the west is often guilty of a 1950's trope, this would probably explain its place in modern Tradition (ha, what a contradiction in terms).
Quote from: Gardener on December 05, 2018, 02:00:14 PM
When did Fatima really ramp up, at least in the West? Without research and just lobbing a guess, I'd say during the post-WW2 Cold War. Since Tradition in the west is often guilty of a 1950's trope, this would probably explain its place in modern Tradition (ha, what a contradiction in terms).
Great point. And speaking of Tradition....
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw[/yt]
Quote from: Innocent Smith on December 05, 2018, 10:32:58 PM
Quote from: Gardener on December 05, 2018, 02:00:14 PM
When did Fatima really ramp up, at least in the West? Without research and just lobbing a guess, I'd say during the post-WW2 Cold War. Since Tradition in the west is often guilty of a 1950's trope, this would probably explain its place in modern Tradition (ha, what a contradiction in terms).
Great point. And speaking of Tradition....
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw[/yt]
After some reflection, and then watching this, my above statement needed to be amended.
It's not Tradition that needs a dark night of the soul, but Traditionalism.
One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.
Gerard, why don't you try answering these questions: and I note you and those who agree with you are the only persons who argued with and did not believe what the Popes, Saints and Doctors said about approved apparitions and public miracles, not Mikemac or anyone else.
You adduce so many captious objecions and such absurd alleged problems with Our Lady of Fatima's apparition and requests that one has to seriously wonder whether you actually believe them or not!
Bogus objection #1 - Our Lady of Fatima made a "threatening" request at Fatima to Sr. Lucia. Therefore, it was not Our Lady.
Response/rebuttal: Our Lord made an equally "threatening" request in France to St. Margaret. So, according to you, the Sacred Heart was not Our Lord either, or you are mistaken in captious objection #1.
Bogus objection #2 - kings are obliged to obey God because God is the source of their authority. Popes, however, are not because, er...
Response/rebuttal: This ridiculous objection, which is really the heart of your whole novel claim, unknown for some 90 years while the whole Catholic world accepted Fatima, rebuts itself! Firstly because (1) everybody is always obliged to obey God, and secondly (2) the Pope is even more obliged than others to consult God and discern His will and do it than ordinary people are. Who has received more must give more and the Pope has received more than kings have from God. And that answers fatuous objection #2.
Bogus objection #3 - but, but if something happens only in an internal apparition to a seer, the Pope cannot verify that it was from God.
Response/rebuttal: (1) the Pope verified it was from God. (2) Pope Pius XII personally witnessed again the miracle of the sun from the Vatican, and credited Our Lady of Fatima. (3) And the original miracle was visible anyway. Therefore, you are going against the Popes. Not us.
Bogus objection #4 - but, but Our Lady of Fatima asked for reparation and uncovered Her Immaculate Heart covered with thorns.
Response/rebuttal: this objection, also repeated by AC, has to be the most impious and Protestant of all the objections. It would logically end in the destruction of all Catholic piety and the complete loss of awareness of the necessity of reparation.
And again I ask: the Sacred Heart spoke in almost identical terms about how His Heart was suffering because of the lukewarmness and the coldness of men toward His Sacrifice. And asked for reparation. So, are you prepared to discard that as well? Either answer this, or you give the impression that you are indeed ready to reject the Sacred Heart as well.
Bogus objection #5- but anyway, what has happened just because people prayed the Rosary?
This final question/objection also betrays a lack of a supernatural spirit and also Protestant and even worldly naturalistic thinking. But in real point of fact, beside many other tangible benefits, whole nations - like Poland and the Philippines - have demonstrably been freed from Communism by devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, Her Rosary and Her Immaculate Heart. There was hardly a serious anti-Communist in recent times in the Church who was not also a devotee of Our Lady of Fatima.
Now, question to the anti-Fatimists: what good fruits have come from your crisis-itis and from your 5-10 year old anti-Fatimist movement?
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2018, 07:16:43 AM
Now, question to the anti-Fatimists: what good fruits have come from your crisis-itis and from your 5-10 year old anti-Fatimist movement?
I guess they could ask the same in reverse.
What good fruits has Fatima brought to the Church? It's an ecumenical center right now, mind you.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2018, 07:16:43 AM
One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.
Why don't you grow up.
We simply don't accept your worldview. Deal with it.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR THURSDAY.
Queen of Heaven, who sittest enthroned above all the choirs of the angels nighest to God, from this vale of miseries I, a poor sinner, salute thee, praying thee in thy love to turn upon me those gracious eyes of thine. See, Mary, the dangers among which I dwell, and shall ever have to dwell whilst I live upon this earth. I may yet lose my soul, Paradise, and God. In thee, Lady, is my hope. I love thee; and I sigh after the time when I shall see thee and praise thee in Paradise. O Mary, when will that blessed day come that I shall see myself safe at thy feet? When shall I kiss that hand, which has dispensed to me so many graces? Alas, it is too true, O my Mother, that I have ever been very ungrateful during my whole life; but if I go to Heaven, then I will love thee there every moment of a whole eternity, and make thee reparation in some sort for my ingratitude by ever blessing and praising thee. Thanks be to God, for that He hath vouchsafed me this hope through the Precious Blood of Jesus, and through thy powerful intercession. This has been the hope of all thy true lovers; and no one of them has been defrauded of his hope. No: neither shall I be deceived of mine. O Mary, pray to thine own Son Jesus, as I also will pray to Him, by the merits of His Passion, to strengthen and increase this my hope.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2018, 07:16:43 AM
One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.
Ah...right...to be anti-Fatima is to be Anti-Catholic. Amazing how you don't actually explain that and when people ask you simple questions about the deposit of faith being closed, you don't respond.
QuoteGerard, why don't you try answering these questions: and I note you and those who agree with you are the only persons who argued with and did not believe what the Popes, Saints and Doctors said about approved apparitions and public miracles, not Mikemac or anyone else.
Find me one infallible and binding statement that I've contradicted and I'll retract my position. Otherwise, saints and doctors have made statements that just because the majority is wrong doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. They don't' become right by fact of their authority or titles.
QuoteYou adduce so many captious objecions and such absurd alleged problems with Our Lady of Fatima's apparition and requests that one has to seriously wonder whether you actually believe them or not!
They exist in and of themselves whether I believe them or not. I didn't make anything up. The fact that no one has actually made a substantive rebuttal in lieu of ranting is telling.
QuoteBogus objection #1 - Our Lady of Fatima made a "threatening" request at Fatima to Sr. Lucia. Therefore, it was not Our Lady.
Response/rebuttal: Our Lord made an equally "threatening" request in France to St. Margaret. So, according to you, the Sacred Heart was not Our Lord either, or you are mistaken in captious objection #1.
A Pope is not a King. A King is a man-made office on earth. The Pope is the only Divinely instituted office in the World. Huge difference. So, your analogy fails.
Second, Do I have to point out that no Catholic is obliged to believe in the apparitions of the Sacred Heart nor the visions of St. Margaret Mary. And even if they do believe in the one, they aren't obliged by their belief in any one apparition to believe in Fatima.
Third, the letters of St. Margaret Mary do not contain a threat if the King of France did not do the consecration. It is Sr. Lucy who uses the consecration of France as a threat against the papacy.
Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition.
QuoteBogus objection #2 - kings are obliged to obey God because God is the source of their authority. Popes, however, are not because, er...
Response/rebuttal: This ridiculous objection, which is really the heart of your whole novel claim, unknown for some 90 years while the whole Catholic world accepted Fatima, rebuts itself! Firstly because (1) everybody is always obliged to obey God, and secondly (2) the Pope is even more obliged than others to consult God and discern His will and do it than ordinary people are. Who has received more must give more and the Pope has received more than kings have from God. And that answers fatuous objection #2.
Like all Catholics, Catholic Kings are not obliged to obey apparitions.
You're rebuttal automatically assumes that God and not the Devil or a mental illness is the source of the apparitions. This is not only foolish but dangerous.
We don't start by assuming that every and any apparition is automatically true or that it in any way has the authority to usurp a Divinely established hierarchical chain of authority.
When it comes to the Church on earth, the Pope, not an apparition is Supreme. He is the holder of the Keys. It would constitute a new revelation to claim that Popes are bound to put their power into the service and subservience of new revelations from Heaven (or anywhere else)
For all you know, any number of the Popes have discerned God's will and decided NOT to bow to the threat and do the consecration as demanded.
You go on about Popes and theologians believing in Fatima all you want, I agree with the Popes who for whatever reason ultimately decided NOT to do the consecration. Who are you to know better? I can play that game if you want.
QuoteBogus objection #3 - but, but if something happens only in an internal apparition to a seer, the Pope cannot verify that it was from God.
Response/rebuttal: (1) the Pope verified it was from God. (2) Pope Pius XII personally witnessed again the miracle of the sun from the Vatican, and credited Our Lady of Fatima. (3) And the original miracle was visible anyway. Therefore, you are going against the Popes. Not us.
The Pope can't bind anyone to the belief that it's from God. It's his personal opinion. Pius XII was a good Pope who did a number of good things and a number of bad things. Whether he really saw anything or was deceived or mistaken is anybody's guess. I'm not obligated to believe any vision of Pius XII just as nobody is obliged to believe in Leo XIII's vision.
QuoteBogus objection #4 - but, but Our Lady of Fatima asked for reparation and uncovered Her Immaculate Heart covered with thorns.
Response/rebuttal: this objection, also repeated by AC, has to be the most impious and Protestant of all the objections. It would logically end in the destruction of all Catholic piety and the complete loss of awareness of the necessity of reparation.
That's not one of my complaints about Fatima, but if I recall, the discussion was about the state of souls who are beholding the beatific vision. Catholic doctrine teaches that souls in Heaven are in a state of eternal and perpetual happiness.
So, the contradiction is in the images of ticked off Jesus and weepy, miserable Mary. They are either perpetually happy or not. I'll stick with Catholic doctrine over contradictory imagery.
QuoteAnd again I ask: the Sacred Heart spoke in almost identical terms about how His Heart was suffering because of the lukewarmness and the coldness of men toward His Sacrifice. And asked for reparation. So, are you prepared to discard that as well? Either answer this, or you give the impression that you are indeed ready to reject the Sacred Heart as well.
Show me the quotes and I'll let you know. I have no problem jettisoning any optional apparition (which means any apparition) if it contradicts the deposit of faith. Even if I'm wrong on a detail, it's still safer to ignore the apparition and stick with the faith and taught by the Church.
QuoteBogus objection #5- but anyway, what has happened just because people prayed the Rosary?
This final question/objection also betrays a lack of a supernatural spirit and also Protestant and even worldly naturalistic thinking. But in real point of fact, beside many other tangible benefits, whole nations - like Poland and the Philippines - have demonstrably been freed from Communism by devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, Her Rosary and Her Immaculate Heart. There was hardly a serious anti-Communist in recent times in the Church who was not also a devotee of Our Lady of Fatima.
Now, question to the anti-Fatimists: what good fruits have come from your crisis-itis and from your 5-10 year old anti-Fatimist movement?
[/quote]
Whole nations are freed from Communism? That's great! Seems we didn't need the threat against the papacy for a consecration after all to defeat communism.
Last time I checked, Fatima didn't invent devotion to the BVM, it didn't establish the Rosary and our Lady had a long track record of intercession before Fatima.
I don't know anything about a "movement." In May 2017, I simply noticed something. I pointed it out and other people have agreed and reinforced the position with their arguments and presentations from their research.
Pope St. Pius X and Leo XIII and billions of others in history lived saintly lives and were devoted to the Catholic faith and Fatima didn't exist, so it is possible to live a good Catholic life, be devoted to the BVM without Fatima, with its hand-wringing and threats and this-world political promises and false dilemmas and demands.
Maybe we should do a Rosary Crusade for our Lady of Lourdes to free the Church from the grip of the Fatima deception.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2018, 07:16:43 AM
Bogus objection #1 - Our Lady of Fatima made a "threatening" request at Fatima to Sr. Lucia. Therefore, it was not Our Lady.
Response/rebuttal: Our Lord made an equally "threatening" request in France to St. Margaret. So, according to you, the Sacred Heart was not Our Lord either, or you are mistaken in captious objection #1.
Taking your points one at a time, this one regarding the King of France is a classic example of the Fatimist way.
Firstly, you are suggesting that devotion to the Sacred Heart depends on believing locutions made to St Margaret Mary Alacoque.
Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says -
Quote
(a) Historical foundations
In approving the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the Church did not trust to the visions of St. Margaret Mary; she made abstraction of these and examined the worship in itself. Margaret Mary's visions could be false, but the devotion would not, on that account, be any less worthy or solid. However, the fact is that the devotion was propagated chiefly under the influence of the movement started at Paray-le-Monial; and prior to her beatification, Margaret Mary's visions were most critically examined by the Church, whose judgment in such cases does not involve her infallibility but implies only a human certainty sufficient to warrant consequent speech and action.
Devotion to the Sacred Heart has a long tradition in the Church and does not depend on a locution given to any particular Saint. As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains -
Quote
It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart. Through the wound in the side the wounded Heart was gradually reached, and the wound in the Heart symbolized the wound of love. It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or were its first votaries. To St. Gertrude, St. Mechtilde, and the author of the "Vitis mystica" it was already well known. We cannot state with certainty to whom we are indebted for the "Vitis mystica". Until recent times its authorship had generally been ascribed to St. Bernard and yet, by the late publishers of the beautiful and scholarly Quaracchi edition, it has been attributed, and not without plausible reasons, to St. Bonaventure ("S. Bonaventura opera omnia", 1898, VIII, LIII sq.). But, be this as it may, it contains one of the most beautiful passages that ever inspired the devotion to the Sacred Heart, one appropriated by the Church for the lessons of the second nocturn of the feast. To St. Mechtilde (d. 1298) and St. Gertrude (d. 1302) it was a familiar devotion which was translated into many beautiful prayers and exercises. What deserves special mention is the vision of St. Gertrude on the feast of St. John the Evangelist, as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the Saviour's she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked John if, on the night of the Last Supper, he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. John replied that this revelation had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its love ("Legatus divinae pietatis", IV, 305; "Revelationes Gertrudianae", ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877).
No Catholic is obliged to believe private locutions, and devotion to the Sacred Heart does not depend on believing them either.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm#II
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
Third, the letters of St. Margaret Mary do not contain a threat if the King of France did not do the consecration. It is Sr. Lucy who uses the consecration of France as a threat against the papacy.
Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition.
Well now, this has taken me aback, although I'm not surprised. You mean Sr Lucy is the only source for this threat?
So much for the warning to the King of France. The Fatimists must now demonstrate that St Margaret Mary recorded that locution.
Quote
Maybe we should do a Rosary Crusade for our Lady of Lourdes to free the Church from the grip of the Fatima deception.
An excellent idea. Something has to be done. How is a Rosary Crusade organised?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 06, 2018, 10:42:31 AM
Devotion to the Sacred Heart has a long tradition in the Church and does not depend on a locution given to any particular Saint.
Indeed, and as you well cite.
But so has the devotion to Our Lady, regardless of the faults and sins of those who receive locutions at whatever time and place through the eras. Regardless of any misplaced zeal, faulty memories, what have you, do you not think that maybe Our Father in Heaven prefers that we concentrate on the general messages and not the details of them?
In the Gospels, Our Lord speaks in broad terms about the End Times. In Revelation, John recounts his vision of the Apocalypse -- the bad with the good. In that vision, images are conveyed which are symbols. In neither case are the particulars important.
The messages, combined:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart;
Devotion to Our Lady, including her general warnings about the sinful trends of mankind in the 20th century and the need for prayer;
The disruption and tumult accompanying the end of this world and the definitive separation of the good from the bad;
The triumph of the forces of good (God, Our Mother, the Saints)
Details are prone to error when relayed by human beings. The Church does not recommend a fixation on details, or a discernment of the validity of a repeated message (from Our Lord or Our Blessed Mother) based on incomplete or weak details. No one's spirituality -- in favor or against a particular private revelation -- should rest on details, whether those are contradictory or whether those have never been challenged.
We don't owe any allegiance whatsoever to Sr. Lucy, which is why I care not whether she's "a liar," had dementia, was confused, or has been misinterpreted or maligned. It doesn't matter. For what it's worth, I do believe that both Our Lord and Our Lady have made numerous appearances to various people throughout the centuries -- to Saints, to ordinary laypeople who will never be declared saints, etc. There is a danger, yes, in turning private revelation not only into a centerpiece of one's Catholic spirituality (against what the Church recommends) but also in making any private revelation into a cult (in the bad, not the good sense of cult).
For example, some modern Catholics are persuaded by The Divine Mercy devotion (Faustina); others vehemently oppose it, based (again) on particulars. So the particulars are not important, nor, by itself, is saying The Chaplet. But we have no reason to doubt Divine Mercy as a dogma. It is a centerpiece of public revelation, and since that Mercy is so evident in so many other events and writings (including Scripture), I don't "need" to focus on Faustina at all to recollect the Mercy of Jesus Christ.
But we also must be careful not to discourage others in their own private devotions, because for them, those devotions (Fatima, Faustina) may be a lifeline of hope. Hope is an important theological virtue that is not spoken of enough, not preached about enough, i.m.o., given the many temptations to despair in the modern world. It's important (charitable) just to affirm people where they are in their private spiritual lives, trusting that God knows what He's doing and is sending His Holy Spirit to them to shoulder them through trials, however much they need to grasp onto something. He's not going to let them rest on a devotion; He is much stronger than any attachment to a devotion, but He will use whatever the soul is capable of at any moment in human time.
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
That's not one of my complaints about Fatima, but if I recall, the discussion was about the state of souls who are beholding the beatific vision. Catholic doctrine teaches that souls in Heaven are in a state of eternal and perpetual happiness.
So, the contradiction is in the images of ticked off Jesus and weepy, miserable Mary. They are either perpetually happy or not. I'll stick with Catholic doctrine over contradictory imagery.
There - right there is what I was trying to get at during the half of my post. I guess I'm not criminally insane and did, in fact, see Gerard post such nonsense.
First off, Gerard, do you believe that we should pray to the Saints for our own problems? If it's the case that the Saints have no reason to care about the Earth or it's inhabitants, praying to them is either pointless - or if you believe that some kind of grace can come from their own personal being, as if they were a cause of grace that doesn't ultimately come from God - it's pure idolatry.
Your problem is that your viewing eternal bliss and concern for humanity is something as a strict dichotomy, when it can't possibly be. After all, God got jealous, wrathful, upset towards the ways the Israelites behaved - but to say that God is anger, God is jealousy, God is sadness is blasphemy.
Indifference towards the concerns of others is not happiness, and if you can't see that, you should start by praying the Our Father twice a day.
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition.
Who do you think you are? Emperor Justinian, who saw the Byzantine Empire and the Church as one?
God can make threats against earthly empires all he wants, as the Power of Binding and Loosing is exclusive to the Hierarchy of the Church, and no other organization.
Even in Russian Orthodoxy, there are Elders, decades before 1917, who warned people that if the Russian people didn't stop being hedonistic, materialistic, and godless, God would take away the Russian Empire and submit the Russians to a period of mass persecution, by watering the country with the blood of Martyrdom to eventually renew it (some have even said to make it a place of refuge during the Reign of the Antichrist)
After all, what sense does it make that God can allow the nation of Israel - the one he made a Covenant with - to be destroyed, when he can't do it likewise to nations which have no such Covenant?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 06, 2018, 10:05:22 AM
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2018, 07:16:43 AM
One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.
Why don't you grow up.
We simply don't accept your worldview. Deal with it.
well, that was rude and devoid of charity.
Xavier, should you make it to the seminary, based on your responses to this thread, I think you have the makings of a fine vocation.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on December 06, 2018, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 06, 2018, 10:05:22 AM
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2018, 07:16:43 AM
One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.
Why don't you grow up.
We simply don't accept your worldview. Deal with it.
well, that was rude and devoid of charity.
Xavier, should you make it to the seminary, based on your responses to this thread, I think you have the makings of a fine vocation.
It's equally devoid of charity (and prudence) to insist that people who do not believe in something, when not obligated to believe in it, are anti-Catholic Protestants.
He needs to learn that before he can learn, preach, and teach doctrinal matters.
I'm on the fence about Fatima, but man alive the pro-Fatima folks ain't helping when they get all stupid like MikeMac and Xavier are doing.
I think that Xavier just has a fear of the slippery slope fallacy; not only when other apparitions have very questionable elements to them as well (like the open heart surgery of St. Mary Alacoque to literally, physically receive Jesus's heart, such that she had to "bleed out" the pain of it), but especially when the questioning of a very major one such as this can undo the minor, unconfirmed ones which Xavier has heavily obsessed over in his spiritual life as I can tell from reading his postings on this forum (I can't speak about him, but for me, obsessing over Fatima even caused a lot of spiritual darkness for me, because I stopped praying and started obsessing).
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 06, 2018, 03:54:50 PM
I think that Xavier just has a fear of the slippery slope fallacy; not only when other apparitions have very questionable elements to them as well (like the open heart surgery of St. Mary Alacoque to literally, physically receive Jesus's heart, such that she had to "bleed out" the pain of it), but especially when the questioning of a very major one such as this can undo the minor, unconfirmed ones which Xavier has heavily obsessed over in his spiritual life as I can tell from reading his postings on this forum (I can't speak about him, but for me, obsessing over Fatima even caused a lot of spiritual darkness for me, because I stopped praying and started obsessing).
Or even the transverberation of St. Teresa of Avila. Oops. Can't verify that. She must be from the devil also.
Our Lady of the Snows. Romans on mushrooms. More medieval fakery.
Our Lady of La Sallette. Only two children saw that. Oops. From the devil again.
Our Lady of Lourdes. Oops. Bernadette having hallucinations from lack of food.
St. Joan of Arc. Wearing pants, dressing like a man. Ooops. From the devil again.
King of the Strawmen.
Quote from: Gardener on December 06, 2018, 05:17:44 PM
King of the Strawmen.
I also never said whether or not Mary Alacoque's vision was legitimate or not, I just said that that one element caused me to raise an eyebrow when I heard it.
It's not my place to question it - it's just a detail of it that is strange for my ears.
Was replying to King W
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 06, 2018, 01:03:47 PM
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
That's not one of my complaints about Fatima, but if I recall, the discussion was about the state of souls who are beholding the beatific vision. Catholic doctrine teaches that souls in Heaven are in a state of eternal and perpetual happiness.
So, the contradiction is in the images of ticked off Jesus and weepy, miserable Mary. They are either perpetually happy or not. I'll stick with Catholic doctrine over contradictory imagery.
There - right there is what I was trying to get at during the half of my post. I guess I'm not criminally insane and did, in fact, see Gerard post such nonsense.
First off, Gerard, do you believe that we should pray to the Saints for our own problems?
Yes.
QuoteIf it's the case that the Saints have no reason to care about the Earth or it's inhabitants, praying to them is either pointless -
I never stated that the saints don't care about humanity or souls. Being happy doesn't make a person stop caring.
Quoteor if you believe that some kind of grace can come from their own personal being, as if they were a cause of grace that doesn't ultimately come from God - it's pure idolatry.
Saints are valuable because they can obtain things for us from God that we, by ourselves cannot. This is especially true when we are in the state of sin.
God gave us a safety net for when we are in sin. He won't hear any prayers other than those of repentance from sinners. But He will listen to their Guardian Angels and the Saints.
QuoteYour problem is that your viewing eternal bliss and concern for humanity is something as a strict dichotomy, when it can't possibly be.
No. I'm saying that displays of unhappy emotions are nonsensical to being who are in eternal bliss. That has nothing to do with their level of concern. Oftentimes, the person that comes to your aid is the one who does not have the same emotional investment as someone who is compassionate towards your emotions.
QuoteAfter all, God got jealous, wrathful, upset towards the ways the Israelites behaved - but to say that God is anger, God is jealousy, God is sadness is blasphemy.
Those are all symbolic uses of language to describe the natural consequences of what happens when one transgresses God. Our perception categorizes God as being "angry" when the results of disobeying Him are catastrophic.
But God doesn't have the potential to "get angry." He's unchanging.
QuoteIndifference towards the concerns of others is not happiness, and if you can't see that, you should start by praying the Our Father twice a day.
Indifference doesn't factor in at all.
I saw a homeless guy outside a local store earlier this week. I don't know his situation, I don't have the time, the means or the opportunity to find out in depth or help him. I bought an extra drink.. one of those all natural combo fruit and vegetable mixes. I figured it's the healthiest drink in the store. As I was walking out, one of the store clerks was telling him he had to shove off and not loiter. As we passed, I handed him the drink and I kept walking. He murmured a "thank you."
I didn't cry, I didn't make a big show of anything. I didn't want him to make a big show for me. He needed something (anything) I gave him something.
My mood didn't change significantly. I'm sure the saints in Heaven can do much more, concerning and observing much worse and they never lose the joy of God in their sight.
I doubt St. Francis of Assisi is still reacting to lepers sores as he did when he was on earth. But I bet, he does more now, than he did when he was here body and soul.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 06, 2018, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition.
Who do you think you are? Emperor Justinian, who saw the Byzantine Empire and the Church as one?
No. I'm just a Catholic that is free to not believe in apparitions, like all Catholics.
QuoteGod can make threats against earthly empires all he wants, as the Power of Binding and Loosing is exclusive to the Hierarchy of the Church, and no other organization.
The Church isn't an earthly empire, it's His own Divinely Instituted Church. He's not going to make Himself a liar and renege on the power He's given men to run it.
QuoteEven in Russian Orthodoxy, there are Elders, decades before 1917, who warned people that if the Russian people didn't stop being hedonistic, materialistic, and godless, God would take away the Russian Empire and submit the Russians to a period of mass persecution, by watering the country with the blood of Martyrdom to eventually renew it (some have even said to make it a place of refuge during the Reign of the Antichrist)
Whoop tee doo.
QuoteAfter all, what sense does it make that God can allow the nation of Israel - the one he made a Covenant with - to be destroyed, when he can't do it likewise to nations which have no such Covenant?
I'm confused as to where you are going with this. Is there some connection to Fatima and the threat against the papacy you want to bring home to this topic?
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 06:51:33 PM
God gave us a safety net for when we are in sin. He won't hear any prayers other than those of repentance from sinners. But He will listen to their Guardian Angels and the Saints.
Including praises to God, as written in the Book of Psalms?
Quote from: Miriam_M on December 06, 2018, 12:19:13 PM
Regardless of any misplaced zeal, faulty memories, what have you, do you not think that maybe Our Father in Heaven prefers that we concentrate on the general messages and not the details of them?
Just as it is prudent to read the small print before signing a contract, because the small print tends to be where the horrors are hidden, so it is important to attend to the details of the messages from visionaries because that will be where any problems lie.
The devil is in the detail.
Quote
In the Gospels, Our Lord speaks in broad terms about the End Times. In Revelation, John recounts his vision of the Apocalypse -- the bad with the good. In that vision, images are conveyed which are symbols. In neither case are the particulars important.
The messages, combined:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart;
Devotion to Our Lady, including her general warnings about the sinful trends of mankind in the 20th century and the need for prayer;
The disruption and tumult accompanying the end of this world and the definitive separation of the good from the bad;
The triumph of the forces of good (God, Our Mother, the Saints)
This would be fine if Fatima was just Fatima, in other words, the apparitions that occurred in the Cova Da Iria from May to September 1917, the only part of Fatima that has been approved by the Church.
But Fatima has become Fatimism, and Fatimism was born of deception, starting with Sr Lucy lying to the Canonical Enquiry by not revealing the Secrets or their contents, and continuing with the fabrications of the Fatimists who have created a narrative that is full of holes.
Visionaries who lie, and supporters of that visionary who make things up, should be attended to with urgency, IMO. Would Our Lady not agree with this, especially as the lies are being told in her name?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 07, 2018, 05:02:05 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on December 06, 2018, 12:19:13 PM
Regardless of any misplaced zeal, faulty memories, what have you, do you not think that maybe Our Father in Heaven prefers that we concentrate on the general messages and not the details of them?
Just as it is prudent to read the small print before signing a contract, because the small print tends to be where the horrors are hidden, so it is important to attend to the details of the messages from visionaries because that will be where any problems lie.
The devil is in the detail.
Quote
In the Gospels, Our Lord speaks in broad terms about the End Times. In Revelation, John recounts his vision of the Apocalypse -- the bad with the good. In that vision, images are conveyed which are symbols. In neither case are the particulars important.
The messages, combined:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart;
Devotion to Our Lady, including her general warnings about the sinful trends of mankind in the 20th century and the need for prayer;
The disruption and tumult accompanying the end of this world and the definitive separation of the good from the bad;
The triumph of the forces of good (God, Our Mother, the Saints)
This would be fine if Fatima was just Fatima, in other words, the apparitions that occurred in the Cova Da Iria from May to September 1917, the only part of Fatima that has been approved by the Church.
But Fatima has become Fatimism, and Fatimism was born of deception, starting with Sr Lucy lying to the Canonical Enquiry by not revealing the Secrets or their contents, and continuing with the fabrications of the Fatimists who have created a narrative that is full of holes.
Visionaries who lie, and supporters of that visionary who make things up, should be attended to with urgency, IMO. Would Our Lady not agree with this, especially as the lies are being told in her name?
Your comments are right on the money. Which opens up an opportunity for me to mention that I think these fabrications come from a lack of real faith in Christ and the Divine Mission of His Church. There is no need, as far as I can tell, to keep adding on and finding more "connections" to offer as proofs. It really starts to resemble mental illness. And shame on those who use it to line their pockets whilst weakening the minds of those that follow them.
One almost gets the idea that many would have abandoned the Faith long ago if not for Fatima "stirring up their hearts".
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 06, 2018, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition.
Who do you think you are? Emperor Justinian, who saw the Byzantine Empire and the Church as one?
No. I'm just a Catholic that is free to not believe in apparitions, like all Catholics.
QuoteGod can make threats against earthly empires all he wants, as the Power of Binding and Loosing is exclusive to the Hierarchy of the Church, and no other organization.
The Church isn't an earthly empire, it's His own Divinely Instituted Church. He's not going to make Himself a liar and renege on the power He's given men to run it.
QuoteEven in Russian Orthodoxy, there are Elders, decades before 1917, who warned people that if the Russian people didn't stop being hedonistic, materialistic, and godless, God would take away the Russian Empire and submit the Russians to a period of mass persecution, by watering the country with the blood of Martyrdom to eventually renew it (some have even said to make it a place of refuge during the Reign of the Antichrist)
Whoop tee doo.
QuoteAfter all, what sense does it make that God can allow the nation of Israel - the one he made a Covenant with - to be destroyed, when he can't do it likewise to nations which have no such Covenant?
I'm confused as to where you are going with this. Is there some connection to Fatima and the threat against the papacy you want to bring home to this topic?
You said that if the Sacred Heart made a threat against the Kingdom of France, you would reject it too - but I see no problem with God making threats against earthly kingdoms, precisely because the Church != earthly kingdom.
Rejecting an prophecy on the basis of a threat to an empire is not a valid reason to reject it. There may be other reasons to reject it, but this isn't one of them.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 07, 2018, 09:35:29 AM
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 06, 2018, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition.
Who do you think you are? Emperor Justinian, who saw the Byzantine Empire and the Church as one?
No. I'm just a Catholic that is free to not believe in apparitions, like all Catholics.
QuoteGod can make threats against earthly empires all he wants, as the Power of Binding and Loosing is exclusive to the Hierarchy of the Church, and no other organization.
The Church isn't an earthly empire, it's His own Divinely Instituted Church. He's not going to make Himself a liar and renege on the power He's given men to run it.
QuoteEven in Russian Orthodoxy, there are Elders, decades before 1917, who warned people that if the Russian people didn't stop being hedonistic, materialistic, and godless, God would take away the Russian Empire and submit the Russians to a period of mass persecution, by watering the country with the blood of Martyrdom to eventually renew it (some have even said to make it a place of refuge during the Reign of the Antichrist)
Whoop tee doo.
QuoteAfter all, what sense does it make that God can allow the nation of Israel - the one he made a Covenant with - to be destroyed, when he can't do it likewise to nations which have no such Covenant?
I'm confused as to where you are going with this. Is there some connection to Fatima and the threat against the papacy you want to bring home to this topic?
You said that if the Sacred Heart made a threat against the Kingdom of France, you would reject it too - but I see no problem with God making threats against earthly kingdoms, precisely because the Church != earthly kingdom.
Rejecting an prophecy on the basis of a threat to an empire is not a valid reason to reject it. There may be other reasons to reject it, but this isn't one of them.
As if the Bible weren't full of actual threats by God and his prophets to earthly kingdoms, Israel herself, and even churches.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR FRIDAY.
O Mary, thou art the noblest, highest, purest, fairest creation of Coil, the holiest of all creatures! O, that all men knew thee, loved thee, my Queen, as thou deservest to be loved! Yet great is my consolation, Mary, that there are blessed souls in the courts of Heaven, and just souls still on earth, whose hearts thou leadest captive with thy beauty and thy goodness. But above all I rejoice in this, that our God himself loves thee alone more than all men and angels together. I too, O Queen most loveable, I, miserable sinner, dare to love thee, though my love is too little; I would I had a greater love, a more tender love: this thou must gain for me, since to love thee is a great mark of predestination, and a grace which God grants to those who shall be saved. Moreover, O my Mother, when I reflect upon the debt I owe thy Son, I see He deserves of me an immeasurable love. Do thou, then, who desirest nothing so much as to see Him loved, pray that I may have this grace - a great love for Jesus Christ. Obtain it, thou who obtainest what thou wilt. I covet not goods of earth, nor honours, nor riches, but I desire that which thine own heart desires most, - to love my God alone. O, can it be that thou wilt not aid me in a desire so acceptable to thee? No: it is impossible! even now I feel thy help, even now thou prayest for me. Pray for me, Mary, pray; nor ever cease to pray, till thou dost see me safe in Paradise, where I shall be certain of possessing and of loving my God and thee, my dearest Mother, for ever and for ever. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 07, 2018, 05:02:05 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on December 06, 2018, 12:19:13 PM
Regardless of any misplaced zeal, faulty memories, what have you, do you not think that maybe Our Father in Heaven prefers that we concentrate on the general messages and not the details of them?
Just as it is prudent to read the small print before signing a contract, because the small print tends to be where the horrors are hidden, so it is important to attend to the details of the messages from visionaries because that will be where any problems lie.
The devil is in the detail.
Quote
In the Gospels, Our Lord speaks in broad terms about the End Times. In Revelation, John recounts his vision of the Apocalypse -- the bad with the good. In that vision, images are conveyed which are symbols. In neither case are the particulars important.
The messages, combined:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart;
Devotion to Our Lady, including her general warnings about the sinful trends of mankind in the 20th century and the need for prayer;
The disruption and tumult accompanying the end of this world and the definitive separation of the good from the bad;
The triumph of the forces of good (God, Our Mother, the Saints)
This would be fine if Fatima was just Fatima, in other words, the apparitions that occurred in the Cova Da Iria from May to September 1917, the only part of Fatima that has been approved by the Church.
But Fatima has become Fatimism, and Fatimism was born of deception, starting with Sr Lucy lying to the Canonical Enquiry by not revealing the Secrets or their contents, and continuing with the fabrications of the Fatimists who have created a narrative that is full of holes.
Visionaries who lie, and supporters of that visionary who make things up, should be attended to with urgency, IMO. Would Our Lady not agree with this, especially as the lies are being told in her name?
This is an actual and fair point which demands an answer - unlike Gerard's stuck record of "it's a threat because I say it is".
Quote from: mikemac on December 07, 2018, 09:46:03 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
Aren't you tired of spamming the same thing over and over again?
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 07, 2018, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: mikemac on December 07, 2018, 09:46:03 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
Aren't you tired of spamming the same thing over and over again?
Mikemac speaks the truth, ordo.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 07, 2018, 09:35:29 AM
You said that if the Sacred Heart made a threat against the Kingdom of France, you would reject it too - but I see no problem with God making threats against earthly kingdoms, precisely because the Church != earthly kingdom.
Rejecting an prophecy on the basis of a threat to an empire is not a valid reason to reject it. There may be other reasons to reject it, but this isn't one of them.
But there's no evidence that the Sacred Heart really did make a threat against the King of France. We only have Sr Lucy's word for it.
Is this threat recorded anywhere in St Margaret Mary Alacoque's writings? No.
I think it's highly likely that Sr Lucy made up this threat, inspired by the 'Holy Spirit' of course, the same 'Holy Spirit that inspired her to withold evidence from the Church, even while under oath.
I'm not going to rehash my general stand here, as I think I've made my points sufficiently. It seems that there are three overall positions here:
Strongly pro-Fatima
Strongly anti-Fatima
Those who take a measured view of all private revelation in general
The only reason that Fatima would need to be "an argument" (pro or con) would be if the Church declared Fatima to be dogma, which She hasn't. Wiki lists the private revelations which the Catholic Church finds most credible, by category. I haven't checked that list for accuracy because no one needs to. Private revelations are not official teaching. They're part of the body of spirituality which is there to assist us toward salvation, according to the needs and attractions of the lay person.
Awkward, I do not think your intended analogy between Fatima (and the entire history of it) and examining a contract for details has any relevance here because Catholics are not bound (unlike with a contract) to examine the details of a private revelation and "sign on" to Fatima. I think the cautionary observation you or anyone could credibly make is that stories (which includes private revelation) -- Faustina's, all Marian apparitions, details of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, etc. -- tend to gather decorations as time passes. They become "more decorative," embellished with interpretations which then sometimes become accepted as some of the "facts" of the story.
But again, this all has to do with possibly individual Catholics elevating a devotion to a dogma. It's a devotion, so you and I needn't involve ourselves with devotions not to our liking. The dogma is that there are three distinct Persons within one Trinitarian God. The Third Person of that Trinity is the One Who de fide guides the individual Catholic. Catholics are also counseled by the Church to seek spiritual direction from their priests -- formally or informally. We are counseled to listen to our priests' guidance regarding priorities in our spiritual lives. A well-formed priest will tell any layperson that the point of any devotion is to lead us back to that Trinity, not to lead us to Sr. Lucy, Faustina, or St. Margaret Mary.
Therefore, I don't understand why anyone except the person with the devotion needs to get exercised about non-binding devotions. When I encounter Catholics from other cultures who seem to make an entire religion out of a private devotion, I merely conclude that I don't have that in common with them. If they are otherwise leading faithfully Catholic lives, God will figure out how to draw them to Himself. Maybe they are too weak to encounter God more directly, and their "strange" devotion gives them desperately needed comfort. Maybe they have a very debilitating case of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Or maybe the Third Person of the Trinity knows that this devotion keeps this soul out of grave sin.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 07, 2018, 09:35:29 AM
You said that if the Sacred Heart made a threat against the Kingdom of France, you would reject it too - but I see no problem with God making threats against earthly kingdoms, precisely because the Church != earthly kingdom.
Rejecting an prophecy on the basis of a threat to an empire is not a valid reason to reject it. There may be other reasons to reject it, but this isn't one of them.
Go back and read what I stated again. Look for the words..."similar to Fatima..."
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 07, 2018, 01:48:41 AM
Quote from: Gerard on December 06, 2018, 06:51:33 PM
God gave us a safety net for when we are in sin. He won't hear any prayers other than those of repentance from sinners. But He will listen to their Guardian Angels and the Saints.
Including praises to God, as written in the Book of Psalms?
One can recite the penitential psalms. Praise to God doesn't remove sin. Repentence and the request for mercy does.
Quote from: Irishcyclist on December 07, 2018, 10:47:38 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 07, 2018, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: mikemac on December 07, 2018, 09:46:03 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
Aren't you tired of spamming the same thing over and over again?
Mikemac speaks the truth, ordo.
Except, he is making a charge which cannot be levied and is, in doing so, engaging in calumny for having accused
anyone of having blasphemed Our Lady because they disbelieve, question, or analyze a private revelation.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2018, 09:46:52 AM
This is an actual and fair point which demands an answer - unlike Gerard's stuck record of "it's a threat because I say it is".
You're still around? I figured you learned your lesson and ran away.
Your comment is simply a lie on your part. So, not only are you an intellectual dolt but you're also a dishonest person.
No wonder you turned into a total wuss about this thread after page 7 or so when I handed you your hat.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg462551#msg462551
What a miracle to see such a well-written article in defense of Our Lady of Fatima and the 3 Saintly seers on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Happy feast to all. http://crc-internet.org/further-information/archives-hir/n-132-october-2013/sister-lucy-the-confident-of-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary/
QuoteUNDER this title, we published this summer a biography of the seer of Fatima, who left for Heaven at ninety-seven years of age on February 13, 2005, nine years ago. It is a well-researched biography unlike any that has been published to date.
It is very difficult to gather information on Sr. Lucy because, for sixty years the Church authorities of Fatima, Coimbra and Rome have kept the main archive collections sealed. They contain important and hitherto unpublished writings of Our Lady's messenger.
Nevertheless, at the request of our Father, Georges de Nantes, Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels has worked for more than twenty years to clarify the obscure and controversial events of Sr. Lucy's life. On many occasions, he took his investigation to Portugal, questioning privileged witnesses??: Sr. Lucy's relatives, regular visitors, friends and interpreters. He spoke to her Dorothean and Carmelite sisters, and questioned her confessors and superiors, Carmelite fathers or bishops.
Furthermore, doors providentially half-opened. A Portuguese Jesuit, the late Fr. Antonio Maria Martins, a devotee of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but scorned by his progressivist confreres, had researched, gathered and classified numerous testimonies concerning Sr. Lucy as well as three thousands of her letters. Brother Francis gained access to this hitherto unpublished documentation.
