Theory about The Crisis and the chaos

Started by Miriam_M, October 29, 2018, 11:51:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gerard

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. 


Quote
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.

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. 


Quote
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".

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
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.

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. 

Quote
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.

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? 

Quote
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.

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. 

Quote
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.   


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. 


Quote
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.

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. 


Quote
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.

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. 

Quote
QuoteAre 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. 

Quote
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.

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. 


Quote
QuoteHow 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. 

Quote
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.

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.) 

Quote
QuoteThe 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. 

Quote
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.

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? 


Quote
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.

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.


Quote
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.

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. 


Quote
QuoteNo. 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. 

Quote
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.

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. 


Quote
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.

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. 

Quote
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.

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. 

Gerard

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. 

mikemac

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."  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.   
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

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."  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."


mikemac

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."  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.
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

Gerard

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. 


Xavier

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

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.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Gerard

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

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. 






mikemac

Have you ever talked to a priest about your delusions Gerard?
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

Gerard

#99
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. 


mikemac

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.
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

awkwardcustomer

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.   






And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

awkwardcustomer

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?
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

mikemac

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.
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

mikemac

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.
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source