LUCY'S MISSION??: TO MAKE THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY KNOWN AND LOVED
It was on June 13, 1917, during the second apparition of Our Lady at the Cova da Iria that the ten-year-old Lucy dos Santos, received from the Blessed Virgin the mission 'to make known and loved Her Immaculate Heart,' namely, Immaculate Mary's thoughts, loves and sorrows, but also the decisive role that She has to play in our time, in the time of the Great Apostasy, because it is She, and She alone Who will defeat Satan and crush his head??: "?In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.?"
When Sr. Lucy was heeded, when she succeeded in propagating devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as was the case in Portugal, at least to a certain extent, extraordinary, miraculous fruits were borne??: the revolution was thwarted, Christendom was reborn through the social reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Right from the first page of this book, we are gripped by the tragedy that Portugal experienced at the beginning of the twentieth century??: the assassination of its king, Carlos I, and of the crown prince. Two years later, in 1910, the Republic was proclaimed in Lisbon.
The revolutionaries destroyed the ancient order by establishing the Separation of Church and State Law with the purpose of subjugating the Catholic Church to their ungodly power.
In 1910, Lucy was three years old, and these tragic events were spoken about at home??: "?I remember having heard my mother lamenting the death of the king and the prince and, in the evening, when our father gave thanks after the meal, she would suggest reciting an Our Father for their eternal rest.?"
"?If it happened that people invited to our place spoke about these subjects, our mother used to say 'the rich are like roosters??: they all want to be on the perch to command, so they end up killing one another.'?"
The republicans did in fact kill one another. After having been excluded from the government, the Freemasons of Afonso Costa's Democratic Party seized power once again during the bloody revolution of May 14, 1915.
Two years later, however, from May to October 1917, the apparitions of Fatima raised the counter-revolution banner in the country??: peasants of Fatima, of the surrounding area and even from faraway provinces followed Lucy, Jacinta and Francisco to the Cova da Iria, on 13th of each month to recite the Rosary with them and sing hymns there before and after the conversation of the little shepherds with the Apparition.
Such religious gatherings in public, outside of parish churches were prohibited by the Separation of Church and State Law.
Our Lady, however, wants to rid Christian nations, starting with Portugal, of secularism, and restore in them a Catholic order. To do this, She chose three predestined children as instruments and entrusted them with a Secret.
IMPOSSIBLE TO CATCH THEM LYING??!
Their simplicity and their virtue touched hearts and indisputably bore witness to the veracity of the apparitions. The young lawyer Carlos Mendes, who had come to Aljustrel with the idea of revealing a hoax, related??:
"?I questioned them separately. Being a lawyer and Doctor of Law, I proceeded as a public prosecutor would.
"?Yet it was impossible to catch them lying??! All three of them said the same thing without the slightest misrepresentation.?"
He went with them to the Cova da Iria??: "?The little shepherds kneel down. Lucy begins the Rosary. Her recollection and great fervour overawe us. What devotion??! I had never recited the Rosary with such concentration.?"
On September 13, 1917, the persons who were observing Lucy noticed her disinterestedness. Shortly after the apparition, "?a Spaniard offered her a small, valueless medal of white metal, which she first refused, believing that it was a silver coin.?"
A pilgrim wrote??: "?The little girl is poor but, in spite of it, she accepts nothing when people want to give her money. We see full well that the Apparition is not an imposture.?"
Even more than the perceptible signs of the Apparition's presence, it was Her conversations with the seers that made an impression on Fr. Joel de Deus Magno??: "?The angelical simplicity and the absolute indifference that they show, cannot deceive.?"
The Freemasons tried every possible means to make the three little shepherds retract??: threats of the Administrator, imprisonment, interrogations during which he "?used all of the tricks of the police trade against them,?" but Lucy, supported and encouraged by Jacinta and Francisco, remained steadfast??!
As early as August 1917, the Freemason, Tomas da Fonseca, attacked Fatima in a virulent speech before the Senate in Lisbon with the purpose of strengthening the persecuting measures against the Church. Satan was unleashed.
In Aljustrel itself, despite his failure in mid-August, the Administrator sent three henchmen to threaten the little shepherds once again. "?After having questioned us in a very unpleasant manner,?" Lucy related, "?they left declaring??: 'Make up your mind to tell the Secret, or else the Administrator is ready to finish you off.'
"?Rumour had it that he indeed wanted to kill us. One of my aunts, married to a man living in Casais, came to our place with the intention of taking us to her home. We, however, did not want to go there, and we replied to her??: 'If they kill us, what does it matter, we will go to Heaven??!'?"
VICTIM.
The account of the apparitions of 1917 is rather new in this biography, because Brother Francis quotes a report written by Lucy, but only recently published, which reveals her inner life, for example her "?indescribable joy?" during the first apparition of May 13.
Invited by Our Lady on that day to offer herself as a victim, Lucy renewed her 'yes,' that is to say the offering of her sufferings, all the days of her life. It is very moving to discover it on almost every page of this book.
Lucy was the 'official' witness of the apparitions, since Jacinta and Francisco preferred that she be the one to speak. To bear witness, however, made her a victim.
The continual visits of pious pilgrims, of inconsiderate, inquisitive persons, of fanatical adversaries, and the countless interrogations to which she was subjected, exhausted her.
On October 13, 1917, after the miracle of the sun, she was questioned by very numerous visitors. "?Some still wanted to speak to me in the evening. Overcome by sleep, however, I dropped to the floor to sleep.?" Some people waited all night. "?The next day, the interrogations continued, or rather the following days for, almost every day since then various people came to implore the protection of the Mother of Heaven at the Cova da Iria and they all wanted to see the seers, to ask them their questions and say the Rosary with them.?"
The parish priest of Fatima used to say that if he had been martyred in this way by so many questions, he would have gone mad.
"?Sometimes,?" wrote Sr. Lucy, "?I felt so tired of always repeating the same things to the visitors and of praying with them, that I would seek a pretext for asking to be excused and to slip away. These poor people, however, insisted so much that I had to make an effort, which was not small, in order to satisfy them. I would then repeat my customary prayer from the bottom of my heart??: 'It is for love of you, my God, in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for the conversion of poor sinners and for the Holy Father.'?"
It was Our Lady in Person Who taught her this prayer on July 13, 1917. Lucy, very impressed by the visions of the Third Secret, added to Our Lady's words??: "?... and for the Holy Father,?" seen as "?the bishop dressed in White,?" the portrait of Pope Francis a hundred years in advance??!
It was the apparitions of 1917 and the graces received during these heavenly revelations that inspired and governed Lucy's entire mystical and penitent life.
THE ROUT OF THE FREEMASONS.
The Freemasons, who were all-powerful in Portugal, were unable to oppose anything to her testimony or to the spontaneous development of the pilgrimage. It was in vain that they called in the army, for example on May 13, 1920.
On that day the Administrator mobilised a cavalry detachment to prevent people from going to the Cova da Iria. As for Lucy, she was arrested by two soldiers who "?ordered me to walk between their two horses,?" she related.
"?When we reached a plot of ground that lies on the outskirts of Aljustrel, they saw some holes that had been dug to plant trees and they said to one another??: 'Here are some empty holes. Let's cut off her head with one of our swords, and leave her buried here. Then we'll be finished with this business once and for all.?"
"?When I heard these words, I thought that my last moment had really come, but I remained at peace as though it did not concern me at all.
"?After a minute during which the other one seemed to be thinking it over, he replied??: 'No, we have no authority to do that.'?"
They took her home.
"?Late in the afternoon, news went round that the troops had withdrawn, defeated by the people, and I went to say the Rosary in the Cova da Iria, accompanied by hundreds of people.?"
The counter-revolution was most certainly underway.
Nevertheless, Lucy, having been placed at the head of the pilgrimage in spite of herself, was put in a situation that was perilous for her soul.
RECLUSE AT THE ASILO DE VILAR BOARDING SCHOOL??:
"?SOME EXTRAORDINARY RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR LADY...?"
Bishop da Silva of Fatima was concerned about it. He was aware of the unfortunate path followed by Mélanie, the seer of La Salette, who went from one act of disobedience to the next. He took all the necessary measures to prevent Lucy from being adulated as Mélanie had been.
He obliged her to leave Fatima at fourteen years of age in order to live incognito, under the name of Maria das Dores, at the Asilo de Vilar Boarding School, near Porto, where she edified her mistresses and her schoolmates, as the moving and hitherto unpublished testimony quoted by Brother Francis shows.
"?To see her in chapel was like seeing an angel??! Her devout and respectful attitude was an example to everyone. With her hands folded and her gaze fixed on the tabernacle and the beautiful statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, she remained motionless for a long while as though in ecstasy.?"
As for her superior, Mother Magalhaes, she wrote??: "?Very often, sisters came to tell me that Lucy had some extraordinary relationship with Our Lady, for when she spoke about Her, she was always different from other people??; and it was clearly evident that she had an extraordinary love for the Most Blessed Virgin.?"
Lucy also distinguished herself by her courage??: she feared nothing.
One day, while out for a walk, the boarders "?met a group of street girls who began to make fun of their uniforms. One of them was even bolder and began to throw stones at them. The seer immediately left her classmates, walked courageously towards the hostile group that began to scatter, and found herself face to face with the wretched girl full of hatred who still had a few stones in her hands. Maria das Dores said a few words that the culprit alone heard. She lowered her eyes and her head, dropped the stones and, silently went away in shame??!?"
The child underwent a conversion??: "?Some time later, she entered the Asilo boarding school where she distinguished herself by the great esteem and respect that she showed towards Maria das Dores.?"
During her long life, Lucy obtained countless conversions and miraculous healings through the almighty intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
A "?PEARL?" TO BE KEPT HIDDEN.
With all her heart, Sr. Lucy wanted to respond to her Carmelite vocation, which had been bestowed upon her during the apparition of October 13, 1917 when Our Lady presented Herself dressed in the habit of the Carmel, with a scapular in her hand. Since the Carmelites had been expelled from Portugal by the revolution of 1910, she was considering going to France with the intention of entering the Carmel of Lisieux, the carmel of St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus.
Bishop da Silva, however, a benefactor of the Sisters of St. Dorothy, obliged her to enter this congregation. Faithful to the "?rule of life?" that she had adopted on the advice of this bishop, namely obedience, Lucy submitted.
The provincial superior of the Portuguese Dorothean Sisters, Mother Monfalim, from a great aristocratic family, who had been blessed and encouraged by St. Pius X in 1910, had as her devotions??: the Sacred Heart and the revelations of Paray-le-Monial, Our Lady of Lourdes, the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus. This holy sister took care of Lucy's training with great wisdom.
"?My desire,?" she wrote to Bishop da Silva, "?is to keep this little pearl that Our Lord has entrusted to us for Him alone, and it seems to me that Sr. Lucy's duty now consists in sanctifying herself here, in this hidden and forgotten life, which is that of a coadjutress sister (lay sister.) She is very good and desires to be a saint.?"
Mother Monfalim became alarmed when a photograph of the young novice was published in Catholic newspapers??: "?Now, there is nothing to be done other than to keep her more and more secluded, and may she never again be spoken about in public??! Let us wait until she has become a saint??; that will be the time to show her photograph.?"
In fact, Bishop da Silva thought that her mission was over. He wrote??: "?Lucy was an instrument that Providence used. She fulfilled her role, she has nothing more to do other than to sacrifice herself by striving to correspond to the abundant graces that Our Lady granted to her.?"
The bishop had no idea of the divine mission that she still had the responsibility of carrying out, a mission that concerned the universal Church, linked to the great Secret of July 13, 1917.
TO SAVE SOULS FROM HELL...
This Secret first revealed the threat that hangs over souls??: "?You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go.?"
Sr. Lucy always bore witness, whenever she had permission to do so, to the terrifying vision of July 13, 1917, thus to the existence of Hell that she saw on that day with her very eyes.
"?The three little children had this vision,?" our Father wrote, "?'as a lesson for us'?" (Letter to My Friends no. 247, June 5, 1967, p. 3).
To a young man tempted to abandon his seminary, the seer wrote??: "?Do not be surprised if I talk to you so much about Hell. It is a truth that it is necessary to recall frequently at the present time, because people forget it??: souls fall into Hell as though into a whirlpool.?"
To reveal it, to recall it, come hell or high water, was truly her mission since this truth was going to become more and more ignored, and even denied in the Church during the 20th century.
She informed another seminarian that there are "?millions and millions of souls?" who endure the atrocious torments of the damned for all eternity.
From his conversation with Lucy on July 11, 1977, Cardinal Luciani, the future John Paul I, drew this certitude??: "?Hell exists and we can fall into it.?"
Sr. Lucy always showed this haunting concern, even on the occasion of her last trips out of the Carmel for medical examinations in the years after 2000. When passing by people in the street or the hospital, she would say to her lady doctor??: "?Ah??! If only these people worried about the salvation of their souls, that would be very worthwhile, for they forget what awaits them forever, what their eternity will be.?"
... THROUGH SACRIFICES.
Consequently, Sr. Lucy practiced harsh corporal penances with extraordinary zeal. Her superiors had to moderate her.
If she mortified herself so severely, it was due to the fact that her mind remained deeply marked by the maternal warning of August 19, 1917??: "?Pray, pray a great deal and make sacrifices for sinners??; for many souls go to Hell because there is no one to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them.?"
This thought never left her and as early as the summer of 1917, it impelled her to offer, with Francisco and Jacinta, sacrifices that made them suffer horribly??: to wear a rope at the waist, to deny themselves water despite the torrid heat and to scourge themselves with stinging nettles.
In the following month, on September 13, 1917, Our Lady told her??: "?God is satisfied with your sacrifices.?" What encouragement to continue??!
Moreover, the warning of August 19 was repeated several times to her, for example during the apparitions of Our Lady on August 26, 1923 and during the theophany of Tuy in 1929.
In April 1941, her spiritual director wrote down the penances that she was doing "?despite her poor health, her weakness and her fasting??:
"?Cross with points, day and night.
"?Knotted rope around the waist, three entire days per week.
"?Rise every night, dressed in the holy habit, and prostrate in order to recite the prayers of the Angel.
"?Scourge twice weekly, for the duration of the recitation of the psalm Miserere.
"?Hair shirt, twice weekly for two hours.?"
Of course, not everyone is able or required to practice such mortifications. Sr. Lucy's special vocation, however, shows us the value of sacrifices for saving souls from the fire of Hell. We can associate with her mortifications, the sacrifices that our duty of state and our obedience to the demands of the Blessed Virgin impose on us.
THROUGH THE MEDIATION OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY.
"?To save them (to save souls from the fire of Hell), God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart,?" the Blessed Virgin said in Her great Secret of July 13, 1917.
What does this devotion entail???
Lucy learned this in Pontevedra in 1925. Our Lady appeared to the young postulant, with Her Immaculate Heart encircled with thorns??: "?You, at least, try to console Me.?" Our Lady asked her to propagate a new devotional exercise??: the reparatory Communion of the five First Saturdays of the month.
Her superior, Mother Magalhaes, who was aware of her virtue, was convinced of the supernatural character of these revelations, but alas, Bishop da Silva refused to approve the new devotion??! Lucy's sorrow was immense??: "?It was a very painful blow for me.?"
The lack of understanding and the contradictions that the messenger of the Immaculate encountered, the rejection of her requests – which were those of Our Lady??! – by Church authorities were the martyrdom of her life, a martyrdom that lasted eighty years, that is, until her death. It is with intense emotion that we discover this when reading this book. At the same time, we see decisive proof of the truth of her testimony, on which we cannot cast doubt without bad faith.
"?The Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary,?" wrote Lucy, "?love and desire this devotion, because They use it to attract souls to Themselves, and that is all They desire??: to save souls, many souls, all souls, salvar almas, muitas almas, todas as almas.?"
A WORLD EVENT.
The future of Christianity also depended on the prophetic Secret of July 13, 1917, since it revealed a vast providential plan for establishing the universal reign of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, conditioned by the precise demand of the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Pope and all the bishops of the world in communion with him.
CONCERN FOR RUSSIA.
Our Father commented on this "?astounding entrance of Russia into God's affairs. Thereafter, Russia is at the centre of this conditional Covenant of Jesus-God with the world that He wants to save. This demand, like that of the Communion of reparation of the First Saturdays, is intended for the glory, the consolation, the praise and love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary established throughout the whole world.?" (CCR no. 245, January 1992, p. 3)
The word Russia, in the Secret of July 13, 1917, had intrigued the three little shepherds.
"?I had only heard about Galicians and the Spanish,?" Lucy explained. "?I did not know the name of any other nation. Yet all that we understood during the apparitions of Our Lady remained so engraved on our memories that we never forgot it. That is why I know, and with certainty, that Our Lady spoke expressly about Russia in July 1917.?"
"?I supposed that perhaps Russia was an evil woman whom Our Lady wanted to convert and it is with this thought in mind that for a long time we offered our prayers and our sacrifices to God for the conversion of 'Russia'.?"
After the theophany of Tuy on June 13, 1929, the "?errors of Russia?" spread throughout Spain with the abdication of the King and the proclamation of the Republic, followed by Communist terrorism. Sister Lucy understood the meaning of Our Lady's prophecies concerning Russia.
As for her Jesuit spiritual directors, they grasped its importance for the peace in the world.
Fr. Gonçalves, taking the demand for the consecration of Russia to heart, succeeded in communicating it to Pope Pius XI twice, then in 1940 to Pius XII??; alas without any result??!
Another of her directors, Fr. Aparicio, noted??: "?The way in which Sr. Lucy asserts and forecasts events impressed me. She has no doubts, and she speaks categorically like someone who sees future events. I even think that Our Lady made them known to her.?" (August 10, 1938)
These holy Portuguese Jesuits, very perspicacious in the work of discerning spirits, were absolutely convinced of the truth of the revelations of Fatima, Pontevedra and Tuy.
A VOW OF PERFECTION.
Sr. Lucy built up a close spiritual friendship with Fr. Gonçalves. She related to him the interior struggles she waged in order to practice her vow of perfection, which he made following her example and in union with her. "?God,?" she wrote to him, "?does not only require of me in a general manner a disposition of the soul to embrace whatever is the most perfect, as St. Theresa describes it. He demands it of me every instant, every moment. Consequently, within me, I need love to dominate nature completely. I, however, entirely abandon myself to the action of grace in my soul and to the protection of the Immaculate Heart of my dearest Mother of Heaven. It is my hope that She will help me.?"
When Fr. Gonçalves left on mission for Mozambique in 1941, it was a awful trial for the seer who found herself "?alone?"??: "?I suffer so very much from your absence??!??!?"
Her need to open her soul to a spiritual director and to obey him punctually once again shows, if necessary that Sr. Lucy was led by God's Spirit.
Overcoming her sorrow, it was she who comforted the missionary??: "?You are consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the Heart of our good heavenly Mother??! Count on this maternal Heart which, in Heaven, beats with love for Her children who love Her on earth. In times of the greatest need, tribulation and abandonment, this Heart of a Mother watches over your Reverence, it accompanies you and comes to your assistance.
"?I am happy that you did what you had advised me to do??: the vow. It is an additional bond of union for Heaven.?"
Her correspondence with these Jesuit Fathers reveal the depth of her mystical life, "?in God,?" and her missionary zeal??: "?I would like to console more and ever more the two objects of my love, the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. I would give anything to commit the hearts of all men to Them??!?"
DIVINE INSIGHTS CONCERNING SALAZAR.
While the Popes remained deaf to the demands of Our Lady, the fervour and docility of the Portuguese bore extraordinary fruits.
Recourse to the Virgin Mary, to Her Mediation through the recitation of the Rosary, the development of the pilgrimage of Fatima, the consecration of their nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1931, provoked a marvellous Catholic renaissance together with a vigorous political restoration.
In fact, after the military coup d'état of 1926, Dr. Antonio de Oliveira Salazar was appointed Minister of Finance in 1928, then Prime Minister in 1932. Under his government, the country was freed from secularism for forty years and was able to enjoy "?the happy concert?" practiced by civil and Church authorities.
Thus the Immaculate had triumphed over Satan in the Land of Holy Mary.
In 1945, however, after the victory of the 'Crusade of Democracies' against Nazi Germany, Portugal was seriously threatened by an international conspiracy??: the Allies demanded the transformation of his corporatist regime into a liberal democracy. Further, within the country, Christian Democrats, steeped in the theories of Jacques Maritain, publicly rebelled.
President Salazar was considering resigning... Nevertheless, he attempted to forestall his adversaries by pronouncing the dissolution of the National Assembly in order to force an early election that was set for November 18, 1945.
In these dramatic circumstances, Sr. Lucy wrote to the Bishop of Leiria on November 7, 1945??:
"?The good God wants Our Lord Bishops, during the few days that remain before the elections, to speak to the people, through the clergy and the press, to say that Salazar is the person whom He has chosen to continue governing our country, that it is to him whom the insights and grace to lead our people on the roads of peace and prosperity will be granted.
"?It must be made clear to our people that the privations and sufferings of these last few years were not caused by some error on Salazar's part, but they were trials sent by God because of our sins.?"
Cardinal Cerejeira informed Salazar of this message and he was greatly comforted by it??: the revelations that Sr. Lucy received reassured him of the legitimacy of his action.
Fifteen years later, during the presidential elections of 1958, General Humberto Delgado rallied all sorts of opponents of the regime??: monarchists, liberals and progressivist Christians. He, however, only obtained 24 % of the votes.
"?These were days of great anxiety during which every minute was too short for praying, and God took pity on us,?" Sr. Lucy rejoiced.
"?You cannot imagine how I suffered for our very worthy Salazar from the ingratitude of so many people who refuse to recognise all that we owe to him??! I am confident that Our Lady will protect and defend him for the good of the nation and of Holy Church. We pray much here for his Excellency.?"
In 1961, Sr. Lucy was informed about the conspiracy of General Botelho, a sort of Portuguese de Gaulle, who wanted to seize power and abandon the overseas provinces to the Communist terrorists. She then denounced the sin of "?treason?"??:
"?Our duty at the present moment it to avoid all kinds of sins by grouping ourselves around those who bear on their shoulders the weight of government in order to help in the struggle until we obtain victory. It is not the moment to waste time on things of lesser importance. What is important at the present time is to acquire strength through unity, whatever it costs, for God and the fatherland.?"
The president was in no way blameworthy??: "?For the moment, Salazar is the man chosen by Divine Providence, and a white hair of his head is worth more than all these greenhorns without experience who are growing restless in the streets there.?" Sr. Lucy was referring in this way to a demonstration of opponents to the government's colonial policy.
She continued??: "?We must thank God for the grace that He grants us by giving us rulers of such great value, and we must be grateful to them for accomplishing so much work and self-sacrifice for the common good of the nation on which depends the individual good of each of us.?"
To her nephew, Fr. Manuel Pereira, a Jesuit missionary in Mozambique, Sr. Lucy recommended a pastoral programme that runs counter to progressivist theories??: to continue his apostolic work in happy concert with the Portuguese civil authorities. On April 13, 1974, she wrote to him??:
"?I am very happy to receive news from you, for I always fear that you are letting yourself be carried away by the wave of disorientation that holds sway everywhere and, it seems to me, to a greater degree over there [that is, in Mozambique].
"?You do well to work in conjunction with the [Portuguese] civil authorities. They are, thanks to God, good, well-intentioned and deserve our help and support.?"
In the 1990s, when the former rector of the shrine of Fatima, Mgsr. Luciano Guerra, a Christian Democrat, became acquainted with these letters of Lucy, he declared??: "?We will never publish them.?"
Well, as for us, we are going to publish them??!
A CARMELITE NUN??: TOTAL IMMOLATION.
When Sr. Lucy entered the Carmel of Coimbra on March 25, 1948, she adapted so well to her new life, a crucified life, that the Carmelites said about her??: "?You would think that she was born in the Carmel.?"
The letters that she wrote at that time to her friends form a veritable treatise on religious life??:
"?I found a small group of charming sisters here. Every time that I meet them, I have the impression of meeting the little St. Thérèse.
"?In this day and age, many desire to appear in public to preach and few want to bury themselves in silence, in a poor and obscure life, in humility, disregarding themselves and creatures in order to live for God alone, in prayer and self-sacrifice??; yet this is what we need the most to reach Heaven.?"
Thus she disapproved of a certain 'activism' that had already been spread throughout the Church under the influence of specialised Catholic Action.
"?I very firmly feel that this was where God wanted me many years ago, from the beginning,?" she confided to Fr. Aparicio. "?If He allowed me to be guided along other paths, perhaps it was to make my immolation more complete, even to the point of having to renounce my poor heart's most inner and legitimate aspirations.?" The doors of the Carmel opened "?when He saw that it was totally crushed, even its innermost fibres.?"
HER HARROWED FACE.
Since the time of the theophany of Tuy, Lucy wanted to speak to the Holy Father. Her Confirmation sponsor, Filomena Miranda, wrote to Bishop da Silva in 1930??: "?Sr. Lucy spoke to me again telling me to go to Rome this summer. I told her that I offer to pay for the trip so that she may speak to the Holy Father??! Then she said to me??: 'Ah??! I would give anything for that??!'?"
In 1946, everything seemed ready for her to go at last to Rome. Sr. Lucy was delighted about it??: she thought that if she spoke to Pius XII about the consecration of Russia, she would succeed in convincing him to perform it with all the bishops of the world.
Alas??! Not only was her trip postponed sine die, but she was reduced to silence from 1955 onwards.
Thereafter, the sadness of Sr. Lucy reflected that of Her Most Holy Mother. This can be seen on certain photographs, for example, the one on which she can be seen standing before the entrance of the chapel of the apparitions in Fatima.
In 1957, she said to Fr. Fuentes??: "?The Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one attaches any importance to Her message.?"
Sometimes Sr. Lucy's face even looks harrowed. Such photographs, however, are not to be found on the official website of the Fatima shrine, of course??! Her face reveals to us on such occasions her wounded heart??: Sr. Lucy bore in her soul all the humiliations and the immense sorrows of the Immaculate Heart of our Mother Whose wills were contradicted by the ministers of Her Divine Son (cf. CRC no. 356, April 1999, p. 32)
This did not prevent her from heroically showing joy and cheerfulness on photographs taken in Valinhos in 1946 and at the Carmel of Fatima on May 13, 1991, when she was terribly distressed.
Our Father used to say??: "?It suffices to look at Sr. Lucy and to follow her in her tribulations to see the holiness of the Church shine.?" (?March 4, 2001)
THE MESSAGE... CENSORED??!
Ever since the theophany of Tuy, Lucy wished to speak to the Holy Father. Well, she had to wait more than thirty-five years to be able to do so??! In fact, for his trip to Fatima on May 13, 1967, Pope Paul VI asked her to leave the Carmel to join him on the stand in front of the basilica.
Kneeling before him, she begged him to grant her a one-to-one meeting with him. The Pope refused to grant it to her. He did not want to listen to her, while war was going to break out in the Middle East, with the 'Six-Day War,' and she brought to him the means for obtaining the divine gift of peace for the world. Such is the case today??!
Dismissed by Paul VI, Sr. Lucy did not become discouraged. She was never discouraged because the 'Immaculate Heart of Mary remained her refuge,' as Our Lady had promised to her on June 13, 1917.
A few days later, she wrote to a friend??: "?We cannot rest until we have succeeded in snatching the grace of peace from God's Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.?"
Having complained to Paul VI about being reduced to silence, about no longer having permission to answer questions that she was asked about the revelations of Fatima, the Pope suggested to her that she reply by a single, long letter. This is what she did. She finished this 'long letter' on March 25, 1974. Then her manuscript laid dormant for many years in a desk drawer of the Bishop of Fatima.
It would only be published twenty-five years later in the year 2000, with the date of March 25, 1997 (??!) indicated on its last page, as though Sr. Lucy had finished it in that year, three years before its publication.
In the meanwhile, her text had been revised and corrected in Rome.
In a literal commentary on this book that I published in a series of articles entitled Light in the Night, I suspected this censoring due to several facts that were confirmed by a comparison made with the original manuscript of Sr. Lucy kept in Rome.
Sr. Lucy had entitled her work??: The Transmission of the Message of Our Lady to the Pilgrims of Fatima. The Roman censor, a Carmelite priest, Fr. Castellano, substituted for it??: The Calls of the Message of Fatima.
By replacing 'message of Our Lady' with 'message of Fatima,' Fr. Castellano eliminated the living Person Who said??: "?I am from Heaven,?" and Who came "?from Heaven?" to earth to speak to the little shepherds six times??!
Further, calls was substituted for transmission. This suppression of the word transmission in the title of the book is not fortuitous. In the two-page introduction, Fr. Castellano struck it out the three times it occurred.
The word 'transmit' means 'to cause to be conveyed to another person.' In fact, Sr. Lucy always confined herself to repeating what she had heard another person say, a living Person, the Immaculate Virgin Mary, present before her in Her glorious Body, during the apparitions. Lucy reported verbatim a message that was not a creation of her mind. She was only an intermediary.
Wherever Sr. Lucy wrote??: I am going to transmit the message of Our Lady to you, we can read??: I am going to explain the calls of the message to you.
The words 'calls, communication, and explain,' let it be insinuated that this 'message' came from Sr. Lucy's mind, as though it were no more than the product of her inner experience.
This is the interpretation that Cardinal Ratzinger developed in his Theological Commentary on the Secret??:
"?The visions of the children of Fatima should not be thought of as if for a moment the veil of the other world were drawn back, with Heaven appearing in its pure essence.
"?The subject shares in an essential way in the formation of the image of what appears.?" To put it plainly??: Lucy invented the visions and the message??!
When evoking the Annunciation, she wrote??: "?When, by order of the Father, the Angel descended from Heaven to come to announce to Mary the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word...?"
The corrector struck out descended from Heaven, and he wrote??: "?When, at the Annunciation, the Angel addressed to Mary these words...?"
Further on in her text, the Carmelite recalled the infidelity and idolatry of the Hebrews when Moses was on Mount Sinai, and she continued??: "?God was filled with indignation and wanted to punish them.?"
The corrector deleted and wanted to punish them.
Concerning one of St. John's visions, Sr. Lucy wrote??: "?In the Apocalypse, St. John tells us that he saw in Heaven an Angel who had good news to announce to the inhabitants of the earth.?"
Vision and Heaven are deleted in the published version??: "?In the Apocalypse, St. John tells us that an Angel...?"
Commenting on the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, Sr. Lucy wrote??: "?Jesus Christ tells us here the grounds for our hope.?"
In the published version, we read??: "?The sacred text tells us here...?"
According to the Roman censor, the writer of the fourth Gospel is not the reporter of Jesus' words.
In a meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary, Sr. Lucy insisted on the historical character of Jesus' resurrection, which was confirmed by witnesses. Fr. Castellano interpolated this sentence that St. Pius X would have condemned as being typically Modernist??: "?The Gospels arose from the account of witnesses, an account that they had related when they founded and visited the Christian communities, and which, after their departure had been kept in the memory of the community where the Evangelist recorded it, naturally with the details that he found there.?"
The truth is that the evangelists Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of the events that they reported. Mark was the secretary of Pierre, a key witness, and Luke the investigator and accurate reporter of the accounts of living witnesses.
When Sr. Lucy wrote in the last Call, that Heaven is a place, the corrector put 'place' in inverted commas. Furthermore, in her Call to eternal life, she explicitly said that Heaven and Hell are "?places,?" the corrector simply crossed out the word places.
The messenger of the Immaculate, however, dispelled this darkness when she recalled that two Persons are already to be found in Heaven in Their body and soul??: "?Jesus Christ and Mary Most Holy, His Mother and our Mother.?" Thus, "?Their mutual presence,?" Fr. de Nantes pointed out, "?forms a space, inaugurates a place that we call Heaven or Paradise, the blessed abode of the elect.?"
This is "?the dogma of faith?" kept in the soul of the seer??: Heaven is a place, and it is devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that will obtain for us the grace of reaching it.
I was surprised to find in Lucy's text a long quotation of Paul VI's apostolic exhortation 'Marialis cultus,' of February 2, 1974, which contradicted what Sr. Lucy had stated a few lines above on the liturgical character of the Rosary. Thus, I wrote??: "?Sr. Lucy surely did not quote this passage of her own accord.?"
Brother Francis, who studied the manuscript noted??: "?She did not quote it at all??!?" Fr. Castellano interpolated it as he had done for the quotation of John Paul II, of October 29, 1978. It would be vain to search for it in a text, the composition of which had been completed four years earlier on March 25, 1974??!
In short, it is indispensable to read this very demonstrative chapter on the Calls of the Message. It absolutely confirms that Sr. Lucy's book was falsified with the aim of effacing the specific elements of the message of Our Lady of Fatima. As I have written, this falsification accuses the incredulity of the superiors, bishops and popes whose duty it was, and still is, to make the Secret known, to recommend the practicing of the First Saturday devotion, and to consecrate Russia. Sr. Lucy's heroic obedience accuses their disobedience. Conversely, it establishes the charism of defending, explaining and propagating devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that God granted to our blessed Father, who was the theologian of the message and the seer's heir, as this book abundantly shows. Our Father heard the Immaculate's messenger??; he listened to her and understood her. He became her tireless spokesman. For Sr. Lucy said repeatedly??: "?It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.?"
One day, the Holy Father will embrace the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and satisfy all the demands of Our Lady by carrying out exactly what She commanded, and for the sole reason that She wills it to be so. It is for this intention that we will once again pray from the bottom of our hearts our Petition to Our Lady of the Holy Rosary.
Brother Bruno of Jesus-Mary.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SATURDAY.
Most holy Mary, I know the graces which thou hast obtained for me, and I know the ingratitude which I have shown thee. The ungrateful man is unworthy of favours; and yet for all this I will not distrust thy mercy. O my great Advocate, have pity on me. Thou, Mary, dost dispense the graces which God vouchsafes to give us sinners, and therefore did He make thee so mighty, rich, and kind, that thou mightest succour us. I will that I may be saved: in thy hands I place my eternal salvation, to thee I consign my soul. I will to be associated with those who are thy special servants; reject me not. Thou goest up and down seeking the wretched, to console them. Cast not away, then, a wretched sinner who has recourse to thee. Speak for me, Mary; thy Son grants what thou askest. Take me beneath thy shelter, and it is enough for me; for with thee to guard me I fear no ill; no, not even my sins; because thou wilt obtain God's pardon for them: no, nor yet devils; because thou art far mightier than all hell: no, nor my Judge Jesus Christ; for at thy prayer He will lay aside His wrath. Protect me, then, my Mother; obtain for me pardon of my sins, love of Jesus, holy perseverance, a good death, and Heaven. It is too true, I merit not these graces; yet do thou only ask them of our God, and I shall obtain them. Pray, then, to Jesus for me. O Mary, my Queen, in thee I trust; in this trust I rest, I live; and with this trust I will that I may die. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her, then the Litanies, it being Saturday, for which there is the indulgence.
74. THE LITANIES
The Litanies commonly called " Litanies of our Lady" are named "Litanies of Loretto" in the Constitutions of several Sovereign Pontiffs, - viz. Reddituri, of Sixtus V., July11, 1687; Sanctissimus, of Clement VIII., Sept. 6, 1601; and In supremo, of Alexander VII., May 28, 1664 - by reason of their being sung with great solemnity every Saturday in the Holy House of Loretto. They are composed of humble supplications and devout prayers to Almighty and (this being the meaning of the word "Litanies"), offered up through the intercession of our Blessed Lady, who is honoured therein by the application to her of the mystic figures, high titles, and glorious appellations whereby she is invoked. That these Litanies, when said by the faithful, in church in public, or at home in private, might always remain word for word exactly as they have been handed down to us from ancient tradition, Pope Alexander VII., in the Constitution above named, strictly forbade the making of any alteration in them.
To encourage the faithful often to have recourse to the intercession of most holy Mary in their behalf with Almighty (and, and at the same time to do her honour, Pope Sixtus V., in the above-named Constitution, granted -
i. An indulgence of 200 days, every time these Litanies are said with devotion and contrition.
Pope Benedict XIII., by a decree of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Jan. 12, 1728, confirmed this Indulgence; and Pope Pius VII., confirming it afresh by a decree of the same S. Congr. of Sept 30, 1817, extended it to 300 days.
He granted, moreover, to all who say them daily -
ii. A plenary Indulgence on the five Feasts of our Blessed Lady, of Obligation according to the Roman Calendar, viz, the Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Assumption, on condition that, being truly contrite for their sins, and after Confession and Communion, they visit a public church, and pray according to the intention of the Pope.
LITANY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN;
Commonly called the Litany of Loretto.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ hear us.
Christ graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.
Mother of Christ, pray for us.
Mother of divine grace, pray for us.
Mother most pure, pray for us.
Mother most chaste, pray for us.
Mother inviolate, pray for us.
Mother undefiled, pray for us.
Mother most amiable, pray for us.
Mother most admirable, pray for us.
Mother of our Creator, pray for us.
Mother of our Redeemer, pray for us.
Virgin most prudent, pray for us.
Virgin most venerable, pray for us.
Virgin most renowned, pray for us.
Virgin most powerful, pray for us.
Virgin most merciful, pray for us.
Virgin most faithful, pray for us.
Mirror of justice, pray for us.
Seat of wisdom, pray for us.
Cause of our joy, pray for us.
Spiritual Vessel, pray for us.
Vessel of honour, pray for us.
Special Vessel of devotion, pray for us.
Mystical Rose, pray for us.
Tower of David, pray for us.
Tower of ivory, pray for us.
House of gold, pray for us.
Ark of the covenant, pray for us.
Gate of heaven, pray for us.
Morning star, pray for us.
Health of the sick, pray for us.
Refuge of sinners, pray for us.
Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.
Help of Christians, pray for us.
Queen of Angels, pray for us.
Queen of Patriarchs, pray for us.
Queen of Prophets, pray for us.
Queen of Apostles, pray for us.
Queen of Martyrs, pray for us.
Queen of Confessors, pray for us.
Queen of Virgins, pray for us.
Queen of all Saints, pray for us.
Queen conceived without stain of original sin, pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
Christ hear us,
Christ graciously hear us.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion + and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord. R. Amen.
V. May the divine assistance remain always with us. R. Amen.
The democratic synods (aka 'synodal' clericalism (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl.-burke-synodality-suggests-some-kind-of-new-church-where-popes-authorit)) will destroy papal authority, suggesting some kind of Protestant style new voting church. Our Lady of Fatima's request to consecrate Russia never has and never will undermine papal authority.
Some people may think that devotion to Fatima is about a personal lifeline of hope; kind of a selfish thing. But in reality it is about the salvation of souls; that is why we pray for a proper consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart and that is why we pray the Fatima prayer. That is what Fatima is all about; the salvation of souls. Definitely not dogmatic or anything else that some may assume; just a simple devotion for the salvation of souls.
Happy feast of the Immaculate Conception.
This is a good month to say these prayers of reparation for a plenary indulgence, with both the feast of the Immaculate Conception and Christmas falling within the month.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SUNDAY.
Mother of my God, look down upon a poor sinner, who has recourse to thee, and puts his trust in thee. I am not worthy that thon shouldst even cast thine eyes upon me; but I know that thou, beholding Jesus thy Son dying for sinners, dost thyself yearn exceedingly to save them. O Mother of Mercy, look on my miseries and have pity upon me. I hear it said by all that thou art the refuge of the sinner, the hope of the desperate, the aid of the lost; be thou, then, my refuge, hope, and aid. It is thy prayers which must save me. For the love of Jesus Christ be thou my help; reach forth thy hand to the poor fallen sinner who recommends himself to thee. I know that it is thy consolation to aid the sinner when thou canst do so; help me then, thou who canst help. By my sins I have forfeited the grace of God and my own soul. I place myself in thy hands; O, tell me what to do that I may regain the grace of God, and I will do it. My Saviour bids me go to thee for help; He wills that I should look to thy pity; that so, not only the merits of thy Son, but thine own prayers also, may unite to save me. To thee, then, I have recourse: pray thou to Jesus for me; and make me experience how great good thou canst do for one who trusts in thee. Be it done unto me according to my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: mikemac on December 08, 2018, 09:52:36 AM
The democratic synods (aka 'synodal' clericalism (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl.-burke-synodality-suggests-some-kind-of-new-church-where-popes-authorit)) will destroy papal authority, suggesting some kind of Protestant style new voting church. Our Lady of Fatima's request to consecrate Russia never has and never will undermine papal authority.
That's because the Holy Ghost will prevent the consecration of Russia according to the Fatima threat from ever happening.
The "democratization" of the Church is being pushed on the papacy by the people who think the lay faithful have a vote in how the Pope is to respond to an apparition.
The proper Catholic attitude should be, "The report is the apparition claiming to be the BVM wants the Pope to do X, Y or Z." The proper response should be: "Well, the Pope is the one with the authority, not the apparition. It's up to him and the Holy Ghost to determine how to respond."
QuoteSome people may think that devotion to Fatima is about a personal lifeline of hope; kind of a selfish thing.
I don't know who those "some people" are. I think it's an error and the devotion is genuine but misplaced.
QuoteBut in reality it is about the salvation of souls;
There are already entities concerned with the salvation of souls. Protestantism is full of them. It's not what is Catholic within the false religion or apparition, it's what is un-Catholic that is the concern.
Quotethat is why we pray for a proper consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart and that is why we pray the Fatima prayer.
Notice the words, "proper consecration" as if the Pope needs to "do it right" or suffer the consequences. The BVM doesn't make the Pope jump through hoops.
QuoteThat is what Fatima is all about; the salvation of souls.
I'll take the sacraments. I'll also take devotion to Mary that helps me utilize the sacraments and the grace they obtain, I'll take Mary's help in obtaining salvation through Christ, not salvation from an apparition claiming to be Mary.
QuoteDefinitely not dogmatic or anything else that some may assume; just a simple devotion for the salvation of souls.
If that were true, there would be no effort to coerce the papacy into exercising its power at the direction of an apparition.
And just to be clear, there have been no "blasphemies" against the Blessed Mother in any of these threads debating Fatima. Any contrary assertion is dishonest and a sign of bad faith and ill will.
Quote from: mikemac on December 08, 2018, 09:52:36 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
Mike, your incessant spamming will achieve nothing for the following reasons:
1. Kaesekopf
"is not going to do anything about it" because the present discussion about the merits and demerits of an apparition does not involve any sort of blasphemy. Your passive-aggressive threat to the forum owner is, frankly, ridiculous.
2. Spamming non-stop about "prayers of reparation" is not piety. It's self-indulgence and makes you look like a child begging for attention.
3. Accusing others of blasphemy without proof is calumny, as Gardener has already kindly pointed out. Please, stop this nonsense and let people here exchange ideas freely and respectfully without having to read your "copy/paste" prayerbook advertisements every three or four posts. It's childish.
Quote from: Gerard on December 07, 2018, 04:17:22 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2018, 09:46:52 AM
This is an actual and fair point which demands an answer - unlike Gerard's stuck record of "it's a threat because I say it is".
You're still around? I figured you learned your lesson and ran away.
Your comment is simply a lie on your part. So, not only are you an intellectual dolt but you're also a dishonest person.
No wonder you turned into a total wuss about this thread after page 7 or so when I handed you your hat.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg462551#msg462551
You didn't hand anyone his hat. You just repeat yourself like a stuck record and are unable to grasp basic concepts of language and logic that require an IQ greater than 100 to comprehend, making any further discussion with you pointless.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR MONDAY.
Most holy Mary, Queen of heaven, I who was once the slave of the Evil One now dedicate myself to thy service for ever; and I offer myself, to honour and to serve thee as long as I live. Accept me for thy servant, and cast me not away from thee as I deserve. In thee, O my Mother, I place all my hopes. All blessing and thanksgiving be to God, who in His mercy giveth me this trust in thee. It is true that in past time I have fallen miserably into sin; but by the merits of Jesus Christ, and thy prayers, I hope that God has pardoned me. But this is not enough, my Mother. One thought terrifies me; it is, that I may yet lose the grace of God. Danger is ever nigh; the devil sleeps not; fresh temptations assail me. Protect me, then, my Queen; help me against the assaults of my spiritual enemy. Never suffer me to sin again, or to offend Jesus thy Son. Let me not by my sin lose my soul, heaven, and my God. This one grace, Mary, I ask of thee; this is my desire; may thy prayers obtain this for me. Such is my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 10, 2018, 08:46:49 AM
Quote from: Gerard on December 07, 2018, 04:17:22 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2018, 09:46:52 AM
This is an actual and fair point which demands an answer - unlike Gerard's stuck record of "it's a threat because I say it is".
You're still around? I figured you learned your lesson and ran away.
Your comment is simply a lie on your part. So, not only are you an intellectual dolt but you're also a dishonest person.
No wonder you turned into a total wuss about this thread after page 7 or so when I handed you your hat.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg462551#msg462551
You didn't hand anyone his hat. You just repeat yourself like a stuck record and are unable to grasp basic concepts of language and logic that require an IQ greater than 100 to comprehend, making any further discussion with you pointless.
Riiiight.....
Not that you can actually prove any of your huffing and puffing.
My posts in response to you stand as a testament to my points being correct, your criticism false, and your unwillingness or inability to address them validates that.
You couldn't grasp a simple syllogism or the proper definition of "threat" or the basic facts of the argument. I simply pointed out those irrefutable facts and your own words put egg on your face as a result.
So, I frankly couldn't care less about your worthless opinions and hollow bloviating.
The claim that discussion with me is "pointless" is just unjustified, brainless chest-pounding on your part to conceal your intellectual cowardice and the shame you feel at having your hat handed to you.
Now, go run off to your mirror and repeat your daily affirmations for a while.
yikes....
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 09, 2018, 02:45:04 PM
Quote from: mikemac on December 08, 2018, 09:52:36 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
Mike, your incessant spamming will achieve nothing for the following reasons:
1. Kaesekopf "is not going to do anything about it" because the present discussion about the merits and demerits of an apparition does not involve any sort of blasphemy. Your passive-aggressive threat to the forum owner is, frankly, ridiculous.
2. Spamming non-stop about "prayers of reparation" is not piety. It's self-indulgence and makes you look like a child begging for attention.
3. Accusing others of blasphemy without proof is calumny, as Gardener has already kindly pointed out. Please, stop this nonsense and let people here exchange ideas freely and respectfully without having to read your "copy/paste" prayerbook advertisements every three or four posts. It's childish.
I'm actually quite impressed; I didn't get mikemac THAT angry when I was posting around here originally.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR TUESDAY.
Most holy Mary, Mother of Goodness, Mother of Mercy; when I reflect upon my sins and upon the moment of my death, I tremble and am confounded. O my sweetest Mother, in the Blood of Jesus, in thy intercession, are my hopes. Comforter of the sad, abandon me not at that hour; fail not to console me in that great affliction. If even now I am so tormented by remorse for the sins I have committed, the uncertainty of my pardon, the danger of a relapse, and the strictness of the judgment, how will it be with me then? O my Mother, before death overtake me, obtain for me great sorrow for my sins, a true amendment, and constant fidelity to God for the remainder of my life. And when at length my hour is come, then do thou, Mary, my hope, be thyself my aid in those great troubles wherewith my soul will be encompassed. Strengthen me, that I may not despair when the enemy sets my sins before my face. Obtain for me at that moment grace to invoke thee often, so that I may breathe forth my spirit with thine own sweet name and that of thy most holy Son upon any lips. This grace thou hast granted to many of thy servants; this, too, is my hope and my desire.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Mike,
I see you are taking the advice/criticism to heart. :laugh:
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR WEDNESDAY.
Mother of God, most holy Mary, how often by my sins have I merited hell! Long ago, perhaps, judgment would have gone forth against my first mortal sin, hadst not thou in thy tender pity delayed the justice of God, and afterwards attracted me by thy sweetness to have confidence in thy prayers. And O, how very often should I have fallen in the dangers which beset my steps, hadst not thou, loving Mother that thou art, preserved me by the graces thou by thy prayers didst obtain for me. But O, my Queen, what will thy pity and thy favours avail me, if after all I perish in the flames of hell? If there was once a time when I loved thee not, yet now, next to God, I love thee before all. Wherefore, henceforth and for ever, suffer me not to turn my back upon thee and upon my God, who through thee has granted me so many mercies. O Lady, most worthy of all love, let it not be that I thy child shall have to hate and to utter maledictions for ever in hell. Thou wilt surely never endure to see thy servant lost who loves thee. O Mary, say not that I ever can be lost! Yet I shall assuredly be lost if I abandon thee. But who could ever have the heart to leave thee? Who can ever forget thy love? No; it is impossible for that man to perish who faithfully recommends himself to thee, and has recourse to thee. Only leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost! Let me but cling to thee! Save me, my Hope! save me from hell; or rather, save me from sin, which alone can condemn me to hell.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Private revelation is private. That definition does not fit a miracle from an approved apparition which:
1. was foretold in advance and
2. was witnessed by over 70.000 people (many of whom were Freemasons)
3. conversions followed.
Quote from: TradGranny on December 12, 2018, 03:58:58 PM
Private revelation is private. That definition does not fit a miracle from an approved apparition which:
1. was foretold in advance and
2. was witnessed by over 70.000 people (many of whom were Freemasons)
3. conversions followed.
Public revelation ceased at the death of St. John the Apostle.
Public and private do not follow colloquial usage in this context.
Quote from: TradGranny on December 12, 2018, 03:58:58 PM
Private revelation is private. That definition does not fit a miracle from an approved apparition which:
1. was foretold in advance and
2. was witnessed by over 70.000 people (many of whom were Freemasons)
3. conversions followed.
The Freemasons were there to promote the deception.
I can't find the post ( was it by Innocent Smith?), but it questioned why credence is given to the testimony of Freemasons present at the Fatima sun 'miracle'. If Fatima is a deception, then the Freemasons would promote it, wouldn't they?
The idea that they were in on the act is quite horrible really but did a true miracle take place at Fatima? People saw different things and some people saw nothing. At the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, did some people recieve lamb and others nothing at all?
There have been conversions at Medjugurie.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR THURSDAY.
Queen of Heaven, who sittest enthroned above all the choirs of the angels nighest to God, from this vale of miseries I, a poor sinner, salute thee, praying thee in thy love to turn upon me those gracious eyes of thine. See, Mary, the dangers among which I dwell, and shall ever have to dwell whilst I live upon this earth. I may yet lose my soul, Paradise, and God. In thee, Lady, is my hope. I love thee; and I sigh after the time when I shall see thee and praise thee in Paradise. O Mary, when will that blessed day come that I shall see myself safe at thy feet? When shall I kiss that hand, which has dispensed to me so many graces? Alas, it is too true, O my Mother, that I have ever been very ungrateful during my whole life; but if I go to Heaven, then I will love thee there every moment of a whole eternity, and make thee reparation in some sort for my ingratitude by ever blessing and praising thee. Thanks be to God, for that He hath vouchsafed me this hope through the Precious Blood of Jesus, and through thy powerful intercession. This has been the hope of all thy true lovers; and no one of them has been defrauded of his hope. No: neither shall I be deceived of mine. O Mary, pray to thine own Son Jesus, as I also will pray to Him, by the merits of His Passion, to strengthen and increase this my hope.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If the devil could have millions of Catholics praying in honour of a false apparition designed to subvert the Papacy, then of course he would.
Have all those legends of bilocating saints and the endless apparitions that you dwell on softened your mind? You clearly have little understanding of how evil operates. Here's a clue from the Bard.
Quote
"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
King Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)
The Fatima narrative might seem holy, but underneath it's a web of half-truths and deceits.
You can post all the prayers here that you like. But you can't answer the objections being raised here to the Fatima narrative except by ignoring the objections and screaming "blasphemy".
Carry on being a useful idiot for one of the greatest deceptions ever practised on the Church.
A deception straight out of the 24th chapter of Matthew. I no longer have the slightest doubt.
Fatima is a ... public prophesy given by the Queen of Prophets to the world. As Bishop Rudolph Graber plainly stated, 'A careful distinction should be made between personal revelation and those where the message is declared to be for mankind at large. The former can, with equanimity be ignored, but the latter must be taken seriously. And Fatima belongs to this category.'
Oct. 29, 1951 issue of La Domenica del Corriere, in which is printed Cardinal Tedeschini's sermon revealing that Pope Pius XII himself had witnessed a repeat of the Miracle of the Sun in the Vatican Gardens on several occasions in late October and early November 1950.
"I felt my spirit inundated by a mystery of light that is God and in Him I saw and heard: the point of a lance like a flame that is detached, touches the axis of the earth, and it trembles: mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers, the clouds, exceed their boundaries, inundating and dragging with them, in a vortex, houses and people in a number that cannot be counted. It is the purification of the world from the sin in which it is immersed. Hatred, ambition, provoke the destructive war. After I felt my racing heart, in my spirit a soft voice said: 'In time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. In eternity, Heaven!' This word 'Heaven' filled my heart with peace and happiness in such a way that, almost without being aware of it, I kept repeating to myself for a long time: Heaven, Heaven."
In due time all those who call Fatima a satanic deception will be sucked by a vortex into the earth never to be seen again. Then all those who are left will rejoice in the power of God to rid the world of evil.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on December 13, 2018, 01:23:13 PM
In due time all those who call Fatima a satanic deception will be sucked by a vortex into the earth never to be seen again.
When did public revelation cease?
KW - If the Church, Who teaches that Catholics are not beholden to private revelation, only public (which ceased at the death of the Apostle John), is wrong on the time of cessation of public revelation, then Fatima is useless anyway since it references back to a Church which apparently teaches in error.
ETA: "If the Church" instead of "The Church"
Quote from: King Wenceslas on December 13, 2018, 01:23:13 PM
In due time all those who call Fatima a satanic deception will be sucked by a vortex into the earth never to be seen again. Then all those who are left will rejoice in the power of God to rid the world of evil.
I always thought Fatima worship was getting very similar to the Rapture Theory promulgated by Protestants.
Thanks for confirming.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR FRIDAY.
O Mary, thou art the noblest, highest, purest, fairest creation of Coil, the holiest of all creatures! O, that all men knew thee, loved thee, my Queen, as thou deservest to be loved! Yet great is my consolation, Mary, that there are blessed souls in the courts of Heaven, and just souls still on earth, whose hearts thou leadest captive with thy beauty and thy goodness. But above all I rejoice in this, that our God himself loves thee alone more than all men and angels together. I too, O Queen most loveable, I, miserable sinner, dare to love thee, though my love is too little; I would I had a greater love, a more tender love: this thou must gain for me, since to love thee is a great mark of predestination, and a grace which God grants to those who shall be saved. Moreover, O my Mother, when I reflect upon the debt I owe thy Son, I see He deserves of me an immeasurable love. Do thou, then, who desirest nothing so much as to see Him loved, pray that I may have this grace - a great love for Jesus Christ. Obtain it, thou who obtainest what thou wilt. I covet not goods of earth, nor honours, nor riches, but I desire that which thine own heart desires most, - to love my God alone. O, can it be that thou wilt not aid me in a desire so acceptable to thee? No: it is impossible! even now I feel thy help, even now thou prayest for me. Pray for me, Mary, pray; nor ever cease to pray, till thou dost see me safe in Paradise, where I shall be certain of possessing and of loving my God and thee, my dearest Mother, for ever and for ever. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SATURDAY.
Most holy Mary, I know the graces which thou hast obtained for me, and I know the ingratitude which I have shown thee. The ungrateful man is unworthy of favours; and yet for all this I will not distrust thy mercy. O my great Advocate, have pity on me. Thou, Mary, dost dispense the graces which God vouchsafes to give us sinners, and therefore did He make thee so mighty, rich, and kind, that thou mightest succour us. I will that I may be saved: in thy hands I place my eternal salvation, to thee I consign my soul. I will to be associated with those who are thy special servants; reject me not. Thou goest up and down seeking the wretched, to console them. Cast not away, then, a wretched sinner who has recourse to thee. Speak for me, Mary; thy Son grants what thou askest. Take me beneath thy shelter, and it is enough for me; for with thee to guard me I fear no ill; no, not even my sins; because thou wilt obtain God's pardon for them: no, nor yet devils; because thou art far mightier than all hell: no, nor my Judge Jesus Christ; for at thy prayer He will lay aside His wrath. Protect me, then, my Mother; obtain for me pardon of my sins, love of Jesus, holy perseverance, a good death, and Heaven. It is too true, I merit not these graces; yet do thou only ask them of our God, and I shall obtain them. Pray, then, to Jesus for me. O Mary, my Queen, in thee I trust; in this trust I rest, I live; and with this trust I will that I may die. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her, then the Litanies, it being Saturday, for which there is the indulgence.
74. THE LITANIES
The Litanies commonly called " Litanies of our Lady" are named "Litanies of Loretto" in the Constitutions of several Sovereign Pontiffs, - viz. Reddituri, of Sixtus V., July11, 1687; Sanctissimus, of Clement VIII., Sept. 6, 1601; and In supremo, of Alexander VII., May 28, 1664 - by reason of their being sung with great solemnity every Saturday in the Holy House of Loretto. They are composed of humble supplications and devout prayers to Almighty and (this being the meaning of the word "Litanies"), offered up through the intercession of our Blessed Lady, who is honoured therein by the application to her of the mystic figures, high titles, and glorious appellations whereby she is invoked. That these Litanies, when said by the faithful, in church in public, or at home in private, might always remain word for word exactly as they have been handed down to us from ancient tradition, Pope Alexander VII., in the Constitution above named, strictly forbade the making of any alteration in them.
To encourage the faithful often to have recourse to the intercession of most holy Mary in their behalf with Almighty (and, and at the same time to do her honour, Pope Sixtus V., in the above-named Constitution, granted -
i. An indulgence of 200 days, every time these Litanies are said with devotion and contrition.
Pope Benedict XIII., by a decree of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Jan. 12, 1728, confirmed this Indulgence; and Pope Pius VII., confirming it afresh by a decree of the same S. Congr. of Sept 30, 1817, extended it to 300 days.
He granted, moreover, to all who say them daily -
ii. A plenary Indulgence on the five Feasts of our Blessed Lady, of Obligation according to the Roman Calendar, viz, the Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Assumption, on condition that, being truly contrite for their sins, and after Confession and Communion, they visit a public church, and pray according to the intention of the Pope.
LITANY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN;
Commonly called the Litany of Loretto.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ hear us.
Christ graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.
Mother of Christ, pray for us.
Mother of divine grace, pray for us.
Mother most pure, pray for us.
Mother most chaste, pray for us.
Mother inviolate, pray for us.
Mother undefiled, pray for us.
Mother most amiable, pray for us.
Mother most admirable, pray for us.
Mother of our Creator, pray for us.
Mother of our Redeemer, pray for us.
Virgin most prudent, pray for us.
Virgin most venerable, pray for us.
Virgin most renowned, pray for us.
Virgin most powerful, pray for us.
Virgin most merciful, pray for us.
Virgin most faithful, pray for us.
Mirror of justice, pray for us.
Seat of wisdom, pray for us.
Cause of our joy, pray for us.
Spiritual Vessel, pray for us.
Vessel of honour, pray for us.
Special Vessel of devotion, pray for us.
Mystical Rose, pray for us.
Tower of David, pray for us.
Tower of ivory, pray for us.
House of gold, pray for us.
Ark of the covenant, pray for us.
Gate of heaven, pray for us.
Morning star, pray for us.
Health of the sick, pray for us.
Refuge of sinners, pray for us.
Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.
Help of Christians, pray for us.
Queen of Angels, pray for us.
Queen of Patriarchs, pray for us.
Queen of Prophets, pray for us.
Queen of Apostles, pray for us.
Queen of Martyrs, pray for us.
Queen of Confessors, pray for us.
Queen of Virgins, pray for us.
Queen of all Saints, pray for us.
Queen conceived without stain of original sin, pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
Christ hear us,
Christ graciously hear us.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion + and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord. R. Amen.
V. May the divine assistance remain always with us. R. Amen.
I won't have access to my computer until late tomorrow night, so for those that are saying these prayers of reparation for the month for a plenary indulgence I'll post the Sunday prayer now.
QuotePRAYER FOR SUNDAY.
Mother of my God, look down upon a poor sinner, who has recourse to thee, and puts his trust in thee. I am not worthy that thon shouldst even cast thine eyes upon me; but I know that thou, beholding Jesus thy Son dying for sinners, dost thyself yearn exceedingly to save them. O Mother of Mercy, look on my miseries and have pity upon me. I hear it said by all that thou art the refuge of the sinner, the hope of the desperate, the aid of the lost; be thou, then, my refuge, hope, and aid. It is thy prayers which must save me. For the love of Jesus Christ be thou my help; reach forth thy hand to the poor fallen sinner who recommends himself to thee. I know that it is thy consolation to aid the sinner when thou canst do so; help me then, thou who canst help. By my sins I have forfeited the grace of God and my own soul. I place myself in thy hands; O, tell me what to do that I may regain the grace of God, and I will do it. My Saviour bids me go to thee for help; He wills that I should look to thy pity; that so, not only the merits of thy Son, but thine own prayers also, may unite to save me. To thee, then, I have recourse: pray thou to Jesus for me; and make me experience how great good thou canst do for one who trusts in thee. Be it done unto me according to my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Aaag! I keep "cliking" on this thread thinking that there is new information or discussion! You've fooled me again, Mike! :laugh:
Quote from: King Wenceslas on December 13, 2018, 01:23:13 PM
"I felt my spirit inundated by a mystery of light that is God and in Him I saw and heard: the point of a lance like a flame that is detached, touches the axis of the earth, and it trembles: mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers, the clouds, exceed their boundaries, inundating and dragging with them, in a vortex, houses and people in a number that cannot be counted. It is the purification of the world from the sin in which it is immersed. Hatred, ambition, provoke the destructive war. After I felt my racing heart, in my spirit a soft voice said: 'In time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. In eternity, Heaven!' This word 'Heaven' filled my heart with peace and happiness in such a way that, almost without being aware of it, I kept repeating to myself for a long time: Heaven, Heaven."
I thought Sister Lucia said this, not Pope Pius XII.
Quote from: mikemac on December 15, 2018, 08:55:01 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
I swear, is it by Divine Providence that Quare makes an argument that Satisfaction theology and an overtly extreme emphasis of authority above any other aspect of a Christian spiritual life leads to broken people abdicating their own flaws and responsibilities in a childlike fashion, and then three users proceed to act like children in ways that I've never seen in YouTube comments?
I mean, even the Pharisees were able to conceal their brokenness by wearing masks of public humility - why has your mask fallen off?
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 15, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: mikemac on December 15, 2018, 08:55:01 AM
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
I swear, is it by Divine Providence that Quare makes an argument that Satisfaction theology and an overtly extreme emphasis of authority above any other aspect of a Christian spiritual life leads to broken people abdicating their own flaws and responsibilities in a childlike fashion, and then three users proceed to act like children in ways that I've never seen in YouTube comments?
I mean, even the Pharisees were able to conceal their brokenness by wearing masks of public humility - why has your mask fallen off?
I noticed that and was too distracted to comment at the time.
Is Satisfaction theology similar to Reparation theology? I've been arguing that an over emphasis on Reparation theology has induced passivity in Catholics, particularly Trads. The emphasis is constantly on suffering, making sacrifices, making reparation for all the insults and blasphemies etc, but never on taking action, or on doing anything. In fact, taking action is positively discouraged.
The modern Marian apparitions have played a part in this.
Eppur si muove.
I mean, the spammer.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 15, 2018, 05:53:05 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 15, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
I swear, is it by Divine Providence that Quare makes an argument that Satisfaction theology and an overtly extreme emphasis of authority above any other aspect of a Christian spiritual life leads to broken people abdicating their own flaws and responsibilities in a childlike fashion, and then three users proceed to act like children in ways that I've never seen in YouTube comments?
I mean, even the Pharisees were able to conceal their brokenness by wearing masks of public humility - why has your mask fallen off?
I noticed that and was too distracted to comment at the time.
Is Satisfaction theology similar to Reparation theology? I've been arguing that an over emphasis on Reparation theology has induced passivity in Catholics, particularly Trads. The emphasis is constantly on suffering, making sacrifices, making reparation for all the insults and blasphemies etc, but never on taking action, or on doing anything. In fact, taking action is positively discouraged.
The modern Marian apparitions have played a part in this.
Yes. All this, more than anything else, in my opinion, why the West is seriously sick and has been for some time, in fact well before Vatican II.
Learning how to obey authority is indeed the most important thing - for a five year old. However, good parents help their children make good decisions on their own over time, as the children gain more maturity and ability to do so - and not only the bare fact of making good decisions, but internalizing the reasons why they are good. If they don't, the children don't grow up, and disaster (usually) ensues when they leave home and haven't had any practice of making decisions without parents looking over their shoulder. Moreover, even before leaving the house, the only thing that matters is getting on the parents' good side or being on their bad side - and thus, the motive for good actions is "appeasing parental wrath". But how would a parent react if he knew a child was acting like that, thinking about "paying off a parental debt" rather than making good decisions because they are good?
Now Michael Wilson claimed that an "angry God" is not part of Catholicism but the very words used in Catechisms and in popular speech in the West contradict him, for sin means that God is "offended" and He will therefore punish, not in the sense that a good parent would punish to correct bad behavior, but to get vengeance. Therefore the focus is on "assuaging God's wrath", which what Satisfaction/Reparation theology basically is about, instead of doing good because it is good.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 16, 2018, 07:27:35 PM
Learning how to obey authority is indeed the most important thing - for a five year old. However, good parents help their children make good decisions on their own over time, as the children gain more maturity and ability to do so - and not only the bare fact of making good decisions, but internalizing the reasons why they are good. If they don't, the children don't grow up, and disaster (usually) ensues when they leave home and haven't had any practice of making decisions without parents looking over their shoulder. Moreover, even before leaving the house, the only thing that matters is getting on the parents' good side or being on their bad side - and thus, the motive for good actions is "appeasing parental wrath". But how would a parent react if he knew a child was acting like that, thinking about "paying off a parental debt" rather than making good decisions because they are good?
Now Michael Wilson claimed that an "angry God" is not part of Catholicism but the very words used in Catechisms and in popular speech in the West contradict him, for sin means that God is "offended" and He will therefore punish, not in the sense that a good parent would punish to correct bad behavior, but to get vengeance. Therefore the focus is on "assuaging God's wrath", which what Satisfaction/Reparation theology basically is about, instead of doing good because it is good.
Number of problems here:
1) Not everyone is God's child. Only baptized Catholics are God's children, others are in dominion of the devil. Also, a child can decide to runaway from the parent (as baptized Catholics do by commiting mortal sin) and die on its own - it does not mean its parent's fault. Or, if a child runs away and commits a crime, a parent can provide evidence so his child is punished by the state, as justice requires that.
2) False equalization between parental love of a human and God's parental love, which reveals a very anthropocentric worldview. God loves us and set up the plan of salvation primarily for his own self-glorification. Once you reject anthropocentrism and take a theocentric view of God's plan, there is no contradiction nor problem.
3) Notice that when speaking about judgment and what is God's purpose for us, St. Paul compares us not to children, but to pots made by the potter, rhetoricaly asking how can the pot complain to the potter.
QuoteLearning how to obey authority is indeed the most important thing - for a five year old. However, good parents help their children make good decisions on their own over time, as the children gain more maturity and ability to do so - and not only the bare fact of making good decisions, but internalizing the reasons why they are good. If they don't, the children don't grow up, and disaster (usually) ensues when they leave home and haven't had any practice of making decisions without parents looking over their shoulder. Moreover, even before leaving the house, the only thing that matters is getting on the parents' good side or being on their bad side - and thus, the motive for good actions is "appeasing parental wrath". But how would a parent react if he knew a child was acting like that, thinking about "paying off a parental debt" rather than making good decisions because they are good?
I agree teaching kids is important. And I'm on record for complaining about Trad schools that stop at Algebra II in math as one small example.
At the same time authority, and following authority is important. You learn that if you have to lead men. I have a saying I live by: "When you are in charge, you have the right to be wrong." That's how important it is to have authority maintained in a group. That is masculine. Feminine "collaboration" management is destroying this country. It is gutting out our industries.
QuoteTherefore the focus is on "assuaging God's wrath", which what Satisfaction/Reparation theology basically is about, instead of doing good because it is good.
I have not been following this thread recently, so I don't know the context. The Wrath of God is real. Just read the account of God wiping out a bunch of Israel because David banged a married woman. I agree the focus of our life should be on virtue, however I reject your
apparent false dichotomy. Do both, with the focus on virtue primarily.
Come to think about it, your first point is another false dichotomy. So a man can't teach obedience on one hand, and at the same time teach skills? Really?
Quote from: Arvinger on December 16, 2018, 08:12:53 PM
Number of problems here:
1) Not everyone is God's child. Only baptized Catholics are God's children, others are in dominion of the devil. Also, a child can decide to runaway from the parent (as baptized Catholics do by commiting mortal sin) and die on its own - it does not mean its parent's fault. Or, if a child runs away and commits a crime, a parent can provide evidence so his child is punished by the state, as justice requires that.
2) False equalization between parental love of a human and God's parental love, which reveals a very anthropocentric worldview. God loves us and set up the plan of salvation primarily for his own self-glorification. Once you reject anthropocentrism and take a theocentric view of God's plan, there is no contradiction nor problem.
3) Notice that when speaking about judgment and what is God's purpose for us, St. Paul compares us not to children, but to pots made by the potter, rhetoricaly asking how can the pot complain to the potter.
Your God is a pathetic, megalomaniac, egocentric dictator who will be worshiped by power-hungry people (e.g. bullies, just like we see a lot of on this forum) and sycophants and rightly despised by everyone else (psychologically normal people, that is). This idea explains a lot, in fact quite a lot, of the problems in the Church both pre- and post-Vatican II. Sooner or later, psychologically bullied people rebel, and the results often aren't pretty. If this is God, Catholicism is just one big lie from start to finish, designed to manipulate and bully people into the love of a God who does not love them in reality but sees them only as pawns in his master plan for self-glorification, and
tant pis if this master plan involves horrible suffering for the vast majority of them. Now every (or most) dictators desire the "love" of their subjects or at least their praise and pretend that it isn't just the raw exercise of power, which is why they have parades, holidays, celebrations, celebrating the "great things" the dictator has done for the people. Heck, even Orwell's Big Brother had parades celebrating the "generosity" of the Ministry of Plenty despite its love of power as a boot stomping forever. So of course we have all these "proofs" of God's love such as Incarnation, Crucifixion, Eucharist, Sacred Heart, etc., but I absolutely refuse to participate in the farce. If this is God I call Jesus, to His face, a liar and a fraud. The definition of love is willing another's good primarily for their sake. God expects us to call it "love" when He wills another's good primarily for His sake? Not a chance as far as I'm concerned. This version of Catholicism is a lie, and so it is no wonder that all too often Catholic apologists are willing to resort to lies in support of the "truth" (the Galileo Affair being a prime example, but also plenty of lies in support of YEC and so on). I know all the arguments about Augustinian predestination, St. Paul and Romans, strict EENS and so on, backwards and forwards and they've all been beaten to death multiple times here and elsewhere. Frankly, I find people with such views disgusting individuals who worship a disgusting God and again, refuse to participate in the farce, and refuse to be bludgeoned into submission with arguments to authority. If all this were part of the Catholic Faith I wouldn't be Catholic.
Of course, maybe, just maybe, God's love is a real reality and not just a fiction like the "love" of Kim Jong-Un for the North Korean populace and all these theologians are simply wrong, brutal and pathetic people creating a brutal and pathetic God all dressed up in nice theological language. It looks like a farce because it is a farce. And I know it is because I've experienced it (His love, that is). I challenged God, you know, some time ago on all of the above. My response to how can the pot complain against the potter is, guess what, I just did. I am guessing that I am one in a
very long list of people who have done likewise, despite the shrieks of "How dare you???" and threats of Divine chastisement which I am sure I will not have long to wait for from you. After all, the early Christians were Platonists who believed in God as self-diffusing good - this idea of "self-glorification" only coming much later on the scene as a band-aid to justify Augustianian (or Thomistic/Banezian) predestination. The Easterns would say there is such a thing as Divine immanence as well as Divine transcendence - yes, God is wholly other, and nevertheless He intimately concerns Himself with humanity in such a way that human good and Divine good are (at least for all intents and purposes) identical - God isn't out to "get back at us" because He can't - it's not His nature - sin harming us and harming Him again is, for all intents and purposes, one and the same thing - there is no real contradiction between an anthropocentric and theocentric worldview such as you claim. And, even though we may be tempted to doubt it given conditions in the world, He does actually desire to pardon and save sinners more than anything else - yes, He desires to give glory to His Father, but He in fact gives the most glory to His Father by doing exactly that. Yes, I know you will insist my experience must take a backseat to what is written on a printed page somewhere, but I don't care. I saw what I saw, and that's that.
Quote from: james03 on December 16, 2018, 09:33:59 PM
I agree teaching kids is important. And I'm on record for complaining about Trad schools that stop at Algebra II in math as one small example.
At the same time authority, and following authority is important. You learn that if you have to lead men. I have a saying I live by: "When you are in charge, you have the right to be wrong." That's how important it is to have authority maintained in a group. That is masculine. Feminine "collaboration" management is destroying this country. It is gutting out our industries.
It's not just teaching kids skills and information, but teaching a certain self-sufficiency and independence. When submission to authority is emphasized as the only, or by far most, important thing, however, there is no room for innovation, inventiveness, creativeness, etc. Moreover, the authority is there to aid your development as a person, but doesn't exist as an end in its own right. This kind of thing is anathema in the trad movement, which is why you have people asking their priest what pants leg they should put on first.
True, authority is extremely important in order to get things done - when you have unskilled, unintelligent, unmotivated people doing the work. These are the types of people in middle management obviously which is why "collaboration" style doesn't work - in middle management. However, the need for top-down authority lessens and lessens the more people are able and willing to do things on their own. To crack the enigma code it was necessary to leave people on their own and do their own thing. A top-down method would not have worked.
QuoteI have not been following this thread recently, so I don't know the context. The Wrath of God is real. Just read the account of God wiping out a bunch of Israel because David banged a married woman. I agree the focus of our life should be on virtue, however I reject your apparent false dichotomy. Do both, with the focus on virtue primarily.
God can't be the author of evil. It is a philosophical impossibility. The idea that calamities befall because one has "incurred the wrath of the gods" with Zeus hurling down thunderbolts is a pagan one.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 08:13:19 AM
Quote from: Arvinger on December 16, 2018, 08:12:53 PM
Number of problems here:
1) Not everyone is God's child. Only baptized Catholics are God's children, others are in dominion of the devil. Also, a child can decide to runaway from the parent (as baptized Catholics do by commiting mortal sin) and die on its own - it does not mean its parent's fault. Or, if a child runs away and commits a crime, a parent can provide evidence so his child is punished by the state, as justice requires that.
2) False equalization between parental love of a human and God's parental love, which reveals a very anthropocentric worldview. God loves us and set up the plan of salvation primarily for his own self-glorification. Once you reject anthropocentrism and take a theocentric view of God's plan, there is no contradiction nor problem.
3) Notice that when speaking about judgment and what is God's purpose for us, St. Paul compares us not to children, but to pots made by the potter, rhetoricaly asking how can the pot complain to the potter.
Your God is a pathetic, megalomaniac, egocentric dictator who will be worshiped by power-hungry people (e.g. bullies, just like we see a lot of on this forum) and sycophants and rightly despised by everyone else (psychologically normal people, that is). This idea explains a lot, in fact quite a lot, of the problems in the Church both pre- and post-Vatican II. Sooner or later, psychologically bullied people rebel, and the results often aren't pretty. If this is God, Catholicism is just one big lie from start to finish, designed to manipulate and bully people into the love of a God who does not love them in reality but sees them only as pawns in his master plan for self-glorification, and tant pis if this master plan involves horrible suffering for the vast majority of them.
You're both wrong. One of you is looking at God only as He relates to us as mere creatures (wherein we really are His servants with whom He does whatever He wishes), and the other is looking at God only as He relates to us as adopted sons in Christ. Of course considered in Himself, God is beyond all categories; but in relation to us, both of these are valid.
The "sickness of the West" which Quare likes often to refer to is just an inevitable consequence of the death of charity in the Christian life, which makes Christian lose all knowledge of their sonship and leaves them merely as (very sinful) creatures at risk of being punished by a Just God, leaving us in a situation closer to the Old Testament than to the New Testament. But I think Quare exaggerates the impact of this on Western theology and preaching. Apart from Calvinism and Jansenism which really does make God out to be unlovable, we've had theologians like St. Teresa, St. Alphonsus, and St. Thérèse who constantly stress God's love for and friendship with us.
Since the satisfaction issue was dealt with to satisfaction (pun intended!) on another thread, let's see if we can get back to Our Lady of Fatima one last time.
Notice that none of the opponents of Fatima were able to answer that article that (1) proved clearly that trained public prosecutors, who tried with cunning and deceitful intentions to catch the children of Fatima in one small lie, but admitted it was impossible to do so. (2) showed only Freemasons and other opponents of Christianity opposed and fought against Our Lady of Fatima, but without ultimate success (3) showed how many were the fruits of sanctity, and much more. Here's another article from the site, whose founder is Fr. George de Nantes. "«??After the benediction, His Grace the Archbishop of Evora addresses a vibrant appeal to the faithful present, exhorting them not to fail to sing at Fatima and in every place the glories of Mary, Patroness of Portugal. "?Today was the greatest religious demonstration?", he added, "?and perhaps none like it has ever been seen.?"
«??After the Ave Maria of Lourdes and other canticles, as a profession of faith everybody sings Queremos Deus (We want God), renewing the consecration to Our Lady one final time.
«??Two hours later, this mysterious place where every stone breathes of piety, penance and sacrifice, had become once more a haven of peace and silence..." http://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/the-whole-truth-about-fatima-volume-2/2-3-the-beginnings-of-a-magnificent-renaissance/
Here are the Popes: "Pope Pius XII, whose Episcopal consecration took place on May 13, 1917, the date of Our Lady's first apparition at Fatima (there are no coincidences with God!), did many things to help encourage devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. He was known as "the Pope of Fatima". He said, "The time for doubting Fatima has passed, the time for action is now." When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: "We can hardly believe our eyes." https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-facts/approvals-by-the-popes/
Recall again what Pope Benedict XIV (De Canoni. Sanct.) says: "Though an assent of Catholic faith be not due to them, they deserve a human assent according to the rules of prudence by which they are probable and piously credible."
The Sacred Heart devotion was known to the Apostles, and practiced by St. John. Our Lord appeared with St. John to St. Gertrude and she spoke to him about it. Jesus said the renewed appreciation of it was reserved for those times, when love had grown cold in the hearts of many. The 9 First Fridays promise was given to St. Margaret, after many people had scruples about whether they would be saved. It is the Lord's right and Our Lady's privilege to direct our actions from heaven in any particular age as They choose. The Immaculate Heart was emphasized by God as Heavens's chosen remedy for the evils of our time. This is not new revelation, but helps us live out the deposit of faith already received in whatever time period of history we live in. St. Thomas explains this as the purpose of private revelation:
"Reply to Objection 3. The prophets who foretold the coming of Christ could not continue further than John, who with his finger pointed to Christ actually present. Nevertheless as Jerome says on this passage, "This does not mean that there were no more prophets after John. For we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Agabus and the four maidens, daughters of Philip, prophesied." John, too, wrote a prophetic book about the end of the Church; and at all times there have not been lacking persons having the spirit of prophecy, not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts. Thus Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 26) that "the emperor Theodosius sent to John who dwelt in the Egyptian desert, and whom he knew by his ever-increasing fame to be endowed with the prophetic spirit: and from him he received a message assuring him of victory." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3174.htm
Fatima therefore comes under such prophetic guidance given by God for the direction of human acts. Public revelation admonishes you, "Despise not prophecies" (1 Thess 5:20). Elsewhere, in a commentary on St. Matthew, the Angelic Doctor confirms that the Spirit of prophecy will never be lacking, "The mission of prophecy is twofold: it is sent to establish the Faith and to correct morals; but (today) the Faith has already been founded, for the promises were fulfilled by Christ. But for that which is concerned with correcting morals, prophecy never has, never will be lacking." (Divi Thomae Aquinatis Expositio in. ..Matthaeum, chap. XI, 13. (Neapoli, 1858), p. 102.) http://priv-rev.blogspot.com/2008/04/ch-1-what-is-private-revelation.html
It is the privilege and the prerogative of Jesus and Mary to direct human acts in every age however they want. If they tell us episcopal consecration of individual countries are very good, and Papal Consecration of Russia in particular would save the Church from Communism, it is good and just for all churchmen to obey Jesus and Mary in that. If They give prophetic warnings of what may happen otherwise, it is for our good that this is done and it helps us to avoid or minimize it.
If the Emperor Constantine had not obeyed the voice of God telling him to exalt the Holy Cross, Constantine would never have been Constantine. The Holy Spirit cannot be commanded to be silent by man. He will continue to speak and give His gifts of prophesy and of direction from heaven for our time - not new revelation of doctrine, but directing human acts to live out the Faith already handed down - just as He wills, and nobody can really stop Him from doing so.
Sr. Lucia did not lie. She would not have gotten away with lying anyway, nor would God have borne witness to her before Popes by His miracles and by innumerable fruits of the greatest sanctity, thus confirming her testimony by His. Sr. Lucia was given some messages she was to make known to the Holy Father. She did this in a proper way and the Popes confirmed clearly the time for doubting her message is past, and the time for Catholic Action based on it is now. The Popes repeatedly sought her counsel and even Bishops frequently made consecrations of individual countries.
The two saintly children of Fatima who died in infancy amazed even their persecutors by their fidelity and their testimony. They were too simple to lie or deceive.
The matter is settled and the case is closed. Fatima is as approved as any apparition can ever be. Good Catholics will assent by pious faith, a human assent we give to miraculous facts outside Sacred Scripture. That is the teaching of the Popes, Saints and Doctors. The end.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR MONDAY.
Most holy Mary, Queen of heaven, I who was once the slave of the Evil One now dedicate myself to thy service for ever; and I offer myself, to honour and to serve thee as long as I live. Accept me for thy servant, and cast me not away from thee as I deserve. In thee, O my Mother, I place all my hopes. All blessing and thanksgiving be to God, who in His mercy giveth me this trust in thee. It is true that in past time I have fallen miserably into sin; but by the merits of Jesus Christ, and thy prayers, I hope that God has pardoned me. But this is not enough, my Mother. One thought terrifies me; it is, that I may yet lose the grace of God. Danger is ever nigh; the devil sleeps not; fresh temptations assail me. Protect me, then, my Queen; help me against the assaults of my spiritual enemy. Never suffer me to sin again, or to offend Jesus thy Son. Let me not by my sin lose my soul, heaven, and my God. This one grace, Mary, I ask of thee; this is my desire; may thy prayers obtain this for me. Such is my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: John Lamb on December 17, 2018, 08:41:39 AM
You're both wrong. One of you is looking at God only as He relates to us as mere creatures (wherein we really are His servants with whom He does whatever He wishes), and the other is looking at God only as He relates to us as adopted sons in Christ. Of course considered in Himself, God is beyond all categories; but in relation to us, both of these are valid.
That is still a description of a despot.
QuoteThe "sickness of the West" which Quare likes often to refer to is just an inevitable consequence of the death of charity in the Christian life, which makes Christian lose all knowledge of their sonship and leaves them merely as (very sinful) creatures at risk of being punished by a Just God, leaving us in a situation closer to the Old Testament than to the New Testament.
But what are the exact reasons for this death of charity in the Christian life, but for the way God is/was portrayed: a vengeful, angry God devoid of compassion and one taking out His wrath on the human race. And a vengeful, angry God is worshiped by vengeful, angry people.
One cannot love a vengeful God out to exact revenge, meticulously cataloging all our faults and foibles to have something to reproach us with later, unless we're sycophantic enough to get on His good side in which case He may "let us off" to some extent. It's not psychologically possible. It's possible for some sort of Stockholm Syndrome to exist, but that's about it. Of course everyone has to
pretend to love God, but it's all a big farce, and a lot of "preaching" these days is in reality cheap manipulation via guilt and one-upsmanship, and a lot of "piety" is pure phoniness.
It's like a publisher for whom an author has labored long and hard, and produced a work of great quality, only to be berated by the publisher due to a typo on page 35. What happens next, do you think? Every i will be dotted and t properly crossed, but the next work will be mediocre junk, made with the absolute minimum of effort. The author may praise the publisher in order to get his work published, but in reality he will despise him and rightly so.
Buuuut Divine justice you will say. To which I reply, whatever happened to the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy", and whatever happened to the Scriptural truth that God has compassion. Mercy is not just the bare practice of corporal and spiritual works of mercy as some seem to think, but over and above that an attitude of compassion, now seen (by many here) as evidence of weakness and condonation of sin. That is a false compassion, but a true one nevertheless exists. And is that how Christ acted? Did He say to the woman taken in adultery, you dirty slut, you got what you deserved? True, He berated the Pharisees for their self-righteousness but there is also definitely an aspect of compassion: true compassion.
QuoteBut I think Quare exaggerates the impact of this on Western theology and preaching. Apart from Calvinism and Jansenism which really does make God out to be unlovable, we've had theologians like St. Teresa, St. Alphonsus, and St. Thérèse who constantly stress God's love for and friendship with us.
Perhaps you can come up with a few counterexamples. But we've also had unfortunately the rise of Banezism and then neo-Thomism in which God's "love" is an absolute farce, in the end He's looking out for Number One.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 08:29:17 AM
QuoteI have not been following this thread recently, so I don't know the context. The Wrath of God is real. Just read the account of God wiping out a bunch of Israel because David banged a married woman. I agree the focus of our life should be on virtue, however I reject your apparent false dichotomy. Do both, with the focus on virtue primarily.
God can't be the author of evil. It is a philosophical impossibility. The idea that calamities befall because one has "incurred the wrath of the gods" with Zeus hurling down thunderbolts is a pagan one.
False premise: hurling thunderbolts upon human beings is necessarily evil. The Old Testament contradicts your claim that this notion of an avenging deity is a "pagan" one, whatever that means, unless, of course, you're implicitly invoking ideas from the pseudoscience of Biblical criticism that the Hebrew scriptures are synchretistic works of human hands that borrowed heavily from the theology, motifs and language of Canaanite myth and religion, in which case you've effectively nullified any real distinction between "paganism" and Christianity, unless, of course, you're invoking the idea that the Hebrew faith, like "paganism", was a primitive groping in the dark after God and the long history of Christian theology represents a process of deepening understanding of the true nature of the divine, not through revelation, but by applied reason and the inner encounter with the divine.
Given your ideas you've made public here concerning the historicity of various Old Testament narratives, I'd be willing to bet you
are doing both, and when we add to that the hints of metaphysical and epistemological relativism you've expressed elsewhere on the subject of salvation, I don't know why you don't just come out and explicitly identify yourself with Modernism, being you would appear to subscribe to its essential ideas. Or maybe Marcionism or Valentinian Gnosticism?
So, if my own beliefs are "pagan" and yours "Christian", then so be it, I will proclaim my "pagan" religious identity and reject "Christianity".
Quote from: Xavier on December 17, 2018, 09:37:50 AM
Since the satisfaction issue was dealt with to satisfaction (pun intended!) on another thread, let's see if we can get back to Our Lady of Fatima one last time.
Just stop for a second and analyze your approach here. You aren't writing to convince with detailed, logical argumentation and critical thought. You're writing to bludgeon and bully with cheap polemics. It's your whole m.o., not only on this issue but on others such as YEC. It bothers you not one whit that you charge those who disagree with you as "anti-Catholic", "Protestant" in some way, etc.
And you fail to make distinctions. The Miracle of the Sun is one thing. It's all the stuff that came afterwards that is the point of debate and the bone of contention.
QuoteRecall again what Pope Benedict XIV (De Canoni. Sanct.) says: "Though an assent of Catholic faith be not due to them, they deserve a human assent according to the rules of prudence by which they are probable and piously credible."
Which is begging the question; we simply don't think everything regarding Fatima is probable and piously credible.
QuoteIt is the privilege and the prerogative of Jesus and Mary to direct human acts in every age however they want. If they tell us episcopal consecration of individual countries are very good, and Papal Consecration of Russia in particular would save the Church from Communism, it is good and just for all churchmen to obey Jesus and Mary in that. If They give prophetic warnings of what may happen otherwise, it is for our good that this is done and it helps us to avoid or minimize it.
It's also their "privilege and prerogative" to create space aliens and have them visit Earth, but that does not give a good reason to think that they have done so or will do so. And so, it is not credible that the Pope saying five words in Latin should avert a major catastrophe, result in the end of Communism, or whatever. Which doesn't mean it is a bad idea in itself to do. In fact, I wish he would do it (Gerard will disagree). Now again if you make an argument that it is not an intrinsic cause-and-effect, but that God will positively will that Communism be destroyed or whatever, then again, as I said, we have the child tyrant of the Twilight Zone, letting whole countries be destroyed and millions of souls perish in hell because He did not get His way. Which explains all the antics of Fatimists; a childish God worshiped by childish people.
QuoteThe matter is settled and the case is closed. Fatima is as approved as any apparition can ever be. Good Catholics will assent by pious faith, a human assent we give to miraculous facts outside Sacred Scripture. That is the teaching of the Popes, Saints and Doctors. The end.
A bullying argument; the inference is that those who don't assent by pious faith are bad Catholics. I use my brain and refuse, and don't care what anyone else thinks. The end.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 08:13:19 AM
Your God is a pathetic, megalomaniac, egocentric dictator who will be worshiped by power-hungry people (e.g. bullies, just like we see a lot of on this forum) and sycophants and rightly despised by everyone else (psychologically normal people, that is).
Your "God" did not just make this to be what it is, but made it come to be through these very ongoing horrors:
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcnH_TOqi3I&pbjreload=10[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMQZYYEBbkQ[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMVkbezKTJg[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQq93Q2txrs&pbjreload=10[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u854-7cFQKQ[/yt]
And every material being is locked into this by necessity, to kill and consume others in order to maintain a temporary existence, by virtue of this "God's" laws of conservation and entropy. The grand design of your so-called "deity".
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmontalk.net%2Fgnosis_images%2FFrancisco_de_Goya_%281819-1823%29.jpg&hash=2c6ab1173d3228f7082c630602aed02118ac567f)
QuoteThis idea explains a lot, in fact quite a lot, of the problems in the Church both pre- and post-Vatican II. Sooner or later, psychologically bullied people rebel, and the results often aren't pretty. If this is God, Catholicism is just one big lie from start to finish, designed to manipulate and bully people into the love of a God who does not love them in reality but sees them only as pawns in his master plan for self-glorification, and tant pis if this master plan involves horrible suffering for the vast majority of them.
Your "God's"master plan involves systematic suffering and death as the means of his creative work and an essential part of the temporal existence of every living creature that has ever come to be.
You
have no leg to stand on complaining about this supposed "dictator God" of some Catholics, just as you have no argument aginst John 3:3, Matthew 7:13-14 & 21-23, Matthew 25:31-46, etc., other than to dismiss them by interpretation through some speculative pansy-arsed theology that turns Jesus Christ into a Care Bear.
QuoteNow every (or most) dictators desire the "love" of their subjects or at least their praise and pretend that it isn't just the raw exercise of power, which is why they have parades, holidays, celebrations, celebrating the "great things" the dictator has done for the people. ... I know all the arguments about Augustinian predestination, St. Paul and Romans, strict EENS and so on, backwards and forwards and they've all been beaten to death multiple times here and elsewhere.
Now recall his own logically convoluted "argument", in trying to rescue theistic evolutionism from the straightforward moral conclusions concerning its "God", for how the existence of pain, suffering and death in the world prior to the Fall could have been caused by God prior to man's sin on account of foreseeing it, and watch the charade come apart by unraveling itself.
Quote
Frankly, I find people with such views disgusting individuals who worship a disgusting God and again, refuse to participate in the farce, and refuse to be bludgeoned into submission with arguments to authority.
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/so-youre-telling-mhgbc0.jpg)
QuoteYes, I know you will insist my experience must take a backseat to what is written on a printed page somewhere, but I don't care. I saw what I saw, and that's that.
Oh, so NOW, when it's
you, personal experience counts.
I've plumbed the depths. I've travelled outside of this law-locked physical realm . I've experienced my spirit as transcendent, witnessed angels speaking out of beams of blinding light, seen demons called into appearance out of whisps of incense, watched "reality" unravel at its seams and seeming impossibilities pop in and out of material existence, not in bouts of madnesss but through systematic method and at a command, and everything more which gives lie to the notion that the nature of cosmos as a whole is
anything like that of your beloved mechanical "science" or that God, the Most High, is responsible for this part of it, this place east of Eden, being what it is. You've been duped. I don't care. I saw what
I saw, and that's that.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
A bullying argument; the inference is that those who don't assent by pious faith are bad Catholics.
No, you're a "bad Catholic"because you don't have faith, apparent in your rejection of the Church Jesus founded in scripture after scripture, doctrine after doctrine, and miracle after miracle as a big, blundering failure of an institution, which is the reason you place your reliance upon human reason, blind as it is, as the final arbiter of truth.
QuoteI use my brain and refuse, and don't care what anyone else thinks. The end.
You clearly do care what people think, or you would shut up and sod off instead of playing the part of the forum's intellectual bully, continually scoffing at others as ignorant country bumpkins and crying about "Western Catholicism".
Frankly, this endless, self-pitying whining of yours, which has come through strongly in this thread, is making me physically ill.
For all of his intelligent and in-depth discussion of specific theological issues, at the bottom QMR makes fundamental errors not much different from those of village atheists who claim that "they don't believe in God because there is so much slaughter in the Old Testament!". Essentially, your rant is nothing but your emotional judgment and expression of the fact that you simply don't like what you read in Sacred Scripture, Magisterium and numerous Saints, which you explicitly admit calling those upholding St. Paul's teaching in Romans and doctrine of strict EENS (explicitly taught by Aathanasian Creed and Council of Florence) "disgusting" and God revealing those doctrines "disgusting". You dont like that people go to Hell, that God justly executes punishment on those who deserve it and do not repent (even though God provided them with means of salvation), and that we were created to serve God and He can do with us whatever He pleases, and He does not owe us anything at all (but we receive tremendous graces from Him every day, including those necessary for salvation - if God owed us something, as you had temerity to claim in another thread, grace would not be grace but merely a payment). You are not the first one, these truths naturally offend creaturly pride, and it is understandable. To some extent I sympathize with that, as these truths are indeed difficult to accept (I struggle with them too) and we often lack humility necessary for this. Obviously, the fact that you don't like these truths has exactly zero bearing upon whether they are actually true or not.
I'm not sure what experience are you talking about and how could your experience be objectively evaluated (members of any religion claim to "have experienced" their particular deity), but it sounds like modernist phenomenology and is in fact nothing but subjectivism. Of course, you can replace theology with that, but don't expect your emotionalism to be treated as a serious theological argument.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiTo which I reply, whatever happened to the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy", and whatever happened to the Scriptural truth that God has compassion. Mercy is not just the bare practice of corporal and spiritual works of mercy as some seem to think, but over and above that an attitude of compassion, now seen (by many here) as evidence of weakness and condonation of sin. That is a false compassion, but a true one nevertheless exists. And is that how Christ acted? Did He say to the woman taken in adultery, you dirty slut, you got what you deserved? True, He berated the Pharisees for their self-righteousness but there is also definitely an aspect of compassion: true compassion.
Sermon on the Mount includes some pretty radical teachings about sin and Hell too. Actually, in the Sermon on the Mount Our Lord raises the moral bar in comparison the Old Testament law, so in the New Covenant Saints are required even more than in the Old Covenant (but of course they receive much greater and more abundant graces enabling them to achieve that). Compassion, mercy and justice go hand in hand.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiBut what are the exact reasons for this death of charity in the Christian life, but for the way God is/was portrayed: a vengeful, angry God devoid of compassion and one taking out His wrath on the human race. And a vengeful, angry God is worshiped by vengeful, angry people.
Oh, surely it has nothing to do with our selfishness, lack of compassion, greed, love of sin, impurity, etc. - no, let's blame God. Also, Scripture is filled with passages describing just wrath of God and His anger due to sins of humanity - of course, you can accuse me of "prooftexting" (even though usually you never provide exegetical counter-arguments), or you can try to put these passages on their head through eisegesis or employ some for of practical Marcionism, but thats is far removed from any sort of meaningful Christian worldview.
Honestly, I have more respect for atheists who have integrity to honestly argue their position than for liberal Catholics (oxymoron, I know) - an atheist rejects core teachings of Christianity, but at least he is open about it. A liberal Catholic also rejects those teachings, but pretends to pay lip-service to Sacred Scripture and Magisterium, while in reality he picks and chooses what he believes on the basis of his feelings, culture, personal preferences, etc.
Quote from: Arvinger on December 17, 2018, 11:42:35 AM
Essentially, your rant is nothing but your emotional judgment and expression of the fact that you simply don't like what you read in Sacred Scripture, Magisterium and numerous Saints, which you explicitly admit calling those upholding St. Paul's teaching in Romans and doctrine of strict EENS (explicitly taught by Aathanasian Creed and Council of Florence) "disgusting" and God revealing those doctrines "disgusting".
Of course I don't like what I read (or at least the way you think I should interpret it) because it is in fact disgusting; and, I will maintain, that is a sound argument if I show the source of the disgust by reasoned argument. It violates basic principles of human decency, and disgust is a normal and natural reaction to something that does violate these in such a major way. (Now I think basic human decency is actually a good thing and can (or should) work as a quasi-preamble of Faith.) Now, a God who creates certain (in fact, most) men precisely as "vessels of wrath", just precisely so that He can "manifest His justice" by punishing them in horrible eternal torment, refuses to (in some way) give them necessary graces for salvation, and imagines that pulling the few from the
massa damnata will manifest His mercy, is a sick bastard, looking out for Number One regardless of the horrible suffering inflicted on His creation. Anyone with an ounce of human decency would say so. If any human acted like this he would (or should) go to prison for life at least. Ditto for those who interpret EENS in such a way as to mean God holds responsible for lack of faith those to whom He failed to grant it even though no obstacle was placed in the way (e.g. privative unbelief as opposed to positive unbelief) under the pretext they aren't really condemned for lack of faith, but other sins that can't be remitted without faith.
You will excuse me for not being impressed with citing Scripture, Magisterium, and Saints.
You are rejecting things
you read and simply don't like in these sources. The same Saints who held to Augustinian predestination had to do violence to the phrase "God will have every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" to mean the exact opposite of what it says. (And I know how much you hate eisegesis, and how there's no textual reason whatsoever to interpret "every man" as "one from all types of man".) Saint Francis de Sales, and plenty others after him, actually didn't adhere to this theory of predestination, as you well know, and it was never officially taught by the Magisterium. Many Saints taught Baptism of Desire, as did the Magisterium, while Pius IX taught invincible ignorance. (Yes, I know all the EENS counterarguments and they all suck; this topic has been beaten to death here and elsewhere; you must interpret things to mean the exact opposite of what they do upon a plain reading.)
And this isn't love; it's God putting over and above everything else what He is able to "manifest", and human good is only useful insofar as it serves that. Well either God's love is real or it is not, and that's not love, it's utilitarianism. I refuse to lie and say that God really loved the world, if He in fact did not. The definition of love being, willing someone else's good for that someone else's sake. And you haven't answered this last argument. Calling it a "rant" isn't an answer.
You can argue that my sense of human decency is flawed. I will argue in response that it is as basic for humans as to adhere to the principle of causality, or law of non-contradiction. We are all outraged for instance when we see children in sex slavery. You can argue that my sense of human decency is not applicable; IOW, that I'm applying human standards of "good" to "God is good". And I will respond that I am applying my standards to God's effects in the world, which are finite and to which those standards apply.
QuoteYou dont like that people go to Hell, that God justly executes punishment on those who deserve it and do not repent (even though God provided them with means of salvation),...
Of course I don't like that people go to hell. Do you? If so, then you're also mentally sick. But, God does give us freedom which we can misuse, including the freedom to finally reject Him. I know all the pathetic counterarguments, you know, like trying to compare what I said above with the reality of hell. It's metaphysically impossible that one could love God and hate Him at the same time.
Quote... and that we were created to serve God and He can do with us whatever He pleases...
This principle I simply deny, in the voluntaristic sense that you mean it. God has responsibility for His creation and can't "do whatever He pleases" like a sadist does to the animals he tortures.
Quote... and He does not owe us anything at all (but we receive tremendous graces from Him every day, including those necessary for salvation - if God owed us something, as you had temerity to claim in another thread, grace would not be grace but merely a payment).
As you well know, it is a payment
in a sense - not that we merited it on our own but that Christ merited it for us, as I made very clear on that thread, and which you are now quite dishonestly making me appear to say something else.
QuoteYou are not the first one, these truths naturally offend creaturly pride, and it is understandable. To some extent I sympathize with that, as these truths are indeed difficult to accept (I struggle with them too) and we often lack humility necessary for this. Obviously, the fact that you don't like these truths has exactly zero bearing upon whether they are actually true or not.
They aren't truths. They are difficult to accept precisely because they aren't truths, and the human intellect and will are attracted to truth and goodness, not error and evil.
QuoteI'm not sure what experience are you talking about and how could your experience be objectively evaluated (members of any religion claim to "have experienced" their particular deity), but it sounds like modernist phenomenology and is in fact nothing but subjectivism. Of course, you can replace theology with that, but don't expect your emotionalism to be treated as a serious theological argument.
It wasn't intended as such; by its nature it can only be convincing for me. However, the anti-Modernist zeitgeist has really gone overboard when the reality and value of all religious experience is denied or dismissed as "mere subjectivism". I don't think "Taste and see that the Lord is sweet" is referring to theological argumentation.
QuoteSermon on the Mount includes some pretty radical teachings about sin and Hell too. Actually, in the Sermon on the Mount Our Lord raises the moral bar in comparison the Old Testament law, so in the New Covenant Saints are required even more than in the Old Covenant (but of course they receive much greater and more abundant graces enabling them to achieve that). Compassion, mercy and justice go hand in hand.
Well of course they do. That doesn't contradict what I just said.
QuoteQuote from: QuaremerepulistiBut what are the exact reasons for this death of charity in the Christian life, but for the way God is/was portrayed: a vengeful, angry God devoid of compassion and one taking out His wrath on the human race. And a vengeful, angry God is worshiped by vengeful, angry people.
Oh, surely it has nothing to do with our selfishness, lack of compassion, greed, love of sin, impurity, etc. - no, let's blame God.
These are
symptoms of lack of charity, not the
cause of it. And what
exactly is supposed to be the remedy for those things? Or do you expect people to act with love and mercy when such traits are not exemplified in the God they worship, or claim to worship.
QuoteAlso, Scripture is filled with passages describing just wrath of God and His anger due to sins of humanity...
For the truly evil, impenitent, and hardened in sin, yes; but bear in mind, expressions such as God's "wrath" and "anger" don't describe God in Himself, for He cannot change; but only how He appears to the sinner. Now I know you will say this is "eisegesis" while I am saying that Scriptural interpretation simply cannot contravene sound philosophy about the immutability of God, so I guess we'll have to disagree. But it is also filled with passages describing how anxious He is that sinners should turn back to Him, how He wills not the death of the sinner but that he be converted and live, and so on.
QuoteTrue, authority is extremely important in order to get things done - when you have unskilled, unintelligent, unmotivated people doing the work.
You speak from ignorance. In fact it is probably more important for high IQ people to learn to follow orders. My current team is a group of engineers. My estimate is that the lowest IQ in the group is probably 110, maybe higher. Before I got here they were big f. ups. Nothing getting done, people running around like chickens with their heads cut off. I shut down this independent feminine collaborative crap and started seeing results within weeks. Our main customer who used to complain now loves us and we are set up to win a 4000 manhour job. And that's the start.
In my previous job I oversaw blue collar guys. I trusted them a whole lot more to get the job done then this current group, but that will improve.
The only place where anarchy level independence might be beneficial is in the pure creative space where you are inventing, like university research. But I've seen that blow up when they tried to take a great idea to market. Total $h!t show. Even Elon Musk is reported to be a nazi. Steve Jobs? What was the average IQ of his team?
But I'm not defending bunker trads. And I'm the last person to say you need to "protect" your kids by keeping them from doing stuff. Avoid the false dichotomy. Case in point. When my kids wanted to go out hiking, they asked if they could take the car. I said "sure, have fun." I didn't ask where they were going. I didn't remind them to bring water, etc.... But they still respected my authority because I own the car. You need a proper balance of BOTH.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
The same Saints who held to Augustinian predestination had to do violence to the phrase "God will have every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" to mean the exact opposite of what it says. (And I know how much you hate eisegesis, and how there's no textual reason whatsoever to interpret "every man" as "one from all types of man".)
There are
contextual reasons, though. The same for similar passages as John 3:16 or 2 Peter 3:9.
Exegesis, whatever school it may follow, will always try to establish a harmonious whole of the scriptural testimony. These texts can be interpreted as referring, as it were, to God's
complacential will, rather than His decretive will, without doing violence to reason. God's love towards mankind as a whole has been openly declared in the person of Christ, assuring them that whosoever comes to Him shall never be cast out (John 6:37). No repenting believer shall be excluded from saving mercy and the call to repentance and salvation is universal, only God knowing who are His sheep. None of them, in the end, can be snatched out of His hand (John 10:28).
No, QMR, you are wrong. Christian life has two main purposes (1) to grow daily in the knowledge and love of God, and of our neighbor, i.e. to increase in faith, hope, love, grace and merit; and, as far as possible, (2) to help and assist others do the same, willing for them what you would will for yourself. As Our Lord Jesus Christ has taught and done. And my purpose, if you want to call it that, is nothing other those two. I already provided much earlier detailed and clear reasons showing Our Lady of Fatima's apparitions are manifestly of supernatural origin. The fulfilled prophecy pre-announcing a miracle on Oct 13th, the miracle itself where pilgrims experienced their clothes being dried, beside the moving sun, the many later public miracles witnessed and experienced even by Popes, especially Pope Pius XII; the fact of Communism's spread and influence throughout the world etc etc. My last post, which I hoped would really be a last post, was a summary of the articles and arguments given earlier, the nature of private revelations, the Papal approvals, and such.
Now, you suggest above you are ok with the Miracle of the Sun. Is that correct? Just to clarify, your difficulty is with later events? But later events first of all were confirmed by many miracles, of which Pope Pius XII himself is an eyewitness. Is he not credible in your eyes?
"When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: "We can hardly believe our eyes."
Or by "later", how late do you mean?
You continue in other replies to think poorly of God; God does not gain anything if we serve Him; we grow in union with Him and become like Him if we do. His glory is already infinite and unlimited; it is manifested in creation and among us when we serve Him with all our hearts, as we should; it is really God Who glorifies His Saints, and they "give" Him glory only to the extent they allow *His* glory to be manifested in their lives. Yet, you speak against glorifying God, misunderstanding, like typical modern secularists do, what it means that the motive of all our actions should be to give glory (understood in this sense, not in the incorrect way you have misinterpreted it) to Almighty God. This does not mean anyone gives to God what He does not have, but rather that God gives Himself to those who do this.
"So of course we have all these "proofs" of God's love such as Incarnation, Crucifixion, Eucharist, Sacred Heart, etc." - QMR. yes, all very many and such great proofs of God's Infinite Love. The question is, what poor recompense have we given Him for such great Love? That should be the driving question in every Christian heart. All our actions should be for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.
When our homes and our nations are consecrated to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart, Jesus and Mary will gratuitously obtain for us the grace that we - being poor sinners, and with so few merits - are unable to obtain for ourselves. Like the miraculous conversion of Russia.
Russia has already undergone a great transformation - even if it is far from complete - that hardly anyone could have foreseen even 30 years ago. From Communism to Orthodox Christianity. A relative of mine went to Russia recently and the faith of the people, and their devotion to Our Lady, is quite strong. Btw, it is not a question of 5 minutes, but it will probably take a few months at least to organize. Pope John Paul II's assassination attempt was on May 13th, 1981, and after he recovered he took great interest in finding out about Our Lady of Fatima - whom he credited with saving his life - and completing the Consecration finally on March 25th, 1984 - almost 3 years later, without naming Russia specifically, as Fr. Amorth and others told us, and as the official text shows. For ecumenical reasons.
After a partial consecration, we did see a partial fall of Communism. Some say the Communists are still biding their time and waiting to take over power again, but it doesn't matter. The Russian people have rejected atheism and secularism and come back in large measure to their ancient Christian Faith. After a complete consecration, we will see the complete downfall of Communism, and the return of Russia not to a partial conversion but to the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 18, 2018, 04:53:28 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
The same Saints who held to Augustinian predestination had to do violence to the phrase "God will have every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" to mean the exact opposite of what it says. (And I know how much you hate eisegesis, and how there's no textual reason whatsoever to interpret "every man" as "one from all types of man".)
There are contextual reasons, though. The same for similar passages as John 3:16 or 2 Peter 3:9.
So exegesis is Alice in Wonderland. Everyone has his reasons to interpret every word in Scripture to mean exactly what he wants it to mean, just like Alice in Wonderland, but then of course circularly turns around and claims Scripture as proof his reasons are correct.
I admit I do this with Genesis 1 vs. modern science regarding the age of the earth, and other places in Scripture where God seems to be the cause of evil vs. the philosophical impossibility of God being the author of evil. At least I'm honest about it.
QuoteExegesis, whatever school it may follow, will always try to establish a harmonious whole of the scriptural testimony.
Of course it does, and in order do to that it must, in every case, whether openly or surreptitiously, bring in something
from outside the scriptural testimony in order to reconcile apparent discrepancies. The only argument is regarding what, exactly, is going to be brought in, with each side, naturally, claiming that what it does is "exegesis" whereas what everyone else does is "eisegesis".
QuoteThese texts can be interpreted as referring, as it were, to God's complacential will, rather than His decretive will, without doing violence to reason.
And where in Scripture do we see God's "complacential" and "decretive" will defined? Nowhere, obviously. It's something brought in from outside to reconcile the texts. Other exegetical schools, as you know, interpret Romans in the light of "God will have every man to be saved" and not the reverse, or say that St. Paul was really referring to the Jews as a group.
In any event, all this should be sufficient to disprove the contention that sound exegesis demands Augustinian predestination, and that anyone who denies it is "against Scripture".
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Now, a God who creates certain (in fact, most) men precisely as "vessels of wrath", just precisely so that He can "manifest His justice" by punishing them in horrible eternal torment, refuses to (in some way) give them necessary graces for salvation, and imagines that pulling the few from the massa damnata will manifest His mercy, is a sick bastard, looking out for Number One regardless of the horrible suffering inflicted on His creation.
God doesn't do this.
But rather than argue, let me ask - how would you arrange things if you were God?
More specifically, where would individuals who freely chose evil and refused to repent fit into your scheme?
Quote from: Xavier on December 18, 2018, 05:55:58 AM
Now, you suggest above you are ok with the Miracle of the Sun. Is that correct? Just to clarify, your difficulty is with later events?
Correct. And it was only the Miracle of the Sun that was formally approved by the Church, so your arguments about Popes, etc., only apply to it.
QuoteBut later events first of all were confirmed by many miracles, of which Pope Pius XII himself is an eyewitness. Is he not credible in your eyes? "When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: "We can hardly believe our eyes."
I can certainly believe Pius XII received a "replay" of the Miracle of the Sun (although I don't put as much credibility in this as the Miracle itself obviously). This doesn't make credible the later claims by Sister Lucy.
QuoteYou continue in other replies to think poorly of God; God does not gain anything if we serve Him; we grow in union with Him and become like Him if we do. His glory is already infinite and unlimited; it is manifested in creation and among us when we serve Him with all our hearts, as we should; it is really God Who glorifies His Saints, and they "give" Him glory only to the extent they allow *His* glory to be manifested in their lives. Yet, you speak against glorifying God, misunderstanding, like typical modern secularists do, what it means that the motive of all our actions should be to give glory (understood in this sense, not in the incorrect way you have misinterpreted it) to Almighty God. This does not mean anyone gives to God what He does not have, but rather that God gives Himself to those who do this.
I don't think poorly of God, which is why I have no reservations about holding Him to a standard (and even challenging Him on it, as I said). It is those who think God primarily does everything for His self-glorification (too bad if it involves horrible suffering of His creation) who think poorly of Him, think that He can do "whatever He wants" with His creation and are aghast that I should challenge this version of God as petty dictator. And you have your own petty ideas here, with the idea that the most important thing is that God's glory be "manifest" - which is to make of God a vain egoist.
You (and other posters) either ignore this or angrily respond with a tirade because - deep down - you know I am right, but this issue cuts to the core of "traditional" (meaning post-Reformation) Western Catholicism, and would therefore cause you to have to reexamine your worldview, which is always painful.
Quote"So of course we have all these "proofs" of God's love such as Incarnation, Crucifixion, Eucharist, Sacred Heart, etc." - QMR. yes, all very many and such great proofs of God's Infinite Love. The question is, what poor recompense have we given Him for such great Love? That should be the driving question in every Christian heart. All our actions should be for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.
These only prove God wants our love but not that He loves us if God really is like described above; a petty, vain, egocentric dictator. All (or most) dictators want to be loved, of course, as the "savior of the people" (while ruling over them with an iron fist) and so this God wouldn't be above doing things such as providing these "proofs" to manipulate us into doing so.
And again, you resort to cheap psychological manipulation via guilt - that love demands "recompense" - because you read this in some devotional book somewhere. That's not how TRUE love works. You're not married, but I can tell you that if spouses constantly demanded of each other what "recompense" was made to the other for their love and constantly berated each other for not "measuring up" no marriage would EVER last longer than six months. But God is held to a lower standard than even an earthly spouse, so it seems.
QuoteWhen our homes and our nations are consecrated to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart, Jesus and Mary will gratuitously obtain for us the grace that we - being poor sinners, and with so few merits - are unable to obtain for ourselves. Like the miraculous conversion of Russia.
Again, I have no problem of course with consecrations to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts in themselves. But the idea that God could convert Russia but refuses to do so until He gets these consecrations (in fact five magic words in Latin from the Pope) again makes of God a vain dictator.
QuoteRussia has already undergone a great transformation - even if it is far from complete - that hardly anyone could have foreseen even 30 years ago. From Communism to Orthodox Christianity...
It really defies belief that you would take this as evidence of Divine action as a result of the partial consecration. You're clearly and evidently distorting facts to fit a narrative (just like everyone else apparently these days).
First, has Russia
really converted to Orthodox Christianity? Sure, if you miscount based on the "ethnic principle" like religious leader might be wont to do. However:
QuoteAnother criterion to count religious populations in Russia is that of "religious observance". Based on this principle, very few Russians would be religious. It has been found that between 0.5% and 2% of people in big cities attend Easter services, and overall just between 2% and 10% of the total population (3 to 15 million people) are actively practising Orthodox Christians. However, most Russians do attend Christmas services and avoid drinking alcohol during Easter....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia
I think not, if only at most 2% of people in Moscow and St. Petersburg even bother going to Church for Easter.
Second, even if so, so what? This would mean God provided the "grace", not to convert to Catholicism, but to convert to Orthodoxy. Seriously?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 07:56:09 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Now, a God who creates certain (in fact, most) men precisely as "vessels of wrath", just precisely so that He can "manifest His justice" by punishing them in horrible eternal torment, refuses to (in some way) give them necessary graces for salvation, and imagines that pulling the few from the massa damnata will manifest His mercy, is a sick bastard, looking out for Number One regardless of the horrible suffering inflicted on His creation.
God doesn't do this.
Tell that to the Augustinian predestination crowd.
QuoteMore specifically, where would individuals who freely chose evil and refused to repent fit into your scheme?
If you think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the reality of hell, then you clearly don't have the faintest clue about what's being talked about.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 07:38:41 AM
So exegesis is Alice in Wonderland. Everyone has his reasons to interpret every word in Scripture to mean exactly what he wants it to mean, just like Alice in Wonderland, but then of course circularly turns around and claims Scripture as proof his reasons are correct.
I admit I do this with Genesis 1 vs. modern science regarding the age of the earth, and other places in Scripture where God seems to be the cause of evil vs. the philosophical impossibility of God being the author of evil. At least I'm honest about it.
I'm not sure where that
Alice in Wonderland rant came from, Quare.
I was simply pointing out that wider scriptural context can determine the exegesis of a particular text. I'm sure you're not the only one honest about presuppositions playing a key factor in the interpretation of texts, sacred or otherwise.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 07:38:41 AM
And where in Scripture do we see God's "complacential" and "decretive" will defined? Nowhere, obviously. It's something brought in from outside to reconcile the texts. Other exegetical schools, as you know, interpret Romans in the light of "God will have every man to be saved" and not the reverse, or say that St. Paul was really referring to the Jews as a group.
In any event, all this should be sufficient to disprove the contention that sound exegesis demands Augustinian predestination, and that anyone who denies it is "against Scripture".
That is not my contention.
My contention is that there are exegetical grounds to interpret those passages in an Augustinian way that do not do any violence to reason or to the texts themselves. The difference between the various schools of thought is not the lack of integrity of their exegetical efforts but rather their explanatory power: which of them can more successfully present a coherent whole where Scripture doesn't contradict itself nor sound reason.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 08:47:53 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 07:56:09 AM
More specifically, where would individuals who freely chose evil and refused to repent fit into your scheme?
If you think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the reality of hell, then you clearly don't have the faintest clue about what's being talked about.
Why didn't you answer the question?
All the fuss that you and others are making really boils down to this one issue.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 09:12:33 AM
Why didn't you answer the question?
I already did, upthread. Your insinuation that I am denying the reality of hell is, frankly, ridiculous.
QuoteAll the fuss that you and others are making really boils down to this one issue.
No, it doesn't. Your claim that it does shows you don't understand the issue. At all. Start by reading the CE article or some other piece on predestination then get back to us.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 18, 2018, 08:57:29 AM
I was simply pointing out that wider scriptural context can determine the exegesis of a particular text. I'm sure you're not the only one honest about presuppositions playing a key factor in the interpretation of texts, sacred or otherwise.
OK.
QuoteMy contention is that there are exegetical grounds to interpret those passages in an Augustinian way that do not do any violence to reason or to the texts themselves.
And my contention is that the Augustinian way does do violence to reason as well as basic human decency.
Arguing that it can't be doing violence to reason because it is sound exegesis is a circular argument.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 09:12:33 AM
Why didn't you answer the question?
I already did, upthread. Your insinuation that I am denying the reality of hell is, frankly, ridiculous.
QuoteAll the fuss that you and others are making really boils down to this one issue.
No, it doesn't. Your claim that it does shows you don't understand the issue. At all. Start by reading the CE article or some other piece on predestination then get back to us.
If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out. But I thought you were also arguing about how mean and nasty God is for not saving everyone.
I didn't insinuate that you were denying the existence of hell. The thought didn't occur to me. How could you deny hell's existence if you are so angry about people ending up there?
And all the arguments do boil down to the same thing in the end. Who gets to heaven, who doesn't, and why?
You don't like God's arrangement? Then explain how you would do it differently.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR TUESDAY.
Most holy Mary, Mother of Goodness, Mother of Mercy; when I reflect upon my sins and upon the moment of my death, I tremble and am confounded. O my sweetest Mother, in the Blood of Jesus, in thy intercession, are my hopes. Comforter of the sad, abandon me not at that hour; fail not to console me in that great affliction. If even now I am so tormented by remorse for the sins I have committed, the uncertainty of my pardon, the danger of a relapse, and the strictness of the judgment, how will it be with me then? O my Mother, before death overtake me, obtain for me great sorrow for my sins, a true amendment, and constant fidelity to God for the remainder of my life. And when at length my hour is come, then do thou, Mary, my hope, be thyself my aid in those great troubles wherewith my soul will be encompassed. Strengthen me, that I may not despair when the enemy sets my sins before my face. Obtain for me at that moment grace to invoke thee often, so that I may breathe forth my spirit with thine own sweet name and that of thy most holy Son upon any lips. This grace thou hast granted to many of thy servants; this, too, is my hope and my desire.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 09:33:47 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 18, 2018, 08:57:29 AM
My contention is that there are exegetical grounds to interpret those passages in an Augustinian way that do not do any violence to reason or to the texts themselves.
And my contention is that the Augustinian way does do violence to reason as well as basic human decency.
Arguing that it can't be doing violence to reason because it is sound exegesis is a circular argument.
Yes, it is circular and I'm not proposing it.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 10:11:16 AM
If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out.
OK.
QuoteYou don't like God's arrangement? Then explain how you would do it differently.
Well, since you asked...
Ensure everyone is saved.
This issue (in addition to Vatican II) is how I know for certain the traditionalist worldview is flawed, right from the start. Everyone
must either evade the question, posit absurdities, or simply let loose with paroxyms of anger.
Now, to forestall some objections:
"But that means allowing the wicked and unrepentant to enter heaven!" No, it means God ensuring no one is wicked and unrepentant.
"But free will doesn't exist if everyone must be good!" This is a modal fallacy; there is nothing logically impossible about everyone using free will properly
in the actual world and it still being free; it is a statement about the actual world, not about other possible worlds.
"But if God infallibly brings about the proper use of our free will it isn't free." This was denied by
all theologians in the West in the Middle Ages (whether Thomistic or Molinist) as a denial of God as First Cause so if this is your response time to turn in your traditionalist card. The only debate was regarding
exactly how God infallibly brings about the proper use of free will.
No matter how you slice it, all are not saved either because: 1) God can't save everyone or 2) He can but doesn't.
1) is, on the face of it, a denial of omnipotence. The only answer IS to say God's bringing about the proper use of free will, at least in certain situations, is logically impossible and hence not a violation of omnipotence.
2) is a denial of love, proof that the alleged love of Jesus Christ is really not all that great, since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, and He didn't love enough to cause grace, salvation, and heaven in the vast majority of mankind. But they resisted? He could have caused them not to, or given grace powerful enough to overcome it. This will of course get the angry rejoinder of "But God doesn't owe us anything!!!". Which is the irrelevant thrashing about of one who knows he's lost the argument: love is not the payment of a debt, but precisely the voluntary giving of what you do not owe.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 01:25:06 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 10:11:16 AM
If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out.
OK.
QuoteYou don't like God's arrangement? Then explain how you would do it differently.
Well, since you asked...
Ensure everyone is saved.
I'm no scholar, at least to the level of where you are Quare, so bare with me that my argument isn't as philosophically rigorous or dense, but
You like to use the parent - son relationship analogy a lot - but as you like to point out, parents must allow their children to develop on their own with their own free will and intellect - for to force a reliance without free will or intellect will not only hinder the child's development, but also create a false form of True Love.
Could we ever have a normal relationship with God as Our Father if we were never allowed to run away from Him or reject Him? Would our worship of Our Father ever be considered normal or rational if we had no choice but to worship Him and Love Him? It would be like a parent that forces their child to live with them until the parent's death.
The fact that God is able to open His arms to us whenever we choose to run away from Him truly makes Him Omnibenevolent, and lets us truly understand Paradise and why it's Paradise.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 01:25:06 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 10:11:16 AM
If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out.
OK.
QuoteYou don't like God's arrangement? Then explain how you would do it differently.
Well, since you asked...
Ensure everyone is saved.
This issue (in addition to Vatican II) is how I know for certain the traditionalist worldview is flawed, right from the start. Everyone must either evade the question, posit absurdities, or simply let loose with paroxyms of anger.
Now, to forestall some objections:
"But that means allowing the wicked and unrepentant to enter heaven!" No, it means God ensuring no one is wicked and unrepentant.
"But free will doesn't exist if everyone must be good!" This is a modal fallacy; there is nothing logically impossible about everyone using free will properly in the actual world and it still being free; it is a statement about the actual world, not about other possible worlds.
"But if God infallibly brings about the proper use of our free will it isn't free." This was denied by all theologians in the West in the Middle Ages (whether Thomistic or Molinist) as a denial of God as First Cause so if this is your response time to turn in your traditionalist card. The only debate was regarding exactly how God infallibly brings about the proper use of free will.
No matter how you slice it, all are not saved either because: 1) God can't save everyone or 2) He can but doesn't.
1) is, on the face of it, a denial of omnipotence. The only answer IS to say God's bringing about the proper use of free will, at least in certain situations, is logically impossible and hence not a violation of omnipotence.
2) is a denial of love, proof that the alleged love of Jesus Christ is really not all that great, since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, and He didn't love enough to cause grace, salvation, and heaven in the vast majority of mankind. But they resisted? He could have caused them not to, or given grace powerful enough to overcome it. This will of course get the angry rejoinder of "But God doesn't owe us anything!!!". Which is the irrelevant thrashing about of one who knows he's lost the argument: love is not the payment of a debt, but precisely the voluntary giving of what you do not owe.
You may as well ask why God didn't prevent Satan from entering the Garden of Eden and starting the whole drama. Didn't He realise that Satan was lurking in the undergrowth?
Or perhaps God should not have created Adam and Eve, knowing as He did that Satan would be an ever-present threat to His new Creation, and that a significant number of their offspring would join forces with Satan against Him and eventually choose to join him in hell.
What should God have done, in your opinion?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 01:25:06 PM
No matter how you slice it, all are not saved either because: 1) God can't save everyone or 2) He can but doesn't.
The enunciation of the question is correct.
The answer is that God can save everyone but He does not will it. Or, rather, He has not decreed it. For whatsoever God decrees, infallibly comes to pass. We know that the execution of God's decrees does not depend on any condition which may, or may not, be performed by men. For everything that He decreed, He not only decreed its end but every means to that end. The one who decreed the salvation of His elect, also decreed to work faith in them (2 Phil. 2:13). Indeed, He
"works all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11). God's decrees are necessarily unchangeable, absolutely free, holy and comprehend all things that come to pass.
A full explanation of the tension between God's decrees and men's autonomous actions may be beyond our capacity, though. However, we can say without peril that His love for the elect is particular, or familiar, whereas His love for mankind is general. In other words, He does not love the sheep and the goats the same way.
Or, if you would prefer a more anthropocentric perspective, the love of God has different effects upon the sheep and the goats.
Is this a denial of love? Yes, insofar as divine love equates with allotting every human being that ever existed with the same "chance", if we dare use that word, of being saved. Can we say that God loves the goats? Yes and no. Yes, because they were created in His image, they are called unto repentance and God laments and hates their deaths (Ezekiel 33:11). No, because God also hates them, insofar as they are wicked (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5).
The pre-determination of their existence and eternal state is God's prerogative alone which no human mind has the ability to scrutinize. It is a mystery.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 03:36:02 PM
You may as well ask why God didn't prevent Satan from entering the Garden of Eden and starting the whole drama. Didn't He realise that Satan was lurking in the undergrowth?
Or perhaps God should not have created Adam and Eve, knowing as He did that Satan would be an ever-present threat to His new Creation, and that a significant number of their offspring would join forces with Satan against Him and eventually choose to join him in hell.
What should God have done, in your opinion?
Ensured the angels didn't fall either.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 18, 2018, 03:01:26 PM
I'm no scholar, at least to the level of where you are Quare, so bare with me that my argument isn't as philosophically rigorous or dense, but
You like to use the parent - son relationship analogy a lot - but as you like to point out, parents must allow their children to develop on their own with their own free will and intellect - for to force a reliance without free will or intellect will not only hinder the child's development, but also create a false form of True Love.
Could we ever have a normal relationship with God as Our Father if we were never allowed to run away from Him or reject Him? Would our worship of Our Father ever be considered normal or rational if we had no choice but to worship Him and Love Him? It would be like a parent that forces their child to live with them until the parent's death.
The fact that God is able to open His arms to us whenever we choose to run away from Him truly makes Him Omnibenevolent, and lets us truly understand Paradise and why it's Paradise.
Agreed, this is an acceptance of 1) essentially.
Because it cannot be considered to be normal and rational if our "choice" is predetermined by God, with God punishing those predetermined to run away and reject Him. There's no real learning how to make good choices (which is what a good parent should teach a child how to do), but merely a farce of us "learning" better choices God has already preordained for us.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 18, 2018, 04:01:53 PM
The answer is that God can save everyone but He does not will it. Or, rather, He has not decreed it. For whatsoever God decrees, infallibly comes to pass....
Is this a denial of love? Yes, insofar as divine love equates with allotting every human being that ever existed with the same "chance", if we dare use that word, of being saved. Can we say that God loves the goats? Yes and no. Yes, because they were created in His image, they are called unto repentance and God laments and hates their deaths (Ezekiel 33:11). No, because God also hates them, insofar as they are wicked (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5).
So much for God's great "love" of the world. And everyone is shocked, shocked I tell you, that man in turn has so little love for God Who has simply "decreed" who loves Him and who does not.
He calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.
This is psychologically deranged.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 04:49:21 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 18, 2018, 04:01:53 PM
The answer is that God can save everyone but He does not will it. Or, rather, He has not decreed it. For whatsoever God decrees, infallibly comes to pass....
Is this a denial of love? Yes, insofar as divine love equates with allotting every human being that ever existed with the same "chance", if we dare use that word, of being saved. Can we say that God loves the goats? Yes and no. Yes, because they were created in His image, they are called unto repentance and God laments and hates their deaths (Ezekiel 33:11). No, because God also hates them, insofar as they are wicked (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5).
So much for God's great "love" of the world. And everyone is shocked, shocked I tell you, that man in turn has so little love for God Who has simply "decreed" who loves Him and who does not.
He calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.
This is psychologically deranged.
On the contrary.
There no shock, or surprise, that man has little love for God. He is a fallen creature whose heart is "desperately wicked"(Jer. 17:9). Only those who are born again of water and the spirit (John 3
et al.) can love and serve Him. In fact, Christ's beautiful speech to Nicodemus is aptly prefigured in Ezekiel:
"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezek. 36:24–27)
The alternative to God not having decreed the salvation of all (but just some), is the hypothesis that:
A. God
has decreed the salvation of all. This is, in short, universalism, a proposition I find, as of yet, unconvincing and unable to be harmonized with any school of Christian thought that takes Scripture seriously;
Or
B. God's eternal decree is limited by man's actions. In other words, man's free agency is ultimately without a known cause besides himself and falls beyond the scope of God's ultimate agency of prime mover. God is thus not actually free but determined by others, a proposition I find intellectually repulsive.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 03:36:02 PM
You may as well ask why God didn't prevent Satan from entering the Garden of Eden and starting the whole drama. Didn't He realise that Satan was lurking in the undergrowth?
Or perhaps God should not have created Adam and Eve, knowing as He did that Satan would be an ever-present threat to His new Creation, and that a significant number of their offspring would join forces with Satan against Him and eventually choose to join him in hell.
What should God have done, in your opinion?
Ensured the angels didn't fall either.
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them.
Consider this passage from 'The Fellowship of the Ring'.
Quote
Gandalf laughed grimly. 'You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make you" - except by force, which would break your mind....'
Gandalf cannot make Frodo want to give up the ring or damage it of his own free will, except by breaking Frodo's mind. The ring can be stolen from him, or taken by force. But Frodo cannot be made to
will to give it up.
As God, would you be prepared to break the minds/wills of those who refuse to follow you?
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 18, 2018, 05:20:24 PM
On the contrary.
There no shock, or surprise, that man has little love for God. He is a fallen creature whose heart is "desperately wicked"(Jer. 17:9).
Because God failed to decree that he be any better, and man cannot make himself better on his own.
So, all of this involves holding man responsible for what he is metaphysically impossibly unable to avoid, and releasing God from responsibility for what He is metaphysically possibly able to avoid. This is morally repulsive.
QuoteThe alternative to God not having decreed the salvation of all (but just some), is the hypothesis that:
A. God has decreed the salvation of all. This is, in short, universalism, a proposition I find, as of yet, unconvincing and unable to be harmonized with any school of Christian thought that takes Scripture seriously;
Or
B. God's eternal decree is limited by man's actions. In other words, man's free agency is ultimately without a known cause besides himself and falls beyond the scope of God's ultimate agency of prime mover. God is thus not actually free but determined by others, a proposition I find intellectually repulsive.
Right. So we're caught between moral repulsivity, not taking Scripture seriously, and intellectual repulsivity. Not a good place to be. Maybe we've been looking at the question the wrong way around and anthropomorphizing God, ascribing to Him human ideas like "decrees", "agency", "freedom", "determination", and so on.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 04:49:21 PMHe calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.
You're making a deficient cause out to be an efficient cause. If a boat falls over a waterfall the cause of it isn't that I failed to pull it out of the river; the cause of it is the river's current carrying the boat along. The cause of man's death, wickedness, or lack or repentance is not that God merely fails to decree otherwise; the cause of it is to be found in man himself.
Imagine if a group of citizens
demanded the right to secede from the State,
demanded the right to govern themselves autonomously, then began to murder their children and commit suicide
en masse, and when the Head of State offered to intervene and cure their sickness they obstinately refused, cursed him, and
demanded the right to slaughter themselves. Would the Head of State be "deranged" or "morally repulsive" for withdrawing himself and allowing them to do what they please?
You really need to reconsider the nature of sin.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 07:03:09 PM
Because God failed to decree that he be any better, and man cannot make himself better on his own.
God gave men and angels the freedom to choose evil and you call Him a tyrant.
Satan and his angels were not fallen when they rebelled against God. They chose to rebel of their own unfallen free will. Similarly, Adam and Eve, although tempted, chose of their own unfallen free will to disobey God. Therefore, it seems to be the case that as soon as you give a rational creature free will, you run the risk that some of them, even a significant number of them, will choose to rebel and oppose you, irrevocably and finally.
Your argument seems to be that God should have made men and angels so good that they would never choose evil? Is this even possible? How far should God have gone in limiting free will, which is what you're suggesting?
You also suggest that if a man or angel
was inclined to choose evil, God should pour so much grace into them that they change their minds and choose good instead? In other words, God should negate the effects of free will.
You're suggesting that God either limits or negates free will? Have you thought this through?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them.
Indeed.
The Church has always taught that every individual has been granted free will. Free will is a property of this existence.
Remove free will and every individual becomes subservient.
One other problem with suggesting that God break the will of repentant sinners is, of course, why not break the will too of unrepentant sinners also?
Quare's line of argument makes no sense.
Quote from: Irishcyclist on December 19, 2018, 07:35:46 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them.
Indeed.
I've just spotted my mistake here. I meant
unrepentant sinners.
A typo .....
The quote referred to the angels who fell, Quare having suggested that God should have made sure they didn't fall. The above should have read -
Quote
By breaking their [the angels] wills, just as you think God should break the will of unrepentant sinners in order to save them.
But the point remains. In order to save those who willfully choose evil, God would have to break, or negate, their wills. Maybe it's a challenging concept that some deliberately and freely choose evil, even without the stain of Original Sin. The angels weren't fallen when they chose to rebel. Adam and Eve weren't fallen when they chose to disobey God.
Can free will exist without the freedom to choose evil?
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR WEDNESDAY.
Mother of God, most holy Mary, how often by my sins have I merited hell! Long ago, perhaps, judgment would have gone forth against my first mortal sin, hadst not thou in thy tender pity delayed the justice of God, and afterwards attracted me by thy sweetness to have confidence in thy prayers. And O, how very often should I have fallen in the dangers which beset my steps, hadst not thou, loving Mother that thou art, preserved me by the graces thou by thy prayers didst obtain for me. But O, my Queen, what will thy pity and thy favours avail me, if after all I perish in the flames of hell? If there was once a time when I loved thee not, yet now, next to God, I love thee before all. Wherefore, henceforth and for ever, suffer me not to turn my back upon thee and upon my God, who through thee has granted me so many mercies. O Lady, most worthy of all love, let it not be that I thy child shall have to hate and to utter maledictions for ever in hell. Thou wilt surely never endure to see thy servant lost who loves thee. O Mary, say not that I ever can be lost! Yet I shall assuredly be lost if I abandon thee. But who could ever have the heart to leave thee? Who can ever forget thy love? No; it is impossible for that man to perish who faithfully recommends himself to thee, and has recourse to thee. Only leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost! Let me but cling to thee! Save me, my Hope! save me from hell; or rather, save me from sin, which alone can condemn me to hell.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
I was thinking that God could have confirmed the Angels in Grace before they fell, the same for Adam and Eve and their descendants; as he did so for the Blessed Virgin Mary. So God must will our salvation but not absolutely, only conditionally. The condition being our submission to his holy will.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 19, 2018, 07:59:37 AM
Quote from: Irishcyclist on December 19, 2018, 07:35:46 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them.
Indeed.
I've just spotted my mistake here. I meant unrepentant sinners.
A typo .....
The quote referred to the angels who fell, Quare having suggested that God should have made sure they didn't fall. The above should have read -
Quote
By breaking their [the angels] wills, just as you think God should break the will of unrepentant sinners in order to save them.
But the point remains. In order to save those who willfully choose evil, God would have to break, or negate, their wills. Maybe it's a challenging concept that some deliberately and freely choose evil, even without the stain of Original Sin. The angels weren't fallen when they chose to rebel. Adam and Eve weren't fallen when they chose to disobey God.
Can free will exist without the freedom to choose evil?
Thanks for the clarification.
Animals don't have free will.
An animal cannot discern right and wrong. An animal's behaviour is conformed to it's instinct and feeling only. An animal behaves in the way it behaves. It is therefore blameless essentially for it's behaviour.
To remove free will from human beings would make us animals therefore. The removal of free will would also contravene the teaching that we are created in the image and likeness of God.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of [un]repentant sinners in order to save them.
...
As God, would you be prepared to break the minds/wills of those who refuse to follow you?
Again, your very use of words here shows that you are obviously quite unfamiliar with this debate, and it's just a little more complicated than you seem to think.
It's not a question of "breaking" wills. It's a question of God infallibly causing rational creatures to voluntarily follow him - which, in the case of sinners, means Him infallibly causing their voluntary repentance.
Can God do this, yes or no? Again, if you answer "no", time to turn in your traditionalist card.
Quote from: John Lamb on December 19, 2018, 03:36:45 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 04:49:21 PMHe calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.
You're making a deficient cause out to be an efficient cause.
Yeah, I've heard that BS argument a thousand times from Augustinian Predestinationists (APs). You're having God make man defective and then saying the "cause" of man's defect is man himself. Pure sophistry.
The question isn't one of causation (as APs
always dishonestly attempt to argue), but of necessary and sufficient conditions and ontological primacy, which they always evade like poison, because they know it destroys the entire argument.
QuoteThe cause of man's death, wickedness, or lack or repentance is not that God merely fails to decree otherwise; the cause of it is to be found in man himself.
And what
exactly is it in man that is the cause of man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance? Whatever your answer, what is the cause of that? Eventually you are forced to simply say that man is defective
qua man or
qua creature, which no one disagrees with, but does not in itself entail wickedness or lack of repentance and hence cannot be said to be a "cause".
What is relevant is that (under AP) God's failure to decree otherwise is a
necessary and sufficient condition for man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance and is
ontologically antecedent to it.
I have yet to see any AP honestly deal with this, because they can't. They have to retreat into "mystery".
QuoteImagine if a group of citizens demanded the right to secede from the State, demanded the right to govern themselves autonomously, then began to murder their children and commit suicide en masse, and when the Head of State offered to intervene and cure their sickness they obstinately refused, cursed him, and demanded the right to slaughter themselves. Would the Head of State be "deranged" or "morally repulsive" for withdrawing himself and allowing them to do what they please?
To make your analogy work, you have to assume the exact opposite of AP; namely, that God's withdrawal is
ontologically subsequent to the wickedness of the citizens, where with AP such withdrawal is
ontologically prior to such wickedness and logically entails it.
QuoteYou really need to reconsider the nature of sin.
So do you.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 19, 2018, 05:19:28 AM
1. Therefore, it seems to be the case that as soon as you give a rational creature free will, you run the risk that some of them, even a significant number of them, will choose to rebel and oppose you, irrevocably and finally.
2. Your argument seems to be that God should have made men and angels so good that they would never choose evil? Is this even possible? How far should God have gone in limiting free will, which is what you're suggesting?
3. You also suggest that if a man or angel was inclined to choose evil, God should pour so much grace into them that they change their minds and choose good instead? In other words, God should negate the effects of free will.
4. You're suggesting that God either limits or negates free will? Have you thought this through?
I've thought it through and done the necessary philosophical homework. You haven't. These are, frankly, elementary school-level objections. 1. is open theism, 2. is a modal fallacy, 3. is a denial of theology of grace, and conversion and 4. is simply the age-old debate about compatibilist vs. libertarian free will.
1. How does an omnipotent and omniscient God "run risks"? Sure, there is a "theology of risk" available - if you are an open theist. In classical theism, however, God's knowledge is not contingent on our actions.
2. This is a modal fallacy; we are referring to a world in which men and angels
actually do not choose evil; not a world in which
they could not possibly choose evil. A world where no creature with free will actually chooses evil is a logically possible world and does not "limit free will".
3. describes exactly what happens when a sinner is converted; grace bringing about their voluntary and free change of minds and free choice of good from a former condition of choosing evil, which nobody thinks is a "negation" of free will. Unless you by "inclined" to choose evil you mean they haven't chosen it yet, in which case there are no "effects" of free will to negate.
4. According to classical theology and philosophy, God can and does directly will and cause each and every good choice made by rational creatures (compatibilism) while nevertheless maintaining these choices are still made freely. If this is a "negation" or "limit" of free will, welcome to libertarianism. It is, however, not traditional.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 19, 2018, 12:15:18 PMWhat is relevant is that (under AP) God's failure to decree otherwise is a necessary and sufficient condition for man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance and is ontologically antecedent to it.
I have yet to see any AP honestly deal with this, because they can't. They have to retreat into "mystery".
What is relevant is that (under AP) God's failure to decree otherwise is a
necessary and sufficient condition for man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance and is
ontologically antecedent to it.
Necessary but not sufficient. In addition to God's permissive will to allow the sinner to demerit, the sinner himself must have the will to commit sin, and it's this sinful will which is the effective cause of man's damnation. Of course God's will is ontologically antecedent, seeing as God is universal first cause and ontologically antecedent to everything.
QuoteQuoteImagine if a group of citizens demanded the right to secede from the State, demanded the right to govern themselves autonomously, then began to murder their children and commit suicide en masse, and when the Head of State offered to intervene and cure their sickness they obstinately refused, cursed him, and demanded the right to slaughter themselves. Would the Head of State be "deranged" or "morally repulsive" for withdrawing himself and allowing them to do what they please?
To make your analogy work, you have to assume the exact opposite of AP; namely, that God's withdrawal is ontologically subsequent to the wickedness of the citizens, where with AP such withdrawal is ontologically prior to such wickedness and logically entails it.
In the order of execution God reprobates the sinner after he has sinned, so the analogy stands.
Only in the order of intention does God first decree that the sinner shall be permitted to sin and thus be damned in order to manifest His justice (negative reprobation). This act belongs uniquely to God as existing from all eternity and being first cause of everything.
If the sun illuminates one side of the earth and leaves the other side dark, it's not the sun which is causing the latter side to be dark but the intrinsic darkness of the earth itself. So if God gives efficacious grace to save one part of mankind but not to save the other side of mankind, it's not God that is the cause of the latter's darkness but the intrinsic darkness of sinful mankind. The difference is that the earth puts up no resistance to the light of the sun, but the reason that the evil part of mankind is not illumined by God's grace is not that God fails to offer sufficient grace, but that they resist: "And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil."
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 19, 2018, 11:36:38 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of [un]repentant sinners in order to save them.
...
As God, would you be prepared to break the minds/wills of those who refuse to follow you?
Again, your very use of words here shows that you are obviously quite unfamiliar with this debate, and it's just a little more complicated than you seem to think.
I was paraphrasing Gandalf.
Quote
It's not a question of "breaking" wills. It's a question of God infallibly causing rational creatures to voluntarily follow him - which, in the case of sinners, means Him infallibly causing their voluntary repentance.
What does "infallibly causing" mean? Is this an example of the kind of language I'm not qualified to understand. Surely you mean force or somehow negate the freedom of the individual to exercise his free will. Just what do you mean? How can a rational creature be made
to want to do something. God does not 'infallibly cause rational creatures to voluntarily follow him' because rational creatures cannot be infallibly caused, or forced, to do anything
voluntarily while still remaining rational.
Quote
Can God do this, yes or no? Again, if you answer "no", time to turn in your traditionalist card.
Gandalf says no and, again, here's why.
Quote
Gandalf laughed grimly. 'You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make you" - except by force, which would break your mind....'
Gandalf cannot
make Frodo
want to let go of the ring or damage it, except by 'breaking his mind'. Frodo could be made to give up the ring by force, as Gollum eventually does, but Frodo cannot be made
to want to give it up.
You really need to explain what you mean by God "infallibly causing rational creatures to voluntarily follow Him".
I'm sure Gandalf would be interested.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 19, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
A world where no creature with free will actually chooses evil is a logically possible world and does not "limit free will".
How would such a world work and what would its inhabitants be like?
Would no creature with free will actually choose to eat too much cake?
Quote from: Tao Teh Ching, Chapter XXVTHERE was Something undefined and yet complete in itself,
Born before Heaven-and-Earth.
Silent and boundless,
Standing alone without change,
Yet pervading all without fail,
It may be regarded as the Mother of the world.
I do not know its name;
I style it "The Way";
And, in the absence of a better word, call it "The Great."
To be great is to go on,
To go on is to be far,
To be far is to return.
Hence, "The Way is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
King is great."
Thus, the king is one of the great four in the Universe.
Man follows the ways of the Earth.
The Earth follows the ways of Heaven,
Heaven follows the ways of The Way,
The Way follows its own ways.
(https://i.imgur.com/fZpDj71.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/CKgAlbK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ERg6p8q.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/f540MZG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/pOkijB4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GzvD28I.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/o2OKdoR.png)
https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/Predestination%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P_#page/n189/mode/1up
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR THURSDAY.
Queen of Heaven, who sittest enthroned above all the choirs of the angels nighest to God, from this vale of miseries I, a poor sinner, salute thee, praying thee in thy love to turn upon me those gracious eyes of thine. See, Mary, the dangers among which I dwell, and shall ever have to dwell whilst I live upon this earth. I may yet lose my soul, Paradise, and God. In thee, Lady, is my hope. I love thee; and I sigh after the time when I shall see thee and praise thee in Paradise. O Mary, when will that blessed day come that I shall see myself safe at thy feet? When shall I kiss that hand, which has dispensed to me so many graces? Alas, it is too true, O my Mother, that I have ever been very ungrateful during my whole life; but if I go to Heaven, then I will love thee there every moment of a whole eternity, and make thee reparation in some sort for my ingratitude by ever blessing and praising thee. Thanks be to God, for that He hath vouchsafed me this hope through the Precious Blood of Jesus, and through thy powerful intercession. This has been the hope of all thy true lovers; and no one of them has been defrauded of his hope. No: neither shall I be deceived of mine. O Mary, pray to thine own Son Jesus, as I also will pray to Him, by the merits of His Passion, to strengthen and increase this my hope.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Quote from: Garrigou-LagrangeIn fact, the will lacks efficacious grace because it resists sufficient grace; but if its resists sufficient grace, this is not because it lacks efficacious grace; its own deficiency suffices as a cause of such resistance. Cf. Ia IIae, q. 112, a. 3 ad 2: "The first cause of this deficiency of grace is on our part, but the first cause of the conferring of grace is on the part of God, according to the words: 'Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me."' There would indeed be a vicious circle in Thomism if of the two following propositions the second were true: Man is deprived of efficacious grace because he resists sufficient grace, and man resists sufficient grace because he lacks efficacious grace. Of course, the second statement is false; if it were true, man would sin from the insufficiency of divine help, sin would then be inevitable and would therefore no longer be sin. In truth, man does not sin on account of insufficient help or of any divine neglect, but because of his own deficiency.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace7.htm
QuoteIt's a question of God infallibly causing rational creatures to voluntarily follow him - which, in the case of sinners, means Him infallibly causing their voluntary repentance.
Can God do this, yes or no? Again, if you answer "no", time to turn in your traditionalist card.
CAN He? Yes He can. But you leave out some things:
1. An outcome.
2. Greek Realism vs. Dualism.
Can God change things and expect the same outcome? No, because He is Truth.
Quote from: John Lamb on December 20, 2018, 04:17:42 PM
Quote from: Garrigou-LagrangeIn fact, the will lacks efficacious grace because it resists sufficient grace; but if its resists sufficient grace, this is not because it lacks efficacious grace; its own deficiency suffices as a cause of such resistance. Cf. Ia IIae, q. 112, a. 3 ad 2: "The first cause of this deficiency of grace is on our part, but the first cause of the conferring of grace is on the part of God, according to the words: 'Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me."' There would indeed be a vicious circle in Thomism if of the two following propositions the second were true: Man is deprived of efficacious grace because he resists sufficient grace, and man resists sufficient grace because he lacks efficacious grace. Of course, the second statement is false; if it were true, man would sin from the insufficiency of divine help, sin would then be inevitable and would therefore no longer be sin. In truth, man does not sin on account of insufficient help or of any divine neglect, but because of his own deficiency.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace7.htm
Thinking aloud..
It seems some would say to God: "God, well yes it is my fault that I resisted, but You COULD have stopped me with Your efficacious grace. It is just not FAIR or loving for you to leave me to the evil I myself will". If God gave enough efficacious (= never failing) grace to all nobody would ever sin (sufficient grace would never be resisted). But God does permit sin, allowing some to truly resist, showing they have free will that is not fixed in God in this life.
Quote from: Non Nobis on December 20, 2018, 09:32:03 PMIt seems some would say to God: "God, well yes it is my fault that I resisted, but You COULD have stopped me with Your efficacious grace. It is just not FAIR or loving for you to leave me to the evil I myself will". If God gave enough efficacious (= never failing) grace to all nobody would ever sin (sufficient grace would never be resisted).
St. Paul anticipates this response:
Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth. Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will?
O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?
Yes, the damned souls might complain that if God had given them additional grace, they might have been saved; but this is a sort of hypocritical objection, because (1) God's grace is gratuitous, and He is not in strict justice bound to give it (it comes from mercy), (2) in withdrawing grace, God is only allowing the sinner to freely continue as he pleases, (3) if the sinner had asked for the grace at the time, God would doubtless have given it.
In fact, if after you've sinned your first response is, "God, if only you had given me more grace" – as long as this is said through hope rather than through despair, you're already on the way to being converted and it's only a matter of time before God does provide the grace. The point with damned souls is that not only do they fail to ask for God's grace after they've sinned, rather they harden their hearts against Him even further.
(https://i.imgur.com/DOFDwU9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Yx7f8hi.png)
https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/Predestination%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P_#page/n174/mode/1up/search/penalty
QuoteCHAPTER TWO: DISTRUST OF SELF
DISTRUST OF SELF is so absolutely requisite in the spiritual combat, that without this virtue we cannot expect to defeat our weakest passions, much less gain a complete victory. This important truth should be deeply imbedded in our hearts; for, although in ourselves we are nothing, we are too apt to overestimate our own abilities and to conclude falsely that we are of some importance. This vice springs from the corruption of our nature. But the more natural a thing is, the more difficult it is to be discovered.
But God, to Whom nothing is secret, looks upon this with horror, because it is His Will that we should be convinced we possess only that virtue and grace which comes from Him alone, and that without Him we are incapable of one meritorious thought. This distrust of our own strength is a gift from Heaven, bestowed by God on those He loves. It is granted sometimes through His holy inspiration, sometimes through severe afflictions, or almost insurmountable temptations and other ways which are unknown to us. Yet He expects that we will do everything within our power to obtain it.
[...]
Whoever seeks to approach the eternal truth and fountain of all light must know himself thoroughly. He must not imitate the pride of those who obtain no other knowledge than what their sins provide, and who begin to open their eyes only when they are plunged into some disgraceful and unforeseen debacle. This happens through God's permission that they may know their own weakness, and, by sad experience, learn not to rely on their own strength. God seldom supplies so severe a remedy against their presumption unless other means have failed.
Briefly, He permits persons to sin more or less grievously in proportion to their pride, and, if there were any as free from pride as the Blessed Virgin, I dare say, they would never fall. As often as you commit a fault, therefore, immediately strive to probe your inner consciousness; earnestly beg our Lord to enlighten you, that you may see yourself as you are in His sight, and presume no more on your strength, otherwise you will fall again into the same faults, or perhaps much greater ones to the eternal ruin of your soul.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/combat2.htm
QuoteCHAPTER THREE: OF TRUST IN GOD
ALTHOUGH DISTRUST of self is absolutely necessary as we have shown it to be in the spiritual combat, nevertheless, if this is all we have to rely on, we will soon be routed, plundered, and subdued by the enemy. Unless we would be put to flight, or remain helpless and vanquished in the hands of our enemies, we must add to it perfect trust in God, and expect from Him alone succor and victory. For as we, who are nothing, can look for nothing from ourselves but falls, and therefore should utterly distrust ourselves; so from our Lord may we assuredly expect complete victory in every conflict. To obtain His help, let us therefore arm ourselves with a lively confidence in Him.
[...]
. . . Presumption is so natural to man that, without notice, it insinuates itself into the confidence he imagines he has in God and the distrust he fancies he has of himself. Consequently, in order to destroy all presumption and to sanctify every action and the two virtues opposite to this vice, the consideration of one's own weakness must precede that of the Divine Power. Both of these must precede all undertakings.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/combat3.htm
Quote2. EFFICACIOUS GRACE IN RELATION TO SPIRITUALITY
The teaching of St. Thomas on efficacious grace is generally not well understood except by speculative theologians who judge everything in relation to God, the universal first cause and author of salvation, or by souls that are advancing along the ways of passive purgation. These souls, as it were, experience within themselves that in the affair of salvation everything comes from God; that is, in a salutary, meritorious act, its free determination cannot derive exclusively from us. This is so because man has nothing which is exclusively his own except sin and lying, as declared by the Second Council of Orange (Denz., no. 195).
As we have seen, according to St. Thomas efficacious grace is not rendered efficacious by our consent foreseen by God in such a way that the free, meritorious determination would be, as determination, exclusively our own work. Rather is efficacious grace intrinsically efficacious; that is, it moves us gently and forcibly to consent to the good, so that this consent is entirely from God's premotion, as first cause, and entirely ours as secondary, premoved cause. In other words, God produces in us and with us even the free mode of our choices.
Herein lies no contradiction, but a sublime mystery, namely, that God is more intimately present to our liberty than it is to itself. And in this it appears that "the will of God is eminently efficacious, since it follows not only that those things are done which God wills should be done, but also that they are done in the manner in which He wills them to be done. But He wills that certain things should be necessary and others contingent (and free, as well) that there may be order among things for the completion of the universe." (Ia, q. 19, a. 8). "It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will" (Phil. 2:13). The only thing that cannot derive from God is moral evil, which, however, He permits that from it greater good may proceed by the manifestation of His mercy and justice. Moral evil does not require an efficient cause, but rather a deficient cause. Every good thing is from God.
That it may be evident, then, how this doctrine of St. Thomas raises the mind to lofty contemplation of the action of God in the depths of our hearts, it suffices to show that this doctrine should lead to profound humility, to continual interior prayer, to the perfection of the theological virtues, and that, in point of fact, illustrious spiritual writers have accepted it. In the present excursus we shall develop by way of synthesis what we have already presented in the form of spiritual corollaries.
1. This doctrine leads to profound humility, since it follows that man has nothing exclusively his own except sin. He does no natural good without the natural help of God, no supernatural good without supernatural grace, which not only urges and attracts but also moves him efficaciously to the performance of good. Thus the word of God is given a profound significance: "Without Me you can do nothing"; and likewise St. Paul's: "Not that we are sufficient to do anything ourselves as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God."
[...]
2. This doctrine leads to continual interior prayer, to a profound spirit of gratitude and, in fact, to contemplative prayer. To interior prayer, for that prayer of petition is more interior which asks of God the greater interior grace. But according to the opinion of St. Thomas, we should ask of God not only grace which will urge us to do good, but also that grace which actually moves us efficaciously toward right action and perseverance in good. We must ask for grace which will reach even unto the depths of our heart and free will, moving us, so that we may really be freed from perverse inclinations, from the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life; for only God our Savior can deliver our souls from all of these. Nor does He injure our liberty in so acting, but rather causes it, actualizes it, and raises it above the thralldom of lower creatures. Whatever actualizes our freedom cannot injure or destroy it.
[...]
3. This teaching of St. Thomas on grace raises the theological virtues to a higher level, because it is closely connected with the very sublime mystery of predestination, in the words of St. Paul (Rom. 8:28-30): "And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to His purpose, are called to be saints. For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born among many brethren. [St. Thomas understands this as referring to gratuitous predestination unto glory.] And whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified." Such is the process of predestination.
[...]
But these truths are not fully grasped except in the mystical life. Therefore it must be said that St. Thomas' sublime doctrine of grace is rejected by many precisely on account of its exceeding sublimity, but because, by really preserving the deep sense of Holy Scripture, it leads us to the highest contemplation of God, the author of salvation.
Confirmation. This doctrine of efficacious grace is accepted by great mystics and eminent spiritual writers. It is found in St. Paul, as we have already shown, and in St. Augustine, whose teaching abides in the decrees of the Second Council of Orange which defined that "no man has anything of his own but sin and lying" (chaps. 20, 22; Denz., nos. 193, 195). St. Augustine says (De praedestin. sanct., chap. 5 ): "A haughty man may indeed say to another: 'My faith, my justice, or some other thing distinguishes me.'" To one to whom such thoughts occur, the good Doctor puts the question: "What hast thou that thou hast not received? And from whom, unless it be from Him who distinguishes thee from another, to whom He did not give what He gave to thee? But if thou hast received, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received? Can that be glorying in the Lord? But nothing is so contrary to this disposition as to glory in one's own merits as if in something which one was responsible for effecting, rather than the grace of God; for it is grace which distinguishes the good from the bad, not what is common to the good and the bad." "Therefore, although it might be believed that Cornelius has done something well, the whole must be attributed to God, lest anyone should be exalted" (ibid., chap. 6). "This grace is exceedingly hidden; but who doubts that grace really exists? And so it is this grace, which is secretly imparted by the divine bounty to human hearts, that it may remove their hardness of heart for the first time" (ibid., chap. 8). "God, in fact, does what He wills in the hearts of men" (ibid., chap. 20). "We therefore assert that perseverance is a gift of God whereby one perseveres in Christ unto the end" (De dono. persever., chap. I). "Hence we ask that we may not be lead into temptation, that this may not occur. For nothing is done except what He Himself does or permits to be done. He is therefore powerful both to bend wills from evil unto good and to convert those inclined to fall, as well as to direct toward Himself an agreeable course" (ibid., chap. 6).
St. Prosper and St. Fulgentius spoke in terms similar to those quoted above. With respect to the Fathers who wrote before St. Augustine on grace and predestination, consult Bossuet's Défense de la tradition et des saints Pères, Bk. XII, chap. 39. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism had not yet arisen, and consequently the question had not yet been explicitly posed.
Together with Augustine, St. Bernard demonstrates (De grat. et lib. arbitr., c. I, no. 2) that grace saves while free will is safeguarded: "Free will enables us to will, grace enables us to will well" (ibid.,chap. 6, no. 16). How do grace and free will operate? "Together, not singly; simultaneously, not in turn; not partly grace and partly free will, but they perform the whole by a single, undivided act" (ibid., chap. 14, nos. 46 f.). Consequently, when God crowns our merits in heaven, He crowns His own gifts: "His gifts, which He gave to men, He divided unto merits and rewards" (ibid., chap. 13, no. 43). Cf. Dict. de théol. cath., article "St. Bernard" by Vacandard, col. 776 ff. St. Bonaventure speaks in similar terms (II Sent., dist. 26, q. 2): "This is also the disposition of the pious, that they attribute nothing to themselves, but all to the grace of God."
In the Following of Christ, Bk. III, chap. 4, no. 2, we read: "Never esteem thyself to be anything on account of thy good works . . . Of thyself thou always tendest to nothing, speedily dost thou fail, speedily art thou overcome, speedily disturbed, speedily dissolved. Thou hast not anything in which thou canst glory, but many things for which thou oughtest to abase thyself; for thou art much weaker than thou canst comprehend." Ibid., chap. 8, no. I: "I am nothing, and I knew it not. If I am left to myself, behold, I am nothing, and all weakness; but if Thou suddenly look upon me, I presently become strong, and am replenished with new joy. And truly wonderful it is that I am so quickly raised up and so graciously embraced by Thee; I who, by my own weight, am always sinking down to the lowest depths." Ibid., chap. 9, nos. 2-3: "Out of Me both little and great, poor and rich, as out of a living fountain, draw living water . . .Therefore thou must not ascribe any good to thyself, nor attribute virtue to any man; but give all to God, without whom man has nothing. I have given all, I will also have all again; and with great strictness do I require a return of thanks. This is that truth by which all vainglory is put to flight. And if heavenly grace and true charity come in, there shall be no envy nor narrowness of heart, nor shall self-love keep possession. For divine charity overcometh all, and enlargeth all the powers of the soul, If thou art truly wise, thou wilt rejoice in Me alone, thou wilt hope in Me alone; for none is good but God alone, who is to be praised above all, and to be blessed in all." Ibid., chap. 55, nos. 4-5: "Without it [grace] I can do nothing; but I can do all things . . . come, descend upon me, replenish me early with thy consolation, lest my soul faint through weariness and dryness of mind. . . . in Thee, when grace strengtheneth me. . . . Oh, most blessed grace, This alone is my strength, this alone giveth counsel and help. This is more mighty than all my enemies, and wiser than all the wise." Ibid., chap. 58: "I am to be praised in all My saints; I am to be blessed above all and to be honored in each, whom I have so gloriously magnified and predestinated, without any foregoing merits of their own."
St. John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, stanza 38, no. 10: "In that day of eternity, that is, before the creation and according to His good pleasure God predestined the soul unto glory and determined the degree of glory that He would give it. From that moment this glory became a property of the soul and this in a manner so absolute that no event or accident, temporal or spiritual, can ever take it away radically, for what God has given it gratuitously will always remain its property." Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. II, chap. 5: "God determines the degree of union freely as He determines the degree of the beatific vision to each one."
St. John of the Cross declares that it depends on the good pleasure of God alone that this particular soul should be predestined to such and such a degree of glory; in other words, predestination to glory is prior to any foreseen merits. Prière de l'âme embrasée (Carmelite ed., I, 475): "If Thou awaitest my works, O Lord, to grant me what I ask, give them to me, effect them in me, and join thereto the sufferings Thou deignest to accept from me."
Although St. Francis de Sales does not always follow St. Thomas in this matter, he holds in the Treatise on the Love of God, Bk. II, chap. 12; that "Grace . . . touches powerfully but yet so delicately the springs of our spirit that our free will suffers no violence from it. . . . She acts strongly, yet so sweetly that our will is not overwhelmed by so powerful an action. . . . The consent to grace depends much more on grace than on the will, while the resistance to grace depends upon the will only. . . . If thou didst know the gift of God."
Indeed, almost all spiritual writers, dealing with souls that are being led along the passive ways are in accord with the Thomistic doctrine. (Cf. J. Grou, S.J., Spiritual Maxims, second maxim; L. Lallemant, S . J., Spiritual Doctrine, fourth principle: "Docility to the Holy Ghost," chaps. I and 2; J. P. de Caussade, S.J., Self-Abandonment to Divine Providence, Bk. III, chaps. I and 2.)
Let us conclude this application of the Thomist doctrine to spirituality with a quotation from Bossuet, Elévations sur les mystères (eighteenth week, fifteenth elevation, "Practical humility solves difficulties"): "Contradictions against Jesus Christ regarding the mystery of grace. Behold another terrible stumbling block for human pride. Man says in his heart: I have my free will; God has made me free, and I will to become a just man; I will that the stroke which decides my eternal salvation should come originally from me. Thus does he seek, on some pretext, to glorify himself. Whither are you bound, O fragile craft? You are about to strike against a reef and deprive yourself of the help of God, who assists only the humble, making them humble that He may help them. . . .
"I can. I wish to find something to cling to in my free will, that I cannot reconcile with this abandonment to grace. Proud contradictor, do you wish to reconcile these things yourself or are you willing to believe that God reconciles them? He reconciles them to such an extent that He wills, without releasing you from your action, that you should attribute the whole achievement of your salvation to Him. For He is the Savior who declares: 'there is no Savior beside Me' (Isa. 43:11). Believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Savior, and all difficulties will vanish."2
This great doctrine of grace is wonderfully presented to the modern world by St. Theresa of the Child Jesus, in her way of spiritual childhood, which is suitable to all Christians, even the perfect, since they are all adopted children of God; see the last chapter of this book on the spirit of adoption of sons of God. Among the children of God, they are more truly His children who place greater trust, not in themselves, but in God and His help.3
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace8.htm
Re. "Negative Reprobation": Here is Msgr. Pohle in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
QuoteThe theory of the negative reprobation of the damned
What deters us most strongly from embracing the theory just discussed is not the fact that it cannot be dogmatically proved from Scripture or Tradition, but the logical necessity to which it binds us, of associating an absolute predestination to glory, with a reprobation just as absolute, even though it be but negative. The well-meant efforts of some theologians (e.g. Billot) to make a distinction between the two concepts, and so to escape the evil consequences of negative reprobation, cannot conceal from closer inspection the helplessness of such logical artifices. Hence the earlier partisans of absolute predestination never denied that their theory compelled them to assume for the wicked a parallel, negative reprobation — that is, to assume that, though not positively predestined to hell, yet they are absolutely predestined not to go to heaven (cf. above, I, B). While it was easy for the Thomists to bring this view into logical harmony with their præmotio physica, the few Molinists were put to straits to harmonize negative reprobation with their scientia media. In order to disguise the harshness and cruelty of such a Divine decree, the theologians invented more or less palliative expressions, saying that negative reprobation is the absolute will of God to "pass over" a priori those not predestined, to "overlook" them, "not to elect" them, "by no means to admit" them into heaven. Only Gonet had the courage to call the thing by its right name: "exclusion from heaven" (exclusio a gloria).
But the "the death blow" to this theory comes further on:
QuoteWhatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will. For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the absolute will of God "not to elect" a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, "to exclude them from heaven" (Gonet), in other words, not to save them. While certain Thomists (as Bañez, Alvarez, Gonet) accept this conclusion so far as to degrade the "voluntas salvifica" to an ineffectual "velleitas", which conflicts with evident doctrines of revelation, Francisco Suárez labours in the sweat of his brow to safeguard the sincerity of God's salvific will, even towards those who are reprobated negatively. But in vain. How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has decreed from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation? He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avails him nothing. Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to take care that they die in their sins. Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us? No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not "that any should perish, but that all should return to penance" (2 Peter 3:9). Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain. The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation. A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist.
In other words the theory of "negative reprobation'' cannot be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the universality of God's salvific will.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR FRIDAY.
O Mary, thou art the noblest, highest, purest, fairest creation of Coil, the holiest of all creatures! O, that all men knew thee, loved thee, my Queen, as thou deservest to be loved! Yet great is my consolation, Mary, that there are blessed souls in the courts of Heaven, and just souls still on earth, whose hearts thou leadest captive with thy beauty and thy goodness. But above all I rejoice in this, that our God himself loves thee alone more than all men and angels together. I too, O Queen most loveable, I, miserable sinner, dare to love thee, though my love is too little; I would I had a greater love, a more tender love: this thou must gain for me, since to love thee is a great mark of predestination, and a grace which God grants to those who shall be saved. Moreover, O my Mother, when I reflect upon the debt I owe thy Son, I see He deserves of me an immeasurable love. Do thou, then, who desirest nothing so much as to see Him loved, pray that I may have this grace - a great love for Jesus Christ. Obtain it, thou who obtainest what thou wilt. I covet not goods of earth, nor honours, nor riches, but I desire that which thine own heart desires most, - to love my God alone. O, can it be that thou wilt not aid me in a desire so acceptable to thee? No: it is impossible! even now I feel thy help, even now thou prayest for me. Pray for me, Mary, pray; nor ever cease to pray, till thou dost see me safe in Paradise, where I shall be certain of possessing and of loving my God and thee, my dearest Mother, for ever and for ever. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
re. The Thomistic theory of 'sufficient grace': Fr. G.L.G. Denies that there is a problem of circular reasoning; the way out for him (and other holders of the theory), is the affirmation that a soul that is given sufficient grace has the potential to assent to this grace, and therefore the 'vicious circle' is only apparent. The problem however remains, because there is no possibility for the soul to assent to this grace in the Thomistic system, without the addition of efficacious grace. The "potential" will never be realized and can never be realized under any circumstance. The only riposte that I have seen from the Thomists posting here, is that one is denying the existence of 'potency'. But this also does not change the problem of inability to respond.
J.L. Lamb stated:
QuoteTherefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth. Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will? O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?
Yes, the damned souls might complain that if God had given them additional grace, they might have been saved; but this is a sort of hypocritical objection, because (1) God's grace is gratuitous, and He is not in strict justice bound to give it (it comes from mercy), (2) in withdrawing grace, God is only allowing the sinner to freely continue as he pleases, (3) if the sinner had asked for the grace at the time, God would doubtless have given it.
The above passage as interpreted above is inevitably Calvinistic in signification; in other words God has created souls "vessels of wrath" i.e. Predestined for hell. But according to Fr. Most, this is a misinterpretation of this passage.
Here is Fr. Most:
Quote11. Exegesis of Rom 8:28-31:1 The best exegetes of all schools within the Church, and also the best outside the Church, agree on many points of great importance in interpreting these verses.
First, all teach that St. Paul in these verses is speaking about all Christians, that is, all Christians are predestined in the Pauline sense. Hence they teach that St. Paul in these verses does not distinguish Christians into two classes, into the predestined and reprobate. The eminent Dominican exegete, Père Lagrange, notes that St. Augustine attempted to introduce that distinction into this passage, and comments:2 "That opinion, so full of consequences, isolated in ancient times, and rejected by modern authors (Cornely, Prat, Lipsius, Sanday-Headlam, Julicher, Zahn, Lietzmann), has no foundation in the text and is contrary to the whole context. St. Paul speaks to all Christians, and does not dream of distinguishing them into two classes: those who are called according to a design of predestination, and those who are called without being predestined. The distinction between those called and those chosen, such as it is given in the Gospel (Mt 20:16; 22:14), does not coincide with the terms used by Paul. In his mind, kletos, "one who is called," refers to one who has answered the call; he has been called effectively (Cornely, Prat). All Christians are called in that sense. He would not reassure them by saying: certain ones among you are predestined." Similarly, in his commentary on verse 30:3 "We have already noted that here Paul does not make two classes among Christians: those who are predestined, and those who are not. His purpose is to encourage all the faithful. On the part of God, the call to faith and justification are an assured pledge of salvation; it is not God who will fail the faithful. The chain of divine acts conducts them to salvation, because Paul supposes that a Christian will not divest himself of his goodness. . . . Or rather; Paul does not think of the particular destiny of each Christian in the designs of God, but of the designs of God for Christianity; those who are in his mind are the faithful as a group, those who have answered his call. . . . As far as individuals are concerned, it is for them to live according to the Spirit, etc., for Paul does not hide the fact that they can fall back under the regime of the flesh."
Precisely the same explanation is found in the excellent commentary of J. Huby, SJ.4
Therefore, since St. Paul is not here speaking of the place of the individual in the plans of God, nor of infallible predestination to Heaven, it does not make much difference for our question whether we say that St. Paul is speaking of predestination before or after prevision of merits. As Lagrange notes so well, if St. Paul really were speaking of the predestination of the individual to Heaven and said that some Christians, without any consideration of their dispositions whatsoever, were not predestined, he would not strengthen the hope of all by saying to them: Some of you are predestined. But, as Lagrange also says, St. Paul's purpose in this passage is to strengthen the hope of all the faithful. Huby, then, is quite right in saying:5 ". . . in an exhortation in which the Apostle wishes to arouse a firm hope in the hearts of all Christians, would he really encourage them if he said: 'All have confidence, because some among you are predestined?' As someone has said: 'It is impossible to argue with less logic.'"
As to men who do not enter into the Church in the full sense, St. Paul simply does not speak of them in the verses we are considering. Elsewhere in the same Epistle, especially in 2:12-16, he makes clear that at least some of them are actually saved.
12. Exegesis of Rom 9:11-23: According to St. Augustine, this passage teaches predestination to Heaven, or reprobation to hell, before any consideration of human merits and demerits. Out of his interpretation, St. Augustine formed the following theory: As a result of original sin, all men are part of the potter's clay (v. 21), that is, they form one "damned and damnable mass." If God rescues some, this is out of mere mercy. If He deserts others in the same damned mass, it is mere justice.
All exegetes today reject this interpretation. As Huby points out,6 it is altogether arbitrary to say that the "clay" in v. 21 stands for the human race, corrupted by original sin, because in the whole of chapter 9 there is not even a remote allusion to original sin. Lagrange makes a keen observation:7 "At least the potter does not blame the vessels which he has made for ignoble uses." Hence, if God really had made certain men for ignoble roles, He should not blame and condemn these men for being such.
Actually, St. Paul was only making a comparison, or, as Lagrange says,8 "a simple parable." St. Paul wishes to teach that God has the right to assign men to various places in the external order of this world-which is quite different and distinct from the internal order of eternal salvation or ruin! That is, God makes some to be kings, others physicians, others laborers, etc. And similarly, He brings some into the Church in the full sense, and not others. But these assignments by no means fix the eternal lot of a man. Later in this chapter we shall examine what relation does exist between a man's eternal lot and his place in the external order of this world.
Even St. Augustine himself, in many works, as we shall see later,9 says many things that at least seem to presuppose a view that differs from the massa damnata theory.
St. Thomas, in his commentary on Romans, followed the interpretation of St. Augustine. However, he seems to feel ill at ease with the harshness of that interpretation. For if he were simply following out the implication of that interpretation, he could and should say that Pharaoh and the other reprobates were first of all deserted10 by God in the "damned mass." He would say that God did this because of original sin, to display His justice. As a result of this desertion, the reprobate infallibly fall into personal sins. Because of original and personal sins, they will be damned.
But St. Thomas did not speak this way. Rather, over and over again he harps on personal sins:11 ". . . because of the sins which they have from themselves, not from God . . . because of the evil things which you did . . . because of their own merits they were worthy to be devoured at once . . . as far as He is concerned, [God] interiorly urges a man on to good . . . but the bad man perverts this divine motion according to the malice of his heart. . . ."
13. Today the best exegetes of all schools either openly reject the interpretation of St. Augustine or pass it by in silence and propose another instead. To quote Père Lagrange again:12 "And so the question which Paul treats directly is not at all that of predestination and reprobation [to eternal lots] but merely the call of the Gentiles to the grace of Christianity, in contrast to the infidelity of the Jews." And similarly:13 "Prat says quite well: The precise point of the question is not: 'Why is this particular man predestined to the glory of Heaven and another given over to damnation?' nor: 'Why, as a matter of fact, is this man saved and that man lost?' nor even: 'Why is this individual rather than another called to the faith?' I would add that it is not even this: 'Why [in general] are there elect and reprobates?'"
A. M. Dubarle, OP, the eminent Professor of Sacred Scripture at Le Saulchoir, says exactly the same:14 "When he exalts, as he does, divine grace acting without any consideration of works, the Apostle is not speaking of the sentence which will fix the lot of each man on the last day but of the call to a privileged condition, the possession of the Christian faith. . . . It is in this perspective that one must understand the election and the hardening spoken of in chapter 9 of Romans." Huby speaks similarly:15 "The question, then, is not about the predestination of individuals to eternal salvation, nor even to the faith that prepares for it but about the entry of a nation into the Church. And let us note also, to remain within the strict limits of the question proposed by St. Paul, that to enter into Christianity is not at all the same as being saved: in certain conditions, salvation is possible outside of explicit adherence to Christianity, and, on the other hand, not everyone who enters Christianity is necessarily saved."
In other words, there are two questions, which we must not confuse: (1) According to what principles does God predestine individuals to heaven? (2) According to what principles does God predestine nations to belong to the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to be in the Church in the full16 sense in the New Testament?
As to the first question, all exegetes agree that St. Paul does not really treat it in the entire Epistle to the Romans-or rather, in no Epistle does he treat it.
But in chapter 9 of Romans, St. Paul does give an answer to the second question. He says that God does not predestine nations to this privileged position according to merits: that the descendants of Jacob rather than those of Esau became the chosen people was "not because of works but because of his call."17 Only indirectly does St. Paul bring in individuals, such as Pharaoh, Esau, and Jacob insofar as they are related to the question of nations. Hence, God said to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." That is, I will do as I wish in the matter of the mercy shown in the call to membership in the chosen people.
When Scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you," it does not mean that Pharaoh was created for damnation. As Lagrange points out,18 the word "raised up" in Scripture does not mean "brought into existence," but rather it means "to give a role in history, to send on the stage": for Pharaoh was evil by his own free will. God did not make him such. But God does bring good out of evil. Hence, He willed to make use of the evil quality which Pharaoh had of his own accord; in defeating Pharaoh, God displayed divine power in favor of the chosen people in Egypt. Hence, God is compared to a potter, who out of the same clay, that is, our common human nature, assigns various roles in the external order to various men. Not that God wants certain men to be evil and to act wickedly-but, since these men are by their own will going to be wicked anyway, God makes use of their malice for good purposes, and draws good out of evil.
St. Paul says these things in reply to the question he himself proposed: Why are not the Jews, as a nation, in the Church in the New Testament? The first answer he gives is this: God does not assign nations to the Church according to merits. But later St. Paul adds:19 "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. . . . For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." So it is not that God has rejected the Jews, but they have rejected Him:20 "they were broken off because of their unbelief." Yet, because, as St. Paul said, the call of God still remains for them, for it is "irrevocable":21 "if they do not persist in their unbelief, [they] will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again" into the salutary tree from which they cut themselves off. It is clear that Père Lagrange is quite right, then, in saying of the Jews:22 ". . . nothing shows that their fall was the effect of reprobation." For the Jews rejected God: He did not reject them.
14. The two economies: It is obvious, then, that there are two economies, that is, spheres or orders: (1) The internal economy, in which there is the question of the eternal lot of individual men, that is, whether they will go to heaven or hell. (2) The external economy, in which there is the question of the position a nation or man has in the external order i.e., whether a nation will belong to the chosen people of the Old Testament, or to the Church of the New Testament (in the full sense).
In chapter 9 of Romans, St. Paul is not speaking of the internal economy, but of the assignment of nations in the external economy. He says that assignment is not made because of merits.
As we have already said, St. Paul is not speaking, in this passage, of individuals. However, if even nations cannot merit to be called into the Church, it seems that individuals cannot either. For if individuals could, then if all, or at least most, individuals in a certain nation merited to be called, by that very fact the nation would merit to be called. But this would contradict the teaching of St. Paul. Hence we must say that even individuals are not assigned to membership in the Church on account of merits.
The whole chapter is worth reading: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=214&ChapNum=5
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 21, 2018, 09:27:07 AM
re. The Thomistic theory of 'sufficient grace': Fr. G.L.G. Denies that there is a problem of circular reasoning; the way out for him (and other holders of the theory), is the affirmation that a soul that is given sufficient grace has the potential to assent to this grace, and therefore the 'vicious circle' is only apparent. The problem however remains, because there is no possibility for the soul to assent to this grace in the Thomistic system, without the addition of efficacious grace. The "potential" will never be realized and can never be realized under any circumstance. The only riposte that I have seen from the Thomists posting here, is that one is denying the existence of 'potency'. But this also does not change the problem of inability to respond.
The problem however remains, because there is no possibility for the soul to assent to this grace in the Thomistic system, without the addition of efficacious grace. The "potential" will never be realized and can never be realized under any circumstance.
This is where everyone seems to fail in trying to understand the Thomist position, viz. understanding the distinction between act and potential. Sufficient grace gives the potential to do good, efficacious grace causes the good act itself. There is EVERY "possibility" of doing good with merely sufficient grace. So when you say – "there is no possibility for the soul to assent to this grace . . . ." – and – "the potential . . . can never be realized" – you are speaking nonsense. The very POINT of sufficient grace is that it makes the good act POSSIBLE to the soul, and that this potential can ALWAYS be realised. The reason that sufficient grace is merely sufficient, the reason why it does not produce the good act itself, is not that it CAN'T produce the good act or that it's IMPOSSIBLE, but because of the sinful RESISTANCE to it in the soul. Sufficient grace gives a real power to the soul to do good; so the sinner who falls and says, "I didn't have the power to avoid sin because God refused to give me efficacious grace" is talking nonsense, because SUFFICIENT grace gives the POWER to avoid sin, and God always provides (at least) sufficient grace. If someone falls it's because they have resisted the grace that God has given them, have refused to use the power to do good which God has conferred upon them. The deficiency is in man, not in sufficient grace; sufficient grace is not deficient grace.
[Apologise for the caps but it's necessary to show where language is being ignored / improperly glossed over]
QuoteWhatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will.
God does not will salvation for everyone in the same manner or to the same degree. If some souls are saved and other aren't it's solely because God from all eternity has elected, or chosen, or preferred those souls to the others, for no other reason than His arbitrary will to save those particular souls in order to manifest His Mercy. If God absolutely willed all men to be saved, then all men in fact would be saved, because nothing can impede God's absolute will which is omnipotent. If some men are damned it is indeed because God has from all eternity permitted them to sin against Him and thus merit damnation for themselves. Nevertheless, God always calls the sinner to repentance (at least through providing sufficient grace to repent), and God does not desert souls arbitrarily, but as a punishment for their sins. Nobody is damned simply because God failed to elect or choose them, but principally because they resisted His grace, a resistance which God foreknew from all eternity and chose to permit (despite the repeated and grievous offences given to Him) in order to manifest His justice in them.
QuoteLessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain. The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation.
I think he ought to have considered it further then. There is an enormous difference between Calvinist positive reprobation – that God actively produces the evil act in the soul, so that He can later punish it – and Thomist negative reprobation – that God allows the soul to commit evil by resisting His grace, so that He can later punish it. In the first, the soul has no free-will, and God is actively causing it to do evil. In the second, the soul has free-will, and not only is God not causing it do evil, but God is even providing the soul the good grace necessary to avoid evil.
Lessius is right that whether it is positive or negative reprobation, the soul will certainly be reprobated either way. True. A soul that is negatively reprobated from all eternity will just as certainly be damned as one that is positively reprobated. However, it makes an
enormous difference in the nature of the damnation itself. A soul that has been damned through negative reprobation will know that it has been so entirely by its own free-will, and is being justly punished for its own acts. A soul damned through positive reprobation is just one that is arbitrarily hated and tortured by God for no act of its own. This would indeed make God a monstrous tyrant, and hell would not be a manifestation of justice, but of the most abhorrent cruelty.
I think the one consolation that damned souls have, the only one – is that
they know they've gotten exactly what they deserve, that they're the recipients of divine Justice. Positive reprobation would taken away even this from them, whereas negative reprobation conserves it.
This is just playing word games and dressing it up under the name "theology". It's just like "poppies induce sleep because they have the sleep-inducing property" in philosophy. There's zero critical thinking and just the magic rote repetition of phrases, and, often, fundamental intellectual dishonesty. Thomism is simply a failure here.
Quote from: John Lamb on December 19, 2018, 01:47:51 PM
What is relevant is that (under AP) God's failure to decree otherwise is a necessary and sufficient condition for man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance and is ontologically antecedent to it.
Necessary but not sufficient. In addition to God's permissive will to allow the sinner to demerit, the sinner himself must have the will to commit sin, and it's this sinful will which is the effective cause of man's damnation. Of course God's will is ontologically antecedent, seeing as God is universal first cause and ontologically antecedent to everything.
Under your scenario,
in every case when God's permissive will allows him to demerit, the person in question will commit sin - it is logically impossible that sin does not occur given such permissive will (since God has failed to decree that the person instead be virtuous). Thus, God's permissive will is a sufficient condition. That is the definition of the term "sufficient condition".
QuoteIn the order of execution God reprobates the sinner after he has sinned, so the analogy stands.
Only in the order of intention does God first decree that the sinner shall be permitted to sin and thus be damned in order to manifest His justice (negative reprobation). This act belongs uniquely to God as existing from all eternity and being first cause of everything.
Thus, His
intention to reprobate the sinner existed before he sinned, as you admit (even if it doesn't get executed until afterwards), so the analogy doesn't stand. But a good God can hardly have punishment first in the order of intention. That is a sadist and a psychopath.
QuoteIf the sun illuminates one side of the earth and leaves the other side dark, it's not the sun which is causing the latter side to be dark but the intrinsic darkness of the earth itself. So if God gives efficacious grace to save one part of mankind but not to save the other side of mankind, it's not God that is the cause of the latter's darkness but the intrinsic darkness of sinful mankind.
But without a sun (or some light source) to light the earth, the earth cannot be other than dark.
And without God causing mankind not to be sinful, mankind cannot be anything other than sinful, for which then God turns around and punishes mankind for what it had to be.
QuoteThe difference is that the earth puts up no resistance to the light of the sun, but the reason that the evil part of mankind is not illumined by God's grace is not that God fails to offer sufficient grace, but that they resist: "And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil."
But again, you fail to answer whether lack of resistance to sufficient grace is ontologically prior to efficacious grace or subsequent to it. You want to have it both ways: pretend that it is prior to efficacious grace in order to be able to place blame on the reprobate; but then pretend that it is subsequent to efficacious grace in order to make God the sole author of salvation.
Quote from: John Lamb on December 21, 2018, 10:32:48 AM
This is where everyone seems to fail in trying to understand the Thomist position, viz. understanding the distinction between act and potential. Sufficient grace gives the potential to do good, efficacious grace causes the good act itself. There is EVERY "possibility" of doing good with merely sufficient grace. So when you say – "there is no possibility for the soul to assent to this grace . . . ." – and – "the potential . . . can never be realized" – you are speaking nonsense. The very POINT of sufficient grace is that it makes the good act POSSIBLE to the soul, and that this potential can ALWAYS be realised. The reason that sufficient grace is merely sufficient, the reason why it does not produce the good act itself, is not that it CAN'T produce the good act or that it's IMPOSSIBLE, but because of the sinful RESISTANCE to it in the soul. Sufficient grace gives a real power to the soul to do good; so the sinner who falls and says, "I didn't have the power to avoid sin because God refused to give me efficacious grace" is talking nonsense, because SUFFICIENT grace gives the POWER to avoid sin, and God always provides (at least) sufficient grace. If someone falls it's because they have resisted the grace that God has given them, have refused to use the power to do good which God has conferred upon them. The deficiency is in man, not in sufficient grace; sufficient grace is not deficient grace.
No, actually, the non-Thomists understand the Thomist position quite well and why it fails - you are facilely equating "potency" with "possibility of actualization", ignoring that the two terms are not, in every way, the same, and ending in complete logical nonsense. (The modal logician would say you are ignoring accessibility relations between possible worlds.) Not every potency carries with it a real possibility of actualization at all times and places in the actual world; a cold object is potentially hot, but it won't become actually hot as long as it remains in the freezer. But most importantly, since God is First Mover, it is a necessary and sufficient condition that He (as first in the chain) move the potency to act. Without His moving it, it is impossible that it move from potency to act. Thomists are thus arguing nonsensically that, despite God's failure to move the potency to act, such motion is still "possible", conflating (quite ridiculously) ALL possible worlds, in which case yes the motion is possible, and the ACCESSIBLE possible worlds given God's failure to move the potency to act, in which case the motion is NOT possible (it doesn't occur in any of those worlds).
To get around this, of course, they point to the soul's "resistance" to grace but never precisely define the term. If non-resistance to grace is an act of the will, then that must first exist in potency, and then be moved by God from potency to act, so the same difficulty reappears. Regardless, since the soul's resistance to grace is an evil, that must be a deprivation of a due good
of some sort, which again must exist in potency and then moved from potency to act in order to exist, so the same problem reappears again.
The only answer is that
not all evil is a deprivation of a due good.
QuoteGod does not will salvation for everyone in the same manner or to the same degree. If some souls are saved and other aren't it's solely because God from all eternity has elected, or chosen, or preferred those souls to the others, for no other reason than His arbitrary will to save those particular souls in order to manifest His Mercy.... Nobody is damned simply because God failed to elect or choose them, but principally because they resisted His grace, a resistance which God foreknew from all eternity and chose to permit (despite the repeated and grievous offences given to Him) in order to manifest His justice in them.
Those two statements are
directly contradictory if you substitute "not saved" for "damned".
All souls which are saved are saved solely because God from all eternity has chosen those souls (e.g. God's choice is the sole determinant factor).
Nobody is not saved solely because God failed to choose them, but other factors are involved (e.g. God's choice is not the sole determinant factor).
Again, your God is not a God of love but a vain, arbitrary egoist only concerned with what He can "manifest".
QuoteI think he ought to have considered it further then. There is an enormous difference between Calvinist positive reprobation – that God actively produces the evil act in the soul, so that He can later punish it – and Thomist negative reprobation – that God allows the soul to commit evil by resisting His grace, so that He can later punish it. In the first, the soul has no free-will, and God is actively causing it to do evil. In the second, the soul has free-will, and not only is God not causing it do evil, but God is even providing the soul the good grace necessary to avoid evil.
There is not much of a difference if God's "allowance" is determining of the evil act, and not merely a necessary condition, as would be the case under libertarian free will.
QuoteUnder your scenario, in every case when God's permissive will allows him to demerit, the person in question will commit sin - it is logically impossible that sin does not occur given such permissive will (since God has failed to decree that the person instead be virtuous). Thus, God's permissive will is a sufficient condition. That is the definition of the term "sufficient condition".
it is logically impossible that sin does not occur given such permissive will . . .
Not at all. If the sinner's will was not deficient, if it did not resist sufficient grace, then it would not sin in the first place.
(since God has failed to decree that the person instead be virtuous)
A person is not virtuous primarily because God has "failed to decree" it, but because they resist the grace which would otherwise make them virtuous.
Thus, God's permissive will is a sufficient condition.
God's permissive will is not at all sufficient to make someone sin. In addition to His permission, there needs also be the sinful will itself in the first place. God's allowing people to sin does not magically create the will to sin in people. The sinful will is already there, and God merely permits it.
QuoteThus, His intention to reprobate the sinner existed before he sinned, as you admit (even if it doesn't get executed until afterwards), so the analogy doesn't stand. But a good God can hardly have punishment first in the order of intention. That is a sadist and a psychopath.
The order of intention is like this:
God wishes to manifest His Justice in the universe –> God wills to create fallible creatures with the capacity for sin –> God foreknows that some of these creatures will indeed sin against Him, and He permits this from all eternity (negative reprobation) –> they die in unrepentant mortal sin –> God punishes them.
Punishment isn't first, it's last. First is justice, second is the desire to create beings dignified with free-will, third is the divine permission to allow these beings to act on their free-will in a deficient manner, then comes the sin, and finally the punishment. Negative reprobation isn't punishment; it's only a permission to allow someone to act in a way worthy of punishment. Yes, it would be monstrous if God created something firstly and primarily for the reason of punishing it. Again, in this order of intention you can see that the punishment itself is the least of God's concerns: first He is concerned with justice, and second He is concerned with preserving free-will. These are both very good things in themselves, whereas punishment is only a relative good. Even less does God desire to see His own creatures suffer; seeing as the suffering is only a consequence of their being punished. God certainly did not create the damned because He wished them to suffer; He permits the evil of their suffering only for the sake of a great good (divine Justice). The suffering in and of itself is something detestable to God.
QuoteAnd without God causing mankind not to be sinful, mankind cannot be anything other than sinful, for which then God turns around and punishes mankind for what it had to be.
Of course mankind can be something other than sinful. All men need to do is stop resisting sufficient grace. If you respond, "they
can't stop resisting sufficient grace without an additional efficacious grace." My response is: it's not that they
can't, it's that they
won't.
Sufficient grace is
sufficient – to make a man a saint. It's just that it
won't in fact make a man a saint, because the sinner
will not co-operate with it.
QuoteBut again, you fail to answer whether lack of resistance to sufficient grace is ontologically prior to efficacious grace or subsequent to it. You want to have it both ways: pretend that it is prior to efficacious grace in order to be able to place blame on the reprobate; but then pretend that it is subsequent to efficacious grace in order to make God the sole author of salvation.
Efficacious grace removes man's resistance and makes Him actively co-operate with grace; so it's neither prior nor subsequent, it's one and the same thing.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 21, 2018, 01:46:52 PMNot every potency carries with it a real possibility of actualization at all times and places in the actual world; a cold object is potentially hot, but it won't become actually hot as long as it remains in the freezer. But most importantly, since God is First Mover, it is a necessary and sufficient condition that He (as first in the chain) move the potency to act. Without His moving it, it is impossible that it move from potency to act. Thomists are thus arguing nonsensically that, despite God's failure to move the potency to act, such motion is still "possible", conflating (quite ridiculously) ALL possible worlds, in which case yes the motion is possible, and the ACCESSIBLE possible worlds given God's failure to move the potency to act, in which case the motion is NOT possible (it doesn't occur in any of those worlds).
Not every potency carries with it a real possibility of actualization at all times and places in the actual world; a cold object is potentially hot, but it won't become actually hot as long as it remains in the freezer.
Yet we're not dealing with material objects here which are limited by whatever materials conditions they happen to be placed in; but with spiritual creatures which have free-will, and with a spiritual potency (to do good) which sufficient grace really endows them with whenever their free-will is active.
But most importantly, since God is First Mover, it is a necessary and sufficient condition that He (as first in the chain) move the potency to act. Without His moving it, it is impossible that it move from potency to act. Thomists are thus arguing nonsensically that, despite God's failure to move the potency to act, such motion is still "possible" . . .
God would move the potency to act if not for man's sinful resistance. Following such sinful resistance, God permits it to remain a mere inactive potency.
(https://i.imgur.com/DOFDwU9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Yx7f8hi.png)
QuoteTo get around this, of course, they point to the soul's "resistance" to grace but never precisely define the term. If non-resistance to grace is an act of the will, then that must first exist in potency, and then be moved by God from potency to act, so the same difficulty reappears.
"Non-resistance to grace" – I think you're inventing something here. Non-resistance to grace is nothing. Even rocks have a non-resistance to grace . . . I think you mean an active co-operation with grace, which is what efficacious grace provides.
QuoteThose two statements are directly contradictory if you substitute "not saved" for "damned".
All souls which are saved are saved solely because God from all eternity has chosen those souls (e.g. God's choice is the sole determinant factor).
Nobody is not saved solely because God failed to choose them, but other factors are involved (e.g. God's choice is not the sole determinant factor).
The reason is that the state of glory is beyond man's power and requires an infused supernatural virtue which is given gratuitously by God. The state of damnation, however, is within man's natural capacity to sin. So to be saved belongs primarily to God, and to be damned belongs primarily to man. Both, however, are foreknown by God from all eternity.
QuoteAgain, your God is not a God of love but a vain, arbitrary egoist only concerned with what He can "manifest".
No, because in manifesting His mercy on the blessed He is giving them a quality which is really their own, and which they will eternally delight in though it has God for its source. He loves and blesses His creatures for their sake, and not just for His own. Hence, His willingness to die on the Cross. And even in the souls which God permits to fall into damnation in order to manifest His justice, He is willing to grant them various goods in this life, is willing to reveal Himself to them as much as they are ready to hear Him, etc. Really, He gives His creatures whatever they ask for. God gains nothing for Himself by creating the universe, because His glory and happiness are infinitely perfect before He creates anything. His creating the universe is a pouring out of His love for creatures. The manifestation of His mercy and His justice in the world are for His creatures' sake, and even if "all glory belongs to God" ultimately, God also wishes His creatures to participate in His glory. If some creatures fall short of that glory through sin, and end up on the receiving-end of divine Justice, that is not because God delights in punishing them or seeing them suffer, but for the greater building-up of the universe. True, God could make a universe in which everyone went to heaven, but without the sinners there to test the saints, the saints would never have had the opportunity to prove themselves and earn that degree of glory which God had predestined them to.
Quote from: Revelations of St. BridgetThere are three kinds of people who serve me in this world. The first are the ones who believe me to be God and the giver of all things who has power over everything. They serve me with the intention of obtaining temporal goods and honor, but the things of heaven are as nothing to them, and they would just as soon lose them so that they can obtain present goods. Worldly success in everything falls to their share, according to their wishes. Since they have lost the eternal goods, I recompense them with temporal comforts for whatever good service they do for me, right down to the last farthing and their very last moment. The second are the ones who believe me to be God almighty and a strict judge, but who serve me out of fear of punishment and not out of love of heavenly glory. If they did not fear me, they would not serve me. The third are the ones who believe me to be the Creator of all things and true God and who believe me to be just and merciful. They do not serve me out of any fear of punishment but out of divine love and charity. They would prefer any punishment, if they could bear it, rather than once provoke me to anger. They truly deserve to be heard when they pray, since their will accords with my will. The first kind of servant will never depart from punishment or get to see my face. The second will not be punished as much but will still not get to see my face, unless he corrects his fear through penitence.
QuoteI am the Creator of heaven and earth. You were wondering, my bride, why I am so forbearing with the wicked. That is because I am merciful. My justice bears with them for a threefold reason and for a threefold reason my mercy spares them. 2 First, my justice bears with them so that their time may be fully completed. Just as you might ask a righteous king who has some prisoners why he does not put them to death, and his answer is: 'Because it is not yet time for the general session of the court where they can be heard and where those who hear can take greater warning.' In a similar way I tolerate the wicked until their time comes, so that their wickedness can be made known to others as well. 3 Did I not foretell the rejection of Saul long before it was known to men? I tolerated him for a long time in order that his wickedness might be shown to others. The second reason is that the wicked do perform some good works for which they ought to be rewarded down to the last particular. In this way, not the least little good they have done for me will go unrewarded, and they will accordingly receive their wages here on earth. 4 In the third place, it is in order to manifest God's glory and patience. It was for this reason that I tolerated Pilate, Herod, and Judas, although they were going to be damned. And if anyone asks why I tolerate this or that person, let him call to mind Judas and Pilate.
5 My mercy spares the wicked for a threefold reason as well. First of all, it is because of my enormous love, inasmuch as eternal punishment is long. For that reason, because of my great love, I tolerate them until the last moment in order that their punishment may be delayed by the extended prolongation of time. 6 In the second place, it is in order to allow their nature to be consumed by vices. Insofar as human nature gets consumed by sin, they would experience temporal death more bitterly if they had a younger constitution. A young constitution dies a more protracted and bitter death. 7 In the third place, it is for the betterment of good people and the conversion of some of the wicked. When good and righteous people are tormented by the wicked, it benefits the good and righteous since it leads them to refrain from sin or to gain greater merit. 8 Likewise, the wicked sometimes have a good effect on certain other wicked persons. When the latter reflect on the fate and evilness of the former, they think to themselves and say: 'What good does it do us to follow them?' And: 'Since the Lord is so patient it is better for us to repent.' 9 In this way they sometimes return to me, because they shudder to do the kinds of things those others do and, moreover, their conscience tells them they should not do those kinds of things. It is said that if a person has been stung by a scorpion, he can be cured by being anointed with the oil in which another reptile has died. 10 In like manner, sometimes a wicked person who sees someone else fall may be stung by remorse and be cured by reflecting on the evilness and vanity of the other.
QuoteThere is not much of a difference if God's "allowance" is determining of the evil act, and not merely a necessary condition, as would be the case under libertarian free will.
Read the "Catechism on Motion" I posted above (several long screen captures).
Quote from: John Lamb on December 21, 2018, 04:14:44 PM
it is logically impossible that sin does not occur given such permissive will . . .
Not at all. If the sinner's will was not deficient, if it did not resist sufficient grace, then it would not sin in the first place.
It is logically impossible given the permissive will that sinner's will not be deficient and not resist sufficient grace, because these are also things that God permits and must permit for the sin to occur.
In fact, WHATEVER defect you want to point to in the sinner, God had to permit that, otherwise it wouldn't be there; and such permission is ontologically primary to its presence.
So yes, God had to permit EVERYTHING logically associated with the sin (otherwise the sin wouldn't occur), and so yes, it is logically impossible that sin does not occur given the totality of God's permissive will.
QuoteGod's permissive will is not at all sufficient to make someone sin. In addition to His permission, there needs also be the sinful will itself in the first place. God's allowing people to sin does not magically create the will to sin in people. The sinful will is already there, and God merely permits it.
So, you admit the "sinful will" must also be something permitted by God.
Also, if a "sinful will" exists (a determination to sin), a sin has
already been committed.
QuoteThe order of intention is like this:
God wishes to manifest His Justice in the universe –> God wills to create fallible creatures with the capacity for sin –> God foreknows that some of these creatures will indeed sin against Him, and He permits this from all eternity (negative reprobation) –> they die in unrepentant mortal sin –> God punishes them.
This would be fine if "foreknow" didn't mean "predetermine"; but that is what it means for you. So why didn't God manifest His justice instead by causing all creatures to be good and rewarding them? Because, you must answer, He wishes to manifest His Justice in the universe
by the particular means of punishment.
QuoteNegative reprobation isn't punishment; it's only a permission to allow someone to act in a way worthy of punishment. Yes, it would be monstrous if God created something firstly and primarily for the reason of punishing it.
And it is monstrous, since such permission entails that someone act in a way worthy of punishment. Why did he create the reprobate? To manifest His justice - knowing full well the only way that could possibly happen is by eternal torment given His prior choice not to save them.
QuoteOf course mankind can be something other than sinful. All men need to do is stop resisting sufficient grace. If you respond, "they can't stop resisting sufficient grace without an additional efficacious grace." My response is: it's not that they can't, it's that they won't.
Sufficient grace is sufficient – to make a man a saint. It's just that it won't in fact make a man a saint, because the sinner will not co-operate with it.
It is logically impossible for sufficient grace not to be resisted if God permits such resistance, as said earlier.
And again, define "resistance" vs. "non-resistance". If resistance to grace is an evil, then non-resistance must be a good, if all evils are deprivations of due goods. But then non-resistance to grace is also something which must be moved from potency to act by God.
QuoteEfficacious grace removes man's resistance and makes Him actively co-operate with grace; so it's neither prior nor subsequent, it's one and the same thing.
If efficacious grace removes man's resistance, then it is prior to it, obviously.
Quote from: John Lamb on December 21, 2018, 04:39:22 PM
God would move the potency to act if not for man's sinful resistance. Following such sinful resistance, God permits it to remain a mere inactive potency...
"Non-resistance to grace" – I think you're inventing something here. Non-resistance to grace is nothing. Even rocks have a non-resistance to grace . . . I think you mean an active co-operation with grace, which is what efficacious grace provides.
No, that's not what I mean. You need to define what "resistance to grace" actually is and how its opposite isn't something that can only be produced by efficacious grace.
If John doesn't resist the grace... that describes nothing about John? That's not an accident, or any kind of attribute at all?
OK, but now if John does resist the grace, it has to describe something about him, otherwise he can't be charged with any kind of evil. So it is something evil, but that particular evil is not the privation of a due good, but the privation of a nothing. Do you agree with this?
Quote
QuoteThose two statements are directly contradictory if you substitute "not saved" for "damned".
All souls which are saved are saved solely because God from all eternity has chosen those souls (e.g. God's choice is the sole determinant factor).
Nobody is not saved solely because God failed to choose them, but other factors are involved (e.g. God's choice is not the sole determinant factor).
The reason is that the state of glory is beyond man's power and requires an infused supernatural virtue which is given gratuitously by God. The state of damnation, however, is within man's natural capacity to sin. So to be saved belongs primarily to God, and to be damned belongs primarily to man. Both, however, are foreknown by God from all eternity.
Typical Thomist evasion. We are talking about what is the
sole determining factor or not.
QuoteNo, because in manifesting His mercy on the blessed He is giving them a quality which is really their own, and which they will eternally delight in though it has God for its source. He loves and blesses His creatures for their sake...
Really? All His creatures?
The St. Bridget revelations would actually prove my point, if true. Christ bemoaning the wicked makes no sense if He has to convert them for them not to be wicked and refuses to do so.
QuoteThe problem however remains, because there is no possibility for the soul to assent to this grace in the Thomistic Banezian system, without the addition of efficacious grace.
Man, I hate when people do this. FIFY.
Gardener, if you are monitoring these comms, will you dig up the quote FROM ST THOMAS that the choice to cooperate or reject Grace LIES WITH MAN?
The false binary of sufficient/efficacious is not from St. Thomas.
QuoteThe reason that sufficient grace is merely sufficient, the reason why it does not produce the good act itself, is not that it CAN'T produce the good act or that it's IMPOSSIBLE, but because of the sinful RESISTANCE to it in the soul. Sufficient grace gives a real power to the soul to do good; so the sinner who falls and says, "I didn't have the power to avoid sin because God refused to give me efficacious grace" is talking nonsense, because SUFFICIENT grace gives the POWER to avoid sin, and God always provides (at least) sufficient grace. If someone falls it's because they have resisted the grace that God has given them, have refused to use the power to do good which God has conferred upon them. The deficiency is in man, not in sufficient grace; sufficient grace is not deficient grace.
That is not in dispute. What about the soul that cooperates with Grace? In you system this is impossible unless God sends efficacious Grace. That's a problem.
Too bad there is not some way to break this thread in 2, rename the second part, and then move it into Sacred Sciences. I'm never going to remember to check "General Catholic Discussion/Theory about the Crisis..." for this always interesting discussion.
Quote from: james03 on December 21, 2018, 06:42:57 PM
QuoteThe reason that sufficient grace is merely sufficient, the reason why it does not produce the good act itself, is not that it CAN'T produce the good act or that it's IMPOSSIBLE, but because of the sinful RESISTANCE to it in the soul. Sufficient grace gives a real power to the soul to do good; so the sinner who falls and says, "I didn't have the power to avoid sin because God refused to give me efficacious grace" is talking nonsense, because SUFFICIENT grace gives the POWER to avoid sin, and God always provides (at least) sufficient grace. If someone falls it's because they have resisted the grace that God has given them, have refused to use the power to do good which God has conferred upon them. The deficiency is in man, not in sufficient grace; sufficient grace is not deficient grace.
That is not in dispute. What about the soul that cooperates with Grace? In you system this is impossible unless God sends efficacious Grace. That's a problem.
It's not impossible. The soul can cooperate with sufficient grace, it just doesn't.
Quote from: james03 on December 21, 2018, 06:39:56 PMGardener, if you are monitoring these comms, will you dig up the quote FROM ST THOMAS that the choice to cooperate or reject Grace LIES WITH MAN?
Banez and his interpreters (e.g. Garrigou-Lagrange) do not deny this. The soul chooses to resist sufficient grace, and chooses to co-operate with efficacious grace.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SATURDAY.
Most holy Mary, I know the graces which thou hast obtained for me, and I know the ingratitude which I have shown thee. The ungrateful man is unworthy of favours; and yet for all this I will not distrust thy mercy. O my great Advocate, have pity on me. Thou, Mary, dost dispense the graces which God vouchsafes to give us sinners, and therefore did He make thee so mighty, rich, and kind, that thou mightest succour us. I will that I may be saved: in thy hands I place my eternal salvation, to thee I consign my soul. I will to be associated with those who are thy special servants; reject me not. Thou goest up and down seeking the wretched, to console them. Cast not away, then, a wretched sinner who has recourse to thee. Speak for me, Mary; thy Son grants what thou askest. Take me beneath thy shelter, and it is enough for me; for with thee to guard me I fear no ill; no, not even my sins; because thou wilt obtain God's pardon for them: no, nor yet devils; because thou art far mightier than all hell: no, nor my Judge Jesus Christ; for at thy prayer He will lay aside His wrath. Protect me, then, my Mother; obtain for me pardon of my sins, love of Jesus, holy perseverance, a good death, and Heaven. It is too true, I merit not these graces; yet do thou only ask them of our God, and I shall obtain them. Pray, then, to Jesus for me. O Mary, my Queen, in thee I trust; in this trust I rest, I live; and with this trust I will that I may die. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her, then the Litanies, it being Saturday, for which there is the indulgence.
74. THE LITANIES
The Litanies commonly called " Litanies of our Lady" are named "Litanies of Loretto" in the Constitutions of several Sovereign Pontiffs, - viz. Reddituri, of Sixtus V., July11, 1687; Sanctissimus, of Clement VIII., Sept. 6, 1601; and In supremo, of Alexander VII., May 28, 1664 - by reason of their being sung with great solemnity every Saturday in the Holy House of Loretto. They are composed of humble supplications and devout prayers to Almighty and (this being the meaning of the word "Litanies"), offered up through the intercession of our Blessed Lady, who is honoured therein by the application to her of the mystic figures, high titles, and glorious appellations whereby she is invoked. That these Litanies, when said by the faithful, in church in public, or at home in private, might always remain word for word exactly as they have been handed down to us from ancient tradition, Pope Alexander VII., in the Constitution above named, strictly forbade the making of any alteration in them.
To encourage the faithful often to have recourse to the intercession of most holy Mary in their behalf with Almighty (and, and at the same time to do her honour, Pope Sixtus V., in the above-named Constitution, granted -
i. An indulgence of 200 days, every time these Litanies are said with devotion and contrition.
Pope Benedict XIII., by a decree of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Jan. 12, 1728, confirmed this Indulgence; and Pope Pius VII., confirming it afresh by a decree of the same S. Congr. of Sept 30, 1817, extended it to 300 days.
He granted, moreover, to all who say them daily -
ii. A plenary Indulgence on the five Feasts of our Blessed Lady, of Obligation according to the Roman Calendar, viz, the Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Assumption, on condition that, being truly contrite for their sins, and after Confession and Communion, they visit a public church, and pray according to the intention of the Pope.
LITANY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN;
Commonly called the Litany of Loretto.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ hear us.
Christ graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.
Mother of Christ, pray for us.
Mother of divine grace, pray for us.
Mother most pure, pray for us.
Mother most chaste, pray for us.
Mother inviolate, pray for us.
Mother undefiled, pray for us.
Mother most amiable, pray for us.
Mother most admirable, pray for us.
Mother of our Creator, pray for us.
Mother of our Redeemer, pray for us.
Virgin most prudent, pray for us.
Virgin most venerable, pray for us.
Virgin most renowned, pray for us.
Virgin most powerful, pray for us.
Virgin most merciful, pray for us.
Virgin most faithful, pray for us.
Mirror of justice, pray for us.
Seat of wisdom, pray for us.
Cause of our joy, pray for us.
Spiritual Vessel, pray for us.
Vessel of honour, pray for us.
Special Vessel of devotion, pray for us.
Mystical Rose, pray for us.
Tower of David, pray for us.
Tower of ivory, pray for us.
House of gold, pray for us.
Ark of the covenant, pray for us.
Gate of heaven, pray for us.
Morning star, pray for us.
Health of the sick, pray for us.
Refuge of sinners, pray for us.
Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.
Help of Christians, pray for us.
Queen of Angels, pray for us.
Queen of Patriarchs, pray for us.
Queen of Prophets, pray for us.
Queen of Apostles, pray for us.
Queen of Martyrs, pray for us.
Queen of Confessors, pray for us.
Queen of Virgins, pray for us.
Queen of all Saints, pray for us.
Queen conceived without stain of original sin, pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
Christ hear us,
Christ graciously hear us.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion + and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord. R. Amen.
V. May the divine assistance remain always with us. R. Amen.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 21, 2018, 05:07:48 PMIt is logically impossible given the permissive will that sinner's will not be deficient and not resist sufficient grace, because these are also things that God permits and must permit for the sin to occur.
God's permission of man's deficient will (the refusal to cooperate with grace) is not the cause of that deficiency. God's permitting man to sin does not impose any necessity on the man; he is always free to cooperate with grace and not sin. Original sin did not take away man's free-will; God gives every man the liberty to be saved if they so chose.
QuoteIn fact, WHATEVER defect you want to point to in the sinner, God had to permit that, otherwise it wouldn't be there; and such permission is ontologically primary to its presence.
. . . . such permission is ontologically primary to its presence.
A defect or deficiency has no ontological "presence" at all. God doesn't "create" any defect, e.g. God doesn't create darkness, He simply does not provide material light universally. Similarly, He doesn't create or cause a defective will in man, He simply does not provide the efficacious grace to supply that defect in all men. In the first place it's man that turned away from God; yes, God gave man the power to turn away from Him, but He did not give Him the defective will itself.
QuoteSo yes, God had to permit EVERYTHING logically associated with the sin (otherwise the sin wouldn't occur), and so yes, it is logically impossible that sin does not occur given the totality of God's permissive will.
. . . it is logically impossible that sin does not occur given the totality of God's permissive will.
Yes, it's impossible that sin does not occur given the eternal decrees, but that's not to say that the sin is necessary or that it could not not occur.
St. Thomas:Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (I:19:3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
St. Thomas:From the fact that God wills from eternity whatever He wills, it does not follow that He wills it necessarily; except by supposition.
QuoteSo why didn't God manifest His justice instead by causing all creatures to be good and rewarding them? Because, you must answer, He wishes to manifest His Justice in the universe by the particular means of punishment.
Light appears greater in the midst of darkness. The merits and rewards of the saints are greater for having suffered injustice at the hands of sinners; therefore, by permitting some to sin and to test the saints thereby, there is a greater manifestation both of mercy and of justice in the universe. God could indeed have made every one good and every one happiness, but it would be a much inferior goodness and a much inferior happiness than the saints now enjoy for having persevered.
QuoteAnd it is monstrous, since such permission entails that someone act in a way worthy of punishment. Why did he create the reprobate? To manifest His justice - knowing full well the only way that could possibly happen is by eternal torment given His prior choice not to save them.
God permitting man to sin in no way entails absolutely that man will sin. It was not impossible for the reprobate to be saved; they only needed to cooperate with God's grace. The fact that God foreknew their refusal to cooperate, and permitted this refusal, is in no way the cause of their refusal. God's choice to not ultimately save a man is not the cause of his not being saved, it is only a condition of his not being saved. The cause is his own sin, which God plays no active part in. God did create the reprobate
qua reprobate in order to manifest His justice, but that does not mean that God creates any man
qua man for the sole purpose of manifesting His justice. In fact, every man (even the reprobate) is a recipient of God's mercy as well as God's justice. If God had no mercy for reprobate souls, they would never have any of the blessings of life, when in fact the lives of reprobates are often filled with many blessings.
QuoteAnd again, define "resistance" vs. "non-resistance". If resistance to grace is an evil, then non-resistance must be a good, if all evils are deprivations of due goods. But then non-resistance to grace is also something which must be moved from potency to act by God.
Why are you conceiving "non-resistance to grace" as if it were a being, a thing? Like I said, even rocks have a non-resistance to grace. God is not the cause of a "non-resistance to grace", He's the cause of an active cooperation with grace. The opposite to resisting grace is cooperating with it, not "non-resisting" it. Grace is not something that moves the will violently against its own freedom to cooperate.
QuoteIt's not impossible. The soul can cooperate with sufficient grace, it just doesn't.
And just to be clear, this includes those who have washed their garments in the blood of Christ and become reborn as children of God, partakers of the Divine. Even these would NEVER cooperate with "sufficient" grace unless also given the super duper efficacious grace. Is this your position?
Let us consider with one concrete example how inconceivably great was the Mercy and Goodness of God toward the treasonous and perfidious reprobate Judas, who again and again was shown kindness and Love; whose feet were washed by the Saviour at the Last Supper; who received the Sacramental Body and Blood of the Lord together with the other Apostles; who by these and innumerable other means was given grace not to add sin unto sin; and then was given chances for remorse and penitence even after committing Deicide. But he obstinately resisted all these graces until the end, and thus final impenitence was produced in his soul. Let his life be a warning to all not to delay conversion to God.
"During these words and prayers of the Author of life Judas advanced in order to give the signal upon which he had agreed with his companions (Matth. 26, 48), namely the customary, but now feigned kiss of peace, by which they were to distinguish Jesus as the One whom they should single out from the rest and immediately seize. These precautions the unhappy disciple had taken, not only out of avarice for the money and hatred against his Master, but also, on account of the fear with which he was filled. For he dreaded the inevitable necessity of meeting Him and encountering Him in the future, if Christ was not put to death on this occasion. Such a confusion he feared more than the death of his soul, or the death of his divine Master, and, in order to forestall it, he hastened to complete his treachery and desired to see the Author of life die at the hands of his enemies. The traitor then ran up to the meekest Lord, and, as a consummate hypocrite hiding his hatred, he imprinted on his countenance the kiss of peace, saying: "God save Thee, Master." By this so treacherous act the perdition of Judas was matured and God was justified in withholding his grace and help. On the part of the unfaithful disciple, malice and temerity reached their highest degree; for, interiorly denying or disbelieving the uncreated and created wisdom by which Christ must know of his treason, and ignoring his power to destroy him, he sought to hide his malice under the cloak of the friendship of a true disciple; and all this for the purpose of delivering over to such a frightful and cruel death his Creator and Master, to whom he was bound by so many obligations. In this one act of treason he committed so many and such formidable sins, that it is impossible to fathom their immensity; for he was treacherous, murderous, sacrilegious, ungrateful, inhuman, disobedient, false, lying, impious and unequalled in hypocrisy; and all this was included in one and the same crime perpetrated against the person of God made man ...
This mercy attained its highest point in the disloyal and obstinate Judas; for the tender Mother, seeing him deliver Jesus by the kiss of feigned friendship and considering how shortly before his mouth had contained the sacramental body of the Lord, with whose sacred countenance so soon after those same foul lips were permitted to come in contact, was transfixed with sorrow and entranced by charity. She asked the Lord to grant new graces, whereby this man, who had enjoyed the privilege of touching the face whereon angels desire to look, might, if he chose to use them, save himself from perdition. In response to this prayer of most holy Mary, her Son and Lord granted Judas powerful graces in the very consummation of his treacherous delivery. If the unfortunate man had given heed and had commenced to respond to them, the Mother of mercy would have obtained for him many others and at last also pardon for his sin. She has done so with many other great sinners, who were willing to give that glory to Her and thus obtain eternal glory for themselves. But Judas failed to realize this and thus lost all chance of salvation, as I shall relate in the next chapter." (Mystical City of God)
Quote from: james03 on December 22, 2018, 09:22:22 AM
QuoteIt's not impossible. The soul can cooperate with sufficient grace, it just doesn't.
And just to be clear, this includes those who have washed their garments in the blood of Christ and become reborn as children of God, partakers of the Divine. Even these would NEVER cooperate with "sufficient" grace unless also given the super duper efficacious grace. Is this your position?
There is less obstacles to grace in the souls of the regenerate so grace tends to be more efficacious in them, i.e. they receive more efficacious graces. All graces given to Mary, for example, were efficacious. To "wash your garment in the blood of Christ and be reborn as a child of God" is a supremely efficacious grace.
And here is the same incident in some more detail.
Quote«I don't want your money, may you be damned» he shouts, standing in the middle of the hall, just where Jesus was previously. He looks like a demon who has come out of hell. Bleeding, unkempt, in a state of delirious fury, slavering, his hands like claws, he shouts and seems to be barking, so shrill and hoarse is his howling voice. «I don't want your money, you cursed ones. You have ruined me. You have made me commit the gravest sin. I am cursed like you! I have betrayed innocent Blood. May that Blood and my death fall upon you. Cursed! May you be cursed forever! Cursed be these walls! Cursed be this profaned Temple! Cursed be the deicide Pontiff! Cursed be the unworthy priests, the false doctors, the hypocritical Pharisees, the cruel Judaeans, the sly scribes! May I be accursed! Curse me! Keep your money and may it strangle your souls in your throats, as the halter strangles me» and he throws the purse in Caiaphas' teeth and goes away howling, while the coins tinkle spreading out on the floor after striking Caiaphas' mouth and making it bleed. No one dare stop him.
He goes out. He runs along the streets. And he fatally meets with Jesus twice again, as He goes and comes back from Herod. He departs from the town centre, taking the poorest lanes at random and he ends up again at the house of the Supper. It is all closed as if it were abandoned. He stops. He looks at it. «The Mother!» he whispers. «The Mother!...» He is undecided... «I have a mother as well! And I have killed a son of a mother!... And yet... I want to go in... To see that room again. There is no blood in there...»
«Blood! Blood! Blood also here! His Blood! His Blood!... "Do this in memory of Me!... Take this and drink it. This is My Blood... The Blood of the new testament that will be shed for you Ha! I am cursed! It can no longer be shed for me to remit my sin. I do not ask to be forgiven, because He cannot forgive me. Away, away! There is no place where the Cain of God may find peace. Death! Death to me!...»
He goes out. He finds himself in front of Mary, Who is standing at the door of the room where Jesus left Her. Hearing a noise, She has looked out, hoping perhaps to see John, who has been away such a long time. She looks as pale as if She had lost all Her blood. Grief has made Her eyes resemble even more those of Her Son. Judas meets those eyes that look at him with the same sorrowful conscious knowledge with which Jesus looked at him in the street, and uttering a frightened «Oh!» he leans against the wall.
«Judas!» says Mary, «Judas, why have you come?» The same words as Jesus'. And they are spoken with sad love. Judas remembers them and shouts.
«Judas» repeats Mary «what have you done? To so much love have you replied by betraying?» Mary's voice is a trembling caress.
Judas is about to run away. Mary calls him with a voice that should have converted a demon. «Judas! Judas! Stop! Stop! Listen!I am telling you in His name: repent, Judas. He forgives...» Judas has run away. Mary's voice, Her appearance, have been the coup de grace, or rather of disgrace, because he resists Her ...
(Jesus says) My Mother, and She was Grace that was speaking and My Treasurer that was granting forgiveness in My name, said to him: "Repent, Judas. He forgives..." Oh! I would have forgiven him! If he had only thrown himself at the feet of My Mother saying: "Mercy!" She, the Merciful Mother, would have picked him up as a woundedman, and on his satanic wounds, through which the Enemy had imbued him with the Crime, She would have shed Her tears that save and She would have brought him to Me, to the foot of the Cross, holding him by the hand, so that Satan might not snatch him and the disciples might not strike him. She would have brought him so that My Blood might fall first of all on him, the greatest of all sinners ...
But he did not want. Meditate on the power of free will, of which you are the absolute arbiters. Through it you can have Heaven or Hell. Meditate on what persisting in sin means.(From Poem of the Man God)
Here, we see Judas remained obstinate until the end, refusing so many and such great graces, and only therefore died in final impenitence as a reprobate. It is clear here that man's reprobation is not antecedent but consequent to grave persistence in sin. Even after such great temerity, malice and criminal treason, Judas could have been pardoned. But he did not wish to be.
QuoteThere is less obstacles to grace in the souls of the regenerate so grace tends to be more efficacious in them, i.e. they receive more efficacious graces. All graces given to Mary, for example, were efficacious. To "wash your garment in the blood of Christ and be reborn as a child of God" is a supremely efficacious grace.
Dude, you have some degree of intelligence and must realize that you attempted deceit with this answer. You need to self reflect on that. You know that your beliefs are absurd, otherwise you would have answered my question:
Under your system, is it your belief that the regenerated won't cooperate with "sufficient" grace unless they are also given efficacious grace?
Found the St. Thomas quote, SCG, III, 159. Hat tip to Gardener who evidently O.D.'d on copenhagen and passed out.
QuoteAnd since this ability to impede or not to impede the reception of divine grace is within the scope of free choice, not undeservedly is responsibility for the fault imputed to him who offers an impediment to the reception of grace.
There is only Grace, not efficacious or sufficient. It is free. It is mercy. We can't demand it. However it is within the scope of free will to choose to impede this grace, or not to. This is Congruentism, and St. Thomas was a Congruentist.
Quote from: james03 on December 22, 2018, 10:41:00 AMUnder your system, is it your belief that the regenerated won't cooperate with "sufficient" grace unless they are also given efficacious grace?
Yes. Christians resist many graces in their lives. They do not cooperate with the sufficient graces given to them unless efficacious grace infallibly moves their will to cooperate. Nobody, not even a Christian, can perform a single good act unless God provides an actual efficacious grace moving their will towards it.
QuoteYes. Christians resist many graces in their lives. They do not cooperate with the sufficient graces given to them unless efficacious grace infallibly moves their will to cooperate. Nobody, not even a Christian, can perform a single good act unless God provides an actual efficacious grace moving their will towards it.
Thanks for your honesty. This is Luther's soteriology. Even the regenerated Christian is still a dung pile covered with snow, incapable of doing any good, even responding to grace. Sanctifying Grace is reduced to a legal declaration.
Quote from: John Lamb on December 22, 2018, 10:50:48 AM
Quote from: james03 on December 22, 2018, 10:41:00 AMUnder your system, is it your belief that the regenerated won't cooperate with "sufficient" grace unless they are also given efficacious grace?
Yes. Christians resist many graces in their lives. They do not cooperate with the sufficient graces given to them unless efficacious grace infallibly moves their will to cooperate. Nobody, not even a Christian, can perform a single good act unless God provides an actual efficacious grace moving their will towards it.
Well that is what we (Quare, James, Myself and the adversaries of Banez et al) have stated is the objection to this system: A man is given "sufficient grace" so that he may avoid sin and obey God; but man cannot do anything else but reject this grace, because in this system, he needs another grace, i.e. Efficacious grace in order to do so.
Man is therefore condemned for not doing what is metaphysically impossible for him to do. This is not coherent.
Xavier,
thanks for the above posts; but under the Banezian system, Judas would not have been able to respond to the advances of Our Lord and the prayers of Our Blessed Mother, if these were only "sufficient graces" on the other hand if these were "efficacious graces", Judas would not have been able to resist them.
As Msgr. Pohl quite accurately stated: "There is no room in the Thomistic System for free will."
Here is Msgr. Pohle in the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm
Quotehe first objection is the danger that in the Thomistic system the freedom of the will cannot be maintained as against efficacious grace, a difficulty which by the way is not unperceived by the Thomists themselves. For since the essence of freedom does not lie in the contingency of the act nor in the merely passive indifference of the will, but rather in its active indifference — to will or not to will, to will this and not that — so it appears impossible to reconcile the physical predetermination of a particular act by an alien will and the active spontaneousness of the determination by the will itself; nay more, they seem to exclude each other as utterly as do determinism and indeterminism, necessity and freedom. The Thomists answer this objection by making a distinction between sensus compositus and sensus divisus, but the Molinists insist that this distinction is not correctly applicable here. For just as a man who is bound to a chair cannot be said to be sitting freely as long as his ability to stand is thwarted by indissoluble cords, so the will predetermined by efficacious grace to a certain thing cannot be said to retain the power to dissent, especially since the will, predetermined to this or that act, has not the option to receive or disregard the premotion, since this depends simply and solely on the will of God. And does not the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. v, can. iv) describe efficacious grace as a grace which man "can reject", and from which he "can dissent"? Consequently, the very same grace, which de facto is efficacious, might under other circumstances be inefficacious.
Herein the second objection to the Thomistic distinction between gratia efficax and gratia sufficiens is already indicated. If both graces are in their nature and intrinsically different, it is difficult to see how a grace can be really sufficient which requires another grace to complete it. Hence, it would appear that the Thomistic gratia sufficiens is in reality a gratia insufficiens. The Thomists cannot well refer the inefficacy of this grace to the resistance of the free will, for this act of resistance must be traced to a proemotio physica as inevitable as the efficacious grace.
Actual and Sanctifying Grace????? Only two I know of.
Thanks, Michael. I think people are misunderstanding Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace. Efficacious grace is offered in sufficient grace as the fruit in the flower, as the plant in the seed. This is the analogy universally used by the Thomists, Fr. G-L, and Cardinal Journet included.
The order of the meritorious act: Sufficient grace given ==> Man does all in his power ==> Sufficient grace flowers into efficacious grace ==> The good act is brought to completion, effected by God as First Cause. Thus, it is true to say God did the act through man. If grace were not intrinsically efficacious, but only extrinsically such, as both Molinists and Congruists hold, it seems it would be necessary to say, God helped me, but really I did it. And yet St. Paul says, "But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1 Cor 15:10)
The order of the evil act: Sufficient grace given ==> Man refuses to do what he can, and instead opposes and frustrates this grace ==> Sufficient grace remains sterile ==> An evil act is created. Journet, "In the good act, God has the first initiative, he is the first, enveloping cause of the act, and man the secondary cause. In the sinful act, man is first cause of the deviation, that is of the non-being, the disorder, the destruction. Homo prima causa mali: man is first cause of evil! But can he be first cause of anything? Yes, he can be first cause of whatever is not a thing; he can do what is no thing, he can destroy, annihilate the divine action that comes to visit him. Here man can take the first initiative; he is first cause of the annulling of the divine action. So, you see, it is a mystery of darkness."
An imperfect act: E.g. The oft cited dictum, "Grace sufficient for contrition that was efficacious for attrition" Sufficient grace (sufficient for contrition) given ==> Man does not wholly refuse, but only does partially all that grace was impelling his natural powers to do ==> an imperfect act (of attrition in place of contrition) results. God remains first cause of this grace, and that man did not complete the act of contrition in this case has to do with his partial resistance. Would you disagree with this schema, Michael?
There is one more point that may be slightly confusing for some in the Thomistic system --- the distinction between Power and Act. God gives habitual powers when He creates grace in their soul, He then uses this power to produce the act itself. In the natural order, the analogy would be, the power to fly, and the act itself of flight, given by God to a bird. God has already given the natural power to fly to every bird. Because God is the Being "in Him we live and move and are" (Acts 17:28), it is only by His movement that power can be reduced to act. Thus, God is called Actus Purus, the Being Who has no potentiality, and Who actualizes the potentiality - or powers He has given - of every other being. In the supernatural order, each and every time the potential of sufficient grace is transformed into efficacious grace and results in a completed action, God is always first cause of that transformation. God is always willing to effect that transformation, if man does all that lies in his natural power.
Thus, the statement of Orange, St. Augustine and Trent, "God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can, and to ask for that which is beyond your power, and by His help enables you to do it." [Sess. 6, Cap. 11] http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/prayer-5a.htm
St. Alphonsus adds this important admonition from a regional Council, "The Council of Cologne in 1536: "Although no one is converted except he is drawn by the Father, yet let no one pretend to excuse himself on the plea of not being drawn. He stands at the gate, and knocks by the internal and the external Word."
The important takeaway, imho, is to always remember to attribute the whole effect to God, this is St. Thomas' statement on Predestination - "it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lamentations 5:21): "convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm
Xavier,
thanks for your response; re. "Misunderstanding the Thomistic system"; not at all, the critics of the system perceive its main weakness; viz. There is no room for free will in this system. Sufficient grace gives the sinner the "power'' but this can never be reduced to act, except through a second additional grace; namely: "efficacius grace". Thus the sinner under the influence of only "sufficient'' grace, cannot do anything else but reject the grace, in fact, Fr. Garigou Lagrange (and other expositors of the system) explain, man will infallibly reject this grace because of his defective human nature unless a second grace comes to his assistance. This second grace will infallibly give man the act of accepting the grace and converting; thus man cannot reject this grace. But God does not give this second grace to everyone, only to those who He has APM predestined to save, thus Thomists are led inevitably to adopt the theory of "negative reprobation"; in which God only gives saving grace to some men, while He leaves others to their own devices, which inevitably leads to their eternal damnation.
The end of man
In common with all created nature (substance, or essence, considered as the principle of activity or passivity), that of man tends towards its natural end. The proof of this lies in the inductively ascertained principle of finality. The natural end of man may be considered from two points of view. Primarily, it is the procuring of the glory of God, which is the end of all creation. God's intrinsic perfection is not increased by creation, but extrinsically He becomes known and praised, or glorified by the creatures He endows with intelligence. A secondary natural end of man is the attainment of his own beatitude, the complete and hierarchic perfection of his nature by the exercise of its faculties in the order which reason prescribes to the will, and this by the observance of the moral law. Since complete beatitude is not to be attained in this life (considered in its merely natural aspect, as neither yet elevated by grace, nor vitiated by sin) future existence, as proved in psychology, is postulated by ethics for its attainment. Thus the present life is to be considered as a means to a further end. Upon the relation of the rational nature of man to his last end—God—is founded the science of moral philosophy, which thus presupposes as its ground, metaphysics, cosmology, and psychology. The distinction of good and evil rests upon the consonance or discrepancy of human acts with the nature of man thus considered; and moral obligation has its root in the absolute necessity and immutability of the same relation.
With regard to the last end of man (as "man" and not as "soul"), it is not universally held by Scholastics that the resurrection of the body is proved apodictically in philosophy. Indeed some (e.g. Scotus, Occam) have even denied that the immortality of the soul is capable of such demonstration. The resurrection is an article of faith. Some recent authors, however (see Cardinal Mercier, "Psychologie", II, 370), advance the argument that the formation of a new body is naturally necessary on account of the perfect final happiness of the soul, for which it is a condition sine qua non. A more cogent form of the proof would seem to lie in the consideration that the separated soul is not complete in ratione naturæ. It is not the human being; and it would seem that the nature of man postulates a final and permanent reunion of its two intrinsic principles.
But there is de facto another end of man. The Catholic Faith teaches that man has been raised to a supernatural state and that his destiny, as a son of God and member of the Mystical Body of which Christ is the Head, is the eternal enjoyment of the beatific vision. In virtue of God's infallible promise, in the present dispensation the creature enters into the covenant by baptism; he becomes a subject elevated by grace to a new order, incorporated into a society by reason of which he tends and is brought to a perfection not due to his nature (see CHURCH). The means to this end are justification by the merits of Christ communicated to man, co-operation with grace, the sacraments, prayer, good works, etc. The Divine law which the Christian obeys rests on this supernatural relation and is enforced with a similar sanction. The whole pertains to a supernatural providence which belongs not to philosophical speculation but to revelation and theological dogma. In the light of the finalistic doctrine as to man, it is evident that the "purpose of life" can have a meaning only in reference to an ultimate state of perfection of the individual. The nature tending towards its end can be interpreted only in terms of that end; and the activities by which it manifests its tendency as a living being have no adequate explanation apart from it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm
Quote from: james03 on December 22, 2018, 10:49:28 AM
Found the St. Thomas quote, SCG, III, 159. Hat tip to Gardener who evidently O.D.'d on copenhagen and passed out.
QuoteAnd since this ability to impede or not to impede the reception of divine grace is within the scope of free choice, not undeservedly is responsibility for the fault imputed to him who offers an impediment to the reception of grace.
There is only Grace, not efficacious or sufficient. It is free. It is mercy. We can't demand it. However it is within the scope of free will to choose to impede this grace, or not to. This is Congruentism, and St. Thomas was a Congruentist.
Apologies. Forgot my password for this site and since I was at work, no email. Secret question involves looking at a physical item elsewhere for the answer. Reset this morning.
Anyway, St. Thomas had two positions and this is why Fr. William Most contends that the so-called Thomist position is anything but, but rather has been codified into the Banezian position and is cast as the only position of St. Thomas.
Fr. Most covered these problems in his book on Predestination (for which I will be forever in the debt of Michael Wilson for sending it to me).
Here's an online treatise on the issue which examines the tension in St. Thomas' writings on the issue:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=2
To put it simply, St. Thomas saw both heads and tails, but could never formulate the "coin" because he couldn't bring himself to break from Augustine's theory (which even Augustine himself seems to have disliked and couldn't find a way around). Fr. Most shows how, and why, Augustine was wrong and once this obstacle is removed, the solution is found in St. Thomas' writings themselves, along with Scripture and the early Fathers.
Quote from: Xavier on December 22, 2018, 11:50:19 AM
Thanks, Michael. I think people are misunderstanding Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace. Efficacious grace is offered in sufficient grace as the fruit in the flower, as the plant in the seed. This is the analogy universally used by the Thomists, Fr. G-L, and Cardinal Journet included.
The order of the meritorious act: Sufficient grace given ==> Man does all in his power ==> Sufficient grace flowers into efficacious grace ==> The good act is brought to completion, effected by God as First Cause. Thus, it is true to say God did the act through man. If grace were not intrinsically efficacious, but only extrinsically such, as both Molinists and Congruists hold, it seems it would be necessary to say, God helped me, but really I did it. And yet St. Paul says, "But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1 Cor 15:10)
The order of the evil act: Sufficient grace given ==> Man refuses to do what he can, and instead opposes and frustrates this grace ==> Sufficient grace remains sterile ==> An evil act is created. Journet, "In the good act, God has the first initiative, he is the first, enveloping cause of the act, and man the secondary cause. In the sinful act, man is first cause of the deviation, that is of the non-being, the disorder, the destruction. Homo prima causa mali: man is first cause of evil! But can he be first cause of anything? Yes, he can be first cause of whatever is not a thing; he can do what is no thing, he can destroy, annihilate the divine action that comes to visit him. Here man can take the first initiative; he is first cause of the annulling of the divine action. So, you see, it is a mystery of darkness."
An imperfect act: E.g. The oft cited dictum, "Grace sufficient for contrition that was efficacious for attrition" Sufficient grace (sufficient for contrition) given ==> Man does not wholly refuse, but only does partially all that grace was impelling his natural powers to do ==> an imperfect act (of attrition in place of contrition) results. God remains first cause of this grace, and that man did not complete the act of contrition in this case has to do with his partial resistance. Would you disagree with this schema, Michael?
There is one more point that may be slightly confusing for some in the Thomistic system --- the distinction between Power and Act. God gives habitual powers when He creates grace in their soul, He then uses this power to produce the act itself. In the natural order, the analogy would be, the power to fly, and the act itself of flight, given by God to a bird. God has already given the natural power to fly to every bird. Because God is the Being "in Him we live and move and are" (Acts 17:28), it is only by His movement that power can be reduced to act. Thus, God is called Actus Purus, the Being Who has no potentiality, and Who actualizes the potentiality - or powers He has given - of every other being. In the supernatural order, each and every time the potential of sufficient grace is transformed into efficacious grace and results in a completed action, God is always first cause of that transformation. God is always willing to effect that transformation, if man does all that lies in his natural power.
Thus, the statement of Orange, St. Augustine and Trent, "God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can, and to ask for that which is beyond your power, and by His help enables you to do it." [Sess. 6, Cap. 11] http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/prayer-5a.htm
St. Alphonsus adds this important admonition from a regional Council, "The Council of Cologne in 1536: "Although no one is converted except he is drawn by the Father, yet let no one pretend to excuse himself on the plea of not being drawn. He stands at the gate, and knocks by the internal and the external Word."
The important takeaway, imho, is to always remember to attribute the whole effect to God, this is St. Thomas' statement on Predestination - "it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lamentations 5:21): "convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm
Xavier, we (Michael Wilson, myself, INPEFESS, Louis IX, etc.) have been over all these points before in the myriad of Predestination threads. You're not providing any new info. The objections we raise were also raised by St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsous Liguori amongst others. Fr. G-L attempts to answer the objections, but ends up engaging in what amounts to circular argument and, in my opinion, willful sophistry.
ETA: The main problem is the Banezian school of Thomism has succeeded in elbowing out all other schools and is simply the loudest voice amongst the various sub-schools of Thomistic thought. In short, they have succeeding in branding their understanding as "Thomism" considered simply. And that's false.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SUNDAY.
Mother of my God, look down upon a poor sinner, who has recourse to thee, and puts his trust in thee. I am not worthy that thon shouldst even cast thine eyes upon me; but I know that thou, beholding Jesus thy Son dying for sinners, dost thyself yearn exceedingly to save them. O Mother of Mercy, look on my miseries and have pity upon me. I hear it said by all that thou art the refuge of the sinner, the hope of the desperate, the aid of the lost; be thou, then, my refuge, hope, and aid. It is thy prayers which must save me. For the love of Jesus Christ be thou my help; reach forth thy hand to the poor fallen sinner who recommends himself to thee. I know that it is thy consolation to aid the sinner when thou canst do so; help me then, thou who canst help. By my sins I have forfeited the grace of God and my own soul. I place myself in thy hands; O, tell me what to do that I may regain the grace of God, and I will do it. My Saviour bids me go to thee for help; He wills that I should look to thy pity; that so, not only the merits of thy Son, but thine own prayers also, may unite to save me. To thee, then, I have recourse: pray thou to Jesus for me; and make me experience how great good thou canst do for one who trusts in thee. Be it done unto me according to my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
I'm declining to answer any more arguments / objections, not because I don't think they're worthy of a response, but because there's only so many times I can repeat myself without appearing, or actually becoming, a fanatic. So apologies to anyone who's expecting a further response from me. I would need to study this particular subject with a lot more seriousness and in much greater detail before I could really provide a truly worthy response anyway. The only thing I'd like to add is St. Thomas' commentary on Romans 9, so that those who assert that "Banezian" theology is not true "Thomistic" theology can look for themselves.
Quote from: St. Thomas(6) But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, (7) and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named." (8) This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. (9) For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son." (10) And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived of one man, our forefather Isaac, (11) though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, (12) she was told, "The elder will serve the younger." (13) As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
[. . .]
757. Then (v. 11) he clarifies his thesis: first, by the authority of Gen (c. 28); secondly, by a text from the prophet Malachi (v. 13).
758. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when they were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other in virtue of the promise. And just as his previous statement excluded the opinion of the Jews trusting in the merits of their forefathers, so this statement counters the error of the Manicheans who claimed that a person's life and death were controlled by the constellation under which he was born, against what is said in Jer (10:2) "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear." Then when he continues: though they had done nothing either good or bad, the Pelagian error is refuted which says that grace is given according to one's preceding merits, even though it says in Tit (3:5): "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy." Both of these are shown false by the fact that before birth and before doing anything one of Rebecca's sons is preferred to the other. This also corrects Origen's error who supposed that men's souls were created when the angels were, and that they merited different lives depending on the merits they earned for the good or evil they had done there. This could not be true in the light of what is stated here, namely that they had done nothing either good or bad. Against this also is Job (38:7): "Where were you when the morning stars praised me together and all the sons of God made joyful melody?" For according to Origen's error, he could have answered: I was among those joyful sons of God.
759. Secondly, he shows what could be understood from that promise by which one of the twins in the womb was chosen over the other. He says: In order that God's purpose, by which one would be greater than the other, might continue, i.e., be made firm: and this not by reason of merits but of election i.e., inasmuch as God himself spontaneously forechose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy, as it says in Eph (1:4): "He chose us in himself before the foundation of the world that we should be holy." But this is a decree of predestination about which the same text says: "Predestined according to the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:15).
760. Thirdly, he sets down the promise, saying, not because of works, for no works preceded it, as has been said: but because of his call, i.e., through the grace of God calling, for she was told, i.e., Rebecca, that the elder, i.e., Esau, will serve the younger, i.e., Jacob. This can be understood in three ways.
761. In one way, as referring to the persons involved, and then Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, inasmuch as the persecution he launched against him ended in Jacob's benefit, as it says in Pr (11:29): "The fool will serve the wise." Secondly, it can be referred to the people who sprang from each, because the Edomites were once subject to the Israelites, as it says in Ps 60 (v.8); "Upon Edom I cast my shoe." This seems to fit Gen (25:23): "The nations are in your womb; the one shall be stronger than the other." Thirdly, it can be taken figuratively so that by the elder is understood the Jewish people, who were the first to receive the adoption of sons, in accord with Ex 4:22, "Israel is my firstborn son," and by the younger is understood the Gentiles, who were called to the Father later and were signified by the prodigal son (Lk c. 15). The elder people in this case serve the younger, inasmuch as the Jews are our capsarii [guarders of the books], guarding the books form which the truths of our faith are drawn: "Search the scriptures" (Jn 5:39).
762. Then (v. 13) he proves his point by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God Who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. A gloss on this says that the statement, the elder will serve the younger, was spoken from foreknowledge, but that the present statement results from judgment, i.e., that God loved Jacob on account of his good works, just as He loves all the saints: "I love those who love me (Pr 8:17), but he hated Esau on account of his sins, as it says in Si (12:3): "The Highest hates sinners." But because man's love is preceded by God's love: "Not that we loved God, but that he has first loved us" (1 Jn 4:20), we must say that Jacob was loved by God before he loved God. Nor can it be said that God began to love him at a fixed point in time; otherwise His love would be changeable. Consequently, one must say that God loved Jacob from all eternity, as it says in Jer (31:3): "I have loved you with an everlasting love."
763. Now these words of the Apostle identify in God three things pertaining to the saints, namely, election, by which is understood God's predestination and election. In God these are really the same, but in our understanding they differ. For it is called God's love, inasmuch as he wills good to a person absolutely; it is election, inasmuch as through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. But it is called predestination, inasmuch as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions predestination comes after love, just as the will's fixation on the end naturally precedes the process of directing things towards the end. Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in man. For in men, election precedes love, for a man's will is inclined to love a thing on account of the good perceived in it, this good also being the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixed his love on the thing he preferred. But God's love is the cause of every good found in a creature; consequently, the good in virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows upon Gods willing it—which pertains to His love, Consequently, it is not in virtue of some good which He selects in a man that God love him; rather, it is because He loved him that He prefers him to someone by election.
764. But just as the love, about which we are speaking, pertains to Gods eternal predestination, so the hatred about which we are speaking pertains to the rejection by which God rejects sinners. It should not be supposed that this rejection is temporal, because nothing in the divine will is temporal; rather, it is eternal. Furthermore, it is akin to love or predestination in some respect and different in another. It is akin in the sense that just as predestination is preparation for glory, so rejection is preparation for punishment: "For a burning place has long been prepared, yes, for the king it is made ready" (Is 30:33). It is different in that predestination implies preparation of the merits by which glory is reached, but rejection implies preparation of the sins by which punishment is reached. Consequently, a foreknowledge of merits cannot be the reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be a reason for rejection on the part of the punishment prepared for the rejected, inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for the sins they have from themselves, not from God; the just He proposes to reward on account of the merits they do not have from themselves: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in me" (Hos 13:9).
(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? Let it not be! (15) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (16) So it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. (17) For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
After showing that by God's choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling, the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice. First, he raises a question; secondly, he answers it; thirdly, he objects against the solution.
766. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that God chose one and rejected the other without any preceding merit. What shall we say then? Does this enable us to prove that there is injustice on God's part? It seems so. For it pertains to justice that things be dispensed equally to equals. But when differences arising from merit are removed, men are equal. Therefore, if without consideration of merits God dispensed unequally by choosing one and rejecting the other, it seems that there is injustice to Him; contrary to what is said in Dt (32:4) "God is faithful and without any iniquity"; "Righteous art thou, O Lord, and right are thy judgments" (Ps 119:137).
767. It should be noted that Origen fell into error trying to solve this objection. For he says in his Periarchon that from the beginning God made only spiritual creatures and all were equal, lest he be charged with injustice for any inequality; later, differences among these creatures arose from differences of merit. For some of those spiritual creatures were turned to God by love, some more and some less; on this basis the various orders of angels were distinguished. Others turned from God, some more and some less; on this basis they were bound to bodies, either noble or lowly; some to heavenly bodies, some to bodies of demons, some to bodies of men. Accordingly, the reason or making and distinguishing bodily creatures is the sin of spiritual creatures. But this is against what is said in Gen (1:31): "God saw everything which he had made, and it was very good," which gives us to understand that goodness was the cause of producing bodily creatures, as Augustine says in The City of God (c.11).
768. Therefore, we must set aside this opinion and see how the Apostle solves the problem when he says: Let it not be! In regard to this he does two things: first, he solves the problem with respect to choosing the saints; secondly, with respect to hating and rejecting the wicked. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes the scriptural text from which the solution comes; secondly, he draws the conclusion from it.
769. The text he adduces is from Ex (33:19) where the Lord said to Moses: "I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me." But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: For the Lord says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. The meaning is that all our blessings are ascribed to God's mercy, as it says in Is (63:7): "I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things the Lord has bestowed upon us"; and in Lam (3:22): "The mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed; because his commiserations have not failed."
770. The text Paul cites is explained in two ways in a gloss, so that it solves the question and the objection in two ways. First, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., on him who is worthy of mercy. To amplify this he repeats: I will have compassion on whom I have compassion, i.e., on whom I judge worthy of compassion, as it says in Ps 103 (v.13): "The Lord has compassion on them that fear him." It follows from this that although he imparts his blessings from mercy, he is nevertheless excused from injustice; for he gives to those who should be given and does not give to one who should not be given, according to the correctness of His judgment.
771. But having mercy on one who is worthy can be understood in two ways: in one way so that one is counted worthy of mercy on account of preexisting works in this life, though not in another life, as Origen supposed. This belongs to the Pelagian heresy which taught that God's grace is given to men according to their merits. But this cannot stand, because, as has been stated, the good merits themselves are from God and are the effects of predestination.
772. But there is another way in which one is considered worthy of mercy, not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits subsequent to grace; for example, if God gives a person grace and He planned from eternity to give him that grace which He foresaw would be used well. [!!! Thomas anticipating Molinism/Scientia Media: See his response !!!] According to this the gloss is saying that He has mercy on him who should be given mercy. Hence he says: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., by calling and bestowing grace, I will have mercy on him to whom I know beforehand that I will show mercy, knowing that he will be converted and abide with me. But it seems that not even this is a suitable explanation. For it is clear that nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for a predestination, even if it be taken as existing in God's foreknowledge, because the reason for a predestination is presupposed to the predestination, whereas the effect is included in it. But every benefit God bestows on a man for his salvation is an effect of predestination. Furthermore, God's benefits extend not only to the infusion of grace, by which a man is made righteous, but also to its use, just as in natural things God not only causes their forms but all the movements and activities of those forms, inasmuch as God is the source of all movement in such a way that when He ceases to act, no movement or activity proceeds from those forms. But sanctifying grace and the accompanying virtues in the soul are related to their use as a natural form is related to its activity. Hence, it is states in Is (26:12): "O Lord, thou hast wrought for us all our works."
773. Aristotle proves this in a particular way when he discusses the works of the human will. For since man is open to opposites, say to sitting or not sitting, it must be resolved by something else. But this is done by deliberation, which is followed by choosing one over the other. But again, since man has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, it will be necessary that something move him to deliberate. But since this does not proceed ad infinitum, there must be some external principal superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle is none other than God. In this way, then, the very use of grace is from God. But this does not mean that sanctifying grace is superfluous, any more than natural forms are superfluous, even though God works in all, as it says in Wis (8:1): "Wisdom orders all things sweetly," because through their forms all things are inclined spontaneously, as it were, to that to which they are planned by God. Consequently, it is impossible that the merits which follow grace are the reason for showing mercy or for predestination; the only reason is God's will, according to which he mercifully delivers certain ones. For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wage, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither. For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by His grace He delivers by His mercy alone; and so He is merciful to those whom He delivers, just to those whom He does not deliver, but unjust to none. Thus, the Apostle solves the question with a text which ascribes all to divine mercy.
774. Yet it should be noted that God's mercy is viewed according to three aspects: first, according to predestination by which He proposed from all eternity to deliver certain ones: "The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting" (Ps 103:17); secondly, according to His calling and justifying, by which He saves men in time: "He saved us in his mercy" (Tit 3:5); thirdly, according to the bestowal of glory, when He frees from all misery: "Who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy" (Ps 103:4). Therefore, he says: I will have mercy, namely, by calling and justifying, on whom I have mercy by predestining and having compassion and finally by crowning with glory him on whom I have mercy by calling and justifying. This interpretation is more in keeping with the version before me: "I will be gracious to whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me" where divine mercy is clearly ascribed not to merits but solely to the divine will.
775. Then (v. 16) he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited. This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one say thus: So a man's salvation depends not on man's will or exertion, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action; but on God's mercy, i.e., it proceeds from the sole mercy of God. What follows from the authority cited is found in Dr (9:4): "Do not say in your heart, 'It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me into this land.'"
776. But it can be understood in another sense: all things proceed form God's mercy; so it depends not on man's will to will or exertion to exert oneself, but each depends on God's mercy, as it says in 1 Cor (15:10): "it was not I but the grace of God which is with me," and in Jn (15:5): "Without me you can do nothing."
777. But if this is all that is understood in this word, since even grace without man's free judgment does not will or strive, he could have said the converse, namely, it does not depends on God's mercy but on man's will or exertion, which is offensive to pious ears. Consequently, something more must be understood from these words, if first place is to be given to God's grace. For an action is attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary, as when we say that the hammer does not make the box but the carpenter by using the hammer. But man's will is moved to good by God, as it says above: "All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14); therefore, an inward action of man is not to be attributed principally to man but to God: "It is God who of his good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance" (Phil 2:13). But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will. But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover.
779. Then (v. 17) he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked. First, he quotes an authority; secondly, he draws the conclusion (v. 18).
780. He says, therefore: It has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity. But neither is there injustice in rejecting the wicked from all eternity. For out of God's mouth the Scripture says, I have raised you up, or according to another rendition: "Have preserved you" for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.
781. The first point to notice here is what God does in regard to the rejected. He shows this when he says: For this purpose have I preserved you, i.e. you had deserved to die for the evils you had done: "Those who do such things deserve to die" (Rom 1:32), but I did not call you to die at once; rather I preserved you in life for this purpose, namely, of showing my power in you. This interpretation can also be obtained from the version which reads: I have raised you up, i.e., although before me you deserved to be dead, I granted you life, as if I had raised you up. From this it appears that God works no injustice against the rejected, since they deserved to be destroyed at once for their crimes; rather, the fact that He preserves their life proceeds from His exceeding goodness: "Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment; and not in thy fury, lest thou bring me to nothing" (Jer 10:24). Another interpretation is this, I have raised you up for sin, that you might become worse. This should not be understood as though God causes sin in man; rather, it should be understood in a permissive sense, namely, that from His just judgment he permits some to fall into sin on account of previous sins, as it says above (1:28): "God gave them up to a base mind." But it seems to me that still more must be understood here, namely, that men are moved to good and to evil by God through an inward prompting. Hence, Augustine says in his book On Grace and Free Will that God works in men's hearts to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, either to good through His mercy or to evil according to their deserts. Thus, God is said very often to stir up men to do good, as it says in Dan (13:45): "The Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy." He is also said to raise up others to do evil, as in Is (13:1): "I will stir up the Medes against them and with their arrows they shall kill the children." However, He stirs them to good and to evil in different ways: for he inclines men's wills to good directly as the author of these good deeds; but he is said to incline or stir up men to evil as an occasional cause, namely, inasmuch as God puts before a person, either in him or outside of him something which of itself is conducive to good but which through his own malice he uses for evil: "Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath" (Rom 2:4-5) and "God gave his place for penance: and he abused it unto pride" (Jb 24:23). Similarly, as far as in him lies, God enlightens a man inwardly to good, say a king to defend the rights of his kingdom or to punish rebels. But he abuses this good impulse according to the malice of his heart. This is plain in Is (10:6) where it is said of Assyria: "Against a godless nation I send him and against the people of my wrath I command him to take spoil and seize plunder..." and further on: "But he does not so intend, and his mind does not so think, but it is in his mind to destroy." That is the way it happened with Pharaoh, who, when he was prompted by God to defend his kingdom, abused this suggestion and practiced cruelty.
782. Secondly, there is need to consider the purpose behind God's doing certain things and permitting certain things. For one must remember that God works in creatures to manifest Himself, as it says in Rom (1:20): "His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made"; hence these promptings are ordained to this manifestation both for those present, for the very purpose of showing my power in you, "and Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians Ex (14:3), and for those absent, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. Thus, it is clear that in this matter there in no injustice in God, because he uses his creature according to its merits for his glory. And it can be interpreted in the same sense if it be said I have raised you up, i.e., I have ordered your malice to my glory; for God orders the malice, but does not cause it.
783. Then (v. 18) he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited: from the text, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, he concludes: Therefore he has mercy upon whomever he wills: "The Lord has mercy on them that fear him" (Ps 103:11); from the text, I have raised you up, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills: "You have hardened our heart, so that we fear thee not: (Is 3:17); "Some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he cursed and brought low" (Sir 33:12). There seems to be no difficulty about God's mercy, once we grant what has been said above.
784. But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening: first, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sir (3:27): "A hard heart shall fear evil at the last." Consequently, if God hardens the heart, He is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in Jas (1:13): "God is no tempter to evil." The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though He causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God Himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace. The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: "This is the will of God, your sanctification" (I Th 4:3) and "He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just. Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy upon whomever he wills through His mercy and he hardens whomever he wills through His justice, because those whom He hardens deserve to be hardened by Him, as was stated above in chapter 1.
(19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?" (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
Having solved the question proposed, the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills. First, he places the objection; secondly, the solution.
787. First, therefore, he says: We have said that God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills. You will say to me then: Why does he still find fault? i.e., what need is there to inquire any further into the cause of the good and evil done here, since all things are attributed to the divine will, which is a sufficient cause, since no one can resist Him? Hence he continues: For who can resist his will? "I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven" (Ec 1:13). Or in another way: Why does he still find fault? i.e., why does God complain about men when they sin, as in Is (1:2): "some have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me." Therefore, He does not seem to have a just complaint, because it all proceeds from His will, which no one can resist. Hence he adds: Who can resist his will? Or still another way: Why does he still find fault, i.e., why is man still required to do good and avoid evil: "He has showed you , O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you but o do justice, and love mercy and walk with your God?" (Mic 6:8). For it is useless to require of someone that which is not in his power. But nothing seems to lie in man's power, according to the above, in which all things seem ascribed to the divine will, which cannot be resisted. He adds: For who can resist his will? As if to say: no one. "There is none that can resist thy majesty" (Est 13:11). And this seems to be the Apostle's meaning.
788. Then (v. 20) he answers the question. To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does He will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one? Although a reason other than God's will can be assigned in the first question, the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God's absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top an others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the top and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed. First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why He has mercy on this one and hardens that one; secondly, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why He is merciful to some and hardens others. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he censures the questioner's presumption; secondly, he cites an authority which solves the question; thirdly, he explains the authority.
789. First, therefore, he says: But who are you, O man, fragile and unknowing, to answer back to God? How would you answer Him, if He were to contend with you in judgment? "If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times" (Jb 9:3). Again, as it says in Jb (39:30): "He who argues with God let him answer him." In this we are given to understand that man should not examine the reason for God's judgments with the intention of comprehending them, for they exceed human reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sir 3:22); "He that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory" (Pr 25:27).
790. Then (v. 20b) he cites the authority of Is (29:16): "Shall the thing made say of its maker, He did not make me?" Here it should be noted that if an artisan uses base matter to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all ascribed to the goodness of the artisan; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving-dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such base matter, say clay, he produced a vessel adapted to meaner uses, for example, for cooking or such, the vessel, if it could think, would have no complaint. But it could complain, if from precious metals, such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses. But human nature has baseness about it from its matter, because as Gen (2:7) says: "God formed man of dust from the ground," and more baseness after being spoiled by sin, which entered this world through one man. That is why man is compared to dirt, in Jb (30:19) "I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes." Hence, any good that man possesses is due to God's goodness as its basic source: "O Lord, thou art our Father, we are the clay, and thou art the potter, we are all the work of they hand" (Is 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance man to better things but leaves him in his weakness and reserves him for the lowliest use, He does him no injury such that he could justly complain about God.
791. Then (v. 21) the Apostle explains the words of the prophet. As if to say What is molded, i.e., the vessel., should not say to the potter: Why have you made me thus?, because the potter is free to make anything he wishes out of the clay. Hence he says: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make without any injury to it out of the same lump of base matter one vessel for honor, i.e., for honorable use and another for dishonor, i.e., for meaner uses: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble." (2 Tim. 2:20). In the same way God has free power to make from the same spoiled matter of the human race, as from a clay, and without any injustice some men prepared for glory and some abandoned in wretchedness: "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel" (Is 18:6).
792. Then (v. 22) he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works is the manifestation of divine goodness: "The Lord has made all things for himself" (Pr 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (1:20). But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which He is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom is justice is manifested with regard to those he benefits according to their deserts and His mercy in those He delivers by His grace.Therefore, to manifest both of these in man He mercifully delivers some, but not all. First, therefore, he gives an account of the rejections of the wicked; secondly, of the election of the good.
793. In both cases three differences should be considered. First, with respect to the end; secondly, with respect to use; thirdly, with respect to the divine act. Now the end of the rejection or hardening of the wicked is the manifestation of divine justice and power. Referring to this he says: What, i.e., But if God, desiring to show him wrath, i.e., retaliatory justice. For wrath is said of God not as an emotion but as the effect of retaliation: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Rom 1:18). Then he adds: and to make known his power, because God not only uses wrath, i.e., retribution, by punishing those subject to him, but also by subjecting them to himself by his power: "According to his work by which he can subject all things to himself" (Phil 3:21); "And they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them" (Ex 14:31). The use which God makes of the wicked is wrath, i.e., punishment. And this is why he calls them vessels of wrath, i.e., instruments of justice that God uses to show wrath, i.e., retributive justice: "We were by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). But God's action toward them is not that he disposes them to evil, since they of themselves have a disposition to evil from the corruption of the first sin. Hence he says fit for destruction, i.e., having in themselves an disposition towards eternal condemnation: "God saw that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times" (Gen 6:5). The only thing God does concerning them is that he lets them do what they want. Hence not without meaning does he say has endured. And the fact that he does not exact retribution immediately shows his patience; so he adds with much patience: "The most high is a patient rewarder" (Sir 5:4).
794. Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things. First the end, when he says in order to make known the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory. And this is the meaning of that he might show the riches of his glory, the riches concerning which he said above (2:4), "Or do you despise the riches of his goodness?" "God who is rich in mercy" (Eph 2:4). And it is significant that he says in order to make known the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and reprobation of the wicked, carried out in accord with God's justice, makes known and highlights the glory of the saints, who were freed from such misery as this. Second he describes their use, when he says for the vessels of mercy. He names them vessels of mercy because God uses them as instruments to show his mercy: "These were men of mercy" (Sir 44:10). Thirdly he sets out God's action in their regard. For God does not merely endure them, as though they were of themselves disposed to the good, but rather he prepares and disposes them by calling them to glory. Hence he says which he has prepared beforehand for glory: "Preparing the mountains by your power."
795. Even to this point the Apostle uses an incomplete and suspensive construction, so that the meaning is: If God wants to do this, to have mercy on some and harden others, what can justly be said against it? As though to imply: Nothing. For he does not will to harden them in such a way that he compels them to sin, but rather he endures them so that they may tend to evil by their own inclination.
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/st-thomas-aquinas-on-romans/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/chapter-8/chapter-9
As well, there's Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's comments on the whole "Banezian-Thomism" dispute.
Quote from: Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange
IV. THE BAÑEZIAN COMEDY AND CONTEMPORARY SYNCRETISM
Any consideration of the renewal of Thomistic studies in the past hundred years must take into account the great names of the eminent Jesuits Kleutgen, Cornoldi, Liberatore, and more recently, Louis Billot and G. Mattiussi, who labored so admirably throughout their lives to lead minds back to an understanding of the works of St. Thomas. They were great admirers and often penetrating interpreters of the Angelic Doctor. Only in heaven will it be known what great friends he has had among the sons of St. Ignatius. We experience a particular joy in sincerely rendering this testimony.
It is to be regretted that the same elevation of mind is not found in several authors who in the past few years have taken to applying the epithet of "Bañezian'' to real Thomists. It is an ill-natured witticism to which the best theologians of the Society of Jesus would never stoop. This designation of "Bañezian" referring to genuine Thomists is even adopted by certain authors as if it were an accepted term. We are thereby reminded of the chapter, "De Comoedia banneziana," which is to be found in a work by Father N. Del Prado, O.P., De gratia et libero arbitrio (Fribourg, 1907, III, 427-66).
This latter work, out of print for several years, brought the sum of 6,000 lire before the last war, so we are informed, and must be even more valuable today. In the chapter referred to, pp. 457 ff., the author recalls that Dr. John Ude of Graz, who had received from his professors in Rome the conviction that classical Thomism was an invention of Bañez, undertook to write a book entitled: Doctrina Capreoli de influxu Dei in actus voluntatis humanae (Graz, Istria, 1904). He professed to show that the doctrine defended by Bañez was nowhere to be found in the early commentators on St. Thomas. But what was his surprise when, in Capreolus himself, he came upon the doctrine of predetermining divine decrees and causally predetermining premotion! In the first part of his book he still speaks in behalf of Molinism, but subsequently (op. cit., pp. 162, 182, 197-203, 215, 216, 259) he is obliged to conclude that Capreolus 66 had certainly taught what Bañez declared and that this doctrine is St. Thomas' own, as has been demonstrated by Fathers Dummermuth and Del Prado. We have proved the point at great length elsewhere, and shall quote in the present article several texts of St. Thomas. It suffices to recall for the moment the two following: "If God moves the will toward anything, it is incompatible with this position that the will should not be moved toward it. However, it is not absolutely impossible. Hence it does not follow that the will is moved by God of necessity" (Ia IIae, q. 10, a. 4 ad 3). God actualizes liberty in the will and even the free mode itself whereby it directs itself toward any good conducive to salvation, safeguarding under this very movement the power (not the act) of choosing a contrary object. Likewise, "The intention of God cannot fail. . . . Hence if it is in the intention of God who moves that the man whose heart He moves should receive [sanctifying] grace, he will infallibly receive it" (Ia IIae, q. 112, a. 3 c; cf. also IIa IIae, q. 24, a. II, and Contra Gentes, Bk. III, chaps. 91, 92, 94).
It is absolutely certain that, according to St. Thomas, God knows in a comprehensive manner all that He is, all that He can do, all that He wills and accomplishes, all that He permits, and that thus, without any passivity or dependence with regard to our free determinations, He knows all that is knowable. "The knowledge of God is the cause of things and is in no way caused by them" (Ia, q. 14, a. 5,8). Without any doubt the Molinist theory of scientia media has no foundation in St. Thomas. It is quite certain, according to him, Ia, q. 19, a. 8, that God willed efficaciously from all eternity the free acts of Christ the Redeemer, Mary's fiat, the conversion of Mary Magdalen, of the good thief, and of Saul. And it is for this reason that these acts rather than their contraries are present to Him from all eternity (Ia, q. 14, a. 3), and that they took place infallibly in time, in a free manner, because He had efficaciously willed that they should happen freely (Ia, q. 19, a. 8). "God," says Bossuet, "wills from eternity all the future exercise of human liberty so far as it is good and real. What can be more absurd than to say that it does not exist for the reason that God wills it to exist" (Traité du libre arbitre, chap. 8)? Texts from St. Thomas abound proving that this is indeed his teaching; they are well known. Not to take into account these texts, often quoted by Thomists, is to proceed unscientifically. The only opposition offered is to dismiss the case. This is done by that well-known theologian of distinction who adheres, in spite of every argument, to the Molinist theory of scientia media. His answer to us was:"Even if the doctrine of predetermining decrees is in St. Thomas, we will have none of it." At least he had the merit of being outspoken. He would have been greatly surprised had he been told that he was indulging in pragmatism which could easily lead to a revision of the traditional definition of truth so as to define it, not as that which is, but as that which pleases us and which we wish to say and to hear others say.
But the subject deserves a more forthright discussion. It is objected: for a man to be free under efficacious grace, it is not enough for him to retain, under that grace, the power of resisting; he must be able to accommodate the grace with actual resistance. If that is the case, genuine Thomists have always replied with St. Thomas himself, then, for Socrates to be sitting down freely, it does not suffice that he meanwhile retains the power to rise, but he must be able to accommodate those two contrary positions and be at the same time seated and standing, which is impossible. In the same way, efficacious grace to which resistance was made in fact would no longer be efficacious.
But our adversaries have no wish to hear such an answer. And so they continue in certain of their works to call real Thomists "Bañezians." In order to hold on to the title of Thomists themselves without being challenged they deprive the true intellectual sons of St. Thomas of that right. And readers who lack keenness of perception or who are misinformed allow themselves to be taken in. Suppose someone tried to deprive the true descendants of the Bourbon line of their name: would not the cry of injustice be raised? The case is a parallel one.
Bañezianism is then described after a fashion which no real Thomist would accept, and this description finds its way subsequently into the works of authors who attempt to advance matters by a reconciliation of the two contradictorily opposed doctrines, and who express themselves in a way of which Msgr. P. Parente is typical. In his De creatione universali (1943, p. 139), in the belief that he is accurately reporting the doctrine of the Thomists, labeled "Bañezians," he writes:
"When the will acts under the impulse of God, it cannot deviate toward anything else in the composite sense; but it can do so in the divided sense. Evidently, as long a the divine motion continues, the will is not free, that is, it cannot fail to desire that to which it is determined by God (composite sense); but it could if it prescinded from that motion (divided sense). Similarly a person who sits down, while he is seated, cannot stand, but he does not relinquish the power of standing, in the divided sense, that is, after he has been seated." The same author expresses himself in similar terms in his Antropologia supernaturalis, 1943, p. 194.
This is the divided sense as Calvin understood it, and it is easy to understand that it should be rejected. But why not seek the correct meaning of this term from the Thomists themselves? We affirm that God actualizes liberty in us, so that there no longer remains a passive or potential indifference, but rather an actual, dominating indifference with which our will, specified by the universal good, directs itself toward such and such a particular good which is commanded (toward an object not in every respect good), while preserving under this divine motion the power (not the act) of choosing the contrary. Thus Socrates, while seated, is able to stand, but he cannot be at the same time seated and standing. In the same way, a person with his eyes closed does not see at that moment, but he retains the real faculty of sight; he is not blind. Potency is really distinct from act and can exist without it. Likewise under grace which is infallibly efficacious of itself, the will is able to resist (the opposite power remains); but under that grace it never does resist in fact, just as it never happens that while Socrates is seated he is standing. Efficacious grace which a man would resist in fact would no longer be efficacious.
The composed sense of Calvin, declared by him to be unattainable, is our divided sense, which we maintain is real. As for the divided sense of Calvin, it is heretical. According to him, freedom and the power to resist do not remain under efficacious grace, but only reappear later. Thomists have never sustained such a theory; if they had, they would have completely misunderstood the teaching of their Idaster. They understand the divided sense in exactly the same way as St. Thomas.
Another doctrine which they do not hold is attributed to Thomists when it is said: "Thomists add that God bestows sufficient grace in such wise that to those who make good use of it He may grant efficacious grace; but according to their opinion, the good use of sufficient grace depends upon efficacious grace. Therefore the matter is left unexplained." What Thomists maintain is this: If a man resists sufficient grace, then he deserves to be deprived of efficacious grace, and it is clear that the latter is not necessary to resist the former. Culpable resistance falls upon sufficient grace (in which efficacious grace is offered) like hail upon a tree in blossom, which promised much fruit; but the fruit will certainly not develop.
As for the disorder of sin, God who condemns it, permits it without being its cause. This divine permission is only a condition sine qua non. The disorder proceeds solely from the defective and deficient created will and in no sense from God, who absolutely cannot produce it; for this disorder is outside the adequate object of His will and omnipotence, just as sound is beyond the range of the sense of sight, or truth outside the adequate object of the will. "Nothing is more precise than the formal object of any power." Hence the divine motion toward the physical act of the sin (as being and as action) prescinds from its malice. Again with regard to this last point, the authentic Thomistic teaching is often rendered utterly unrecognizable in the unscientific presentations that are made of it. All that would be necessary would be to cite the two articles of St. Thomas (Ia IIae, q. 79, a. I, 2); Thomists hold no other view.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace12.htm
Merry Christmas, dear friends. It's too holy and happy a season to be bothered about arguments or anything else but Our Saviour's Love. Let's enjoy this festive season with God and family, and strive to grow in Love of Him and of our neighbor every day. God bless. Merry Christmas.
Fr. GLG stated:
QuoteBut the subject deserves a more forthright discussion. It is objected: for a man to be free under efficacious grace, it is not enough for him to retain, under that grace, the power of resisting; he must be able to accommodate the grace with actual resistance. If that is the case, genuine Thomists have always replied with St. Thomas himself, then, for Socrates to be sitting down freely, it does not suffice that he meanwhile retains the power to rise, but he must be able to accommodate those two contrary positions and be at the same time seated and standing, which is impossible. In the same way, efficacious grace to which resistance was made in fact would no longer be efficacious.
Fr. Lagrange affirms that the opponents of true Thomism want the subject to have not only the "potential" to resist efficacius grace, but to actually be able to resist it. He claims this is the equivalent of "having your cake and eating it too". But that is not what the opponents of Banezianism affirm; they affirm in order for a will to be truly free, it must have the ability to choose between one course of action or another. Therefore to either "eat the cake or not eat it"; "to sit down or to stand"; to assent to grace or not to. So in effect, Fr. Lagrange "problem" is with free will.
This is exactly what Msgr. Pohl's article in the C.E. State is the problem with the Thomistic theory of grace/free will.
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR MONDAY.
Most holy Mary, Queen of heaven, I who was once the slave of the Evil One now dedicate myself to thy service for ever; and I offer myself, to honour and to serve thee as long as I live. Accept me for thy servant, and cast me not away from thee as I deserve. In thee, O my Mother, I place all my hopes. All blessing and thanksgiving be to God, who in His mercy giveth me this trust in thee. It is true that in past time I have fallen miserably into sin; but by the merits of Jesus Christ, and thy prayers, I hope that God has pardoned me. But this is not enough, my Mother. One thought terrifies me; it is, that I may yet lose the grace of God. Danger is ever nigh; the devil sleeps not; fresh temptations assail me. Protect me, then, my Queen; help me against the assaults of my spiritual enemy. Never suffer me to sin again, or to offend Jesus thy Son. Let me not by my sin lose my soul, heaven, and my God. This one grace, Mary, I ask of thee; this is my desire; may thy prayers obtain this for me. Such is my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
QuoteThe only thing I'd like to add is St. Thomas' commentary on Romans 9, so that those who assert that "Banezian" theology is not true "Thomistic" theology can look for themselves.
Non sequitur. Banezian theology is not the theology of St. Thomas, unless you can point somewhere in what you quote where St. Thomas talks about insufficient grace and efficacious grace. Don't bother trying, it is not there.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR TUESDAY.
Most holy Mary, Mother of Goodness, Mother of Mercy; when I reflect upon my sins and upon the moment of my death, I tremble and am confounded. O my sweetest Mother, in the Blood of Jesus, in thy intercession, are my hopes. Comforter of the sad, abandon me not at that hour; fail not to console me in that great affliction. If even now I am so tormented by remorse for the sins I have committed, the uncertainty of my pardon, the danger of a relapse, and the strictness of the judgment, how will it be with me then? O my Mother, before death overtake me, obtain for me great sorrow for my sins, a true amendment, and constant fidelity to God for the remainder of my life. And when at length my hour is come, then do thou, Mary, my hope, be thyself my aid in those great troubles wherewith my soul will be encompassed. Strengthen me, that I may not despair when the enemy sets my sins before my face. Obtain for me at that moment grace to invoke thee often, so that I may breathe forth my spirit with thine own sweet name and that of thy most holy Son upon any lips. This grace thou hast granted to many of thy servants; this, too, is my hope and my desire.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Merry Christmas
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR WEDNESDAY.
Mother of God, most holy Mary, how often by my sins have I merited hell! Long ago, perhaps, judgment would have gone forth against my first mortal sin, hadst not thou in thy tender pity delayed the justice of God, and afterwards attracted me by thy sweetness to have confidence in thy prayers. And O, how very often should I have fallen in the dangers which beset my steps, hadst not thou, loving Mother that thou art, preserved me by the graces thou by thy prayers didst obtain for me. But O, my Queen, what will thy pity and thy favours avail me, if after all I perish in the flames of hell? If there was once a time when I loved thee not, yet now, next to God, I love thee before all. Wherefore, henceforth and for ever, suffer me not to turn my back upon thee and upon my God, who through thee has granted me so many mercies. O Lady, most worthy of all love, let it not be that I thy child shall have to hate and to utter maledictions for ever in hell. Thou wilt surely never endure to see thy servant lost who loves thee. O Mary, say not that I ever can be lost! Yet I shall assuredly be lost if I abandon thee. But who could ever have the heart to leave thee? Who can ever forget thy love? No; it is impossible for that man to perish who faithfully recommends himself to thee, and has recourse to thee. Only leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost! Let me but cling to thee! Save me, my Hope! save me from hell; or rather, save me from sin, which alone can condemn me to hell.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR THURSDAY.
Queen of Heaven, who sittest enthroned above all the choirs of the angels nighest to God, from this vale of miseries I, a poor sinner, salute thee, praying thee in thy love to turn upon me those gracious eyes of thine. See, Mary, the dangers among which I dwell, and shall ever have to dwell whilst I live upon this earth. I may yet lose my soul, Paradise, and God. In thee, Lady, is my hope. I love thee; and I sigh after the time when I shall see thee and praise thee in Paradise. O Mary, when will that blessed day come that I shall see myself safe at thy feet? When shall I kiss that hand, which has dispensed to me so many graces? Alas, it is too true, O my Mother, that I have ever been very ungrateful during my whole life; but if I go to Heaven, then I will love thee there every moment of a whole eternity, and make thee reparation in some sort for my ingratitude by ever blessing and praising thee. Thanks be to God, for that He hath vouchsafed me this hope through the Precious Blood of Jesus, and through thy powerful intercession. This has been the hope of all thy true lovers; and no one of them has been defrauded of his hope. No: neither shall I be deceived of mine. O Mary, pray to thine own Son Jesus, as I also will pray to Him, by the merits of His Passion, to strengthen and increase this my hope.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
For Fatima haters:
QuoteThe Portuguese website "Observador", one of the most important news and opinion websites in the country, published a special Christmas interview with the Bishop of the most populous diocese in Portugal, Oporto (Porto), Manuel Linda, and another theologian, a priest called Anselmo Borges. [Update: the wicked bishop has tried to hide his declarations by adding "clarifications" to the original piece; therefore, in order to preserve historical record, the original piece has been posted in our Repository.]
In it, they dismantle all "myths" related to Christmas, including its December date ("probably September"...), but the greatest scandal of all is the direct attack on several Dogmas related to the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His Immaculate Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The main passages are translated below (tip: local reader):
"He [Christ] was conceived by Mary and Joseph as any other person... Virginity is only associated with Mary as a metaphor to prove that Jesus was a very special person." ...
The Bishop of Oporto tells the Observador website that, "we should never refer to the physical virginity of Mary." "The Old Testament says many times that Jesus was to be born of a maiden, a daughter of Israel, who was simple, poor, and humble. But this is truly just a reference to the full devotion of this woman to God.The gift of being mother of God was given to Mary because she had an undivided heart. What matters is full giving of herself,"explains Bp Manuel Linda.
And he adds, "There certainly are women with a ruptured hymen who are more virgin in the sense of full devotion to God than some with an intact hymen."
RORATE: in better days, this heretic and blasphemer would be thrown out of his place by enraged Catholics, thrown into the sea for such grievous offenses against Our Lord, the All-Holy Virgin, and Holy Mother Church. Where's the Catholic laity of Portugal?
Linda was named auxiliary bishop of Braga by Benedict XVI in 2009, and was named Military Ordinary of Portugal by Francis in 2013, and again named by Francis this year as the titular bishop of Oporto, one of the most prestigious positions in the nation of Fatima.
I know, I know its like feeding raw meat to hungry lions. But at least anyone with common sense can now see we are in Chapter 13 of the book of Revelation. (Funny how that 13 keeps popping up)
Remember March 13, 2013. The beginning of the end. The true age of Fatima started.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on December 27, 2018, 03:15:29 PM
For Fatima haters:
QuoteThe Portuguese website "Observador", one of the most important news and opinion websites in the country, published a special Christmas interview with the Bishop of the most populous diocese in Portugal, Oporto (Porto), Manuel Linda, and another theologian, a priest called Anselmo Borges. [Update: the wicked bishop has tried to hide his declarations by adding "clarifications" to the original piece; therefore, in order to preserve historical record, the original piece has been posted in our Repository.]
In it, they dismantle all "myths" related to Christmas, including its December date ("probably September"...), but the greatest scandal of all is the direct attack on several Dogmas related to the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His Immaculate Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The main passages are translated below (tip: local reader):
"He [Christ] was conceived by Mary and Joseph as any other person... Virginity is only associated with Mary as a metaphor to prove that Jesus was a very special person." ...
The Bishop of Oporto tells the Observador website that, "we should never refer to the physical virginity of Mary." "The Old Testament says many times that Jesus was to be born of a maiden, a daughter of Israel, who was simple, poor, and humble. But this is truly just a reference to the full devotion of this woman to God.The gift of being mother of God was given to Mary because she had an undivided heart. What matters is full giving of herself,"explains Bp Manuel Linda.
And he adds, "There certainly are women with a ruptured hymen who are more virgin in the sense of full devotion to God than some with an intact hymen."
RORATE: in better days, this heretic and blasphemer would be thrown out of his place by enraged Catholics, thrown into the sea for such grievous offenses against Our Lord, the All-Holy Virgin, and Holy Mother Church. Where's the Catholic laity of Portugal?
Linda was named auxiliary bishop of Braga by Benedict XVI in 2009, and was named Military Ordinary of Portugal by Francis in 2013, and again named by Francis this year as the titular bishop of Oporto, one of the most prestigious positions in the nation of Fatima.
I know, I know its like feeding raw meat to hungry lions. But at least anyone with common sense can now see we are in Chapter 13 of the book of Revelation. (Funny how that 13 keeps popping up)
Remember March 13, 2013. The beginning of the end. The true age of Fatima started.
Has the dogma of the faith been preserved in Portugal?
Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.
"cease offending God"
"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."
You actually believe that the devil would say these things?
You guys have lost your collective minds. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum. Even more ridiculous than Impy.
Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum. And also for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary by "Bishop" Manuel Linda and "priest" Anselmo Borges, as seen in King Wenceslas' post here (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg465271#msg465271).
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR FRIDAY.
O Mary, thou art the noblest, highest, purest, fairest creation of Coil, the holiest of all creatures! O, that all men knew thee, loved thee, my Queen, as thou deservest to be loved! Yet great is my consolation, Mary, that there are blessed souls in the courts of Heaven, and just souls still on earth, whose hearts thou leadest captive with thy beauty and thy goodness. But above all I rejoice in this, that our God himself loves thee alone more than all men and angels together. I too, O Queen most loveable, I, miserable sinner, dare to love thee, though my love is too little; I would I had a greater love, a more tender love: this thou must gain for me, since to love thee is a great mark of predestination, and a grace which God grants to those who shall be saved. Moreover, O my Mother, when I reflect upon the debt I owe thy Son, I see He deserves of me an immeasurable love. Do thou, then, who desirest nothing so much as to see Him loved, pray that I may have this grace - a great love for Jesus Christ. Obtain it, thou who obtainest what thou wilt. I covet not goods of earth, nor honours, nor riches, but I desire that which thine own heart desires most, - to love my God alone. O, can it be that thou wilt not aid me in a desire so acceptable to thee? No: it is impossible! even now I feel thy help, even now thou prayest for me. Pray for me, Mary, pray; nor ever cease to pray, till thou dost see me safe in Paradise, where I shall be certain of possessing and of loving my God and thee, my dearest Mother, for ever and for ever. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum. And also for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary by "Bishop" Manuel Linda and "priest" Anselmo Borges, as seen in King Wenceslas' post here (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg465271#msg465271).
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SATURDAY.
Most holy Mary, I know the graces which thou hast obtained for me, and I know the ingratitude which I have shown thee. The ungrateful man is unworthy of favours; and yet for all this I will not distrust thy mercy. O my great Advocate, have pity on me. Thou, Mary, dost dispense the graces which God vouchsafes to give us sinners, and therefore did He make thee so mighty, rich, and kind, that thou mightest succour us. I will that I may be saved: in thy hands I place my eternal salvation, to thee I consign my soul. I will to be associated with those who are thy special servants; reject me not. Thou goest up and down seeking the wretched, to console them. Cast not away, then, a wretched sinner who has recourse to thee. Speak for me, Mary; thy Son grants what thou askest. Take me beneath thy shelter, and it is enough for me; for with thee to guard me I fear no ill; no, not even my sins; because thou wilt obtain God's pardon for them: no, nor yet devils; because thou art far mightier than all hell: no, nor my Judge Jesus Christ; for at thy prayer He will lay aside His wrath. Protect me, then, my Mother; obtain for me pardon of my sins, love of Jesus, holy perseverance, a good death, and Heaven. It is too true, I merit not these graces; yet do thou only ask them of our God, and I shall obtain them. Pray, then, to Jesus for me. O Mary, my Queen, in thee I trust; in this trust I rest, I live; and with this trust I will that I may die. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her, then the Litanies, it being Saturday, for which there is the indulgence.
74. THE LITANIES
The Litanies commonly called " Litanies of our Lady" are named "Litanies of Loretto" in the Constitutions of several Sovereign Pontiffs, - viz. Reddituri, of Sixtus V., July11, 1687; Sanctissimus, of Clement VIII., Sept. 6, 1601; and In supremo, of Alexander VII., May 28, 1664 - by reason of their being sung with great solemnity every Saturday in the Holy House of Loretto. They are composed of humble supplications and devout prayers to Almighty and (this being the meaning of the word "Litanies"), offered up through the intercession of our Blessed Lady, who is honoured therein by the application to her of the mystic figures, high titles, and glorious appellations whereby she is invoked. That these Litanies, when said by the faithful, in church in public, or at home in private, might always remain word for word exactly as they have been handed down to us from ancient tradition, Pope Alexander VII., in the Constitution above named, strictly forbade the making of any alteration in them.
To encourage the faithful often to have recourse to the intercession of most holy Mary in their behalf with Almighty (and, and at the same time to do her honour, Pope Sixtus V., in the above-named Constitution, granted -
i. An indulgence of 200 days, every time these Litanies are said with devotion and contrition.
Pope Benedict XIII., by a decree of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Jan. 12, 1728, confirmed this Indulgence; and Pope Pius VII., confirming it afresh by a decree of the same S. Congr. of Sept 30, 1817, extended it to 300 days.
He granted, moreover, to all who say them daily -
ii. A plenary Indulgence on the five Feasts of our Blessed Lady, of Obligation according to the Roman Calendar, viz, the Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Assumption, on condition that, being truly contrite for their sins, and after Confession and Communion, they visit a public church, and pray according to the intention of the Pope.
LITANY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN;
Commonly called the Litany of Loretto.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Christ hear us.
Christ graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.
Mother of Christ, pray for us.
Mother of divine grace, pray for us.
Mother most pure, pray for us.
Mother most chaste, pray for us.
Mother inviolate, pray for us.
Mother undefiled, pray for us.
Mother most amiable, pray for us.
Mother most admirable, pray for us.
Mother of our Creator, pray for us.
Mother of our Redeemer, pray for us.
Virgin most prudent, pray for us.
Virgin most venerable, pray for us.
Virgin most renowned, pray for us.
Virgin most powerful, pray for us.
Virgin most merciful, pray for us.
Virgin most faithful, pray for us.
Mirror of justice, pray for us.
Seat of wisdom, pray for us.
Cause of our joy, pray for us.
Spiritual Vessel, pray for us.
Vessel of honour, pray for us.
Special Vessel of devotion, pray for us.
Mystical Rose, pray for us.
Tower of David, pray for us.
Tower of ivory, pray for us.
House of gold, pray for us.
Ark of the covenant, pray for us.
Gate of heaven, pray for us.
Morning star, pray for us.
Health of the sick, pray for us.
Refuge of sinners, pray for us.
Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.
Help of Christians, pray for us.
Queen of Angels, pray for us.
Queen of Patriarchs, pray for us.
Queen of Prophets, pray for us.
Queen of Apostles, pray for us.
Queen of Martyrs, pray for us.
Queen of Confessors, pray for us.
Queen of Virgins, pray for us.
Queen of all Saints, pray for us.
Queen conceived without stain of original sin, pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
Christ hear us,
Christ graciously hear us.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion + and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord. R. Amen.
V. May the divine assistance remain always with us. R. Amen.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum. And also for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary by "Bishop" Manuel Linda and "priest" Anselmo Borges, as seen in King Wenceslas' post here (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg465271#msg465271).
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR SUNDAY.
Mother of my God, look down upon a poor sinner, who has recourse to thee, and puts his trust in thee. I am not worthy that thon shouldst even cast thine eyes upon me; but I know that thou, beholding Jesus thy Son dying for sinners, dost thyself yearn exceedingly to save them. O Mother of Mercy, look on my miseries and have pity upon me. I hear it said by all that thou art the refuge of the sinner, the hope of the desperate, the aid of the lost; be thou, then, my refuge, hope, and aid. It is thy prayers which must save me. For the love of Jesus Christ be thou my help; reach forth thy hand to the poor fallen sinner who recommends himself to thee. I know that it is thy consolation to aid the sinner when thou canst do so; help me then, thou who canst help. By my sins I have forfeited the grace of God and my own soul. I place myself in thy hands; O, tell me what to do that I may regain the grace of God, and I will do it. My Saviour bids me go to thee for help; He wills that I should look to thy pity; that so, not only the merits of thy Son, but thine own prayers also, may unite to save me. To thee, then, I have recourse: pray thou to Jesus for me; and make me experience how great good thou canst do for one who trusts in thee. Be it done unto me according to my hope. Amen.
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum. And also for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary by "Bishop" Manuel Linda and "priest" Anselmo Borges, as seen in King Wenceslas' post here (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21054.msg465271#msg465271).
From the Raccolta, prayer 84.
http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm
Quote84. PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.
Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.
PRAYER FOR MONDAY.
Most holy Mary, Queen of heaven, I who was once the slave of the Evil One now dedicate myself to thy service for ever; and I offer myself, to honour and to serve thee as long as I live. Accept me for thy servant, and cast me not away from thee as I deserve. In thee, O my Mother, I place all my hopes. All blessing and thanksgiving be to God, who in His mercy giveth me this trust in thee. It is true that in past time I have fallen miserably into sin; but by the merits of Jesus Christ, and thy prayers, I hope that God has pardoned me. But this is not enough, my Mother. One thought terrifies me; it is, that I may yet lose the grace of God. Danger is ever nigh; the devil sleeps not; fresh temptations assail me. Protect me, then, my Queen; help me against the assaults of my spiritual enemy. Never suffer me to sin again, or to offend Jesus thy Son. Let me not by my sin lose my soul, heaven, and my God. This one grace, Mary, I ask of thee; this is my desire; may thy prayers obtain this for me. Such is my hope. Amen
Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Happy New Year
Mikemac has successfully ruined this thread.
Congratulations.
:toth: