From: https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/our-lady-fatima-and-devotion-immaculate-heart-mary-40055
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/14_coeur_de_marie.jpg?itok=TyI0cQxy)
After 1917 and the Blessed Virgin Mary's apparitions in Portugal, the devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary has spread throughout the world...and met with many enemies.
Hell, Where Poor Sinners Go
On July 13, 1917, Our Lady exhorted the three children of Fatima to make sacrifices for sinners.
Reaching out her hands, she let fall rays of light on the earth.
We saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright... You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go...
But Heaven immediately gave the remedy for the evils afflicting souls in the shadows of darkness: "To save them, God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to my Immaculate Heart."
On August 13, at the Cova da Iria, the Blessed Virgin insisted: "Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because there is no one to pray and make sacrifices for them."
"Make sacrifices for sinners," she gently insisted, and say often, but especially when you make a sacrifice, "O Jesus! It is for the love of you and for the conversion of sinners."
On October 13, she insisted again, "Do not offend the Lord Our God any more, He is already so much offended."
Sister Lucia later explained that these were the words of the apparition that were the most deeply engraved upon her heart: "Do not offend the Lord Our God any more, He is already so much offended."
And on the same day, October 13, 1917, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God gave the reason for her apparitions:
I have come to ask men to repent of their sins, to change their lives, to stop offending Our Lord who is already offended so much, and to recite the Holy Rosary.
Heaven's Requests
After the first two secrets – the three children's vision of hell and the request that Russia be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart – came the third secret that was transmitted to the Vatican to be revealed in 1960. But the Holy See did no such thing; it was too busy preparing Vatican Council II and hushing up the voices of the "prophets of doom", to quote John XXIII in his speech for the opening of the Council.
At the same time, the pressing request of Our Lady of Fatima was not yet answered:
I shall come to ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart and the Communion of reparation on the first Saturday of the month. If my requests are heard, Russia will convert and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church.
Even today, the First Saturday devotion is still not as widespread as it ought to be. The consecration to Russia by the pope and all the bishops of the Catholic world has never been accomplished in due form. After the failed attempt to assassinate him on May 13, 1981, Pope John Paul II did something similar but without a formal act including the other bishops, and a second time without explicitly mentioning Russia. Although Communism was officially defeated in 1991, Russia still has not converted to the Catholic Faith.
The recitation of the Holy Rosary and the practice of the First Saturdays are certainly connected to the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but so is the peace of the nations. Sister Lucia insisted often upon this aspect of the plan of Divine Providence:
War or peace in the world depend on the practice of this devotion, united with the consecration (of Russia) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That is why I desire so greatly to see it spread, especially since it is the will of God and of Our Mother in Heaven...
The Text of the Third Secret
The third secret, committed to writing by Sister Lucia on January 3, 1944, at the request of the bishop of Leiria, was revealed to her by the Blessed Virgin in Fatima on July 13, 1971. It was revealed by Pope John Paul II on May 13, 2000. The text reads as follows:
After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!' And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.
Trying to claim that this apocalyptic vision referred to Ali A?ca's attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 is unconvincing. The vision describes a true generalized persecution that ends in the death of the Church authorities, consecrated souls, and the faithful, at the foot of a great Cross.
Do Not Lose Hope
Heaven's requests come with the promise of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that will at last overturn the unleashed henchmen of Satan.
The popes of our days, imbued as they are with novelties that destroy the Faith, the cult and morals, nonetheless visit Fatima. For the one-hundredth anniversary of the apparitions, Pope Francis personally went to pray to the Blessed Virgin on May 13, 2017. Before an ocean of votive candles that seem to recreate the embers of the sea of fire that so frightened the children when they saw hell, the pope's only hope and help is the Mother of God whose requests he will one day have to fulfill, with humility, prayer and penance.
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/9_coeur_de_marie.jpg?itok=LU-caIX7)
The Society of St. Pius X has launched several Rosary Crusades to pray for the authorities of the Church to fulfill Heaven's requests. Without taking the place of the hierarchy, it tirelessly invites faithful Catholics to do everything in their power to spread the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and hasten her triumph.
Today, it seems that only a miracle could enlighten the minds that have been led astray by a modernist theology and a conciliar religion that has imported Protestantism and all sorts of heresies into the very heart of Catholicism.
The realization of God's plans for the world and the Church depends upon the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the consecration of Russia by the pope and bishops. Sister Lucia even repeated these words of our Lord recalling the fate of the French monarchy, that was overturned by the Revolution after refusing to consecrate itself to the Sacred Heart:
Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary. Like the King of France, they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.
After the example of the children of Fatima, we must pray very much for the pope, the bishops, priests and consecrated souls, and make sacrifices for the love of Jesus and the conversion of poor sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
The Fatima revelations are full of threats. How do we know that they come from God and not just an imitation?
Better may be to pray the Flame of Love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That one comes from a country and people who have been tortured for their faith in the BVM to the point of 75 % of them ending up dead for the Faith. Also, the Flame of Love contains promises, and provides a diary for understanding.
I could postulate, that the Flame of Love is partly a divine response to what happened in Fatima.
Quote from: gsas on January 11, 2020, 09:28:15 AM
The Fatima revelations are full of threats. How do we know that they come from God and not just an imitation?
Better may be to pray the Flame of Love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That one comes from a country and people who have been tortured for their faith in the BVM to the point of 75 % of them ending up dead for the Faith. Also, the Flame of Love contains promises, and provides a diary for understanding.
I could postulate, that the Flame of Love is partly a divine response to what happened in Fatima.
You can read the lives of the little children and see how they changed their behaviour. Look at their fruits and then you can sense if they are holy children or delusional, misinformed or something similar.
Quote from: Sempronius on January 11, 2020, 11:01:59 AM
You can read the lives of the little children and see how they changed their behaviour. Look at their fruits and then you can sense if they are holy children or delusional, misinformed or something similar.
Sr Lucy withheld information from the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima. She was under oath at the time.
Is Sr Lucy's dishonesty by omission one of the fruits of Fatima?
And by the way, that image at the top is almost totalitarian.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2020, 11:24:23 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on January 11, 2020, 11:01:59 AM
You can read the lives of the little children and see how they changed their behaviour. Look at their fruits and then you can sense if they are holy children or delusional, misinformed or something similar.
Sr Lucy withheld information from the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima. She was under oath at the time.
Is Sr Lucy's dishonesty by omission one of the fruits of Fatima?
And by the way, that image at the top is almost totalitarian.
Lucia was known as a little liar among her immediate and extended family. It is so easy to see through her so called prophecy. In fact, a new name is required to properly describe her prophecy. Call it historical prophecy. Lies, omissions and back dating are the rule of the day here. That such poppycock still inflames the imagination of millions convinces me it is Satanic.
"Lead all souls to heaven". That would include those souls already condemned to Hell. We know sinners only exist in the material world. But notice the prayer does not say, "lead all sinners to Heaven".
So many anti-Fatimists, so little time.
Quote from: GsasThe Fatima revelations are full of threats. How do we know that they come from God and not just an imitation?
No, they are full of loving warnings, to save our souls. In a world where people don't believe in Hell, it is Mercy to show Hell to souls; that they may be saved from going there. We know they come from God, because (1) the Catholic Church has declared their supernatural origin, which it would be impious to doubt. (2) By the public miracles, and the amazing conversions, and so many other wondrous good fruits. (3) By the many fulfilled prophesies, including of Communism's spread throughout the world, and (4) the defeat of Communism in the Soviet Union, that followed the 1984 Partial Consecration by the Pope and the Bishops. A Precursor of even greater things still to come.
Quote from: SemproniusLook at their fruits
Yes, the children are Saints. They amazed their Masonic persectors in the Portugese government by their strength and courage for children so young.
Quote from: AwkwardCustomerSr Lucy withheld information
The canonical enquiry confirmed the supernatural origin of the revelations made to her. You are stubbornly opposed to the Catholic Church's judgment. Prove what you think Sr. Lucy supposedly withheld - and if the Church deemed it irrelevant, who are you to over-rule the Church?
Quote from: InnocentIt is so easy to see through her so called prophecy
It's you folk who are lying, slandering and calumniating Saintly Sr. Lucia; all for nothing. There have been scores of conversions thanks to Our Lady of Fatima. I posted one who converted from Russian Orthodoxy just some time ago. Does all that mean nothing to you? Our Lady of Fatima informed the Catholic Church's strong response to Communism, that led to its ultimate downfall, in Poland, in Eastern Europe and finally in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Our Lady of Fatima has saved countless souls by the Grace of Her Apparition and even countless lives from a terrible fate and horrible persecution; you all should be thanking Her on bended knee, as good Catholics will do.
"I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent." https://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism101.html
Saintly Sr. Lucia's prophesies absolutely came true; some of them were known to have come true only in the 50s, 60s and even later. And some Catholics still don't know the facts about the detailed Communist infiltration into the Church. Abortionism is another error of Soviet Russia, as the USSR was one of the first governments in Europe to legalize the scourge and plague of abortion; humanity will successfully overcome it only when we are more devoted to Our Lady of Fatima than ever before; not without that. And the promised conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith will also take place when the First Saturdays devotion is done more and done better by millions of Catholics, and the Complete Consecration completed.
Quote from: Xavier on January 12, 2020, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: AwkwardCustomerSr Lucy withheld information
The canonical enquiry confirmed the supernatural origin of the revelations made to her. You are stubbornly opposed to the Catholic Church's judgment. Prove what you think Sr. Lucy supposedly withheld - and if the Church deemed it irrelevant, who are you to over-rule the Church?
You are stubbornly opposed to Sr Lucy's own words, which I have posted before elsewhere.
And you are stubbornly opposed to the fact that only the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria have been approved by the Church.
The Secrets have NOT been approved by the Church. Why? Because Sr Lucy did not tell the Canonical Enquiry about them.
Here, again, are Sr Lucy's own words, taken from her Fourth Memoir (p173) written in 1941, in which she explains why she did not reveal the Secrets to the Canonical Enquiry
Quote
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.
Sr Lucy did not real the Secrets to the Canonical Enquiry, therefore the Secrets cannot be approved by the Church. Sr Lucy was therefore dishonest by omission in failing to disclose a significant feature of the apparitions.
Here is how she justifies this on page 168 of the Fourth Memoir.
Quote
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! Then Your Excellency continued speaking in God's name: "Sister, write down the Apparitions of the Angel and of Our Lady, because, my dear Sister, this is for the glory of God and of Our Lady." How good God is! He is the God of peace, and it is along paths of peace that He leads those who trust in Him. I shall begin, then, my new task, and thus fulfil the commands received from Your Excellency as well as the desires of Rev. Dr. Galamba. With the exception of that part of the Secret which I am not permitted to reveal at present, I shall say everything. I shall not knowingly omit anything, though I suppose I may forget just a few small details of minor importance.
Dr Galambra states that Sr Lucy will do many rounds of Purgatory for her silence. But Sr Lucy is not the least afraid of Purgatory.
Sr Lucy obeys the Holy Spirit first and those who speak in His name second. Really. Is this an example of obedience from the Saintly Sr Lucy?
Sr Lucy wonders who she should obey - God or His representatives.
Xavier, you dismissed these words of Sr Lucy the last time I posted them. Are you going to take a long, hard look at them now?
Or are you going to continue giving your allegiance to a visionary who, while under oath, withheld crucial information from the Canonical Enquiry and claimed that this was due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Think about what Sr Lucy is saying here. She is claiming that the Holy Spirit instructed her to lie to the Church.
How can Catholic trust such a visionary?
Quote from: Xavier on January 12, 2020, 10:19:30 AM
So many anti-Fatimists, so little time.
Quote from: GsasThe Fatima revelations are full of threats. How do we know that they come from God and not just an imitation?
No, they are full of loving warnings, to save our souls. In a world where people don't believe in Hell, it is Mercy to show Hell to souls; that they may be saved from going there. We know they come from God, because (1) the Catholic Church has declared their supernatural origin, which it would be impious to doubt. (2) By the public miracles, and the amazing conversions, and so many other wondrous good fruits. (3) By the many fulfilled prophesies, including of Communism's spread throughout the world, and (4) the defeat of Communism in the Soviet Union, that followed the 1984 Partial Consecration by the Pope and the Bishops. A Precursor of even greater things still to come.
Quote from: SemproniusLook at their fruits
Yes, the children are Saints. They amazed their Masonic persectors in the Portugese government by their strength and courage for children so young.
Quote from: AwkwardCustomerSr Lucy withheld information
The canonical enquiry confirmed the supernatural origin of the revelations made to her. You are stubbornly opposed to the Catholic Church's judgment. Prove what you think Sr. Lucy supposedly withheld - and if the Church deemed it irrelevant, who are you to over-rule the Church?
Quote from: InnocentIt is so easy to see through her so called prophecy
It's you folk who are lying, slandering and calumniating Saintly Sr. Lucia; all for nothing. There have been scores of conversions thanks to Our Lady of Fatima. I posted one who converted from Russian Orthodoxy just some time ago. Does all that mean nothing to you? Our Lady of Fatima informed the Catholic Church's strong response to Communism, that led to its ultimate downfall, in Poland, in Eastern Europe and finally in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Our Lady of Fatima has saved countless souls by the Grace of Her Apparition and even countless lives from a terrible fate and horrible persecution; you all should be thanking Her on bended knee, as good Catholics will do.
"I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent." https://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism101.html
Saintly Sr. Lucia's prophesies absolutely came true; some of them were known to have come true only in the 50s, 60s and even later. And some Catholics still don't know the facts about the detailed Communist infiltration into the Church. Abortionism is another error of Soviet Russia, as the USSR was one of the first governments in Europe to legalize the scourge and plague of abortion; humanity will successfully overcome it only when we are more devoted to Our Lady of Fatima than ever before; not without that. And the promised conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith will also take place when the First Saturdays devotion is done more and done better by millions of Catholics, and the Complete Consecration completed.
But what if you consider that when Jesus spoke threats He spoke them to deterr from doing wrong. The Fatima prophecies use threats to force people into doing things, not to deter them. Isn't that a solid and well known satanic strategy?
Ok, Re-posted for Awkward Customer, who demanded I answer this thread.
I will answer your questions, Awkward Customer, do also answer mine:
(1) If the Church deemed it irrelevant, and gave full and final approval of Constat Supernaturalitate [Confirmed to be Supernatural] already in 1930 to the Fatima Apparitions even before completing the canonical inquiry, then why the protests now nearly 90 years later? Regarding the canonical inquiry, it was satisfactorily concluded. You want to raise protests about it now 75 years later.
(2) Pope Benedict XIV said: ""When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." Do you accept the supernatural origin of the Fatima apparitions or not? Yes or no?
Wiki: "The third part of the secret was written down "by order of His Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and the Most Holy Mother" on 3 January 1944.[12] In June 1944, the sealed envelope containing the third secret was delivered to Silva, where it stayed until 1957, when it was finally delivered to Rome.[1]" The Third secret was made known first to Bishop Silva, and later to the Popes in Rome.
Your questions:
(1) You remind me of a prosecutor trying to trap an innocent soul. Well, I'm happy to play defense attorney for Saintly Sr. Lucia.
She took the oath, and she absolutely kept that oath. She took no oath to tell any secret. She made known the secret in 1944.
Note well: "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"
Also: "I have always obeyed, and obedience deserves neither penalty nor punishment". She did as she was asked to do.
Also, if you want to emphasize obedience to Church Superiors so much, are you obeying your Episcopal Superiors in the Church today? These people tried to take advantage of the heroic obedience of a Saintly Nun. That's what you fail to see. The holy Apostles did not hesitate to say "We must obey God rather than men" when being persecuted by the Sanhedrin. Sr. Lucia always obeyed and was persecuted for doing so.
(2) The Full Message of Fatima is approved by the Church. There is not a partial approval here and a half approval there.
Quote from: Xavier on January 21, 2020, 11:37:30 AM
(2) Pope Benedict XIV said: ""When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." Do you accept the supernatural origin of the Fatima apparitions or not? Yes or no?
Now infallibility extends to approval of apparitions ... but still not to the Novus Ordo liturgy.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/gh1PcN7Agxlcc/giphy.gif)
So for everyone here that views Xavier's posts as coming from a place not of pride or egoism, but coming from a place of honesty, integrity, and legitimate zeal for the Catholic Church, here are some wonderful quotes here.
"The canonical enquiry confirmed the supernatural origin of the revelations made to her. You are stubbornly opposed to the Catholic Church's judgment. Prove what you think Sr. Lucy supposedly withheld - and if the Church deemed it irrelevant, who are you to over-rule the Church?"
Get this - if you privately disagree with a private devotion, you are "stubbornly" opposed to the Catholic Church's judgment, and you have no authority to overrule the Church on a judgment that isn't necessary to be saved, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Given Xavier's incessance with Bayside and Garabandal, the post reaks of all sorts of irony of ignoring the Church's judgment.
"
It's you folk who are lying, slandering and calumniating Saintly Sr. Lucia; all for nothing. There have been scores of conversions thanks to Our Lady of Fatima. I posted one who converted from Russian Orthodoxy just some time ago. Does all that mean nothing to you? Our Lady of Fatima informed the Catholic Church's strong response to Communism, that led to its ultimate downfall, in Poland, in Eastern Europe and finally in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Our Lady of Fatima has saved countless souls by the Grace of Her Apparition and even countless lives from a terrible fate and horrible persecution; you all should be thanking Her on bended knee, as good Catholics will do."
Even though St John of the Cross said we should be very diligent with apparitions and not blindly accept every vision we see, if we dare question a person who knowingly omitted information from a canonical inquiry, we are "liars," "calumnitors," "slanderers." Further, we must absolutely have to believe in an apparition if it leads to a nominal conversion, and we apparently don't care about the conversion of souls. All because we question a nun who not only lied all the time as a kid, but fundamentally changed the message of Fatima when JPII became popular.
Also, if you don't personally believe in Fatima, you are a bad Catholic.
The key line is that one.
"Our Lady of Fatima has saved countless souls by the Grace of Her Apparition and even countless lives from a terrible fate and horrible persecution; you all should be thanking Her on bended knee, as good Catholics will do."
Get it? If you don't personally venerate Fatima, you are a bad Catholic.
Quote from: Xavier on January 21, 2020, 11:37:30 AM
(1) If the Church deemed it irrelevant, and gave full and final approval of Constat Supernaturalitate [Confirmed to be Supernatural] already in 1930 to the Fatima Apparitions even before completing the canonical inquiry, then why the protests now nearly 90 years later? Regarding the canonical inquiry, it was satisfactorily concluded. You want to raise protests about it now 75 years later.
Xavier, here are the facts.
The Canonical Enquiry into Fatima approved the 1917 apparitions at the Cova da Iria and did not approve the Secrets or the Angel Apparitions because they did not know about them.
And the reason that the Canonical Enquiry did not know about the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions was because Sr Lucy did not tell them.
So, if the Canonical Enquiry did not know about the Secrets and the Angel apparitions, how could they have been approved?
Quote
(2) Pope Benedict XIV said: ""When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." Do you accept the supernatural origin of the Fatima apparitions or not? Yes or no?
I have no doubts that the Fatima apparitions were supernatural in origin.
But I don't believe they were divine in origin.
Quote
(1) You remind me of a prosecutor trying to trap an innocent soul. Well, I'm happy to play defense attorney for Saintly Sr. Lucia.
She took the oath, and she absolutely kept that oath. She took no oath to tell any secret. She made known the secret in 1944.
Note well: "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"
Also: "I have always obeyed, and obedience deserves neither penalty nor punishment". She did as she was asked to do.
As defense attorney for "Saintly Sr Lucy", you must be aware of that the court requires the 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'.
You say that Sr Lucy "took no oath to tell any secret". What does that mean? The fact is that Sr Lucy took an oath to tell the truth. And she withheld part of that truth from the Canonical Enquiry and only revealed it once the Church had approved the 1917 Cova da Iria apparitions.
Quote
Also, if you want to emphasize obedience to Church Superiors so much, are you obeying your Episcopal Superiors in the Church today?
Impertinence.
Quote
These people tried to take advantage of the heroic obedience of a Saintly Nun. That's what you fail to see. The holy Apostles did not hesitate to say "We must obey God rather than men" when being persecuted by the Sanhedrin. Sr. Lucia always obeyed and was persecuted for doing so.
Sr Lucy obeyed the 'holy spirit' whispering in her ear and advising her not to reveal the whole truth about Fatima to the Canonical Enqiury.
As if an apparition of divine origin would advise a visionary to lie to the Church.
Quote
(2) The Full Message of Fatima is approved by the Church. There is not a partial approval here and a half approval there.
No it hasn't.
Only the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria have been approved.
i believe in fatima for sure
not much doubt, and for the record the only other modern supernatural revelation i follow is akita
would have to go back to our lady of good success for the next supernatural revelation i follow
i have heard the arguments here against fatima
and find them not very convincing, but as mentioned, fatima is not a hill i will die on
believe or not, its a personal choice
fatima has many very interesting things to say, which are not contained in the secrets, but not interesting to everyone, i understand that much
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 21, 2020, 02:05:26 PM
Even though St John of the Cross said we should be very diligent with apparitions and not blindly accept every vision we see, if we dare question a person who knowingly omitted information from a canonical inquiry, we are "liars," "calumnitors," "slanderers." Further, we must absolutely have to believe in an apparition if it leads to a nominal conversion, and we apparently don't care about the conversion of souls. All because we question a nun who not only lied all the time as a kid, but fundamentally changed the message of Fatima when JPII became popular.
Also, if you don't personally believe in Fatima, you are a bad Catholic.
The key line is that one.
"Our Lady of Fatima has saved countless souls by the Grace of Her Apparition and even countless lives from a terrible fate and horrible persecution; you all should be thanking Her on bended knee, as good Catholics will do."
Get it? If you don't personally venerate Fatima, you are a bad Catholic.
Yes. Exactly. No Catholic is obliged to accept any private revelation. Why? Because the Church says so.
Xavier doesn't agree, however, and hurls insults at those who exercise their Church given right to reject a private revelation.
And that's the problem, Believing in Fatima, or any other private revelation is entirely up to individual Catholics. But Xavier, and too many Trads, seem to have made certain private revelations the be all and end all of faith. If you don't believe in Fatima, you're not a good Catholic.
Disagree all you like, Xavier. But drop the accusations that you have no right to make. And why have you no right to make those accusations. Because the Church says so.
Martin88nyc posted this on another thread.
Quote
Speaking of visions in general, and in particular of the danger of desiring them, he [St John of the Cross] writes in The Ascent of Mount Carmel (2.11:8,12):
8. "It is always well, then, that the soul should reject these things, and close its eyes to them, whencesoever they come. For, unless it does so, it will prepare the way for those things that come from the devil, and will give him such influence that, not only will his visions come in place of God's, but his visions will begin to increase, and those of God to cease, in such manner that the devil will have all the power and God will have none. So it has happened to many incautious and ignorant souls, who rely on these things to such an extent that many of them have found it hard to return to God in purity of faith; and many have been unable to return, so securely has the devil rooted himself in them; for which reason it is well to resist and reject them all. For, by the rejection of evil visions, the errors of the devil are avoided, and by the rejection of good visions no hindrance is offered to faith and the spirit harvests the fruit of them."
12. "It is clear, then, that these sensual apprehensions and visions cannot be a means to union, since they bear no proportion to God; and this was one of the reasons why Christ desired that the Magdalene and Saint Thomas should not touch Him. And so the devil rejoices greatly when a soul desires to receive revelations, and when he sees it inclined to them, for he has then a great occasion and opportunity to insinuate errors and, in so far as he is able, to derogate from faith; for, as I have said, he renders the soul that desires them very gross, and at times even leads it into many temptations and unseemly ways."
Rev. Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, citing St. Alphonsus Liguouri, Doctor of the Church, and Pope Benedict XIV.
"As Almighty God in His goodness imparts His favors to His faithful followers in divers ways-----sometimes by enlightening their minds in a supernatural manner, and even conversing with them familiarly, as it were-----and as the nature of this work is intended to be practical, not controversial, 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." http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/blessed-eucharist.htm
Note that AC anyway above stated that she disagreed with another statement of Pope Benedict XIV: "Pope Benedict XIV said: ""When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." Do you accept the supernatural origin of the Fatima apparitions or not? Yes or no?"
AC: "I have no doubts that the Fatima apparitions were supernatural in origin. But I don't believe they were divine in origin."
So, firstly, she disregards the Pope. Secondly, the supposed distinction is meaningless, because divine and supernatural actually mean the same thing, and are used by the Church interchangeably. But what AC means, as she has said before, is that they were diabolical.
And that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort. Question 1: How do you explain that, Awkward Customer, if supposedly he did not sin? No, he sinned against Catholic Piety, and therefore He was severely punished by Almighty God; and only delivered when Thousands of Catholics said the Rosary for him.
I. God takes such things very, very seriously, when millions of souls could be saved by action, and are lost by inaction - much, much more than people today understand. So tell me, AC, Question 2: do you also think you can just reject the Rosary, the Sacred Heart etc? You don't care what the Popes say anyway, as your rejection of what Pope Benedict XIV has said shows, so it doesn't matter how many more I cite to you. But Pope Pius XII said "The time for doubting Fatima is past", and gave a marvelous prophesy in 1933, based on the words of Our Lady of Fatima, that has led to him being hailed as a Prophet himself, because so amazing are the manifestly fulfilled words of the Holy Father based on Our Lady of Fatima: "Suppose, 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 ...These underdeveloped peoples will save the Church, Eminence. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted" ... Cardinal Pacelli's remarks are stunning prophesies of the current state of affairs in the Church, 84 years later." https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-suicide-altering-faith-liturgy/
II. Enemies and Haters of the Roman Catholic Church deny all this, just as they deny that the Roman Catholic Church defeated Communism. The full and complete extirpation and uprooting of the Communist terrorist heresy will come when the Complete Consecration is done, including the uprooting of abortionism, evolutionism, secularism and other errors promoted by the Communists.
Also, Awkward Customer, just think carefully why you are on the same side with self-professed deniers of the Immaculate Conception. That should wake you up if you still want to be woken up. You are not fighting man but you are fighting God, as the Pharisees did when they attributed clearly divine and supernatural works to diabolical and evil spirits, which Our Lord said was blasphemy of His Holy Spirit.
Study the history of the Immaculate Conception Dogma and its tragic denial in Russia, and you'll see Our Lady of Fatima is a Heavenly Intervention in favor of the Catholic Church designed by God for the purpose of bringing Russia back to belief in the Immaculate Conception, devotion to the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of our Mother Mary, and thereby back to the Roman Catholic Church.
III. Saintly Sr. Lucy obeyed when finally asked to write down the Secret, made it known to the Bishop in 1944, and it was sent to Rome by 1957.
St. John is speaking about desiring visions for yourself in prayer, instead of relying on the purest light of faith, not about refusing to hear Saint and Mystics raised up by God and Our Lady by public Miracles, approved by the Church, and due for canonization.
The Third Secret was published with Vatican Approval in 2000 A.D. The Catholic Church is not Sedevacantist. She is most certainly not Ecclesia-Vacantist either. Although I'm with Antonio Socci that there's an unpublished part, the published part is more than enough to know that an invasion of Rome is coming, and that some of them in Rome are going to remain blind to it until it will be too late, just like the Kings of France who later wept and bitterly lamented about not performing the Consecration to the Sacred Heart Commanded by the Divine King of kings to His ministers: "'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God." http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
As a Knight of the Immaculata consecrated to Her in the Missio Immaculata, along with millions of others, I for one will not stand idly by nor treat with frigid indifference when heretics pierce Her Immaculate Heart by sinning mortally and denying Her Immaculate Conception, or when bad Catholics, disregarding what the Popes, Saints and Doctors have taught, do not give the human assent of pious faith spoken by St. Alphonsus and St. Montfort, but instead with rash temerity and self-willed idiocy dare to call the Heavenly Manifestations of the Immaculate Virgin diabolical - which is what Anti-Catholics and Protestants etc also do to both the Holy Rosary and the Immaculate Heart. Yes, if you call the Rosary or Devotion to the Immaculate Heart, or the fully approved Supernatural Signs associated with them to be "diabolical", then yes you are a bad Catholic, and are publicly sinning against Catholic Piety. If you deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, you are a faithless heretic publicly sinning against Catholic Faith.
All the people who are bashing the Anti-Fatimists had better knock it off. You should be praising us to high Heaven. If we get the proper praise due to us for our bravery in search of truth, everything will work out just fine. The Church will recover, there will be a chicken in every pot and a cool car in every garage, and the diabolical disorientation that has a grip on Fatima adherents will be released. If not, then the whole shebang is going to get a lot worse and the Fatima adherents are going to suffer badly. And I mean badly on a personal, physical level and the suffering of your pets and loved ones will be on you.
So, get with the accolades for us Anti-Fatimists.
Or if you refuse, suffer the unbearable consequences.
ps. that's not a threat. It's a "loving" warning. ;)
But seriously...it's amazing how unlike Our Lady of Lourdes is the apparition of Fatima. When the fog clears and you allow yourself to look at the facts. Fatima is all about undermining the papacy while Lourdes actually supports it by Our Lady adopting the title already given by the Pope. Fatima by contrast tries to co-opt the power of the Keys given by Christ Himself to the Papacy, demands and exercise of papal power as if the Pope is a puppet and threatens him with personal suffering if he doesn't cave into the extortion threats. Fatima also makes political promises and political threats. There's a whole song and dance about sin and Hell and everything else the Devil is an authority on, but the focus is all about politics which is always a big temptation for Popes to become involved in.
St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote that piece quoted long before Fatima, long before Vatican II. I bet he would have second thoughts about what he wrote had he known what was coming down the pike. Just as had he known about the disturbed psychological state of one of the members of his order, he wouldn't have placed him in a position of authority in which he persecuted and tortured St. Gerard Majella.
So the argument that someone denying Fatima is an insult to the BVM isn't true in the slightest. The argument against Fatima is based on facts that are irreconcilable concerning the ecclesiology of the Church.
One can love the BVM as much as St. Louis De Montfort, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Bernadette and even St. Joseph himself as well as St. Luke and St. John the Apostle and still not buy into Fatima. None of them knew anything of Fatima and they did just fine. One can even love the BVM MORE than the most ardent Fatimist if the Fatimist doesn't have their head screwed on right concerning the theological weight of an apparition compared to the actual doctrine of the Church.
Any Catholic who is scandalized (scandal meaning something that causes you to risk losing your faith ) at the idea of any apparition turning out to be false has an imbalance in their faith, that they should seek guidance about.
The following users thanked this post: The Blessed Mother
Quote from: Xavier on January 22, 2020, 01:18:26 PM
Rev. Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, citing St. Alphonsus Liguouri, Doctor of the Church, and Pope Benedict XIV.
"As Almighty God in His goodness imparts His favors to His faithful followers in divers ways-----sometimes by enlightening their minds in a supernatural manner, and even conversing with them familiarly, as it were-----and as the nature of this work is intended to be practical, not controversial, 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." http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/blessed-eucharist.htm
Note that AC anyway above stated that she disagreed with another statement of Pope Benedict XIV: "Pope Benedict XIV said: ""When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." Do you accept the supernatural origin of the Fatima apparitions or not? Yes or no?"
AC: "I have no doubts that the Fatima apparitions were supernatural in origin. But I don't believe they were divine in origin."
So, firstly, she disregards the Pope. Secondly, the supposed distinction is meaningless, because divine and supernatural actually mean the same thing, and are used by the Church interchangeably. But what AC means, as she has said before, is that they were diabolical.
And that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort. Question 1: How do you explain that, Awkward Customer, if supposedly he did not sin? No, he sinned against Catholic Piety, and therefore He was severely punished by Almighty God; and only delivered when Thousands of Catholics said the Rosary for him.
I. God takes such things very, very seriously, when millions of souls could be saved by action, and are lost by inaction - much, much more than people today understand. So tell me, AC, Question 2: do you also think you can just reject the Rosary, the Sacred Heart etc? You don't care what the Popes say anyway, as your rejection of what Pope Benedict XIV has said shows, so it doesn't matter how many more I cite to you. But Pope Pius XII said "The time for doubting Fatima is past", and gave a marvelous prophesy in 1933, based on the words of Our Lady of Fatima, that has led to him being hailed as a Prophet himself, because so amazing are the manifestly fulfilled words of the Holy Father based on Our Lady of Fatima: "Suppose, 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 ...These underdeveloped peoples will save the Church, Eminence. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted" ... Cardinal Pacelli's remarks are stunning prophesies of the current state of affairs in the Church, 84 years later." https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-suicide-altering-faith-liturgy/
II. Enemies and Haters of the Roman Catholic Church deny all this, just as they deny that the Roman Catholic Church defeated Communism. The full and complete extirpation and uprooting of the Communist terrorist heresy will come when the Complete Consecration is done, including the uprooting of abortionism, evolutionism, secularism and other errors promoted by the Communists.
Also, Awkward Customer, just think carefully why you are on the same side with self-professed deniers of the Immaculate Conception. That should wake you up if you still want to be woken up. You are not fighting man but you are fighting God, as the Pharisees did when they attributed clearly divine and supernatural works to diabolical and evil spirits, which Our Lord said was blasphemy of His Holy Spirit.
Study the history of the Immaculate Conception Dogma and its tragic denial in Russia, and you'll see Our Lady of Fatima is a Heavenly Intervention in favor of the Catholic Church designed by God for the purpose of bringing Russia back to belief in the Immaculate Conception, devotion to the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of our Mother Mary, and thereby back to the Roman Catholic Church.
III. Saintly Sr. Lucy obeyed when finally asked to write down the Secret, made it known to the Bishop in 1944, and it was sent to Rome by 1957.
St. John is speaking about desiring visions for yourself in prayer, instead of relying on the purest light of faith, not about refusing to hear Saint and Mystics raised up by God and Our Lady by public Miracles, approved by the Church, and due for canonization.
The Third Secret was published with Vatican Approval in 2000 A.D. The Catholic Church is not Sedevacantist. She is most certainly not Ecclesia-Vacantist either. Although I'm with Antonio Socci that there's an unpublished part, the published part is more than enough to know that an invasion of Rome is coming, and that some of them in Rome are going to remain blind to it until it will be too late, just like the Kings of France who later wept and bitterly lamented about not performing the Consecration to the Sacred Heart Commanded by the Divine King of kings to His ministers: "'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God." http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
As a Knight of the Immaculata consecrated to Her in the Missio Immaculata, along with millions of others, I for one will not stand idly by nor treat with frigid indifference when heretics pierce Her Immaculate Heart by sinning mortally and denying Her Immaculate Conception, or when bad Catholics, disregarding what the Popes, Saints and Doctors have taught, do not give the human assent of pious faith spoken by St. Alphonsus and St. Montfort, but instead with rash temerity and self-willed idiocy dare to call the Heavenly Manifestations of the Immaculate Virgin diabolical - which is what Anti-Catholics and Protestants etc also do to both the Holy Rosary and the Immaculate Heart. Yes, if you call the Rosary or Devotion to the Immaculate Heart, or the fully approved Supernatural Signs associated with them to be "diabolical", then yes you are a bad Catholic, and are publicly sinning against Catholic Piety. If you deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, you are a faithless heretic publicly sinning against Catholic Faith.
Poor Xavier.
He's in a worse state than I thought.
QuoteAnd that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort.
Your view of "God" is disgusting.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 12:32:45 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 22, 2020, 01:18:26 PM
Rev. Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, citing St. Alphonsus Liguouri, Doctor of the Church, and Pope Benedict XIV.
"As Almighty God in His goodness imparts His favors to His faithful followers in divers ways-----sometimes by enlightening their minds in a supernatural manner, and even conversing with them familiarly, as it were-----and as the nature of this work is intended to be practical, not controversial, 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." http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/blessed-eucharist.htm
Note that AC anyway above stated that she disagreed with another statement of Pope Benedict XIV: "Pope Benedict XIV said: ""When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." Do you accept the supernatural origin of the Fatima apparitions or not? Yes or no?"
AC: "I have no doubts that the Fatima apparitions were supernatural in origin. But I don't believe they were divine in origin."
So, firstly, she disregards the Pope. Secondly, the supposed distinction is meaningless, because divine and supernatural actually mean the same thing, and are used by the Church interchangeably. But what AC means, as she has said before, is that they were diabolical.
And that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort. Question 1: How do you explain that, Awkward Customer, if supposedly he did not sin? No, he sinned against Catholic Piety, and therefore He was severely punished by Almighty God; and only delivered when Thousands of Catholics said the Rosary for him.
I. God takes such things very, very seriously, when millions of souls could be saved by action, and are lost by inaction - much, much more than people today understand. So tell me, AC, Question 2: do you also think you can just reject the Rosary, the Sacred Heart etc? You don't care what the Popes say anyway, as your rejection of what Pope Benedict XIV has said shows, so it doesn't matter how many more I cite to you. But Pope Pius XII said "The time for doubting Fatima is past", and gave a marvelous prophesy in 1933, based on the words of Our Lady of Fatima, that has led to him being hailed as a Prophet himself, because so amazing are the manifestly fulfilled words of the Holy Father based on Our Lady of Fatima: "Suppose, 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 ...These underdeveloped peoples will save the Church, Eminence. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted" ... Cardinal Pacelli's remarks are stunning prophesies of the current state of affairs in the Church, 84 years later." https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-suicide-altering-faith-liturgy/
II. Enemies and Haters of the Roman Catholic Church deny all this, just as they deny that the Roman Catholic Church defeated Communism. The full and complete extirpation and uprooting of the Communist terrorist heresy will come when the Complete Consecration is done, including the uprooting of abortionism, evolutionism, secularism and other errors promoted by the Communists.
Also, Awkward Customer, just think carefully why you are on the same side with self-professed deniers of the Immaculate Conception. That should wake you up if you still want to be woken up. You are not fighting man but you are fighting God, as the Pharisees did when they attributed clearly divine and supernatural works to diabolical and evil spirits, which Our Lord said was blasphemy of His Holy Spirit.
Study the history of the Immaculate Conception Dogma and its tragic denial in Russia, and you'll see Our Lady of Fatima is a Heavenly Intervention in favor of the Catholic Church designed by God for the purpose of bringing Russia back to belief in the Immaculate Conception, devotion to the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of our Mother Mary, and thereby back to the Roman Catholic Church.
III. Saintly Sr. Lucy obeyed when finally asked to write down the Secret, made it known to the Bishop in 1944, and it was sent to Rome by 1957.
St. John is speaking about desiring visions for yourself in prayer, instead of relying on the purest light of faith, not about refusing to hear Saint and Mystics raised up by God and Our Lady by public Miracles, approved by the Church, and due for canonization.
The Third Secret was published with Vatican Approval in 2000 A.D. The Catholic Church is not Sedevacantist. She is most certainly not Ecclesia-Vacantist either. Although I'm with Antonio Socci that there's an unpublished part, the published part is more than enough to know that an invasion of Rome is coming, and that some of them in Rome are going to remain blind to it until it will be too late, just like the Kings of France who later wept and bitterly lamented about not performing the Consecration to the Sacred Heart Commanded by the Divine King of kings to His ministers: "'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God." http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
As a Knight of the Immaculata consecrated to Her in the Missio Immaculata, along with millions of others, I for one will not stand idly by nor treat with frigid indifference when heretics pierce Her Immaculate Heart by sinning mortally and denying Her Immaculate Conception, or when bad Catholics, disregarding what the Popes, Saints and Doctors have taught, do not give the human assent of pious faith spoken by St. Alphonsus and St. Montfort, but instead with rash temerity and self-willed idiocy dare to call the Heavenly Manifestations of the Immaculate Virgin diabolical - which is what Anti-Catholics and Protestants etc also do to both the Holy Rosary and the Immaculate Heart. Yes, if you call the Rosary or Devotion to the Immaculate Heart, or the fully approved Supernatural Signs associated with them to be "diabolical", then yes you are a bad Catholic, and are publicly sinning against Catholic Piety. If you deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, you are a faithless heretic publicly sinning against Catholic Faith.
Poor Xavier.
He's in a worse state than I thought.
Well done. All the harassment and ridicule directed toward Xavier must be paying off.
Hopefully, he'll just learn to ignore you all and allow you all to put your rottenness on display.
If you all don't mind airing your misery out on the forum like dirty laundry he shouldn't mind either.
Xavier! Stop defending yourself from these people and just allow them to come on here and show everybody how pathetic they are!
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 23, 2020, 06:13:09 AM
QuoteAnd that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort.
Your view of "God" is disgusting.
You can not hide your inward decay, Kreuzritter.
Time and time again you see fit to come on here and show everybody how much of an angry, condescending, jerk you can be.
Not content to wallow in your own sufferings or humble enough to correct them, you try to spread them to others. In almost every single post you make.
Quote from: dellery on January 23, 2020, 06:25:39 AM
Well done. All the harassment and ridicule directed toward Xavier must be paying off.
Hopefully, he'll just learn to ignore you all and allow you all to put your rottenness on display.
If you all don't mind airing your misery out on the forum like dirty laundry he shouldn't mind either.
Xavier! Stop defending yourself from these people and just allow them to come on here and show everybody how pathetic they are!
If you really cared about Xavier, you would point out that he contradicts Church teaching when insists that certain private revelations and visions must be accepted. And that the accusations he throws at those who don't accept them suggest that, i) he puts himself above Church teaching, and ii) that he is wedded to a viewpoint that inspires him to throw insults at those who don't agree with him.
Instead you urge people to "put their rottenness on display", which is what you are doing.
Sorry, but yours is an example I have no wish to follow.
Is your nastiness yet another 'fruit of Fatima'?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 07:01:44 AM
Quote from: dellery on January 23, 2020, 06:25:39 AM
Well done. All the harassment and ridicule directed toward Xavier must be paying off.
Hopefully, he'll just learn to ignore you all and allow you all to put your rottenness on display.
If you all don't mind airing your misery out on the forum like dirty laundry he shouldn't mind either.
Xavier! Stop defending yourself from these people and just allow them to come on here and show everybody how pathetic they are!
If you really cared about Xavier, you would point out that he contradicts Church teaching when insists that certain private revelations and visions must be accepted. And that the accusations he throws at those who don't accept them suggest that, i) he puts himself above Church teaching, and ii) that he is wedded to a viewpoint that inspires him to throw insults at those who don't agree with him.
Instead you urge people to "put their rottenness on display", which is what you are doing.
Sorry, but yours is an example I have no wish to follow.
Is your nastiness yet another 'fruit of Fatima'?
Pretty sure dellery is a troll. Not a very clever one either.
Quote from: dellery on January 23, 2020, 06:44:15 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 23, 2020, 06:13:09 AM
QuoteAnd that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort.
Your view of "God" is disgusting.
You can not hide your inward decay, Kreuzritter.
Time and time again you see fit to come on here and show everybody how much of an angry, condescending, jerk you can be.
A God who sends 15,000 devils to possess a man as punishment for blaspheming Mary and the Rosary is the definition of an "angry, condescending, jerk". This "God" is as volatile and spiteful as the worst demon.
QuoteNot content to wallow in your own sufferings or humble enough to correct them, you try to spread them to others. In almost every single post you make.
Turn out Roman Catholics are often no different to those of other ideologies: when someone dares "apostatise" from dogma, it's always that something must be wrong with him, always ad hominem.
Quote from: abc123 on January 23, 2020, 07:12:21 AM
Pretty sure dellery is a troll. Not a very clever one either.
Really?
I can't tell.
Quote from: dellery on January 23, 2020, 06:25:39 AM
Well done. All the harassment and ridicule directed toward Xavier must be paying off.
Hopefully, he'll just learn to ignore you all and allow you all to put your rottenness on display.
If you all don't mind airing your misery out on the forum like dirty laundry he shouldn't mind either.
Xavier! Stop defending yourself from these people and just allow them to come on here and show everybody how pathetic they are!
Xavier is an obstinate heretic who on another thread said that the authority of apparitions supersede that of the Catholic Church - which is literally heresy, and is expressly condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church.
They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"."
Emphasis on the underlined portion. Sects which exist based on revelations which claim to correct or surpass the deposit of Faith.
Moreover, Xavier's ethos of unquestioning gullibility towards anything that appears supernatural in origin is not only at odds with the New Testament, which is stated in Galatians 1:8
But is fundamentally at odds with how the Church always approached these things.
One simply has to look to the story of Our Lady Guadalupe, Our Lady of Lourdes, and Saint Peter of Verona.
In Guadalupe, the Bishop commanded proof of the supernatural character of Guadalupe before approving of her commands; to which
Our Lady herself complied. Our Lady didn't rebuke the Bishop for his faithlessness or his stiff-heart, she simply obeyed his commands.
In Lourdes, Saint Bernadette tested the apparition with Holy Water before listening to her.
In St. Peter of Veronica's case, an apparition of the Virgin Mary with the Child was telling people about the truth of Catharism; to which Saint Peter brought the Eucharist and commanded the apparition to "Adore Thy Son," to which the apparition vanished in a puff of black smoke.
Finally, one has to read Saint John of the Cross's work which commands his disciples to test
every apparition, and essentially says to
err of the side of caution rather than
err of the side of carelessness.
We have every right to rebuke promoters of heresy.
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 23, 2020, 07:48:10 AM
Quote from: dellery on January 23, 2020, 06:44:15 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 23, 2020, 06:13:09 AM
QuoteAnd that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort.
Your view of "God" is disgusting.
You can not hide your inward decay, Kreuzritter.
Time and time again you see fit to come on here and show everybody how much of an angry, condescending, jerk you can be.
A God who sends 15,000 devils to possess a man as punishment for blaspheming Mary and the Rosary is the definition of an "angry, condescending, jerk". This "God" is as volatile and spiteful as the worst demon.
QuoteNot content to wallow in your own sufferings or humble enough to correct them, you try to spread them to others. In almost every single post you make.
Turn out Roman Catholics are often no different to those of other ideologies: when someone dares "apostatise" from dogma, it's always that something must be wrong with him, always ad hominem.
Cry me a river.
Several years ago I was probably even more pissed off and miserable than you appear to be. Instead of struggling against my demons I yielded to them. I was rude to a lot of people, not just in my online interactions but in person as well.
Anybody whose familiar with my posting history certainly knows this.
Thankfully people cared enough about me to call me out for being a son of a bitch.
Even on this forum the poster Nmoerbeek did me a great service with his solid rebukes.
People allow demons to live inside of them because they think that the demons are concealed from everybody else. They are not.
Bringing the demons out in the open and into the light forces you to confront and kill them.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 23, 2020, 11:38:03 AM
Xavier is an obstinate heretic who on another thread said that the authority of apparitions supersede that of the Catholic Church - which is literally heresy, and is expressly condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"."
Emphasis on the underlined portion. Sects which exist based on revelations which claim to correct or surpass the deposit of Faith.
Moreover, Xavier's ethos of unquestioning gullibility towards anything that appears supernatural in origin is not only at odds with the New Testament, which is stated in Galatians 1:8
But is fundamentally at odds with how the Church always approached these things.
One simply has to look to the story of Our Lady Guadalupe, Our Lady of Lourdes, and Saint Peter of Verona.
In Guadalupe, the Bishop commanded proof of the supernatural character of Guadalupe before approving of her commands; to which Our Lady herself complied. Our Lady didn't rebuke the Bishop for his faithlessness or his stiff-heart, she simply obeyed her commands.
In Lourdes, Saint Bernadette tested the apparition with Holy Water before listening to her.
In St. Peter of Veronica's case, an apparition of the Virgin Mary with the Child was telling people about the truth of Catharism; to which Saint Peter brought the Eucharist and commanded the apparition to "Adore Thy Son," to which the apparition vanished in a puff of black smoke.
Finally, one has to read Saint John of the Cross's work which commands his disciples to test every apparition, and essentially says to err of the side of caution rather than err of the side of carelessness.
We have every right to rebuke promoters of heresy.
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."
You have no power to judge somebody to be an obstinate heretic.
Such an idea is an outcrop of Protestantism and maybe even Americanism to a degree.
Since you think a lay-man has the authority to judge somebody as being a heretic, I could attack you for being a "heretic" and compel you to defend yourself thus entrenching you in your "heresy". Then after you've dug in and defended your position I could accuse you of being an obstinate heretic.
This is actually what I was planning to do to prove my point--the same thing you and others are doing to Xavier.
So let's be honest, nobody, that I've seen has issued Xavier any kind of charitable correction. It's mainly been attacks and insults, sloppily covered by a transparent mask of false-piety.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 23, 2020, 11:38:03 AM
Xavier is an obstinate heretic who on another thread said that the authority of apparitions supersede that of the Catholic Church - which is literally heresy, and is expressly condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
TheReturnofLive, I don't agree with Xavier's judgement on various apparitions but I think you exaggerate his viewpoint. ASK HIM, POINT BLANK, do they supercede the authority of the Church? I personally would be a liar if I said he thinks they supercede the Church. I would need to see him make this explicit.
I also think he would agree with the CCC quote you made here:
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church.
They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"I would like to hear from him whether he agrees with this. Maybe his "sensus fidelium" is a little lacking and he is INSUFFICIENTLY guided by the Magisterium, but I don't see him entirely over- throwing the Magisterium in favor of apparitions. What do you say Xavier?
Quote from: dellery on January 23, 2020, 07:40:38 PM
So let's be honest, nobody, that I've seen has issued Xavier any kind of charitable correction. It's mainly been attacks and insults, sloppily covered by a transparent mask of false-piety.
Plenty of charitable correction has been issued to Xavier, which he just ignores. Counter arguments have been put to him, which he also ignores. Not only that, he doubles down on his insistence that his view of visions and apparitions and their role in saving the Church and the world is the absolute correct one.
Have you read what he accused me of in the post above - that one of my views is "diabolical"; that I might be ready to deny the Sacred Heart devotion and the Rosary; that I am on the side of those who deny the Immaculate Conception.
I take it these accusations are fine by you. And it's not as if this was the first time. Xavier has made similar accusations elsewhere.
I've lost count of the number of times I have been accused of being a heretic on this forum. Mikemac did this several times, also for speaking out against Fatima.
Those who elevate visions and apparitions to the level of dogma often accuse those who reject those visions and apparitions of being uncatholic to the point of heresy. This is contrary to the teaching of the Church, and this has been pointed out to Xavier, charitably, many times.
On topic, I think Xavier is right that Fatima is an approved apparition. And I think it's also obviously true that the subsequent (e.g. 1929, 1944) messages are not within that approval. Whether any of them received separate approval is unknown to me, Xavier or somebody else may know.
An oath to tell the truth is not an oath to be candid, it's an oath to be honest. Honesty does not require revealing all that you know, it requires answering accurately the questions asked. I see no problem with Sr. Lucy's approach to the enquiry, and her angst over it is to her credit.
It's true that we are not bound to accept private apparitions. It's also true that the person who receives them should endeavour to ignore them, as St. John of the Cross says. But having done that, it's certainly possible to accept them after attempting to reject any given supernatural manifestation. The lives of the saints show that - e.g. St. Thomas, St. Gertrude, St. Margaret Mary, St. Catherine Laboure, St. Bernadette, etc.
It's equally true that those who are not the recipients ought to be sceptical of private apparitions - "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world," instructs the Holy Ghost by St. John. Is that not simple and plain?
So those who say they can just obstinately reject all private revelation seem to be wrong, and those who credulously believe everything are equally at fault. Virtue, as always, lies in the middle.
I also agree that Fatima people can be annoying. So can anti-Fatima people. Let's try not to be annoying, whatever our opinions.
In the Immaculate,
Nazianzen.
Quote from: Non Nobis on January 23, 2020, 08:39:05 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 23, 2020, 11:38:03 AM
Xavier is an obstinate heretic who on another thread said that the authority of apparitions supersede that of the Catholic Church - which is literally heresy, and is expressly condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
TheReturnofLive, I don't agree with Xavier's judgement on various apparitions but I think you exaggerate his viewpoint. ASK HIM, POINT BLANK, do they supercede the authority of the Church? I personally would be a liar if I said he thinks they supercede the Church. I would need to see him make this explicit.
I also think he would agree with the CCC quote you made here:
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"
I would like to hear from him whether he agrees with this. Maybe his "sensus fidelium" is a little lacking and he is INSUFFICIENTLY guided by the Magisterium, but I don't see him entirely over- throwing the Magisterium in favor of apparitions. What do you say Xavier?
Xavier won't answer.
The teaching of the Church on private revelations has been pointed out to him several times, including by me.
Xavier just ignores it.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 23, 2020, 09:00:46 PM
On topic, I think Xavier is right that Fatima is an approved apparition. And I think it's also obviously true that the subsequent (e.g. 1929, 1944) messages are not within that approval. Whether any of them received separate approval is unknown to me, Xavier or somebody else may know.
An oath to tell the truth is not an oath to be candid, it's an oath to be honest. Honesty does not require revealing all that you know, it requires answering accurately the questions asked. I see no problem with Sr. Lucy's approach to the enquiry, and her angst over it is to her credit.
It's true that we are not bound to accept private apparitions. It's also true that the person who receives them should endeavour to ignore them, as St. John of the Cross says. But having done that, it's certainly possible to accept them after attempting to reject any given supernatural manifestation. The lives of the saints show that - e.g. St. Thomas, St. Gertrude, St. Margaret Mary, St. Catherine Laboure, St. Bernadette, etc.
It's equally true that those who are not the recipients ought to be sceptical of private apparitions - "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world," instructs the Holy Ghost by St. John. Is that not simple and plain?
So those who say they can just obstinately reject all private revelation seem to be wrong, and those who credulously believe everything are equally at fault. Virtue, as always, lies in the middle.
I also agree that Fatima people can be annoying. So can anti-Fatima people. Let's try not to be annoying, whatever our opinions.
In the Immaculate,
Nazianzen.
If you think that the "it's also obviously true that the subsequent (e.g. 1929, 1944) messages are not within that approval", then Xavier is not right.
There is no doubt that the 1917 apparitions in the Cova Da Iria have been approved. But Xavier, like the Fatimists in general, claim that the subsequent messages - telling of the Angel Apparitions and the Secrets - ARE approved.
As for what is required of honesty. In a court of law it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Who knows the wording of the oath taken by Sr Lucy at the Canonical Enquiry? But we know that Sr Lucy thought it more important to obey God than God's representatives, because she said so in her Memoir, as if a divine inspiration would advise a mystic to disobey the men of the Church.
Given how influential Fatimism is in Trad circles, I would have thought that these issues should be of some concern.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PM
As for what is required of honesty. In a court of law it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That's still only an oath to answer the questions asked.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PMBut we know that Sr Lucy thought it more important to obey God than God's representatives, because she said so in her Memoir, as if a divine inspiration would advise a mystic to disobey the men of the Church.
You are aware that "men of the Church" might abuse their authority and act unlawfully, in any given case, right? Obviously it's possible for there to be conflict between a command issuing from a bishop or religious superior, and the will of God. Sacred history, the lives of the saints included, would be pretty boring (and without a lot of the merit it displays) if this were not a relatively common situation. St. John of the Cross was charged, tried, convicted and jailed - and nearly killed by neglect - by the Carmelites, and he decided in the end (after months of suffering) that he had a duty to escape. He did so, and he was right to do so. If memory serves, he obeyed an interior locution in the matter. These things are not as simple as you seem to think.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PMGiven how influential Fatimism is in Trad circles, I would have thought that these issues should be of some concern.
They are, but they must be examined in the light of sound doctrine.
I agree that Xavier is a sucker for private apparitions, and it's very dangerous. But he doesn't deserve the abuse he's getting, as far as I can tell, and it won't bring him to a more mature view anyway. Flies and vinegar and all that.
In the Immaculate,
Naz.
Quote from: dellery on January 23, 2020, 07:40:38 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 23, 2020, 11:38:03 AM
Xavier is an obstinate heretic who on another thread said that the authority of apparitions supersede that of the Catholic Church - which is literally heresy, and is expressly condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"."
Emphasis on the underlined portion. Sects which exist based on revelations which claim to correct or surpass the deposit of Faith.
Moreover, Xavier's ethos of unquestioning gullibility towards anything that appears supernatural in origin is not only at odds with the New Testament, which is stated in Galatians 1:8
But is fundamentally at odds with how the Church always approached these things.
One simply has to look to the story of Our Lady Guadalupe, Our Lady of Lourdes, and Saint Peter of Verona.
In Guadalupe, the Bishop commanded proof of the supernatural character of Guadalupe before approving of her commands; to which Our Lady herself complied. Our Lady didn't rebuke the Bishop for his faithlessness or his stiff-heart, she simply obeyed her commands.
In Lourdes, Saint Bernadette tested the apparition with Holy Water before listening to her.
In St. Peter of Veronica's case, an apparition of the Virgin Mary with the Child was telling people about the truth of Catharism; to which Saint Peter brought the Eucharist and commanded the apparition to "Adore Thy Son," to which the apparition vanished in a puff of black smoke.
Finally, one has to read Saint John of the Cross's work which commands his disciples to test every apparition, and essentially says to err of the side of caution rather than err of the side of carelessness.
We have every right to rebuke promoters of heresy.
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."
You have no power to judge somebody to be an obstinate heretic.
Such an idea is an outcrop of Protestantism and maybe even Americanism to a degree.
Since you think a lay-man has the authority to judge somebody as being a heretic, I could attack you for being a "heretic" and compel you to defend yourself thus entrenching you in your "heresy". Then after you've dug in and defended your position I could accuse you of being an obstinate heretic.
This is actually what I was planning to do to prove my point--the same thing you and others are doing to Xavier.
So let's be honest, nobody, that I've seen has issued Xavier any kind of charitable correction. It's mainly been attacks and insults, sloppily covered by a transparent mask of false-piety.
True charity includes roughness at points, much like a father disciplines his son. It's false piety to be all lovey-dovey all the time everywhere. In the past I've been cordial, but every kind of gesture and piety has been used by Xavier as a punching bag to prove "lol I'm right, for truly if you were right, you wouldn't be this cordial" (as if a homeless man were to give a coat to Xavier, he would beat up the homeless man and steal the shoes too).
Moreover, Xavier has incessantly accused those with whom he disagrees as being blasphemers against the Holy Spirit, haters of God, haters of Christ, haters of the Virgin Mary, disobedient rebels to Magisterial authority (when things aren't magisterial), in light of the fact that he's obviously in heresy. That's actually abusive and offensive.
Finally, he has purposely done things to troll people to the point that it's of way far greater probability he's doing what he's doing because he's a lonely miserable person who gets a kick out of messing whom he feels he is above (despite the fact that he's not).
I mean seriously, the dude is promoting select snippets of a notoriously modernist Bishop of the Orthodox Church
who does not represent Eastern Orthodoxy and whom
most Orthodox think is in schism. This Bishop, on other occasions, has rebuked other Bishops for writing in English instead of Greek and has said that the Greek ethnicity has a Divine primacy among other races. He
obviously does not represents Eastern Orthodoxy's theology as a whole.
Despite all of these facts, he promotes these snippets as if that's the de facto voice of Orthodoxy as a whole, for "gotcha" points in this community.
He obviously knows is false not only from the fact that I've personally corrected him multiple times on this issue, but he uses the term "Conciliar Church" like a condescending term to distinguish Catholicism from other conciliar organizations like...hm...Eastern Orthodoxy. Because
conciliarism implies there isn't a single source of epistemological certainty like the Pope of RomeAfter posting such articles, completely misrepresenting what the Orthodox Church actually believes in just for polemical "gotcha" points, much to the ire of those who actually believe there is such a thing called "objective Truth," an ideal we should honestly and integrally pursue,
he changes his profile picture to that Bishop and then says he's praying for re-union, to perpetually promote those snippetsSo I'm passed that point of lovey-doveyness. We are far past that point.
But fine, I'll recant calling Xavier a "heretic." Xavier, after being corrected on more than one occasion by multiple users on this forum, has still promoted heresy and deserves every rebuking, but you are right. I won't title him "heretic." And I'm done personally engaging with him, unless he's creating unnecessary toxicity, to which I'll rebuke him for it until he recants.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:06:53 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on January 23, 2020, 08:39:05 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 23, 2020, 11:38:03 AM
Xavier is an obstinate heretic who on another thread said that the authority of apparitions supersede that of the Catholic Church - which is literally heresy, and is expressly condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
TheReturnofLive, I don't agree with Xavier's judgement on various apparitions but I think you exaggerate his viewpoint. ASK HIM, POINT BLANK, do they supercede the authority of the Church? I personally would be a liar if I said he thinks they supercede the Church. I would need to see him make this explicit.
I also think he would agree with the CCC quote you made here:
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"
I would like to hear from him whether he agrees with this. Maybe his "sensus fidelium" is a little lacking and he is INSUFFICIENTLY guided by the Magisterium, but I don't see him entirely over- throwing the Magisterium in favor of apparitions. What do you say Xavier?
Xavier won't answer.
The teaching of the Church on private revelations has been pointed out to him several times, including by me.
Xavier just ignores it.
It's more than that.
He made his position clear:
Quote from: Xavier on January 22, 2020, 12:54:29 PMLet those who downplay Heavenly Interventions in favor of the Catholic Church learn from cause and effect how grave a thing it is to knowingly condemn the Divine Will for our times, and disregard as if it were nothing a Solemn Divine Command given by a God Who steps down from Heaven to save His Church or Her Kings or Shepherds. It was so with the Public Consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus by the Kings of Catholic France, and it is even more so with the Public Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by the Popes of the Catholic Church.
He literally says in this quote that those who promote the Catholic Church
instead of Heavenly Interventions are
condemning God's Will.
That's not something light to say. That's a
bold and outrageous statement that is "In Spiritu Antichristi"
Naz and Non, you have a Catholic spirit. Just re-read all the many sources I cited to see what the Church teaches, and how Awkward Customer is denying it, whereas Live doesn't even care what the Catholic Church teaches, as he is Orthodox, and denies the Immaculate Conception. Of course, I believe, what is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on private revelations; ask Live if he believes what is taught in that same Catechism on the Immaculate Conception. The reference to non-Christian religions and sects clearly refers e.g. to Islamism and Mormonism, it has nothing at all to do Our Lady of Fatima and the Wonderful Devotion to the Immaculate Heart She established, which is a Hallmark of Catholic Piety. And no ABC, Dellery is not a troll, but a brilliant man; I've read his posts and they are nothing as what you claim. You are the troll. Please understand, Non Nobis, why these people hate the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception - it proves it is the Orthodox who are in error and need to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Recall that Fatima is Heavenly Confirmation of the Immaculate Conception just as is Lourdes and that Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception are the First of Five Major Blasphemies for which the All-Immaculate Virgin showed us Her Wounded and Pierced Heart and asked us to Make Reparation on the First Five Saturdays. https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Our-Blessed-Mother/the-five-first-saturdays-devotion.html
Church's Position: "In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit;
humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby: 1) Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fátima, in this diocese, from 13 May to 13 October 1917. 2) Permit officially the belief of Our Lady of Fátima.", Bishop of Leiria-Fátima, 13 October 1930.
Please see this excellent book I found on Google Books (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2dHHCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&lpg=PT10&dq=When+a+person+of+such+outstanding+authority+as+the+late+Pope+Pius+XII+says+%27the+time+for+doubting+Fatima+is+past;+it+is+now+time+for+action%27,+then+reasonable+men&source=bl&ots=wXFdreg43Q&sig=ACfU3U3yD0K4pcRwutfWTH6YqUHTQQ8waw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi44qvr1JvnAhWJ4zgGHUSwCP4Q6AEwAHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=When%20a%20person%20of%20such%20outstanding%20authority%20as%20the%20late%20Pope%20Pius%20XII%20says%20'the%20time%20for%20doubting%20Fatima%20is%20past%3B%20it%20is%20now%20time%20for%20action'%2C%20then%20reasonable%20men&f=false) quoting Pope Pius XII and many Catholic Theologians, "Other notable Theologians echo the same theme. The Dutch Priest G. Van Noort wrote in his masterly book
Dogmatic Theology (vol 3. pg 215): "Such a revelation
ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
Agreeing with this truth, Fr. William A Hunnebusch, O.P. of the Dominican House of studies, [I'm typing all this out; it can't be copied] wrote in a letter to the North American House of FAtima (10 November 1963): ...
When a person of such outstanding authority as the late Pope Pius XII says "the time for doubting Fatima is past; it is now time for action", then reasonable men must stop and question whether reasonable evidence offered by reliable witnesses is behind the conviction.
For a CAtholic to deliberately close his mind to such a statement can hardly be without blame" [End Quote from the Book]
Now, 3 Brief Proofs from Catholic Authorities on the Catholic Attitude toward Catholic Apparitions:
The First Proof: From Pope Benedict XIV's teaching, "When the Church has examined and approved these visions,
no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." This statement of the Pope is very clear. The same is also quoted by St. A below.
The Second Proof: From St. Alphonsus's explanation "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." How do you reconcile this, Non Nobis and Nazianzen, with what AC is saying?
The Third Proof: From St. Louis Marie's guidance "Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories:
To stories of Holy Scripture we owe Divine faith;
To stories concerning other than religious subjects, which do not militate against common sense and which are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of human faith; whereas
To stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in the slightest degree contrary to reason, faith or morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary run of events)
we pay the tribute of pious faith.
I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical and that we should remember that "virtue takes the middle course"—keeping 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 . . . believeth all things;"9 in the same way pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in the Bible.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.". https://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/rosary/rosary.shtml
Please let us all reflect on what these 3 CAtholic authorities have taught us.
Let them answer this question. Do you believe the 1917 Fatima Apparitions from May 13 to October 13 are supernatural in origin or not? It is pious to believe it, and we believe it on pious faith. This is the human assent of piety spoken of by St. Alphonsus, St. Montfort and the Pope Benedict XIV.
They hate me, Non Nobis, because I promote the Catholic Faith on OrthodoxChristianity.net and other places, on the Immaculate Conception and other matters. You saw that Live's another accusation against me is that I want, and am praying for working for, Patriarch Bartholomew to return to the Catholic Church above - well, what Roman Catholic who loves the Faith would not pray and work for that?
Quote from: Livehe changes his profile picture to that Bishop and then says he's praying for re-union
In Constantinople, they trapped one of those earlier Bishops Patriarch Bekkus who was favorable to Re-Union and Holy Union with the Roman Catholic Church shortly after Lyons II. Re-Union should have been complete long ago. The hatred for Patriarch Bartholomew also comes from the same reason - Live fears above all things that Millions of our dear separated brother and sister Orthodox Christians may happily return to the Roman Catholic Church.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 23, 2020, 10:12:48 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PM
As for what is required of honesty. In a court of law it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That's still only an oath to answer the questions asked.
And which questions were asked of Sr Lucy at the Canonical Enquiry?
Was she asked to describe the apparitions and locutions she had received? This sounds likely.
And did she reply with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. Sr Lucy told the Canonical Enquiry about the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria, but said nothing about the Secrets and the 1916 Angel Apparitions.
But hey, if that's good enough for you .....
It certainly wasn't good enough for Dr Galamba who Sr Lucy quotes in her Fourth Memoir of 1941.
Quote
"Command her, Your Excellency," he [Dr Galamba] 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
file:///C:/Users/moyra/Desktop/MemoriasI_en.pdf p168
Still, despite our difference of opinion on the matter of honesty while under oath, we at least agree that the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions have not been approved by the Church.
Quote
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PMBut we know that Sr Lucy thought it more important to obey God than God's representatives, because she said so in her Memoir, as if a divine inspiration would advise a mystic to disobey the men of the Church.
You are aware that "men of the Church" might abuse their authority and act unlawfully, in any given case, right? Obviously it's possible for there to be conflict between a command issuing from a bishop or religious superior, and the will of God. Sacred history, the lives of the saints included, would be pretty boring (and without a lot of the merit it displays) if this were not a relatively common situation. St. John of the Cross was charged, tried, convicted and jailed - and nearly killed by neglect - by the Carmelites, and he decided in the end (after months of suffering) that he had a duty to escape. He did so, and he was right to do so. If memory serves, he obeyed an interior locution in the matter. These things are not as simple as you seem to think.
Did St John of the Cross withhold information from a Canonical Enquiry while under oath?
Quote
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PMGiven how influential Fatimism is in Trad circles, I would have thought that these issues should be of some concern.
They are, but they must be examined in the light of sound doctrine.
I agree that Xavier is a sucker for private apparitions, and it's very dangerous. But he doesn't deserve the abuse he's getting, as far as I can tell, and it won't bring him to a more mature view anyway. Flies and vinegar and all that.
Xavier hurls all manner of insults at those who don't accept the Fatimist version of reality. That would include you, by the way, since you have already stated that you don't believe that the Secrets and Angel Apparitions have been approved.
Xavier needs a good talking too, and being enabled won't help him in the slightest. And given the hold that Fatimism has on the Trad movement, and the fact that the SSPX and other Trad groups still adhere to it, I suggest that examining Fatimism "in the light of sound doctrine" hasn't even begun.
Quote from: Xavier on January 24, 2020, 01:15:29 AM
Naz and Non, you have a Catholic spirit. Just re-read all the many sources I cited to see what the Church teaches, and how Awkward Customer is denying it, whereas Live doesn't even care what the Catholic Church teaches, as he is Orthodox, and denies the Immaculate Conception. Of course, I believe, what is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on private revelations; ask Live if he believes what is taught in that same Catechism on the Immaculate Conception. The reference to non-Christian religions and sects clearly refers e.g. to Islamism and Mormonism, it has nothing at all to do Our Lady of Fatima and the Wonderful Devotion to the Immaculate Heart She established, which is a Hallmark of Catholic Piety. And no ABC, Dellery is not a troll, but a brilliant man; I've read his posts and they are nothing as what you claim. You are the troll. Please understand, Non Nobis, why these people hate the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception - it proves it is the Orthodox who are in error and need to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Recall that Fatima is Heavenly Confirmation of the Immaculate Conception just as is Lourdes and that Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception are the First of Five Major Blasphemies for which the All-Immaculate Virgin showed us Her Wounded and Pierced Heart and asked us to Make Reparation on the First Five Saturdays. https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Our-Blessed-Mother/the-five-first-saturdays-devotion.html
Church's Position: "In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby: 1) Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fátima, in this diocese, from 13 May to 13 October 1917. 2) Permit officially the belief of Our Lady of Fátima.", Bishop of Leiria-Fátima, 13 October 1930.
Please see this excellent book I found on Google Books (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2dHHCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&lpg=PT10&dq=When+a+person+of+such+outstanding+authority+as+the+late+Pope+Pius+XII+says+%27the+time+for+doubting+Fatima+is+past;+it+is+now+time+for+action%27,+then+reasonable+men&source=bl&ots=wXFdreg43Q&sig=ACfU3U3yD0K4pcRwutfWTH6YqUHTQQ8waw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi44qvr1JvnAhWJ4zgGHUSwCP4Q6AEwAHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=When%20a%20person%20of%20such%20outstanding%20authority%20as%20the%20late%20Pope%20Pius%20XII%20says%20'the%20time%20for%20doubting%20Fatima%20is%20past%3B%20it%20is%20now%20time%20for%20action'%2C%20then%20reasonable%20men&f=false) quoting Pope Pius XII and many Catholic Theologians, "Other notable Theologians echo the same theme. The Dutch Priest G. Van Noort wrote in his masterly book Dogmatic Theology (vol 3. pg 215): "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
Agreeing with this truth, Fr. William A Hunnebusch, O.P. of the Dominican House of studies, [I'm typing all this out; it can't be copied] wrote in a letter to the North American House of FAtima (10 November 1963): ... When a person of such outstanding authority as the late Pope Pius XII says "the time for doubting Fatima is past; it is now time for action", then reasonable men must stop and question whether reasonable evidence offered by reliable witnesses is behind the conviction. For a CAtholic to deliberately close his mind to such a statement can hardly be without blame" [End Quote from the Book]
Now, 3 Brief Proofs from Catholic Authorities on the Catholic Attitude toward Catholic Apparitions:
The First Proof: From Pope Benedict XIV's teaching, "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." This statement of the Pope is very clear. The same is also quoted by St. A below.
The Second Proof: From St. Alphonsus's explanation "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." How do you reconcile this, Non Nobis and Nazianzen, with what AC is saying?
The Third Proof: From St. Louis Marie's guidance "Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories:
To stories of Holy Scripture we owe Divine faith;
To stories concerning other than religious subjects, which do not militate against common sense and which are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of human faith; whereas
To stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in the slightest degree contrary to reason, faith or morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary run of events) we pay the tribute of pious faith.
I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical and that we should remember that "virtue takes the middle course"—keeping 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 . . . believeth all things;"9 in the same way pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in the Bible.
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.". https://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/rosary/rosary.shtml
Please let us all reflect on what these 3 CAtholic authorities have taught us.
Let them answer this question. Do you believe the 1917 Fatima Apparitions from May 13 to October 13 are supernatural in origin or not? It is pious to believe it, and we believe it on pious faith. This is the human assent of piety spoken of by St. Alphonsus, St. Montfort and the Pope Benedict XIV.
They hate me, Non Nobis, because I promote the Catholic Faith on OrthodoxChristianity.net and other places, on the Immaculate Conception and other matters. You saw that Live's another accusation against me is that I want, and am praying for working for, Patriarch Bartholomew to return to the Catholic Church above - well, what Roman Catholic who loves the Faith would not pray and work for that?
Quote from: Livehe changes his profile picture to that Bishop and then says he's praying for re-union
In Constantinople, they trapped one of those earlier Bishops Patriarch Bekkus who was favorable to Re-Union and Holy Union with the Roman Catholic Church shortly after Lyons II. Re-Union should have been complete long ago. The hatred for Patriarch Bartholomew also comes from the same reason - Live fears above all things that Millions of our dear separated brother and sister Orthodox Christians may happily return to the Roman Catholic Church.
Have I ever said or implied I "hated" the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?
I've made my position quite clear that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is an answer to a question posed by the developing of Western dogma, based on the Tradition that the Holy Spirit sanctified the Virgin Mary from the first moment of her conception, which you can find in the Church Fathers.
And again, you slander me with Patriarch Bartholomew. Patriarch Bartholomew has started promoting an almost Nazi view of ethnosupremacy and teaching that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church are not different from each other.
I can show you these quotes if you really want.
Re-union cannot happen with compromise. I would be fine with re-union between the two organizations if it was done legitimately; if the bhishops got their hands dirty, and figured it out. As of now, both Francis and Bartholomew have promoted the idea that they are the same Church, which shows a great disregard and contempt for dogma, and can only be bad considering that there are a multitude of issues that need to be resolved - Filioque, Absolute Divine Simplicity, Papal Infallibility, liturgics, etc.
Xavier, will you admit that the Catholic Church's judgment is supreme over apparitions?
I should state my views.
I accept that Fatima is an approved apparition, and that it's important. I don't think we can safely ignore it.
I am waiting to discover whether the later messages (including all of what others have called the "political" messages) are approved, and if so at what level.
Nevertheless, I think they are probably from heaven, and I have recently decided to do the Five First Saturdays (not that it's any big deal, as I go to mass on Saturdays anyway).
I am not convinced by Dr. Chojnowski's theory, but am open to it. I like how he is approaching it, scientifically and with prudence.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 23, 2020, 10:12:48 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PM
As for what is required of honesty. In a court of law it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That's still only an oath to answer the questions asked.
And which questions were asked of Sr Lucy at the Canonical Enquiry?
Since we don't know, we cannot draw any conclusions. I think you do draw conclusions, and I don't think you should.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Was she asked to describe the apparitions and locutions she had received? This sounds likely.
Pure speculation, and of no value in achieving certitude.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AMAnd did she reply with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. Sr Lucy told the Canonical Enquiry about the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria, but said nothing about the Secrets and the 1916 Angel Apparitions.
But hey, if that's good enough for you .....
That's a straw man. What's good enough for me is the level of certitude I can achieve, whether that's complete or not on any given question, according to prayerful contemplation of reliable data. In this case we don't have the evidence to support your judgement, and you must know that, and a sign that you are conscious of it is your unnecessary further statement that an obvious straw man is "good enough for" me.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AMIt certainly wasn't good enough for Dr Galamba who Sr Lucy quotes in her Fourth Memoir of 1941.
Is Dr. Galamba your infallible guide in these things? Is his opinion now superior to any other? What makes his opinion so important to you?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AMQuote
"Command her, Your Excellency," he [Dr Galamba] 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
I saw above that you or somebody else was trying to make something of the order in which the two sources of commands are given by Sister Lucy, as though she had really said, "I obey interior voices, THEN I obey the Church (if it doesn't contradict my interior lights)." But that's not what she said. She is merely stating that she has obeyed God and the Church, and placed them in their correct order. We must obey God rather than man, we are taught, yet only when there's a conflict; in this expression of Sr. Lucy's, there's not even any suggestion of any conflict, so there's nothing to criticise. If she had said, "I have obeyed the Church first, and God second," no doubt there would be partisans attacking her for reversing the proper theological order, denying that we must obey God rather than man.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Still, despite our difference of opinion on the matter of honesty while under oath, we at least agree that the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions have not been approved by the Church.
No, we don't agree on that. I am not saying these are non-approved. I am saying I haven't seen the approval. I am nescient. But I think that there must have been episcopal approval, rather than Roman approval, or the Five First Saturdays for example could not have the non-controversial devotion that they were. Likewise the treatment of the so-called Third Secret. It was treated with tremendous respect. Think about the course of events if it were not - the bishop or the pope would have just read it, decided on its credibility and likely source (divine or demonic), and then approved or condemned it, even if it were not yet released publicly. But none of that was done. It was kept sealed in an envelope, and transmitted to Rome, where the pope himself kept it in a wooden safe next to his bed. Extraordinary.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Quote
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PMBut we know that Sr Lucy thought it more important to obey God than God's representatives, because she said so in her Memoir, as if a divine inspiration would advise a mystic to disobey the men of the Church.
You are aware that "men of the Church" might abuse their authority and act unlawfully, in any given case, right? Obviously it's possible for there to be conflict between a command issuing from a bishop or religious superior, and the will of God. Sacred history, the lives of the saints included, would be pretty boring (and without a lot of the merit it displays) if this were not a relatively common situation. St. John of the Cross was charged, tried, convicted and jailed - and nearly killed by neglect - by the Carmelites, and he decided in the end (after months of suffering) that he had a duty to escape. He did so, and he was right to do so. If memory serves, he obeyed an interior locution in the matter. These things are not as simple as you seem to think.
Did St John of the Cross withhold information from a Canonical Enquiry while under oath?
I've no doubt Fr. John of the Cross employed his native guile on occasion, even in his trial, as he was innocent, his accusers were acting in bad faith, and he was not a fool. We are to be wise as serpents as well as peaceful as doves.
The point is that it isn't as simple as saying, Sr. Lucy concealed things, therefore she was bad. No, concealing things can be meritorious. It can also annoy people who just want to get to the truth, and who aren't the one with the problem of conscience posed by being told by Our Lady to keep a secret, and then being questioned by lawful authority about things close to that secret. No doubt Dr Galamba was one of those. He was
morally entitled to be annoyed, and he was also quite possibly entirely mistaken in his views, and had no need to be annoyed, no
objective basis for being so. You could be a saint, and mistaken for thinking that you have the right to certain information, and virtuously annoyed that you can't get it. Just like you can be a saint, and think that a non-pope is pope, as happened in the Great Western Schism.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
And given the hold that Fatimism has on the Trad movement, and the fact that the SSPX and other Trad groups still adhere to it, I suggest that examining Fatimism "in the light of sound doctrine" hasn't even begun.
Well, the SSPX generally promotes what we can probably agree is the "original" Fatima message, prayer and sacrifice for sinners, the Rosary, devotion to the Immaculate Heart. So that's all non-controversial and to be applauded, I think. I also consider that the Five First Saturdays fit that model and that makes them credible and non-harmful. Likewise, the SSPX promotes the
Militia Immaculatae of Maximilian Kolbe, which seems to me to be a fruit of Fatima and in line with it (i.e. with the original messages). I'm a member of the MI, I thoroughly approve of it. Kolbe was something else, and clearly sent by Providence and given industrial-scale graces!
The "political" side of Fatima was really the focus of the Fr. Gruner programme, or at least a big part of it. I think the SSPX is generally pretty prudent about these things, not easily sucked in, even if occasionally some of the priests get ahead of the curve.
In the Immaculate,
Naz.
Nazianzen, if we read Msgr. Van Noort and Rev. Father Hunnebusch, whom I researched and cited above, we clearly see, we cannot completely disregard Our Lady's revelations to Saints and directions for our times without some sort of sin; a fortiori, it necessarily follows, it's an even greater sin to dare to condemn them or even call them diabolical, as some greatly misled souls here do. We've seen the texts from Pope Benedict XIV that we are no longer allowed to doubt the supernatural origin of what our Mother Church has approved. Next, the Holy Father also said we are to give a human assent by which revelations are to be piously believed as credible. This is what the holy Teachers of the Faith and the great Saints of God call the assent of pious faith, by which supernatural revelations the Saints occupy a place between the absolutely certain facts of Dogma and the morally certain facts of history (to the latter we give a purely human faith; whereas pious faith, which is the mean between the two, although it is distinct from divine faith, approaches it, and tends toward increasing piety, and advancing the Devotion of the Faithful). Just look how many Popes Saints, Doctors and Theologians I already cited whereas my opponents cite nothing.
Then, Pope Pius XII clearly teaches us that the time for doubting Fatima is past; which means we are not allowed to doubt it any longer. Next, St. Alphonsus clearly teaches us that refusing to believe such supernatural revelations often springs from naked infidelity, which refuses to believe in the Heavenly Interventions of God in favor of His Catholic Church.
It can also spring from total presumption, which refuses belief to extremely weighty, well-studied and learned Theologians who have handed this down to us; all Catholics believed in Fatima before a few years ago, when still a very small minority calls it into question nearly 100 years after the Apparitions. That is the teaching of St. Alphonsus. He says the good are as ready to believe Miracles as the bad are to deride them. Next, St. Montfort speaks of pious faith, and says Charity induces us to believe all that is not contrary to faith and morals. He explains it is the devil's trap, which heretics who rejected Tradition fell into, to induce us to doubt even well authenticated Miracles in the Lives of the Saints. And the great Saint says this comes from a spirit of pride where, people led by an excessive spirit of independence unwilling to believe as the vast majority of Catholics so, reject whatever is not to their liking, or that which they don't understand.
Live, I know very well what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is precisely what I am defending here, in the face of opposition, from those who do not understand, or those who do not believe in the Catholic. I already said I completely believe in what is taught in the Catechism, and let me say again, I fully agree with the Catechism's explanation on it. It's you who are rejecting all the Popes from Pope Benedict XIV to Pope Pius XII at least who taught us to accept what the Catholic Church approves on pious faith, to increase devotion; and therefore not to doubt Fatima, but to believe it and to promote it, so that millions of souls can be saved, as St. Maximillian showed, with his wonderful Militia Immaculata, and apostolic actions. The salvation of some 300 Million Orthodox Christians, and the safe and speedy return of Russia and the separated Churches to the obedience of the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter in Rome, could very well depend on an authentic Catholic and "Maximillianian" response to Our Lady of Fatima. That's why it's so important, because souls are precious to Jesus Christ and His Immaculate Mother. And it so greatly advances the devotion, piety, holiness of the Catholic Faithful and confirms them in the Faith.
St. Thomas Aquinas: "The books of those prophets are still venerated amongst us, as bearing testimony to our faith. This argument is touched upon in the text: Which (salvation) having begun to be uttered by the Lord, was confirmed by them that heard him even unto us, God joining in the testimony by signs and portents and various distributions of the Holy Spirit (Heb. ii, 3, 4). This so wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is so certain a sign of past miracles, that they need no further reiteration, since they appear evidently in their effects. It would be more wonderful than all other miracles, if without miraculous signs the world had been induced by simple and low-born men to believe truths so arduous, to do works so difficult, to hope for reward so high. And yet even in our times God ceases not through His saints to work miracles for the confirmation of the faith.*" https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/scgbk1chap1-9.htm
CCC 66-67 "66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church."
Quote from: Xavier on January 24, 2020, 01:15:29 AMPlease see this excellent book I found on Google Books quoting Pope Pius XII and many Catholic Theologians, "Other notable Theologians echo the same theme. The Dutch Priest G. Van Noort wrote in his masterly book Dogmatic Theology (vol 3. pg 215): "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
This is called
begging the question.
QuoteAgreeing with this truth, Fr. William A Hunnebusch, O.P. of the Dominican House of studies, [I'm typing all this out; it can't be copied] wrote in a letter to the North American House of FAtima (10 November 1963): ... When a person of such outstanding authority as the late Pope Pius XII says "the time for doubting Fatima is past; it is now time for action", then reasonable men must stop and question whether reasonable evidence offered by reliable witnesses is behind the conviction. For a CAtholic to deliberately close his mind to such a statement can hardly be without blame" [End Quote from the Book]
Nobody here has closed his mind to such statements; we have assessed them, reasonably, in light of the available evidence.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 24, 2020, 11:15:48 PM
I should state my views.
I accept that Fatima is an approved apparition, and that it's important. I don't think we can safely ignore it.
I am waiting to discover whether the later messages (including all of what others have called the "political" messages) are approved, and if so at what level.
Nevertheless, I think they are probably from heaven, and I have recently decided to do the Five First Saturdays (not that it's any big deal, as I go to mass on Saturdays anyway).
I am not convinced by Dr. Chojnowski's theory, but am open to it. I like how he is approaching it, scientifically and with prudence.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 23, 2020, 10:12:48 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PM
As for what is required of honesty. In a court of law it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That's still only an oath to answer the questions asked.
And which questions were asked of Sr Lucy at the Canonical Enquiry?
Since we don't know, we cannot draw any conclusions. I think you do draw conclusions, and I don't think you should.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Was she asked to describe the apparitions and locutions she had received? This sounds likely.
Pure speculation, and of no value in achieving certitude.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AMAnd did she reply with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. Sr Lucy told the Canonical Enquiry about the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria, but said nothing about the Secrets and the 1916 Angel Apparitions.
But hey, if that's good enough for you .....
That's a straw man. What's good enough for me is the level of certitude I can achieve, whether that's complete or not on any given question, according to prayerful contemplation of reliable data. In this case we don't have the evidence to support your judgement, and you must know that, and a sign that you are conscious of it is your unnecessary further statement that an obvious straw man is "good enough for" me.
Okay, let's stick to the facts. Facts matter more than your dissections of my statements and assessments of my motives.
The 1917 Fatima appartitions in the Cova da Iria are approved.
Sr Lucy did not tell the Canonical Enquiry about the Secrets and the 1916 Angel Apparitions.
Here is a copy of the 1930 Approval Letter from the Bishop of Leiria.
Quote
October 13, 1930
A Pastoral Letter
... In virtue of the ideas expressed and others which we are omitting for the sake of brevity, humbly invoking the Divine Holy Spirit and confident of the protection of the Most Holy Mary, and after hearing the Reverend Consultants of this our Diocese:
We judge it right:
1) to declare as worthy of credence the visions of the children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, of the Diocese, on the thirteenth day of each month from May to October 1917.
2) to permit, ex officio, the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.
It remains for us, beloved brethren in Our Lord, to warn you that, if, for us, it is a great reason for joy and consolation, this grace that the Most Holy Virgin has granted us, greater is the obligation on us to correspond with Her goodness.
... We recommend to you, dearest brethren, in a special manner, affection for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, devotion to the Most Holy Virgin, to St. Joseph, to the holy souls in Purgatory, to the daily recitation of at least five decades of the Rosary, avoidance of sins of the flesh, of immodest attire and immoral readings; the practice of penance, which Jesus so much insisted on, and the Virgin, Our Lady recalled so much to mind; charity towards all our brethren and principally towards the sick and the poor.
... This Pastoral Letter of ours is to be sent to the Reverend Parish Priests to be read and explained to the faithful in the customary manner.
Leiria, October 13, 1930
+ Joseph, Bishop of Leiria
Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing the results of your search for a formal approval of the Fatima Secrets and Angel Apparitions.
Quote
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AMIt certainly wasn't good enough for Dr Galamba who Sr Lucy quotes in her Fourth Memoir of 1941.
Is Dr. Galamba your infallible guide in these things? Is his opinion now superior to any other? What makes his opinion so important to you?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AMQuote
"Command her, Your Excellency," he [Dr Galamba] 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
I saw above that you or somebody else was trying to make something of the order in which the two sources of commands are given by Sister Lucy, as though she had really said, "I obey interior voices, THEN I obey the Church (if it doesn't contradict my interior lights)." But that's not what she said. She is merely stating that she has obeyed God and the Church, and placed them in their correct order. We must obey God rather than man, we are taught, yet only when there's a conflict; in this expression of Sr. Lucy's, there's not even any suggestion of any conflict, so there's nothing to criticise. If she had said, "I have obeyed the Church first, and God second," no doubt there would be partisans attacking her for reversing the proper theological order, denying that we must obey God rather than man.
Of course Sr Lucy really said, "I obey interior voices, THEN I obey the Church (if it doesn't contradict my interior lights)." She said it herself - "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."
She obeyed the 'Holy Spirit' firstly, who told her not to inform the Canonical Enquiry of the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions, for what possible reason there is no explanation. Then when the 'Holy Spirit' gave her permission, she obeyed the Church.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Canonical Enquiry did not ask Sr Lucy to tell all that has been revealed to her. I just haven't got round to hunting down the text of the oath she took, even if it still exists.
But what does your common sense tell you? And why aren't alarm bells ringing for you?
As for speculating, here's a speculation. The voice whispering in Sr Lucy's ear wanted Church approval for the harmless 1917 Cova da Iria apparitions. Only then were the Secrets to be revealed on the back of that approval, the Secrets which have tied Catholics, particularly Trads, in knots for decades.
Quote
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Still, despite our difference of opinion on the matter of honesty while under oath, we at least agree that the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions have not been approved by the Church.
No, we don't agree on that. I am not saying these are non-approved. I am saying I haven't seen the approval. I am nescient. But I think that there must have been episcopal approval, rather than Roman approval, or the Five First Saturdays for example could not have the non-controversial devotion that they were. Likewise the treatment of the so-called Third Secret. It was treated with tremendous respect. Think about the course of events if it were not - the bishop or the pope would have just read it, decided on its credibility and likely source (divine or demonic), and then approved or condemned it, even if it were not yet released publicly. But none of that was done. It was kept sealed in an envelope, and transmitted to Rome, where the pope himself kept it in a wooden safe next to his bed. Extraordinary.
You think there must have been episcopal approval of the Secrets and Angel Apparitions?
Where is it then?
As for the Third Secret being treated with "tremendous respect", surely the Vatican has rightly tried to keep a lid on the Secrets, to diffuse the situation, to put the Secrets issue to bed. After all, they haven't carried out the Consecration, have they?
They have paid lip service to the non-approved Secrets.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 24, 2020, 11:15:48 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
Quote
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 23, 2020, 09:22:10 PMBut we know that Sr Lucy thought it more important to obey God than God's representatives, because she said so in her Memoir, as if a divine inspiration would advise a mystic to disobey the men of the Church.
You are aware that "men of the Church" might abuse their authority and act unlawfully, in any given case, right? Obviously it's possible for there to be conflict between a command issuing from a bishop or religious superior, and the will of God. Sacred history, the lives of the saints included, would be pretty boring (and without a lot of the merit it displays) if this were not a relatively common situation. St. John of the Cross was charged, tried, convicted and jailed - and nearly killed by neglect - by the Carmelites, and he decided in the end (after months of suffering) that he had a duty to escape. He did so, and he was right to do so. If memory serves, he obeyed an interior locution in the matter. These things are not as simple as you seem to think.
Did St John of the Cross withhold information from a Canonical Enquiry while under oath?
I've no doubt Fr. John of the Cross employed his native guile on occasion, even in his trial, as he was innocent, his accusers were acting in bad faith, and he was not a fool. We are to be wise as serpents as well as peaceful as doves.
The point is that it isn't as simple as saying, Sr. Lucy concealed things, therefore she was bad. No, concealing things can be meritorious. It can also annoy people who just want to get to the truth, and who aren't the one with the problem of conscience posed by being told by Our Lady to keep a secret, and then being questioned by lawful authority about things close to that secret. No doubt Dr Galamba was one of those. He was morally entitled to be annoyed, and he was also quite possibly entirely mistaken in his views, and had no need to be annoyed, no objective basis for being so. You could be a saint, and mistaken for thinking that you have the right to certain information, and virtuously annoyed that you can't get it. Just like you can be a saint, and think that a non-pope is pope, as happened in the Great Western Schism.
In what way could the men of the Church be said to be abusing their power in their investigation of Fatima?
It wasn't until the 1930 Approval was in the bag that Sr Lucy started revealing snippets about additional apparitions. And not until 1941 that she revealed the First and Second Secrets. And of course, the Third Secret wasn't to be revealed until 1960.
What a game Sr Lucy played, not forgetting the voices whispering in her ear.
As I asked above - why aren't alarm bells ringing for you?
Quote
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 24, 2020, 07:31:34 AM
And given the hold that Fatimism has on the Trad movement, and the fact that the SSPX and other Trad groups still adhere to it, I suggest that examining Fatimism "in the light of sound doctrine" hasn't even begun.
Well, the SSPX generally promotes what we can probably agree is the "original" Fatima message, prayer and sacrifice for sinners, the Rosary, devotion to the Immaculate Heart. So that's all non-controversial and to be applauded, I think. I also consider that the Five First Saturdays fit that model and that makes them credible and non-harmful. Likewise, the SSPX promotes the Militia Immaculatae of Maximilian Kolbe, which seems to me to be a fruit of Fatima and in line with it (i.e. with the original messages). I'm a member of the MI, I thoroughly approve of it. Kolbe was something else, and clearly sent by Providence and given industrial-scale graces!
The "political" side of Fatima was really the focus of the Fr. Gruner programme, or at least a big part of it. I think the SSPX is generally pretty prudent about these things, not easily sucked in, even if occasionally some of the priests get ahead of the curve.
In the Immaculate,
Naz.
Have you read the OP? The SSPX, like all the Trad groups I have known, promotes the non-approved Secrets. How can you say they don't?
They have been well and truly sucked in.
And by the way, Nazianzen, here's the real smoking gun.
Communism was not an error of Russia.
Communism was born in the West and imposed on Russia by force.
What a beautiful statement from Bp. Joseph 13 years after the events on October the 13th: http://www.1260.org/Mary/Apparitions_Fatima/Fatima_Apparition_Approval_en.htm "It remains for us, beloved brethren in Our Lord, to warn you that, if, for us, it is a great reason for joy and consolation, this grace that the Most Holy Virgin has granted us, greater is the obligation on us to correspond with Her goodness." So, it is a Great Grace, and a Greater Obligation incumbent upon us, to correspond to the Maternal Goodness of the Immaculate Heart of the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God, Our Lady Mary. Our Lady of Fatima's Apparition was a Great and Priceless Grace from God for His Church. He has not done in like manner for every people, as the Sacred Scripture says, but He gives such Great Graces for His Catholic Church.
Here's the history of the event: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/getting-fatima-right
"In 1915, as World War I raged in Europe, a Portuguese girl saw something strange in the sky.
The girl—Lucia dos Santos—was seven years old and lived near the town of Fatima. One day, as she was tending her family's sheep along with three other girls, they began to say the rosary and saw a strange sight.
In the second of four memoirs she would write, Lucia recalled: "We saw a figure poised in the air above the trees; it looked like a statue made of snow, rendered almost transparent by the rays of the sun." She also wrote, "It looked like a person wrapped up in a sheet."
They did not know what to make of the sight, and it vanished when they finished praying. The same thing happened on two more occasions.
The angel of peace
In the spring of 1916, Lucia and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Martos (then 7 and 6) began seeing an angel.
It appeared as "a young man, about fourteen or fifteen years old, whiter than snow, transparent as crystal when the sun shines through it, and of great beauty."
The angel identified itself as "the angel of peace" and as the guardian angel of Portugal. Lucia understood it to be the same figure she had seen in the sky.
The angel appeared to the children on three occasions, taught them prayers, and during the last appearance showed them a host and chalice that hung miraculously in the air. It then gave them Holy Communion.
'I am from heaven'
On May 13, 1917, the three were again tending their sheep when they perceived what they thought was a flash of lightning. As they hurried home, there was another flash, and they beheld a beautiful woman in a hemlock tree that grew in a field known as the Cova da Iria.
"We beheld a Lady all dressed in white. She was more brilliant than the sun and radiated a light more clear and intense than a crystal glass filled with sparkling water, when the rays of the burning sun shine through it" (Fourth Memoir).
When asked where she was from, the Lady replied, "I am from heaven." She requested that the children return to the spot once a month for six months.
She also informed the children that they would go to heaven, and she asked if they were wiling to offer themselves to God and bear the sufferings he would send them, in reparation for sin and the conversion of sinners. They replied they would.
She also told them: "Pray the rosary every day, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war."
"Jesus wishes to make use of you"
When the Lady reappeared the next month, Lucia asked her to take the three children to heaven, and she replied, "I will take Jacinta and Francisco soon. But you are to stay here some time longer. Jesus wishes to make use of you to make me known and loved. He wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart."
This prediction was fulfilled. In 1918, toward the end of the war, a global flu pandemic took the lives of millions. Among them were Francisco, who died in 1919, and Jacinta, who died in 1920. Lucia would not die until 2005 at the age of 97.
A secret revealed
At the July apparition, the Lady promised that, in October, she would identify herself and perform a miracle so that all might see and believe.
She also gave the children a secret, which included a vision of hell that caused Lucia to cry out. Afterward, the Lady said:
"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. 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. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.
"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved; etc. . . . Do not tell this to anybody."
Arrested
The children were prevented from returning to the site on August 13 because the local mayor—an opponent of the apparitions—had the young visionaries arrested. Despite threatening them, he was unable to get them either to admit that they were lying or to reveal the secret.
Pilgrims who had gathered at the site of the apparitions reported strange phenomena. Some said they saw a blue and white cloud descend and then ascend again, some reported lightning, and some reported seeing our Lady.
'A chapel that is to be built'
Since the children had not been able to come to the site of the apparitions on August 13, the Lady appeared to them a few days later.
When asked what should be done with money that pilgrims were leaving at the apparition site, she indicated that two processional litters should be made for the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, adding, "What is left over will help toward the construction of a chapel that is to be built here."
On September 13, large crowds of pilgrims greeted the children and urged them to present their petitions to the Lady.
As the children and the crowd prayed the rosary, she appeared, this time promising, "In October our Lord will come, as well as Our Lady of Dolors and Our Lady of Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world."
The miracle of the sun
On October 13, the Lady said, "I am the Lady of the Rosary. Continue always to pray the rosary every day. The war is going to end, and the soldiers will soon return to their homes."
According to Lucia, the Lady opened her hands, "made them reflect on the sun, and as she ascended, the reflection of her own light continued to be projected on the sun itself."
Lucia then called for people to look at the sun, and an event called "the miracle of the sun" occurred. Although not everyone claimed to see the phenomenon, numerous individuals reported that the sun appeared to change colors, spin, and "dance" in the sky.
In the wake of this event, the children reported visions of St. Joseph, the Child Jesus, and our Lady in various guises, including Our Lady of Dolors and Our Lady of Carmel, as had been promised.
First Saturdays devotion
In the July 1917 apparition, the Lady had indicated that she would request a devotion involving the First Saturdays of the months.
This request was made on December 10, 1925, when Lucia was a novice among the Dorothean Sisters. On that day, Sr. Lucia experienced an apparition of the Virgin Mary and the Child Jesus, in which Mary said:
"All those who during five months, on the first Saturday, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say a rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes, meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the rosary for the intention of making reparation to me, I promise to assist them at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for the salvation of their souls" (Documents on Fatima & the Memoirs of Sister Lucia, 279-280).
On January 15, 1926, she experienced an apparition of the Child Jesus, asking if she had spread this devotion, which has come to be known as the First Saturdays devotion.
Consecration requested, apparitions approved
The July 1917 apparition also indicated a request would be made for the consecration of Russia, and this was done on June 13, 1929. On that night, Sr. Lucia experience a vision of the Holy Trinity and the Virgin Mary, in which Mary said:
"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means" (Documents on Fatima & the Memoirs of Sister Lucia, 393-394).
On October 13, 1930, the bishop of Leiria, Portugal—in whose territory Fatima lies—granted formal approval for the 1917 apparitions, declaring "as worthy of credence the visions of the children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, of this diocese, on the thirteenth day of each month from May to October 1917" (Documents on Fatima & the Memoirs of Sister Lucia, 290).
"An unknown light"
In the July 1917 apparition, the Lady stated that the war (World War I) would end but that a worse one could break out in the reign of Pius XI, who would not be elected until 1922. The sign presaging this event was to be "a night illumined by an unknown light."
On the night of January 25-26, 1938, an extraordinary display of the aurora borealis was widely visible in Europe. In her Third Memoir, Sr. Lucia interpreted this as the sign indicating the new war was close.
World War II broke out the following year.
The third part of the secret
Between 1935 and 1941, Sr. Lucia wrote a series of four memoirs concerning the 1917 apparitions and her cousins.
In the Third Memoir, she revealed the first two parts of the secret they had been given on July 13, 1917: the vision of hell and the material concerning Russia and the pope, along with the forthcoming requests for the First Saturdays devotion and the consecration of Russia.
However, she did not reveal the third part at that time. On January 3, 1944, at the request of her bishop, Sr. Lucia did record it, placing the text in a sealed envelope, which in 1957 was transferred to the Holy See.
Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the "secret" to the then bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sr. Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the patriarch of Lisbon or the bishop of Leiria. Archbishop Bertone therefore asked: "Why only after 1960? Was it our Lady who fixed that date?" Sr. Lucia replied: "It was not our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood" (The Message of Fatima; all subsequent quotations are taken from this document).
When 1960 came, the Holy See chose not to reveal the third part of the secret.
Assassination attempt
On May 13, 1981—the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition—a Turkish man named Mehmet Ali Agca shot John Paul II in St. Peter's Square. The pope almost died from the wound, but surgeons were able to save his life.
Though Agca has repeatedly changed his story, it is widely thought he was acting on behalf of Communist forces wishing to neutralize the Polish pope, who went on to play a key role in the downfall of Soviet Communism.
On July 18, 1981, John Paul II read the third part of the secret for the first time and learned what it contained.
The consecration performed
As early as 1942, Pius XII consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and in 1952 he specifically consecrated Russia.
Following the assassination, while he was still recuperating, John Paul II had a special act of entrustment performed on June 7, 1981, and it was repeated in Fatima on May 13, 1982.
However, there was a question of whether these fulfilled the request made by the Virgin Mary, as she had asked that the pope perform the consecration "in union with all the bishops of the world."
Consequently, "in order to respond more fully to the requests of 'our Lady' . . . on 25 March 1984 in St. Peter's Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the bishops of the world, who had been 'convoked' beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
Subsequently, in a letter dated November 8, 1989, Sr. Lucia confirmed that the consecration had been done, writing, "Yes, it has been done just as our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984."
The fall of communism
The Cold War, which began in the wake of World War II, was a tense period. It saw various conflicts; national borders were redrawn ("various nations will be annihilated"), and the world itself was threatened by the prospect of nuclear war.
In 1989, the Soviet bloc collapsed, and in 1991 the Soviet Union itself dissolved, with the Communist Party losing power in Russia.
...
[Edit: I just want to note I don't agree with Jimmy Akin on all his personal opinions; but he mentions some useful information on the history]
Quote from: Xavier on January 25, 2020, 09:55:54 AM
(Quoting Jimmy Akin)
The Church teaches that private revelations like Fatima do not have the same status as the public revelation God has given us in Scripture and Tradition.
The latter requires the assent of faith, but private revelations—even when approved—do not. The "ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with prudence."
QuoteThe angel appeared to the children on three occasions, taught them prayers, and during the last appearance showed them a host and chalice that hung miraculously in the air. It then gave them Holy Communion.
As had been discussed in a previous thread, this is another little piece of evidence to support the case that Fatima is ultimately an attack on papal authority. The story goes that Lucia received Holy Communion under the species of bread because she had already made her first Communion. The two little ones instead were given the wine. After which they asked Lucia if they had received communion. It makes no sense to imply there is some kind of need to give the little ones Communion under the species of wine because they had yet to receive their first Holy Communion. This goes against Pope St. Pius X's decree that the parents and the parish priest were to determine fitness for Holy Communion, meaning they would receive proper instruction.
Also, why an angel? Why do angels suddenly become what would be later called "extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion"? Why not a saint who was an ordained priest?
Why not St. Anthony of Padua? He's a saint who was Portuguese and a priest.
The real "tell" for me on a personal level is the unwillingness of the so-called Fatima experts to even address the points I've brought up. When I wrote to the Remnant guys, they weren't able to address my concerns (which I wrote respectfully at first). So rather than exhibit humility and actually explore the issue, they deleted the posts and banned my comments.
lets unpack this a bit:
we have 2 systems:
1. The Mystical Body of Christ/Kingdom of Heaven where Christ is the King and Mary is the Queen, and hold all power and authority.
2. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, where Christ is the High Priest, and the Master of the Church.
So if Mary got permission from the High Priest, or Master of The Church, or if she got approval from the King of the Kingdom of Heaven, that would suffice.
And to think that the High Priest doesn't have full authority and jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, and use whatever ministers he would like is somewhat laughable.
Don't take this as an argument to believe in Fatima, I am simply pointing out that the argument is not nearly as strong as one thinks.
Quote from: GerardThe real "tell" for me on a personal level is the unwillingness of the so-called Fatima experts to even address the points I've brought up. When I wrote to the Remnant guys, they weren't able to address my concerns (which I wrote respectfully at first).
Very well, then, Gerard; for your sake and the sake of those like you who may have questions - I only ask that they are put forth respectfully out of honor of Our Mother; we would not want, even innocently to speak ill of Her, I hope? And deride a Great Miracle She may have worked for the Glory of God Her Son - we will have a pleasant, polite, reasonable and respectful conversation on Our Lady of Fatima. So, let me go back and look at your questins and objections.
Quote from: GerardBut seriously...it's amazing how unlike Our Lady of Lourdes is the apparition of Fatima.
Not at all. What did Our Lady of Lourdes do? She confirmed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Our Lady of Fatima also confirmed the same Dogma - one reason Old Catholics and Orthodox, many of whom deny that Dogma, oppose Her Apparitions - and went even a Step Further: on the First Saturdays She asked for Reparation against Blasphemies of Her Immaculate Conception. Already something the devil wouldn't do. And, thanks to Her (already recommended by earlier Popes but not practiced widely) - millions and millions of Catholics have practiced the Devotion many times, winning rich and abundant Graces for themselves and for the whole world. If we can know a Tree by its fruits, we have to judge that this is a very Wonderful Tree, that has produced such beautiful fruits. Devotion to the Immaculate Heart has spread like never before among Roman Catholics!
QuoteWhen the fog clears and you allow yourself to look at the facts. Fatima is all about undermining the papacy while Lourdes actually supports it by Our Lady adopting the title already given by the Pope.
Not at all. Fatima and Lourdes both confirm and support it. I love Our Lady of Lourdes and it's a Most Beautiful Apparition to St. Bernadette. But Fatima also very greatly supports the Papacy and the Catholic Episcopacy by telling us the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart will come through the Pope and the Bishops, and through the Pope and the Bishops only. Thus, naysaying SVists and EVists do not like it.
QuoteFatima by contrast tries to co-opt the power of the Keys
Not at all. The Power of the Papal Consecration, and the Graces consequent to it, are a Great Gift to the Papacy and even in a sense increase the Power and the Prestige of the Papacy in the eyes of the world. For e.g. when nuclear scientists gave the President of the United States, for e.g., a nuclear weapon for the first time, did they increase or decrease his power? Obviously, the former. Fatima is a nuclear weapon against Communism. The whole world saw that within hardly a few years after the 1984 Partial Consecration. Communism fell. Dec 25 1991. March 25, 1984 was the Papal and Episcopal Consecration, but with the name of Russia omitted, as Fr. Gabriel Amorth testifies below. https://sign.org/articles/%EF%BF%BCvatican-chief-exorcist-says-consecration-russia-still-not-d
(https://sign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/russian-church1.jpg)
"Therefore, that of 1984 was not a proper Consecration of Russia. I was there, kneeling just a couple of meters ahead of the Holy Father..."
When I became a priest, I didn't think that my priestly life would have been so affected by Our Lady of Fatima! As a child, I was delighted to read about the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, which occurred at the end of World War I, in 1917. She appeared to three little shepherds, but they were so young: Lucy was 10 years old, Francisco was 9 and Jacinta 7, but they received such a great message!
What an important prophecy it was, full of events that would manifest themselves only many years later! But I was immediately devoted to Our Lady of Fatima, and from Her I received the grace of being chosen to organize the Consecration of Italy to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which occurred in 1959! I was appointed by the Italian Bishops Conference to organize such a marvelous consecration, but time was so short and we didn't know how to make it in time! Well, we were able to because for the first time we decided to bring the statue of Our Lady of Fatima to Italy!
Back then, the so-called "Peregrinatio Mariae" (that is, bringing a statue of Our Lady in pilgrimage across a nation or a diocese) was not as common as it is today! We opted to move the Statue of Our Lady by helicopter, through all the major cities in Italy. There was nothing faster than the helicopter, back then, to quickly move the statue, and we only had a few months to do it, from April 1958 until September 1959, to make sure that Our Lady could visit the whole country of Italy.
I knew Padre Pio for many years, and I was able to find a way to bring the statue of Our Lady to Padre Pio as well! So, this was my first adventure: the Consecration of Italy to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
(https://sign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/INGLE%CC%81S-Padre-Amort-RIP-250x250.jpg)
Then, in 1984, when John Paul II decided to consecrate the world – the most solemn ceremony, the one that occurred in Rome on March 25, 1984 – on the day of the consecration the Statue of Our Lady of Fatima (the main one, the statue that is never moved from the Fatima Sanctuary) was flown over from Portugal and was venerated in Saint Peter's Square! I was appointed that day to organize Saint Peter's Square, but there were so many pilgrims, so many people that day, that they entirely filled Saint Peter's Square and the roads around it, so that most of them were not even able to see the Pope or the statue! (https://sign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/JP2-197x250.jpg)
Then, in 1984, when John Paul II decided to consecrate the world – the most solemn ceremony, the one that occurred in Rome on March 25, 1984 – on the day of the consecration the Statue of Our Lady of Fatima (the main one, the statue that is never moved from the Fatima Sanctuary) was flown over from Portugal and was venerated in Saint Peter's Square! I was appointed that day to organize Saint Peter's Square, but there were so many pilgrims, so many people that day, that they entirely filled Saint Peter's Square and the roads around it, so that most of them were not even able to see the Pope or the statue!
However, that day the Pope did something unusual while pronouncing the consecration prayer. He wanted to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. His entourage, however, was against it: "No, Holy Father, if you do this you'll offend the Patriarch of Moscow"; or, "No, Holy Father, if you do this [you'll go against the Soviets]", etc.
So after several attempts to change his advisors' minds, the Pope finally went along with them. He did not name Russia during the Consecration.
But he did do Our Lady of Fatima this service – he made it known very plainly and quite publicly that he was not performing that day the consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima. And the Pope drew particular attention to this fact by alluding to it twice that day – first in the morning, during the prayer of consecration itself, and then again three hours later.
The text of the consecration prayer had been prepared many months before this ceremony. It was sent to all the bishops in a letter of December 8, 1983, and published in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on February 17, 1984.
But on that morning of March 25, 1984, well after that part of the Act of Consecration at which the Holy Father had pronounced the consecration of the world to the Blessed Virgin – seven paragraphs later, to be precise – he unexpectedly broke away from the prepared text. After the words "Mother of the Church," he added the following words:
"Enlighten especially the peoples of which You await our consecration and confiding."
This was the only change that he made to the planned ceremony, and his words clearly indicate that he knows that the Consecration of Russia asked for by Our Lady of Fatima was not accomplished by that day's consecration.
His words were a plea for a special group of people whose consecration the Blessed Virgin was still awaiting.
Our Lady of Fatima only ever specified that She wanted the Consecration of RUSSIA.
And if that was not clear enough, he repeated this same message several hours later, when he gathered with 10,000 of the faithful in St. Peter's Basilica at 4 p.m. to say goodbye to the Pilgrim Virgin statue.
Even then, hours after the morning's consecration ceremony, the Pope acknowledged in a public prayer to Our Lady of Fatima that the consecration which She had asked for is yet to be done. In his prayer, he drew Her attention once again to this certain group of peoples (the peoples of Russia) that has a special need of being consecrated – a group of peoples, he said: "for whom You Yourself await our act of consecration and of entrustment."
Our Lady only asked for a Consecration of Russia, because at Fatima She never asked for a consecration of the world. The latter was asked through Blessed Alessandrina Maria da Costa and the Portuguese bishops and followed another path. Therefore, that of 1984 was not a proper Consecration of Russia. I was there, kneeling just a couple of meters ahead of the Holy Father, and mentally to myself I said the words to consecrate Russia.
If Our Lady wants, then Our Lady will go to Moscow! Our Lady is able to reach every place in the world and She will go to Russia as well, the country that spread the worst error of the last century (and of our century too): Communism! Our Lady predicted it! If Russia will not be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart, that nation would spread its errors all over the world, and in fact atheist communism did spread all over the world, because we didn't do what Our Lady requested!
Our Lady, however, despite what has and what has not been done, is still able to destroy all these errors and to come back through Moscow and Russia to bring back the world to the righteous path. This way, that nation which spread the most heinous errors all over the world, including Communism, will become a missionary nation instead, from which many missionaries will come, in order to bring devotion to Our Lady all over the world! Fatima – that is, Our Lady – loves us and wants to bring us to Jesus and to give peace to the world.
Having given you this message, I am happy to bless every one of you: may the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary bring upon you the blessing of the Most Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and may the love of Mary bring us to truly love Her Divine Son Jesus, because it is through Mary that Jesus came to us, and it is through Mary that we will go to Jesus. Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever!"
If a Partial Consecration can do that much, just imagine what the Complete Consecration will do. But God's Plan proceeds in Two Steps. I will explain more on this subsequently.
Our Lady has made known the way forward for Russia and the Consecration; when the Pope and the Bishop Consecrate Russia explicitly to the Immaculate Heart, many things will happen. Most important, there will be a great supernatural stirring in the hearts of the good Russian people, a divine enlightenment that will enable them to perceive more clearly than ever that Truth and Salvation lies in the Roman Catholic Church. They will understand it was a terrible, tragic mistake ever to be separated from Rome; the people themselves, after the Consecration, will cry out for Unity with and a Return to the Catholic Church. The Consecration must be explicit. So the people of Russia can know the enlightenment and the gifts they received came to them by the action of the Pope and of all the world's Bishops.
These Locutions were published in a book by Msgr. John Esseff, former spiritual director to Mother St. Theresa of Calcutta, and himself once directed by St. Padre Pio: https://www.amazon.in/Locutions-World-John-Esseff/dp/149529983X
From: https://maryrefugeofholylove.com/locutions-to-the-world/2014-messages-locutions-to-the-world/
When Russia Is Consecrated (August 14 to August 20, 2014)
...
August 17, 2014
A New Culture of Peace
Mary
After the Consecration of Russia, the beginning gift will be a conversion of hearts of those who control the nations. New ideas of peace initiatives will surface. World leaders will see that peace is in their self-interest. They should have seen this earlier but were blinded by Satan. Nations will move to true peace agreements, not the false pieces of paper they now call treaties.
The hearts of the people will move in the same directions. The hunger for war and the use of weapons to gain natural interests will be seen as outmoded ideas, the products of the past, foolish concepts that have no life in this new thinking.
The wisdom of true peace that was set aside in the selfish pursuits will regain its rightful place. Peace will be a constant, powerful light, set upon the lampstand. Even those whose hearts are not touched will be forced to walk on this new path by the power of the new culture of peace.
Comment: The world has a spirit of war and self-interest. The consecration of Russia will change individual hearts and create a new culture of peace.
August 17, 2014
The Stirring in Russian Hearts
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.
Comment: Our Lady begins to sketch out the new Russia, formed by the special graces still hidden and locked in her Immaculate Heart.
August 18, 2014
The Overcoming of Separation
Mary
I will place such great gifts in the hearts of the Russian people that they will not be satisfied with superficial changes. Instead, they will wipe away the divisions of the centuries.
They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world.
They will begin to question why they are separated from the Holy Father. Would all of this darkness have fallen if there had been no division? They will cry out for unity with Rome.
This ocean will be so deep and so powerful that it will sweep away all opposition. The Russian people will overturn the centuries of division that have been forced upon them.
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.
I unfold these revelations so all the world, especially the Church, can see what I intend and why I ask what I do.
Comment: For the first 1000 years, there was only one, united Catholic Church. In 1054, the Archbishop of Constantinople withdrew from this union with the pope. Thus began the division into Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Churches, the great schism that lasts even today."
Quote from: Xavier on January 27, 2020, 10:03:43 AM
Quote from: GerardThe real "tell" for me on a personal level is the unwillingness of the so-called Fatima experts to even address the points I've brought up. When I wrote to the Remnant guys, they weren't able to address my concerns (which I wrote respectfully at first).
Very well, then, Gerard; for your sake and the sake of those like you who may have questions - I only ask that they are put forth respectfully out of honor of Our Mother; we would not want, even innocently to speak ill of Her, I hope? And deride a Great Miracle She may have worked for the Glory of God Her Son - we will have a pleasant, polite, reasonable and respectful conversation on Our Lady of Fatima. So, let me go back and look at your questins and objections.
I would never speak or write disrespectfully of the BVM. What I was referring to was the obnoxious reactions to a respectfully written disagreement with Fatima. From the so-called Fatima "experts" to any number of posters, they respond to respectful points being made with instant attacks, derisions and most cowardly of all, deletions. That shows me that the "experts" like the people at the Remnant aren't really THAT interested in the truth if it might be too hot and effect their bread and butter. They know that if the Remnant actually did acknowledge the problems with Fatima and no longer promoted it, that the reactionaries would cancel subscriptions on a catastrophic scale for them.
So, I will always refer to our Lady respectfully. Respectful replies to me will be met with respect. Verbal punches thrown will generally be replied to with an avalanche of the same in return.
QuoteQuote from: GerardBut seriously...it's amazing how unlike Our Lady of Lourdes is the apparition of Fatima.
Not at all. What did Our Lady of Lourdes do? She confirmed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Our Lady of Fatima also confirmed the same Dogma - one reason Old Catholics and Orthodox, many of whom deny that Dogma, oppose Her Apparitions - and went even a Step Further: on the First Saturdays She asked for Reparation against Blasphemies of Her Immaculate Conception. Already something the devil wouldn't do.
I disagree on that. The Devil is willing to do quite a lot of good in order to gain a greater prize. He can an often does "gift" non-Catholics with peace and serenity and successes in life based on Christianity in order to keep them anti-Catholic and out of the embrace of the Catholic Church.
How much then, would he be willing to give on the positive side, if he can break the Catholic Church by making the unique power of the papacy his puppet?
QuoteAnd, thanks to Her (already recommended by earlier Popes but not practiced widely) - millions and millions of Catholics have practiced the Devotion many times, winning rich and abundant Graces for themselves and for the whole world. If we can know a Tree by its fruits, we have to judge that this is a very Wonderful Tree, that has produced such beautiful fruits. Devotion to the Immaculate Heart has spread like never before among Roman Catholics!
That's simply an apparition hopping onto a bandwagon that's already moving. All Christian anti-Catholic (overt and covert) praise the Scriptures and commend their devotions for bringing all sorts of good fruits.
QuoteQuoteWhen the fog clears and you allow yourself to look at the facts. Fatima is all about undermining the papacy while Lourdes actually supports it by Our Lady adopting the title already given by the Pope.
Not at all. Fatima and Lourdes both confirm and support it. I love Our Lady of Lourdes and it's a Most Beautiful Apparition to St. Bernadette. But Fatima also very greatly supports the Papacy and the Catholic Episcopacy by telling us the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart will come through the Pope and the Bishops, and through the Pope and the Bishops only. Thus, naysaying SVists and EVists do not like it.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The BVM comes to the aid of the Pope when he requests it. She doesn't assert her power over his and tell him what to do and promote her triumph if he does what she demands. St. Pius V called upon her aid for the battle of Lepanto. After she responded to his request (note the order) and the triumph was achieved. He (the Pope) gave her the title of Our Lady of Victory and a feast day in honor of what she had done for him and us. She didn't demand a title and a feast in exchange for a victory. Much less did she threaten Pius V with devastation and personal suffering if he refused.
QuoteQuoteFatima by contrast tries to co-opt the power of the Keys
Not at all. The Power of the Papal Consecration, and the Graces consequent to it, are a Great Gift to the Papacy and even in a sense increase the Power and the Prestige of the Papacy in the eyes of the world. For e.g. when nuclear scientists gave the President of the United States, for e.g., a nuclear weapon for the first time, did they increase or decrease his power? Obviously, the former. Fatima is a nuclear weapon against Communism. The whole world saw that within hardly a few years after the 1984 Partial Consecration. Communism fell. Dec 25 1991. March 25, 1984 was the Papal and Episcopal Consecration, but with the name of Russia omitted, as Fr. Gabriel Amorth testifies below. https://sign.org/articles/%EF%BF%BCvatican-chief-exorcist-says-consecration-russia-still-not-d
That power of papal consecration isn't a gift from our Lady. It's a power that is inherent in the papacy from the beginning given by Christ. The great problem with Fatima is that the apparition of Fatima apparently wants to be in control of that power.
Quote"Therefore, that of 1984 was not a proper Consecration of Russia. I was there, kneeling just a couple of meters ahead of the Holy Father..."
It's my contention that those nuances and differences that many claim are signs of the Pope being in "defiance" of the BVM are actually done by the intercession of the true "helper" of the papacy: The Paraclete (ie. the Holy Ghost) that mysteriously prevents the Church from defecting.
Quote"Our Lady of Fatima only ever specified that She wanted the Consecration of RUSSIA."
The key element seems to be forever going on unnoticed. It's not a "request" for consecration of Russia by which the Pope is free to exercise his power and will according to his responsibility given him by Christ Himself. It's an extortion attempt. "The threat of coming calamity, the claim of being the solution and I will do all this and more if you simply use the keys to the Kingdom as I see fit and not you. And if you don't, you and your loved ones will suffer." There is no getting around that poison pill in Fatima.
QuoteOur Lady only asked for a Consecration of Russia, because at Fatima She never asked for a consecration of the world.
The apparition didn't "ask." eg. "Holy Father, would you please be willing to consecrate Russia to my Immaculate Heart?" That is asking. The Pope is free to do it or not do it of his own free will. Instead Fatima attempts to coerce the Pope into only one option.
This is an interesting caveat Fr. Amorth made:
QuoteOur Lady, however, despite what has and what has not been done, is still able to destroy all these errors and to come back through Moscow and Russia to bring back the world to the righteous path. This way, that nation which spread the most heinous errors all over the world, including Communism, will become a missionary nation instead, from which many missionaries will come, in order to bring devotion to Our Lady all over the world! Fatima – that is, Our Lady – loves us and wants to bring us to Jesus and to give peace to the world.
Nothing is stopping the BVM from interceding and responding to the prayers of millions. Certainly not because she can't have dominion over the actions of the Pope.
QuoteIf a Partial Consecration can do that much, just imagine what the Complete Consecration will do. But God's Plan proceeds in Two Steps. I will explain more on this subsequently.
This is the speculation of a believer. But it's not contingent on Fatima. A Pope could consecrate Russia to virtually any other title of Our Lady except Fatima and I can speculate that there would be a deluge of grace precisely because it's not Fatima.
Quote from: revival2029 on January 27, 2020, 09:46:14 AM
lets unpack this a bit:
we have 2 systems:
1. The Mystical Body of Christ/Kingdom of Heaven where Christ is the King and Mary is the Queen, and hold all power and authority.
2. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, where Christ is the High Priest, and the Master of the Church.
So if Mary got permission from the High Priest, or Master of The Church, or if she got approval from the King of the Kingdom of Heaven, that would suffice.
And to think that the High Priest doesn't have full authority and jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, and use whatever ministers he would like is somewhat laughable.
Don't take this as an argument to believe in Fatima, I am simply pointing out that the argument is not nearly as strong as one thinks.
The difficulty with that is, God doesn't lie. He gave the Apostles and their successors all power and authority in the Church on earth. He did not include the BVM alongside the Paraclete as the "guide" for the Church or give her power over the Pope. He gave that role to Himself in His Third person of the Trinity and He has restricted Himself in that role.
To claim a sudden change is to change the authority structure of the Church on earth and put it at the mercy of human error in reading apparitions and opens the door for anyone to listen to any spirit and make the Pope a puppet.
The BVM serves the Church on earth in subjection to the papacy. The papacy doesn't serve the BVM in the hierarchical order. God in His infinite wisdom has given her immeasurable power to aid the Church when asked, not to dictate terms and make threats as to when she will help. If the Pope or anyone calls and God allows it, She will intercede for him and us. But she will not force, coerce or threaten the Pope to pay homage to her in exchange for political stability and to prevent him from getting beaten up.
Quote from: Gerard on January 25, 2020, 01:13:28 PM
QuoteThe angel appeared to the children on three occasions, taught them prayers, and during the last appearance showed them a host and chalice that hung miraculously in the air. It then gave them Holy Communion.
As had been discussed in a previous thread, this is another little piece of evidence to support the case that Fatima is ultimately an attack on papal authority. The story goes that Lucia received Holy Communion under the species of bread because she had already made her first Communion. The two little ones instead were given the wine. After which they asked Lucia if they had received communion. It makes no sense to imply there is some kind of need to give the little ones Communion under the species of wine because they had yet to receive their first Holy Communion. This goes against Pope St. Pius X's decree that the parents and the parish priest were to determine fitness for Holy Communion, meaning they would receive proper instruction.
Also, why an angel? Why do angels suddenly become what would be later called "extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion"? Why not a saint who was an ordained priest?
Why not St. Anthony of Padua? He's a saint who was Portuguese and a priest.
The real "tell" for me on a personal level is the unwillingness of the so-called Fatima experts to even address the points I've brought up. When I wrote to the Remnant guys, they weren't able to address my concerns (which I wrote respectfully at first). So rather than exhibit humility and actually explore the issue, they deleted the posts and banned my comments.
More super papacy propaganda. The pope is the oracle of God. Must obey unquestioningly. Forget about common sense. That is why the Church is in such a mess today.
Quote from: revival2029 on January 27, 2020, 09:46:14 AM
lets unpack this a bit:
we have 2 systems:
1. The Mystical Body of Christ/Kingdom of Heaven where Christ is the King and Mary is the Queen, and hold all power and authority.
2. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, where Christ is the High Priest, and the Master of the Church.
So if Mary got permission from the High Priest, or Master of The Church, or if she got approval from the King of the Kingdom of Heaven, that would suffice.
And to think that the High Priest doesn't have full authority and jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, and use whatever ministers he would like is somewhat laughable.
Don't take this as an argument to believe in Fatima, I am simply pointing out that the argument is not nearly as strong as one thinks.
The difficulty with that is, God doesn't lie. He gave the Apostles and their successors all power and authority in the Church on earth. He did not include the BVM alongside the Paraclete as the "guide" for the Church or give her power over the Pope. He gave that role to Himself in His Third person of the Trinity and He has restricted Himself in that role.
To claim a sudden change is to change the authority structure of the Church on earth and put it at the mercy of human error in reading apparitions and opens the door for anyone to listen to any spirit and make the Pope a puppet.
The BVM serves the Church on earth in subjection to the papacy. The papacy doesn't serve the BVM in the hierarchical order. God in His infinite wisdom has given her immeasurable power to aid the Church when asked, not to dictate terms and make threats as to when she will help. If the Pope or anyone calls and God allows it, She will intercede for him and us. But she will not force, coerce or threaten the Pope to pay homage to her in exchange for political stability and to prevent him from getting beaten up.
The Blessed Virgin Mother of God is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. St. Peter is the Vicar or Steward, the Prime Minister. The Queen is not the Prime Minister's Slave. The Queen comes carrying the Commands of God. The Queen is perfectly United to the Divine Will in Her Immaculate Heart. The Pope is a person who can sin just like anyone else who has not yet entered the beatific vision. When the Queen of Heaven makes known the Will of God, and the Catholic Church and Her Popes themselves have confirmed this has a supernatural origin and is from God, then as the Bishop of Fatima so rightly said, "It remains for us, beloved brethren in Our Lord, to warn you that, if, for us, it is a great reason for joy and consolation, this grace that the Most Holy Virgin has granted us, greater is the obligation on us to correspond with Her goodness." We have the obligation to correspond with the Great Grace that Fatima is by holy obedience to God's Will.
Otherwise, why did the Bishop say there was an even greater obligation than the Great Grace of Fatima to correspond with Mary's goodness?
Edit: "Please see this excellent book I found on Google Books quoting Pope Pius XII and many Catholic Theologians, "Other notable Theologians echo the same theme. The Dutch Priest G. Van Noort wrote in his masterly book Dogmatic Theology (vol 3. pg 215): "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin"."
Quote from: King Wenceslas on January 27, 2020, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 25, 2020, 01:13:28 PM
QuoteThe angel appeared to the children on three occasions, taught them prayers, and during the last appearance showed them a host and chalice that hung miraculously in the air. It then gave them Holy Communion.
As had been discussed in a previous thread, this is another little piece of evidence to support the case that Fatima is ultimately an attack on papal authority. The story goes that Lucia received Holy Communion under the species of bread because she had already made her first Communion. The two little ones instead were given the wine. After which they asked Lucia if they had received communion. It makes no sense to imply there is some kind of need to give the little ones Communion under the species of wine because they had yet to receive their first Holy Communion. This goes against Pope St. Pius X's decree that the parents and the parish priest were to determine fitness for Holy Communion, meaning they would receive proper instruction.
Also, why an angel? Why do angels suddenly become what would be later called "extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion"? Why not a saint who was an ordained priest?
Why not St. Anthony of Padua? He's a saint who was Portuguese and a priest.
The real "tell" for me on a personal level is the unwillingness of the so-called Fatima experts to even address the points I've brought up. When I wrote to the Remnant guys, they weren't able to address my concerns (which I wrote respectfully at first). So rather than exhibit humility and actually explore the issue, they deleted the posts and banned my comments.
More super papacy propaganda. The pope is the oracle of God. Must obey unquestioningly. Forget about common sense. That is why the Church is in such a mess today.
I'm not sure why you wrote that. Nothing I wrote is an extension of legitimate papal authority. The Pope actually does have more than just some authority in the Church. Had the "angel" given the children ham sandwiches on Friday in 1917, that would have been an attempt to override the binding power of the Pope, without question. When the Pope stresses instruction and directly assigns responsibility in preparation for Holy Communion, don't you think that authority is undermined when the kids are allegedly given the Eucharist and don't even know it? And the irrational reason they were given it under the species of wine is precisely because they had not yet been given their first Holy Communion?
Just as I am probably the biggest opponent of Neo-Ultramontanism around here, I'm also not going to adhere to a diminishment of the papacy in favor of a non-binding apparition. I never claimed the Pope to be the oracle of God and simultaneously, I'm not going to buy into the idea that a "seer" is the oracle of God either, who tells the Pope to jump and he's supposed to jump.
Quote from: Xavier on January 27, 2020, 07:04:48 PM
The Blessed Virgin Mother of God is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. St. Peter is the Vicar or Steward, the Prime Minister. The Queen is not the Prime Minister's Slave. The Queen comes carrying the Commands of God. The Queen is perfectly United to the Divine Will in Her Immaculate Heart. The Pope is a person who can sin just like anyone else who has not yet entered the beatific vision. When the Queen of Heaven makes known the Will of God, and the Catholic Church and Her Popes themselves have confirmed this has a supernatural origin and is from God, then as the Bishop of Fatima so rightly said, "It remains for us, beloved brethren in Our Lord, to warn you that, if, for us, it is a great reason for joy and consolation, this grace that the Most Holy Virgin has granted us, greater is the obligation on us to correspond with Her goodness." We have the obligation to correspond with the Great Grace that Fatima is by holy obedience to God's Will.
Otherwise, why did the Bishop say there was an even greater obligation than the Great Grace of Fatima to correspond with Mary's goodness?
The Queen doesn't come to the Pope carrying the commands of God. The apparition claims to be the Queen and comes to someone other than the Pope.
There is nothing in the deposit of faith that gives the Pope an obligation to believe an apparition or to be subject to an apparition. Especially when no Catholic is obliged to believe any apparition.
When the Blessed Mother was on earth, after the Ascension and prior to her dormition, she was subject to St. Peter. He "alone" was given the Keys to the Kingdom, to bind and loose. She was not. Just as she was not ordained a priestess or bishopess. Think about that. Of all creatures who else could rightly say the words of consecration, "This is my Body, This is my Blood." But, He didn't give her that power.
The fact that every Pope has been a sinner is a testament to the indefectibility of the papacy. Popes of all stripes don't ascend to the chair lacking a sense of cunning and human nature and the lust for power even if for no other reason than to fight it. (Celestine V a very naive man is probably an exception). They, especially the more wily ones would smell the falsity of an apparition claiming to be the BVM wanting to command the exercise of papal power to the point of making threats against the Pope for resisting and holding to his own responsibility as the sole holder of the Keys.
Gerard, specific numbered questions to you:
1. Why are you disregarding what the Bishop of Fatima said: ""It remains for us, beloved brethren in Our Lord, to warn you that, if, for us, it is a great reason for joy and consolation, this grace that the Most Holy Virgin has granted us, greater is the obligation on us to correspond with Her goodness." We have the obligation to correspond with the Great Grace that Fatima is by holy obedience to God's Will. Do you agree with the Bishop that there is an obligation to correspond with Mary's Goodness, or do you reject that?
2. Msgr. Van Noort said: ""Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin". Do you agree with this great Theologian that these revelations ought to be believed by both the one who received them and him for whom it was destined? That the faithful cannot deny it without some sort of sin? Or do you deny and reject all this?
3. Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin". Do you do as the Pope taught, or do you do the opposite, and doubt or deny the supernatural and divine origin?
Communism spread its errors throughout the world in this last century. That is simply observable fact. God gave us the means to defeat it. "There has been an influx into the Church of those who have, with or without malice, imbibed the spirit of "the Enlightenment," and there's been a full-scale, deliberate infiltration by outright malicious political enemies and religious heretics who share the goals and tactics of those who hold to "Enlightenment" ideals. Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America, testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953:
Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through the infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and the religious makeup peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes... The policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations.
A Catholic monk who heard ex-Communist Bella Dodd speak at Fordham University in the 1950s had this to say:
I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.
The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.
Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church.... to label the 'Church of the past' as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an 'openness to the world,' and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church." https://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism101.html
Quote from: Xavier on January 27, 2020, 09:42:39 PM
2. Msgr. Van Noort said: ""Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin". Do you agree with this great Theologian that these revelations ought to be believed by both the one who received them and him for whom it was destined? That the faithful cannot deny it without some sort of sin? Or do you deny and reject all this?
This is begging the question that Fatima was a revelation. That's precisely what Gerard denies.
Quote3. Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin". Do you do as the Pope taught, or do you do the opposite, and doubt or deny the supernatural and divine origin?
Do you do as Pope Francis teaches you too? If not, shut up.
QuoteCommunism spread its errors throughout the world in this last century.
Communism isn't a Russian error.
Quote from: KreuzritterThis is begging the question that Fatima was a revelation.
Nope, it's not. As the Church has judged that St. James' Epistle is Public Revelation, in a similar manner, She has judged that Our Lady of Fatima is a private revelation of supernatural origin. You are begging the question by presuming your private judgment trumps Hers.
QuoteThat's precisely what Gerard denies.
And that's what Van Noort says, under pain of sin, when the Church has approved, we are bound to believe. And bound to obey if we were named by God in the Revelation to do something - e.g. as the Pope was named, and asked to fulfill the simple Command to Consecrate.
QuoteDo you do as Pope Francis teaches you too?
I take it you are unable to answer the text of Pope Benedict XIV in any other way, then. Good.
QuoteIf not, shut up.
Charming as ever, I see, Kreuz.
QuoteCommunism isn't a Russian error.
Right. The Kremlin, as we know, is in Saudi Arabia. [/sarc]
"Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America, testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953:
Once
the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through the infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and the religious makeup peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes... The policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations."
Quote from: Gerard on January 27, 2020, 07:00:02 PM
The difficulty with that is, God doesn't lie. He gave the Apostles and their successors all power and authority in the Church on earth. He did not include the BVM alongside the Paraclete as the "guide" for the Church or give her power over the Pope. He gave that role to Himself in His Third person of the Trinity and He has restricted Himself in that role.
The High Priest, and Head of the Church gave a set of keys to Peter. He could have easily gave the BVM a set of keys at her coronation. Also you have no evidence he restricted himself, John Chapter 21 Jesus rebukes Peter to mind his own business regarding what was to become of John, and this is clearly evidenced that nothing would change after Pentecost, because Jesus says that ''If I want him to stay behind till I come, what does it matter to you? You are to follow me."
Notice again that St. Alphonsus, quoting Pope Benedict XIV, clearly says that such revelations to Saints and public Miracles deserve a human assent called pious faith by which we believe them as credible and probable; all that is true is we don't give divine faith to them, "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."
St. Louis Marie makes the same distinction: "Everyone knows [apparently some do not know it] that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories:
To stories of Holy Scripture we owe Divine faith;
To stories concerning other than religious subjects, which do not militate against common sense and which are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of human faith; whereas
To stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in the slightest degree contrary to reason, faith or morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary run of events) we pay the tribute of pious faith.
I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical and that we should remember that "virtue takes the middle course"—keeping 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 . . . believeth all things;"9 in the same way pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in the Bible.
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.". https://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/rosary/rosary.shtml
Quote from: revival2029 on January 28, 2020, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 27, 2020, 07:00:02 PM
The difficulty with that is, God doesn't lie. He gave the Apostles and their successors all power and authority in the Church on earth. He did not include the BVM alongside the Paraclete as the "guide" for the Church or give her power over the Pope. He gave that role to Himself in His Third person of the Trinity and He has restricted Himself in that role.
The High Priest, and Head of the Church gave a set of keys to Peter. He could have easily gave the BVM a set of keys at her coronation. Also you have no evidence he restricted himself, John Chapter 21 Jesus rebukes Peter to mind his own business regarding what was to become of John, and this is clearly evidenced that nothing would change after Pentecost, because Jesus says that ''If I want him to stay behind till I come, what does it matter to you? You are to follow me."
That doesn't hold up to scrutiny. First, it's a complete speculation on doctrine, history and ecclesiology that has no precedent in the Church. Second, the Church has already infallibly ruled in Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I.
Quote
Chapter 1: On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: "You shall be called Cephas" [42], that the Lord, after his confession, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God," spoke these words: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [43].
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" [44].
Quote
Communism isn't a Russian error.
Maybe the work of French and British apostates and Jews from roughly the era of the Paris Commune to the later nineteenth century, but Communism moved from theory and ephemeral and occasional practice to a reality in Russia, and was exported from there as a product.
Quote from: Gerard on January 28, 2020, 01:17:48 PM
Quote from: revival2029 on January 28, 2020, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 27, 2020, 07:00:02 PM
The difficulty with that is, God doesn't lie. He gave the Apostles and their successors all power and authority in the Church on earth. He did not include the BVM alongside the Paraclete as the "guide" for the Church or give her power over the Pope. He gave that role to Himself in His Third person of the Trinity and He has restricted Himself in that role.
The High Priest, and Head of the Church gave a set of keys to Peter. He could have easily gave the BVM a set of keys at her coronation. Also you have no evidence he restricted himself, John Chapter 21 Jesus rebukes Peter to mind his own business regarding what was to become of John, and this is clearly evidenced that nothing would change after Pentecost, because Jesus says that ''If I want him to stay behind till I come, what does it matter to you? You are to follow me."
That doesn't hold up to scrutiny. First, it's a complete speculation on doctrine, history and ecclesiology that has no precedent in the Church. Second, the Church has already infallibly ruled in Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I.
Quote
Chapter 1: On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: "You shall be called Cephas" [42], that the Lord, after his confession, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God," spoke these words: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [43].
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" [44].
Thank you. Im flogging through the document. Already found an error on their reference for [12], the year is wrong. But now flogging through the italian reference docs.
But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge, but if you could clarify, you believe Peter has primacy in Heaven and Earth? Or just Earth? Does the office still have power after the end of the world? I think this document really doesnt address where Jesus authority and power ends, and where the Bishop of Rome's power begins and ends, even though it seems ridiculous to think that Jesus has any limits to his authority and power. This issue doesnt even seem to be an issue ever addressed by the Church, as the context of the document really had to do with the Institution on Earth.
A continued problem I find with these documents, is the lack of definitions. Like what is the definition of the Catholic Church and of the Universal Church, and Church of God, all being contained in the document, but not specifying what they mean.
Also we have "Primacy over the Universal Church", but would that not be the High Priest. And "the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God", not sure why they found it necessary to introduce another term, which goes undefined, but interpretation on that plain language means Jesus gave all his power away to Peter, which does not seem right.
And also "And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: "Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17)." but not just a few verses later Jesus rebuked Peter to mind his own business.
Quote from: Prayerful on January 28, 2020, 02:41:18 PM
Quote
Communism isn't a Russian error.
Maybe the work of French and British apostates and Jews from roughly the era of the Paris Commune to the later nineteenth century, but Communism moved from theory and ephemeral and occasional practice to a reality in Russia, and was exported from there as a product.
Communism didn't disappear from the West when it was exported to Russia. The Communists in the West carried on with their project and have managed very well to undermine western society, with or without help from the Kremlin.
The long march through the institutions of the West would have happened without the Soviet Union, and still continues 20 years after its fall.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 25, 2020, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 25, 2020, 09:55:54 AM
(Quoting Jimmy Akin)
The Church teaches that private revelations like Fatima do not have the same status as the public revelation God has given us in Scripture and Tradition.
The latter requires the assent of faith, but private revelations—even when approved—do not. The "ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with prudence."
Missed this. Right, Awkward Customer, Jimmy Akin said that. But Jimmy Akin isn't a Pre-Vatican II Theologian or a Pope, or a Saint or a Doctor of the Church. Do you have a view on how St. Alphonsus explained it, citing Pope Benedict XIV, "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." Your thoughts on that?
God Bless.
Quote from: Xavier on January 28, 2020, 05:50:57 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 25, 2020, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 25, 2020, 09:55:54 AM
(Quoting Jimmy Akin)
The Church teaches that private revelations like Fatima do not have the same status as the public revelation God has given us in Scripture and Tradition.
The latter requires the assent of faith, but private revelations—even when approved—do not. The "ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with prudence."
Missed this. Right, Awkward Customer, Jimmy Akin said that. But Jimmy Akin isn't a Pre-Vatican II Theologian or a Pope, or a Saint or a Doctor of the Church. Do you have a view on how St. Alphonsus explained it, citing Pope Benedict XIV, "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." Your thoughts on that?
God Bless.
What does the Church teach, Xavier?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 28, 2020, 06:08:57 PM
Quote from: Xavier on January 28, 2020, 05:50:57 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 25, 2020, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 25, 2020, 09:55:54 AM
(Quoting Jimmy Akin)
The Church teaches that private revelations like Fatima do not have the same status as the public revelation God has given us in Scripture and Tradition.
The latter requires the assent of faith, but private revelations—even when approved—do not. The "ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with prudence."
Missed this. Right, Awkward Customer, Jimmy Akin said that. But Jimmy Akin isn't a Pre-Vatican II Theologian or a Pope, or a Saint or a Doctor of the Church. Do you have a view on how St. Alphonsus explained it, citing Pope Benedict XIV, "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." Your thoughts on that?
God Bless.
What does the Church teach, Xavier?
Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, right? Where Peter is, there is the Church. So Pope Benedict XIV represents the Church. So why is this, "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." not the Church's Teaching on the subject, Awkward Customer? I believe that that is the Church's Teaching. We should give a human assent of pious faith.
Do you see it differently? Can you cite a Saint or a Doctor or a Pope explaining what you believe is the Church's Teaching on the subject?
Do you not piously believe in the Sacred Heart, Awkward Customer? Do not all Catholics piously believe in Our Lady's Rosary? Are those all not private Revelations to which we give an assent of pious faith, and which very greatly advance our piety, and increase our faith, when well made use of?
God Bless.
Quote from: Xavier on January 28, 2020, 06:28:05 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 28, 2020, 06:08:57 PM
Quote from: Xavier on January 28, 2020, 05:50:57 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 25, 2020, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 25, 2020, 09:55:54 AM
(Quoting Jimmy Akin)
The Church teaches that private revelations like Fatima do not have the same status as the public revelation God has given us in Scripture and Tradition.
The latter requires the assent of faith, but private revelations—even when approved—do not. The "ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with prudence."
Missed this. Right, Awkward Customer, Jimmy Akin said that. But Jimmy Akin isn't a Pre-Vatican II Theologian or a Pope, or a Saint or a Doctor of the Church. Do you have a view on how St. Alphonsus explained it, citing Pope Benedict XIV, "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." Your thoughts on that?
God Bless.
What does the Church teach, Xavier?
Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, right? Where Peter is, there is the Church. So Pope Benedict XIV represents the Church. So why is this, "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." not the Church's Teaching on the subject, Awkward Customer? I believe that that is the Church's Teaching. We should give a human assent of pious faith.
Do you see it differently? Can you cite a Saint or a Doctor or a Pope explaining what you believe is the Church's Teaching on the subject?
Do you not piously believe in the Sacred Heart, Awkward Customer? Do not all Catholics piously believe in Our Lady's Rosary? Are those all not private Revelations to which we give an assent of pious faith, and which very greatly advance our piety, and increase our faith, when well made use of?
God Bless.
Then you ought to stop trying to proselytize Orthodox. Pope Francis has stated that the Russian Orthodox Church has God's permitted domain over Russia and is a Sister Church, and Uniatism is no longer permitted today.
To make a belief predicated on "Sola Papa or damnata" and then blatantly express the opposite is ridiculous.
In Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I it is fairly obvious the Church erred on the side of caution, quite liberally, when it said "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful". That is quite the ridiculous statement at face value. Now, I would see no problem with anyone following that to the "t", they erred in my estimation, just way on the side of caution. As suspected, and continues to be demonstrated, the Church has lost sight of the Rightful King and High Priest.
If you do step back just a bit and review the situation, assume its true, what would have been the aim of the Kingdom regarding Fatima, why not go directly to the Pope instead of 3 shepherd children? What is Fatima really trying to say, if it is saying anything at all? Fatima certainly has many of us on our toes, as like a whip of sorts, mainly because of the vision of hell and a dire prediction, that Rome shall fall, just like Constantinople, in 9.5 years time. Certainly if Mary went straight to the Pope, we would not have that whip.
And at the same time, those folks who hold the argument, like Gerard, make a point in a different way, than how they have made it, in my mind, as Fatima, now that we have had the opportunity to review for going on 100 years, points to an awful conclusion regarding the power structure of the Church, that the Institution can protect itself, instead of the Catholic Faith, and the definition of the Catholic Church has never been defined, nor has the the understanding of what it means, necessarily been correct. So not only does Fatima bypass the power structure of the Church, it predicts their demise, and on top of that says the only way the demise can be avoided, is to follow her instruction.
Bishop Barron is, I have noticed, started using the Mystical Body of Christ terminology, but, I do not think correctly. For also, that term has never been defined. For he says all visible members of the Catholic Church are apart of the Mystical Body of Christ, but can someone who rapes another be apart of the Mystical Body of Christ, how about someone who has no hope for the Kingdom, can they be apart of the Mystical Body of Christ, and now "Bishop Barron suggested that it may be time for bishops "to introduce something like a mandatum for those who claim to teach the Catholic faith online, whereby a bishop affirms that the person is teaching within the full communion of the Church."
Quote from: revival2029 on January 28, 2020, 04:05:19 PM
Thank you. Im flogging through the document. Already found an error on their reference for [12], the year is wrong.
Sorry. For this part, I have no idea what you are referring to. I don't know what "flogging" a document is nor who "they" are nor what "12" is referencing for a year for what. You're going to have to be precise.
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
????....Are you a Sola Scriptura Protestant? I mean, this is basic. How do you even know the Gospels are "the Gospels?"
I assume you've been going through the document. Please provide the whole quote with more context.
Regarding the rest of your questions, I have an idea that will save us time and make things crystal clear. I'll handle them one at a time with you so as not to cause you more unnecessary alarm. I think some answers to your questions will be self evident when you put up quotes with sufficient context for understanding.
Agreed?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 28, 2020, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on January 28, 2020, 02:41:18 PM
Quote
Communism isn't a Russian error.
Maybe the work of French and British apostates and Jews from roughly the era of the Paris Commune to the later nineteenth century, but Communism moved from theory and ephemeral and occasional practice to a reality in Russia, and was exported from there as a product.
Communism didn't disappear from the West when it was exported to Russia. The Communists in the West carried on with their project and have managed very well to undermine western society, with or without help from the Kremlin.
The long march through the institutions of the West would have happened without the Soviet Union, and still continues 20 years after its fall.
I don't think that's right, and I know a lot of the history of Communism. The CPUSA flourished during the Depression but would have dried up and blown away afterwards, except for massive financial support from the Soviet Union, for decades. Only the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 stopped that support, and Marxism has been running on accumulated capital ever since.
The left won the cultural war due to Freemasonic infiltration of the Church (Roncalli et al) and the resources of Russia enabling constant effort in the West. Without Russia Marx's nonsense would be an historical footnote like the Georgists or the Distributists.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 29, 2020, 07:01:36 AM
Marxism has been running on accumulated capital ever since.
Laugh out freakin' loud. Was ever thus. Always been running on accumulated capital. In other words, they got theirs, don't want you to have your own.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 29, 2020, 07:01:36 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 28, 2020, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on January 28, 2020, 02:41:18 PM
Quote
Communism isn't a Russian error.
Maybe the work of French and British apostates and Jews from roughly the era of the Paris Commune to the later nineteenth century, but Communism moved from theory and ephemeral and occasional practice to a reality in Russia, and was exported from there as a product.
Communism didn't disappear from the West when it was exported to Russia. The Communists in the West carried on with their project and have managed very well to undermine western society, with or without help from the Kremlin.
The long march through the institutions of the West would have happened without the Soviet Union, and still continues 20 years after its fall.
I don't think that's right, and I know a lot of the history of Communism. The CPUSA flourished during the Depression but would have dried up and blown away afterwards, except for massive financial support from the Soviet Union, for decades. Only the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 stopped that support, and Marxism has been running on accumulated capital ever since.
The left won the cultural war due to Freemasonic infiltration of the Church (Roncalli et al) and the resources of Russia enabling constant effort in the West. Without Russia Marx's nonsense would be an historical footnote like the Georgists or the Distributists.
You know the Trad/Fatimist version of the history of Communism.
The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848, in London, England, and although it was initially translated into several languages, Russian wasn't one of them to begin with. Karl Marx had already been exiled from Germany on account of his agitations. Communism as an idea was born in the West and propagated throughout the West by - westerners. Communism didn't need help from the Kremlin in order to spread. There were plenty of Western Marxists more than capable of pushing their ideas and plenty of them were highly critical of the Soviet Union.
The history of the CPUSA is a sideshow. Western Marxists have been busy infiltrating every institution on the West for decades but I doubt if many of them were Party members. And only a minority wanted Soviet style Communism.
The left won the culture war, that's right, and they won it in the Church too. The idea that the spread of Communism was dependent on the Soviet Union is an exaggeration to say the least. That's not to say that the Kremlin didn't support armed revolutions in other nations. They did that because they believed in Revolutionary Marxism and not the even more effective Cultural Marxism. Stalin hated the Cultural Marxists.
The Marxism that won the culture war in the West is not the Revolutionary Marxism that seized control of Russia. Perhaps you don't realise the antagonism that existed between the two.
Given how embarrassed a lot of Western Marxists were by the horrors of the Soviet Union, it is possible that Communism would be even more powerful today had the Russian Revolution never happened. The Gulags and the mass graves helped tarnish Communism for decades.
Have you found out whether or not the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions are approved?
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 12:41:46 AM
Quote from: revival2029 on January 28, 2020, 04:05:19 PM
Thank you. Im flogging through the document. Already found an error on their reference for [12], the year is wrong.
Sorry. For this part, I have no idea what you are referring to. I don't know what "flogging" a document is nor who "they" are nor what "12" is referencing for a year for what. You're going to have to be precise.
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
????....
Are you a Sola Scriptura Protestant? I mean, this is basic. How do you even know the Gospels are "the Gospels?"
I assume you've been going through the document. Please provide the whole quote with more context.
Regarding the rest of your questions, I have an idea that will save us time and make things crystal clear. I'll handle them one at a time with you so as not to cause you more unnecessary alarm. I think some answers to your questions will be self evident when you put up quotes with sufficient context for understanding.
Agreed?
I dont see my answers I seek being resolved by a discussion over that document.
Lets pivot here.
When Christ gave the power to Peter, did he diminish his power in any way? It could be said, could it not, that Christ is full of power, like Mary is full of grace. So I simply state that Christ, when he gave power to Peter, he did not diminish his power in any way, as he is full of unlimited power, so if Christ wanted to come down to Earth and baptize someone, or administer the Eucharist to anyone, he could, and if he wanted to bring a soul into the Mystical Body of Christ, at the moment before the soul left the body, he could.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 29, 2020, 07:01:36 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 28, 2020, 04:44:15 PM
I don't think that's right, and I know a lot of the history of Communism. The CPUSA flourished during the Depression but would have dried up and blown away afterwards, except for massive financial support from the Soviet Union, for decades. Only the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 stopped that support, and Marxism has been running on accumulated capital ever since.
The left won the cultural war due to Freemasonic infiltration of the Church (Roncalli et al) and the resources of Russia enabling constant effort in the West. Without Russia Marx's nonsense would be an historical footnote like the Georgists or the Distributists.
The Soviet Union didn't really collapse. They feigned a collapse to fool the world because their mission of aggressive militarism was successful and no longer needed. They merely proceeded into a new Communist phase towards the International, one-world Communist government they have always been working towards. That's when mergers and acquisitions started very heavily in the U.S., all designed to eventually get the means of production into the hands of the government (socialism).
Quote from: revival2029 on January 29, 2020, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 12:41:46 AM
Quote from: revival2029 on January 28, 2020, 04:05:19 PM
Thank you. Im flogging through the document. Already found an error on their reference for [12], the year is wrong.
Sorry. For this part, I have no idea what you are referring to. I don't know what "flogging" a document is nor who "they" are nor what "12" is referencing for a year for what. You're going to have to be precise.
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
????....
Are you a Sola Scriptura Protestant? I mean, this is basic. How do you even know the Gospels are "the Gospels?"
I assume you've been going through the document. Please provide the whole quote with more context.
Regarding the rest of your questions, I have an idea that will save us time and make things crystal clear. I'll handle them one at a time with you so as not to cause you more unnecessary alarm. I think some answers to your questions will be self evident when you put up quotes with sufficient context for understanding.
Agreed?
I dont see my answers I seek being resolved by a discussion over that document.
You want clarity though. That's what the document does. You asked a question based on a single phrase in the document with no context. I'll help you out and demonstrate how important context is.
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
I find it really odd that you would be alarmed if you actually read the phrase in context.
I believe you quoted from chapter 3 which is title:
QuoteChapter 3: On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
In the first paragraph, you can see what the topic is:
"To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ
to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."
The whole second paragraph demonstrates that the Pope rules in practical matters. You surely didn't read that and think that Jesus would be coming back Incarnate to install bishops in particular dioceses or eparchies, Right? He wasn't going to return before his second coming and rule on Church laws and individual cases of priests who misbehave is he?
Quote2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Third paragraph demonstrates that the papacy's power is a unifying power for the Church.
Fourth paragraph reminds everyone that being united to Christ in the Church by way of the papacy is necessary for salvation.
Fifth discusses the relationship of the Pope to local ordinaries, and how the bishop isn't diminished by the papacy (as the Ultramontanes believed) but rather supported by the papacy.
Sixth and seventh paragraphs point out the Pope is free to communicate with any bishop and lay faithful. This to correct any bishop that may think they can block the Pope from the flock under his care or interference from any government.
Now paragraph 8 is where the phrase you quoted is from. Let's take a look at it.
Again, you quoted and commented:
" ....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....Let's look at it in context (I'll mark the portion you quoted in Red) :
Quote8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Now let's add back in the remaining text from the phrase you posted: Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
Seems pretty clear to me.
It means that the local bishops can make a policy decision or punish someone they are in conflict with or teach something that is disagreed with and there is recourse for the faithful to go over his head to the Pope to settle the matter. In the 1950s, there was a very well known dispute over money between Cardinal Spellman of New York and Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Spellman wanted the large sum of money that Sheen had raised for the missions. Sheen didn't want to turn it over but rather give it to the people for whom it was donated. Spellman was Sheen's superior. Sheen took it to the Pope and the Pope sided with Sheen and overruled Spellman.
But back to the main point, let's add that context back and include your comment:
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] ., which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
I'm flummoxed that you could come to that conclusion since you stated you read that sentence even if not the whole document. Did you actually read that sentence or even the document?
Do the Gospels actually teach that Jesus will personally govern the Church in the day to day and if you have a problem with your bishop you have recourse to him personally "in all cases which under ecclesial jurisdiction?"
No, the Gospels teach that when you have a problem you don't take it to Him. You take it to the Church. As I stated at the beginning of this post, the document is intended to provide clarity, which it does. But you should have the whole context and not a snippet from which unjustified inferences are drawn.
I'll post later on some of your other questions.
But in the meantime you can fill me in on what source you were referring to in which you claimed a particular date was wrong. That way, we'll be working off of the same document and I can see what you are referring to and possibly clear it up.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AM
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 29, 2020, 07:01:36 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 28, 2020, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on January 28, 2020, 02:41:18 PM
Quote
Communism isn't a Russian error.
Maybe the work of French and British apostates and Jews from roughly the era of the Paris Commune to the later nineteenth century, but Communism moved from theory and ephemeral and occasional practice to a reality in Russia, and was exported from there as a product.
Communism didn't disappear from the West when it was exported to Russia. The Communists in the West carried on with their project and have managed very well to undermine western society, with or without help from the Kremlin.
The long march through the institutions of the West would have happened without the Soviet Union, and still continues 20 years after its fall.
I don't think that's right, and I know a lot of the history of Communism. The CPUSA flourished during the Depression but would have dried up and blown away afterwards, except for massive financial support from the Soviet Union, for decades. Only the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 stopped that support, and Marxism has been running on accumulated capital ever since.
The left won the cultural war due to Freemasonic infiltration of the Church (Roncalli et al) and the resources of Russia enabling constant effort in the West. Without Russia Marx's nonsense would be an historical footnote like the Georgists or the Distributists.
You know the Trad/Fatimist version of the history of Communism.
The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848, in London, England, and although it was initially translated into several languages, Russian wasn't one of them to begin with. Karl Marx had already been exiled from Germany on account of his agitations. Communism as an idea was born in the West and propagated throughout the West by - westerners. Communism didn't need help from the Kremlin in order to spread. There were plenty of Western Marxists more than capable of pushing their ideas and plenty of them were highly critical of the Soviet Union.
The history of the CPUSA is a sideshow. Western Marxists have been busy infiltrating every institution on the West for decades but I doubt if many of them were Party members. And only a minority wanted Soviet style Communism.
The left won the culture war, that's right, and they won it in the Church too. The idea that the spread of Communism was dependent on the Soviet Union is an exaggeration to say the least. That's not to say that the Kremlin didn't support armed revolutions in other nations. They did that because they believed in Revolutionary Marxism and not the even more effective Cultural Marxism. Stalin hated the Cultural Marxists.
The Marxism that won the culture war in the West is not the Revolutionary Marxism that seized control of Russia. Perhaps you don't realise the antagonism that existed between the two.
Given how embarrassed a lot of Western Marxists were by the horrors of the Soviet Union, it is possible that Communism would be even more powerful today had the Russian Revolution never happened. The Gulags and the mass graves helped tarnish Communism for decades.
Have you found out whether or not the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions are approved?
Wonderful summation.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if the Lady in this Satanic apparition was against the errors of Russia because they were revolutionary marxists instead of the kinder and gentler cultural marxists!
Said somewhat tongue in cheek, but only to point out that anything is possible in these, for lack of a better word, platitudes spoken by the "Lady" and the ongoing serial created by Sister Lucia. Running in theaters near you for over 100 years now.
With no resolution in sight.
David Lynch never wanted to identify Laura Palmer's killer in Twin Peaks either. But the network made him do it in season 2. He could have gone on forever had kept the resolution out of it.
He could learn a lot from the Fatimists. They are excellent story tellers.
Quote from: GBoldwater on January 29, 2020, 10:46:32 AM
The Soviet Union didn't really collapse. They feigned a collapse to fool the world because their mission of aggressive militarism was successful and no longer needed. They merely proceeded into a new Communist phase towards the International, one-world Communist government they have always been working towards. That's when mergers and acquisitions started very heavily in the U.S., all designed to eventually get the means of production into the hands of the government (socialism).
You're absolutely right, in general.
The funny thing is that the Fatima Secrets, whether true or false, don't have any bearing on this fact at all. Not anymore at least.
Anti-Fatimists... how nice, another immature and ridiculous
denomination in the traditional Catholic movement.
How long until Anti-Fatimism becomes infallible dogma and anybody who believes in the Fatima Secrets are labelled (by lay-men of course) to be irredeemable heretics?
It's like a bunch of Prots are posing as Catholics trying to separate early-Church Tradition and practice from Catholicism itself.
Left unchecked these Catholics
with qualification will try to pull Tradition straight into the depths of Protestantism and Americanism.
Funny how these Catholics
with qualification find the Church's enemies of yesterday to be their friends today, as demonstrated by their long-term established posting history.
Edit: Initially quoted the wrong person.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on January 29, 2020, 02:39:39 PM
Now I'm beginning to wonder if the Lady in this Satanic apparition was against the errors of Russia because they were revolutionary marxists instead of the kinder and gentler cultural marxists!
Said somewhat tongue in cheek, but only to point out that anything is possible in these, for lack of a better word, platitudes spoken by the "Lady" and the ongoing serial created by Sister Lucia. Running in theaters near you for over 100 years now.
Ah, but at least the Revolutionary Marxists were honest and open about their aims! The Cultural Marxists rely on their aims being hidden, or at least sufficiently obscured from the majority.
I forgot to mention above that the infiltration of the Church began long before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, as Pope Pius X pointed out in
Pascendi when he referred to the Modernists who were already, in 1907, in "the very bosom of the Church, seeking Her destruction". The Church was not infiltrated from the Kremlin, but was already filled with Modernists by the time the Communists took over Russia.
Fatimism has many of the hallmarks of a cult, an example of cultish behaviour being the accusation that those who question Fatima are not real Catholics as Dellery has just done.
The Fatima narrative also has all the hallmarks of a carefully and brilliantly orchestrated propaganda campaign. But the clues are there, the "errors of Russia" comment being just one. The Second Secret is a perfect example of the 'Fear then Relief' psychological manipulation technique used to induce people a state of compliance.
Fear/Relief works by firstly inducing fear in the subject and then offering a way out, which induces relief in the subject. The resulting flood of emotions renders the subject more compliant and open to suggestion.
Here's the Second Fatima Secret - it's fear then relief, fear then relief, from beginning to end.
Quote
Fear "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go."
Relief "To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: ....."
Fear ".....but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father."
Relief "To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; ......"
Fear "....... if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated."
Relief "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world".
This is psychological manipulation. The entire message could have been designed by a master propagandist in order to instil compliance and emotionalism. Of all the dark arts, the techniques of the proagandists, PR agents and media manipulators have been most effective in the modern age. Not even the best of them could have done a better job than the Fatimists and their charismatic, narcissistic cult leader, Sr Lucy.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 04:08:46 PM
Fatimism has many of the hallmarks of a cult, an example of cultish behaviour being the accusation that those who question Fatima are not real Catholics as Dellery has just done.
Personally, it's difficult to see how the Secrets of Fatima are still relevant today.
The issue here are people who label those who
do believe in the authenticity and relevancy of the Fatima Secrets and apparition as
Fatimists, themselves as
Anti-Fatimists, and how they are polarizing the Fatima Secrets often supporting the very nation the Secrets warned about. This coupled with the often accompanying Protestant, lay-man centric, ecclesiology, is what sews doubts in my mind about certain people's
Catholicism.
Maybe Fatima is still relevant today.
Why else would a group of people be forcibly, and seemingly out of nowhere, polarizing, and trying to undermine the message, of a 100 year old apparition?
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: GBoldwater on January 29, 2020, 10:46:32 AM
The Soviet Union didn't really collapse. They feigned a collapse to fool the world because their mission of aggressive militarism was successful and no longer needed. They merely proceeded into a new Communist phase towards the International, one-world Communist government they have always been working towards. That's when mergers and acquisitions started very heavily in the U.S., all designed to eventually get the means of production into the hands of the government (socialism).
Anti-Fatimists... how nice, another immature and ridiculous denomination in the traditional Catholic movement.
If you can't rebut the argument, go for the smear.
QuoteHow long until Anti-Fatimism becomes infallible dogma and anybody who believes in the Fatima Secrets are labelled (by lay-men of course) to be irredeemable heretics?
Like anything, that depends on how far the Fatimists go. Should the Holy See at some point acknowledge the problems that are intrinsic to Fatima, will the Fatimists submit? Or, in another scenario, the Fatimists (Chris Ferrara for one that I've seen on some of his lectures) have been pushing for Fatima to be declared some form of "public" Revelation, implicitly denying the dogma that the close of divine public revelation occurred with the death of St. John the Apostle. If that form of Fatimism goes widespread it could very well develop from an error into a full blown heresy. But that's for the men in charge to declare officially.
QuoteIt's like a bunch of Prots are posing as Catholics trying to separate early-Church Tradition and practice from Catholicism itself.
Left unchecked these Catholics with qualification will try to pull Tradition straight into the depths of Protestantism and Americanism.
Funny how these Catholics with qualification find the Church's enemies of yesterday to be their friends today, as demonstrated by their long-term established posting history.
I remember years ago when the question of whether canonizations by the Pope were infallible came up, It became apparent especially in the John Paul II era that the slurs against Catholics by Protestants about Pope worship and exaggerations regarding infallibility were finding credible examples among the Neo-Catholics of the EWTN variety.
It was like Protestants were hearing the exaggerated claims about the papacy and instead of adopting the lies for anti-Catholic attacks, they were seduced by the idea and converted to become Catholics that actually did live up to the Protestant slurs.
So, whereas years ago, you might have credibly claimed in response to the Protestant slur, "Catholics do not worship Mary" or "No Catholic believes the Pope is infallible in all things." Nowadays and especially in the JPII era, you'd have to honestly reply with, "Well, there is a problem with people who have erred and do worship Mary and some Catholics mistakenly believe the Pope is infallible in virtually everything he says or does."
Fatimism and Anti-Fatimism... these are bogus phrases that came out of nowhere and you people are trying to force them into the web-based Catholic lexicon and discourse.
Why are you doing this??
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 04:55:01 PM
Fatimism and Anti-Fatimism... these are bogus phrases that came out of nowhere and you people are trying to force them into the web-based Catholic lexicon and discourse.
Why are you doing this??
Because Fatima is a deception, IMO.
It's a demonic 'Bait and Switch' operation which was played out so that the Church would approve the harmless Cova da Iria apparitions and then be landed with the Secrets, which have never been approved but which have tied the Church and particularly the Trad movement, up in knots for decades.
It's ingenious, and deserves to be challenged. If you're asking why now, I could just as easily say it's about time.
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 04:37:48 PM
Personally, it's difficult to see how the Secrets of Fatima are still relevant today.
The issue here are people who label those who do believe in the authenticity and relevancy of the Fatima Secrets and apparition as Fatimists, themselves as Anti-Fatimists, and how they are polarizing the Fatima Secrets often supporting the very nation the Secrets warned about. This coupled with the often accompanying Protestant, lay-man centric, ecclesiology, is what sews doubts in my mind about certain people's Catholicism.
Maybe Fatima is still relevant today.
Why else would a group of people be forcibly, and seemingly out of nowhere, polarizing, and trying to undermine the message, of a 100 year old apparition?
It's not about the "Fatima secrets" it's about trying to force a Pope's hand in doing a consecration at the bidding of a dubious apparition in this day and age.
In May 2017 (ironically the 100 year anniversary year) I saw a post by someone on a forum on Fatima stating, "The Pope is disobeying Our Lady!!!" And I looked at that and thought, "there is something wrong with that statement." I studied up on Fatima and when I saw something quirky, I tried to figure it out. I compared it with every other approved apparition. It was ironically two pro-Fatima religious that convinced me what was wrong. Paraphrasing Malachi Martin, "Fatima is an either/or situation, either you do this or terrible things are going to happen." That's what pointed out to me that the Fatima apparition actually makes a threat as plain as day and no one has noticed it as such, because we are so dazzled by the prospect of an apparition that will be our new "savior." (This is the real diabolical disorientation, the Devil rubbing the noses of devout Catholics in it, making them his unwitting tools.) The second person was Bishop Williamson in his explication from one of his letters where he pointed out that the Blessed Mother knew her place and did not boss around the Apostles. She simply would not threaten a Pope in the absurd way that Fatima does.
The threat language alone of Fatima is evidence enough of the intrinsic problem and why Fatima is false.
It's not necessary nor essential but, If you want to dovetail it with another apparition, Leo XIII's vision which lead to the St. Michael prayer actually explains a false Fatima as a tremendous test for the Church. The Devil wanted time "100 years" 1917-2017 (33 years after Leo's vision) permission: to imitate the Blessed Mother and power: "gather enough demons of air and light to pull of the "miracle of the sun." People have been trying to reconcile Lourdes, Fatima and the Leo vision for a long time due to the difference between them, but if you view Fatima from the perspective of being a false apparition, all of the difficulties and contradictions make sense. The Devil's plan in Leo's vision could very easily be Fatima. You can believe that, or not, or you can not believe in Leo's vision, but the intrinsic threat language and extortion of the papacy is still in the Fatima narrative itself.
No one has at this point brought up a plausible rebuttal to the facts of the threat language of Fatima beyond simple assertions of denial.
Yes, that's all fine and dandy, Gerard & AC.
How does creating, and forcing, divisive labels onto your fellow Catholics play into all this?
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 04:55:01 PM
Fatimism and Anti-Fatimism... these are bogus phrases that came out of nowhere and you people are trying to force them into the web-based Catholic lexicon and discourse.
Why are you doing this??
Here's a quote from Chris Ferrara's "Secret Still Hidden" It's a summation of his chapter "Private Revelation?"
QuoteIn view of these facts and circumstances, Socci has best summed up the approach any Catholic should take to the Message of Fatima: "The Fatima event has received on the part of the Church—which in general is very cautious concerning supernatural phenomena—a recognition that has no equal in Christian history.... It is really impossible—after all this—to continue to speak of a 'private revelation' and of the relative importance of the Message."33 It is not only impossible but completely irrational to dismiss the Fatima message, and the Third Secret in particular, as a "private revelation." Any reasonable Catholic, and even a non-Catholic inclined to believe in supernatural phenomena, should be prepared to agree that the Message of Fatima is in a category by itself.
Do you see a problem there?
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 05:21:56 PM
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 04:55:01 PM
Fatimism and Anti-Fatimism... these are bogus phrases that came out of nowhere and you people are trying to force them into the web-based Catholic lexicon and discourse.
Why are you doing this??
Here's a quote from Chris Ferrara's "Secret Still Hidden" It's a summation of his chapter "Private Revelation?"
QuoteIn view of these facts and circumstances, Socci has best summed up the approach any Catholic should take to the Message of Fatima: "The Fatima event has received on the part of the Church—which in general is very cautious concerning supernatural phenomena—a recognition that has no equal in Christian history.... It is really impossible—after all this—to continue to speak of a 'private revelation' and of the relative importance of the Message."33 It is not only impossible but completely irrational to dismiss the Fatima message, and the Third Secret in particular, as a "private revelation." Any reasonable Catholic, and even a non-Catholic inclined to believe in supernatural phenomena, should be prepared to agree that the Message of Fatima is in a category by itself.
Do you see a problem there?
My opinions on that are irrelevant.
You can not answer why you and others are forcing this
Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist farce of a meme??
Who ever came up with this thing appears to be suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Krueger
ism. Or shall I refer to them as a Dunning-Kruegerist?
How embarrassing.
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 05:21:56 PM
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 04:55:01 PM
Fatimism and Anti-Fatimism... these are bogus phrases that came out of nowhere and you people are trying to force them into the web-based Catholic lexicon and discourse.
Why are you doing this??
Here's a quote from Chris Ferrara's "Secret Still Hidden" It's a summation of his chapter "Private Revelation?"
QuoteIn view of these facts and circumstances, Socci has best summed up the approach any Catholic should take to the Message of Fatima: "The Fatima event has received on the part of the Church—which in general is very cautious concerning supernatural phenomena—a recognition that has no equal in Christian history.... It is really impossible—after all this—to continue to speak of a 'private revelation' and of the relative importance of the Message."33 It is not only impossible but completely irrational to dismiss the Fatima message, and the Third Secret in particular, as a "private revelation." Any reasonable Catholic, and even a non-Catholic inclined to believe in supernatural phenomena, should be prepared to agree that the Message of Fatima is in a category by itself.
Do you see a problem there?
My opinions on that are irrelevant.
Then that means all of your opinions are irrelevant. If you can't spot a heterodox element within that nonsense, you're simply ignorant beyond the pale. If you can and you are avoiding admitting it, you are a cowardly Catholic and your opinions are worthless.
QuoteYou can not answer why you and others are forcing this Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist farce of a meme??
Honestly, I never saw the two terms together until you posted it with your SH*T brush of a smear.
So, the assertion that I invented the terms or I'm trying to "force" something is an assertion you simply can't back up. I got it from you since I was responding to your formulation.
With that stated,I actually think "Fatimist vs Anti-Fatimist" reads better than using the term "apparition chaser" for Fatimists in this case, which is one I heard from Charles Coulombe. I could adopt that. I do think "apparition chaser" is a little more provocative for these kinds of discussions.
But, If you think I should go with it so as not to offend. Maybe I will.
I don't care what it's called in the end, all I know is people are avoiding dealing with the substance of the argument I've presented.
QuoteWho ever came up with this thing appears to be suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruegerism. Or shall I refer to them as a Dunning-Kruegerist?
As far as I know, you may have come up with it. And you may be the one suffering, because the effect is spelled, Dunning-Kruger, not Krueger. I thought about not pointing that out, since there is a certain irony to you misspelling it.
Quote
How embarrassing.
Is that a relevant opinion now? Keep me up to date when you think your opinions are relevant or when they conveniently switch to irrelevant.
Actually, assuming Bishop Williamson and his tweed wearing group of Don Draper wannabes came up with this Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist nonsense is more probable than you. You're probably just uncritically regurgitating it all.
Quote from: Xavier on January 27, 2020, 09:42:39 PM
Gerard, specific numbered questions to you:
You'll find my responses in red:
1. Why are you disregarding what
the Bishop of Fatima said: ""It remains for us, beloved brethren in Our Lord, to warn you that, if, for us, it is a great reason for joy and consolation, this grace that the Most Holy Virgin has granted us, greater is the obligation on us to correspond with Her goodness." We have the obligation to correspond with the Great Grace that Fatima is by holy obedience to God's Will. Do you agree with the Bishop that there is an obligation to correspond with Mary's Goodness, or do you reject that?
No. I disagree with the bishop because no one has addressed the threat-language in Fatima. Just curious, but why is the H in "Her" capitalized? I understand the tradition of capitalizing any pronouns used for God but not the BVM.
2.
Msgr. Van Noort said: ""Such a revelation
ought (not must?) to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin". Do you agree with this great Theologian that these revelations ought to be believed by both the one who received them and him for whom it was destined? That the faithful cannot deny it without some sort of sin? Or do you deny and reject all this?
Last time I checked, Van Noort despite his best attempt was not given the power to bind and loose the faithful of the Universal Church. What is "some sort" of sin? I've heard of mortal and venial sins, sins of malice and sins of weakness, but not "some sort." It reads like he was just looking for filler with an answer like that.
3. Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin". Do you do as the Pope taught, or do you do the opposite, and doubt or deny the supernatural and divine origin?
That's his opinion. He also stated that apparitions were only a subject of human faith. Human faith must be guided by prudence.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AM
You know the Trad/Fatimist version of the history of Communism.
No, really, I have read more books about Communism than anybody I know. I know the history of it in the USA particularly well. McCarthy was wrong, as the liberals say - he
understated the number of Communist agents in the US government. :)
But you can't know the history of the CPUSA without knowing that it was essentially a Soviet agency - that is, a Soviet Government Agency. It had zero independence. The front organisations were not totally controlled by the CPUSA, necessarily in every case - it varied enormously - but they too were all funded and influenced by the CPUSA and therefore by the Soviets.
I read somewhere that the Soviet government was spending something north of a billion US dollars per year on overseas influence operations, and kept it up for fifty years or more.
But getting the personnel and their views and allegiances clear is similar to the problem we face in trying to understand how Zionist influence worked. The official policy of the Soviet Union was - except for a brief period which happened to be the lead-up to the declaration of statehood of Israel in '48 - that Zionism was an evil nationalism which was opposed to the internationalist philosophy of the USSR. But actually, the same people all around the world intervened to serve Soviet policy and Zionist policy, again and again. Drew Pearson, the columnist, is an example, and there were many others. So you had this
apparent opposition, yet the same
staff.
You also had diversionary propaganda which served to blame the Soviets for things that the Zionists actually did (e.g. the murder of James Forrestal, and most likely JFK as well). Genuine conservatives bought this stuff as well. It was like a hall of mirrors, nobody could tell which way was up.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AM
The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848, in London, England, and although it was initially translated into several languages, Russian wasn't one of them to begin with. Karl Marx had already been exiled from Germany on account of his agitations. Communism as an idea was born in the West and propagated throughout the West by - westerners.
Well, that's physically true, but perhaps more vitally, it came out of an
oriental mind, not a Western one. Marx was baptised, but that didn't change his cultural formation. He was an Easterner and a Jew.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMCommunism didn't need help from the Kremlin in order to spread. There were plenty of Western Marxists more than capable of pushing their ideas and plenty of them were highly critical of the Soviet Union.
Sure, but actually what happened was that the movement ran out of steam, except in the one place where it was imposed on a state, and that state became its base, and provided massive resources which were deployed worldwide to foster it elsewhere.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMThe history of the CPUSA is a sideshow. Western Marxists have been busy infiltrating every institution on the West for decades but I doubt if many of them were Party members. And only a minority wanted Soviet style Communism.
The history of the CPUSA is a good comparison with the history of the USSR. Nor was it a sideshow, it was the main non-Soviet party, aimed at taking over the world's dominant empire. But it ran out of steam, and only continued by funding and training and supervision from Moscow. The fellow travellers you refer to were a fruit of that effort. Setting up front organisations and fostering fellow travellers (i.e. non Party members) was a specific strategic plan, executed with Soviet resources, and extending to literally hundreds of organisations and periodicals across the USA. The sheer scale of it was bewildering.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMThe left won the culture war, that's right, and they won it in the Church too. The idea that the spread of Communism was dependent on the Soviet Union is an exaggeration to say the least.
Well, that's certainly one notion that the Soviets and the CPUSA expended considerable effort inculcating into the minds of mainstream Americans. Your view is exactly what they wanted everybody to hold.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMStalin hated the Cultural Marxists.
See, that's not the whole truth. He was funding and supporting in numerous ways a whole raft of "cultural marxists" - as described above.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMThe Marxism that won the culture war in the West is not the Revolutionary Marxism that seized control of Russia. Perhaps you don't realise the antagonism that existed between the two.
You had countless people who said they hated Stalinism, who were funded by think-tanks, foundations, periodicals, organisations, etc., which were, ultimately, funded from the USSR. They didn't know, and they very carefully didn't investigate in order to find out.
In the Immaculate,
Nazianzen.
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 08:59:58 PM
Actually, assuming Bishop Williamson and his tweed wearing group of Don Draper wannabes came up with this Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist nonsense is more probable than you. You're probably just uncritically regurgitating it all.
That's right! Amazing! You caught me. I didn't think anyone would catch me but you are just too sharp for words. I've gotta know. How did you reason it out? What gave me away? I'm assuming it's because you are sick and tired of Bishop Williamson railing against Fatima. I must have been absolutely transparent to your high powered perception and you probably noticed me copying verbatim the same arguments made by Bishop Williamson and all of those "Fatima deniers" hanging around him. Right?
I have to concede that I've obviously been beaten by the best. How in the world did you get so smart?
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 09:24:52 PM
How in the world did you get so smart?
By eating lots of cinnamon flavored Teddy Grahams.
Here's an example of the kind of front organisation which acted effectively for the Soviet Union in its influencing operations - which means, cultural warfare.
SIECUS, an umbrella organisation founded in around 1964 in order to unite and aid those who were aiming to pervert children by teaching them impurity in schools.
Key figures, Mary Calderon, President, and co-founder. Her uncle was Carl Sandburg, well known Communist.
Rev. William H. Genne, co-founder and member of multiple Communist front organisations and movements.
Isadore Rubin, Treasurer, also a member of various Communist front organisations.
You can read about it here (Congressional Record): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TiTp3Bz3SbAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=31147&f=false
As you read, consider that this is just one organisation, in one area of the culture war, and it came to dominate its area of operations, and was hugely successful. Numerous Soviet-connected individuals were involved. Most of the membership could have hated the Soviet Union, and nobody would have attempted to correct them.
Quote from: Nazianzen on January 29, 2020, 09:10:45 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AM
You know the Trad/Fatimist version of the history of Communism.
No, really, I have read more books about Communism than anybody I know. I know the history of it in the USA particularly well. McCarthy was wrong, as the liberals say - he understated the number of Communist agents in the US government. :)
But you can't know the history of the CPUSA without knowing that it was essentially a Soviet agency - that is, a Soviet Government Agency. It had zero independence. The front organisations were not totally controlled by the CPUSA, necessarily in every case - it varied enormously - but they too were all funded and influenced by the CPUSA and therefore by the Soviets.
I read somewhere that the Soviet government was spending something north of a billion US dollars per year on overseas influence operations, and kept it up for fifty years or more.
But getting the personnel and their views and allegiances clear is similar to the problem we face in trying to understand how Zionist influence worked. The official policy of the Soviet Union was - except for a brief period which happened to be the lead-up to the declaration of statehood of Israel in '48 - that Zionism was an evil nationalism which was opposed to the internationalist philosophy of the USSR. But actually, the same people all around the world intervened to serve Soviet policy and Zionist policy, again and again. Drew Pearson, the columnist, is an example, and there were many others. So you had this apparent opposition, yet the same staff.
You also had diversionary propaganda which served to blame the Soviets for things that the Zionists actually did (e.g. the murder of James Forrestal, and most likely JFK as well). Genuine conservatives bought this stuff as well. It was like a hall of mirrors, nobody could tell which way was up.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AM
The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848, in London, England, and although it was initially translated into several languages, Russian wasn't one of them to begin with. Karl Marx had already been exiled from Germany on account of his agitations. Communism as an idea was born in the West and propagated throughout the West by - westerners.
Well, that's physically true, but perhaps more vitally, it came out of an oriental mind, not a Western one. Marx was baptised, but that didn't change his cultural formation. He was an Easterner and a Jew.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMCommunism didn't need help from the Kremlin in order to spread. There were plenty of Western Marxists more than capable of pushing their ideas and plenty of them were highly critical of the Soviet Union.
Sure, but actually what happened was that the movement ran out of steam, except in the one place where it was imposed on a state, and that state became its base, and provided massive resources which were deployed worldwide to foster it elsewhere.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMThe history of the CPUSA is a sideshow. Western Marxists have been busy infiltrating every institution on the West for decades but I doubt if many of them were Party members. And only a minority wanted Soviet style Communism.
The history of the CPUSA is a good comparison with the history of the USSR. Nor was it a sideshow, it was the main non-Soviet party, aimed at taking over the world's dominant empire. But it ran out of steam, and only continued by funding and training and supervision from Moscow. The fellow travellers you refer to were a fruit of that effort. Setting up front organisations and fostering fellow travellers (i.e. non Party members) was a specific strategic plan, executed with Soviet resources, and extending to literally hundreds of organisations and periodicals across the USA. The sheer scale of it was bewildering.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMThe left won the culture war, that's right, and they won it in the Church too. The idea that the spread of Communism was dependent on the Soviet Union is an exaggeration to say the least.
Well, that's certainly one notion that the Soviets and the CPUSA expended considerable effort inculcating into the minds of mainstream Americans. Your view is exactly what they wanted everybody to hold.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMStalin hated the Cultural Marxists.
See, that's not the whole truth. He was funding and supporting in numerous ways a whole raft of "cultural marxists" - as described above.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 29, 2020, 10:05:21 AMThe Marxism that won the culture war in the West is not the Revolutionary Marxism that seized control of Russia. Perhaps you don't realise the antagonism that existed between the two.
You had countless people who said they hated Stalinism, who were funded by think-tanks, foundations, periodicals, organisations, etc., which were, ultimately, funded from the USSR. They didn't know, and they very carefully didn't investigate in order to find out.
In the Immaculate,
Nazianzen.
Okay, so the Soviet Union supported and funded revolutionary movements across the world. The Kremlin also supported and funded trades unions, peace and nuclear disarmament movements, and any other group in open opposition to the capitalist state. The Soviets also tried to woo and influence academics, researchers, social activists, anyone who had the slightest sympathies for the revolution. We know this.
But I think you are seriously underestimating the influence of home-grown, Western Marxists who fought and won the cultural war in the West. My argument is that they would have achieved this whether the Soviet Union existed or not, for a number of reasons.
For example, the Modernists were already "in the bosom of the Church, seeking Her destruction" before the Soviet Union even existed, as Pope Pius X stated in 'Pascendi' in 1907.
And, the West had been through the Enlightenment and the 19th century then saw all manner of Modern notions such as evolution, individual liberty and women's rights arise and take hold, not forgetting Liberal Catholicism which was already influential during that period. The 'Communist Manifesto', published mid-19th century found a ready audience in the West because at that time, more and more of the old ideas and ways were being challenged, everywhere. Revolution was in the air.
You seem to be claiming that the Culture War in the West was won by the Kremlin and its agents, with perhaps a bit of help from homegrown sympathisers. You cite the CPUSA as being under Soviet control. Well, like all Western Communist Parties, the CPUSA would have automatically supported the Soviet Union and yes, would be little more than mouthpieces for the Kremlin. But while the CPUSA, and the CPGB, and the CPs of most other Western Communist Parties, worked in close partnership with the Soviets, these organisations were in no way responsible for the cultural revolution that has taken place, and were certainly not representative of all leftists in the West.
It was never a Soviet idea to combine Marx and Freud in the way the Cultural Marxists did. Freud's theories on repression and individual freedom from the authoritarian power of the Id, combined with Marxist fantasies about some ideal society that could exist if the exploitative Capitalist system was overthrown, was the special formula of the Frankfurt School and the Cultural Marxists who made their way to the USA to continue their work, particularly in academia and publishing.
One significant feature of Cultural Marxism was its abandonment of the working class as the agents of revolution, a sin in the eyes of revolutionary communists. Since it had become obvious by the 1930s that most working class people didn't want Communism and would actually stand in its way, a new revolutionary class had to be identified, which turned out to be an association of women, gays, ethnic minorities, anyone who could be induced to attack and undermine the Western society for any reason.
Stalin thought the Cultural Marxists were decadent and had one of their leading lights – Willi Munzenberg – assassinated. Here is one of Willi Munzenberg's most famous quotes.
Quote
"We will organise the intellectuals and use than to make Western civilisation stink. And when they have corrupted all its values, and made life intolerable, then we will impose the dictatorship of the proletariat."
Writings by such Frankfurt School luminaries as Theodore Adorno, George Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer were instrumental in bringing about the 1960 social revolution and their followers are now the establishment, having, 'cut their hair, put on suits' and completed the 'long march through the institutions advocated by the Italian Marxist Gramsci.
The influence of the Soviet Union in this Culture War won by the left across the West was perhaps minor. For decades, many leftists wanted nothing to do with the Soviet Union and following its collapse, they ignore it as if it never existed. Even Willi Munzenberg was reportedly horrified by news about the Gulags.
The problem lies within modern Western intellectual thought, and the Modernism that was within the Church before the Soviet Union existed.
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: revival2029 on January 29, 2020, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 12:41:46 AM
Quote from: revival2029 on January 28, 2020, 04:05:19 PM
Thank you. Im flogging through the document. Already found an error on their reference for [12], the year is wrong.
Sorry. For this part, I have no idea what you are referring to. I don't know what "flogging" a document is nor who "they" are nor what "12" is referencing for a year for what. You're going to have to be precise.
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
????....
Are you a Sola Scriptura Protestant? I mean, this is basic. How do you even know the Gospels are "the Gospels?"
I assume you've been going through the document. Please provide the whole quote with more context.
Regarding the rest of your questions, I have an idea that will save us time and make things crystal clear. I'll handle them one at a time with you so as not to cause you more unnecessary alarm. I think some answers to your questions will be self evident when you put up quotes with sufficient context for understanding.
Agreed?
I dont see my answers I seek being resolved by a discussion over that document.
You want clarity though. That's what the document does. You asked a question based on a single phrase in the document with no context. I'll help you out and demonstrate how important context is.
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
I find it really odd that you would be alarmed if you actually read the phrase in context.
I believe you quoted from chapter 3 which is title:
QuoteChapter 3: On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
In the first paragraph, you can see what the topic is:
"To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."
The whole second paragraph demonstrates that the Pope rules in practical matters. You surely didn't read that and think that Jesus would be coming back Incarnate to install bishops in particular dioceses or eparchies, Right? He wasn't going to return before his second coming and rule on Church laws and individual cases of priests who misbehave is he?
Quote2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Third paragraph demonstrates that the papacy's power is a unifying power for the Church.
Fourth paragraph reminds everyone that being united to Christ in the Church by way of the papacy is necessary for salvation.
Fifth discusses the relationship of the Pope to local ordinaries, and how the bishop isn't diminished by the papacy (as the Ultramontanes believed) but rather supported by the papacy.
Sixth and seventh paragraphs point out the Pope is free to communicate with any bishop and lay faithful. This to correct any bishop that may think they can block the Pope from the flock under his care or interference from any government.
Now paragraph 8 is where the phrase you quoted is from. Let's take a look at it.
Again, you quoted and commented: " ....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that "We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful", which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
Let's look at it in context (I'll mark the portion you quoted in Red) :
Quote8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Now let's add back in the remaining text from the phrase you posted: Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
Seems pretty clear to me.
It means that the local bishops can make a policy decision or punish someone they are in conflict with or teach something that is disagreed with and there is recourse for the faithful to go over his head to the Pope to settle the matter. In the 1950s, there was a very well known dispute over money between Cardinal Spellman of New York and Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Spellman wanted the large sum of money that Sheen had raised for the missions. Sheen didn't want to turn it over but rather give it to the people for whom it was donated. Spellman was Sheen's superior. Sheen took it to the Pope and the Pope sided with Sheen and overruled Spellman.
But back to the main point, let's add that context back and include your comment:
Quote....But to clarify your position, which you say is the Church's position, that Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] ., which is alarming since the Gospels teach that Christ is the Judge,....
I'm flummoxed that you could come to that conclusion since you stated you read that sentence even if not the whole document. Did you actually read that sentence or even the document?
Do the Gospels actually teach that Jesus will personally govern the Church in the day to day and if you have a problem with your bishop you have recourse to him personally "in all cases which under ecclesial jurisdiction?"
No, the Gospels teach that when you have a problem you don't take it to Him. You take it to the Church. As I stated at the beginning of this post, the document is intended to provide clarity, which it does. But you should have the whole context and not a snippet from which unjustified inferences are drawn.
I'll post later on some of your other questions.
But in the meantime you can fill me in on what source you were referring to in which you claimed a particular date was wrong. That way, we'll be working off of the same document and I can see what you are referring to and possibly clear it up.
Thanks I have made the proper adjustments.
Jesus Christ, the hypostatic union,
who is full of power, as the Rightful King and High Priest has authority and jurisdiction outside time, and inside time, and everywhere in between, and therefore can administer his Body and Blood, or Baptism, with no restrictions or limitations, so potentially one could become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ during the moment before the soul leaves the body, but that would be outside the authority and jurisdiction of the Institution put in place:
-to protect the Catholic Faith on Earth
-to gather all those men of good will into the Catholic Church, which is the same thing and equal to the Mystical Body of Christ, outside which no one will be saved.
Quote from: NazianzenAs you read, consider that this is just one organisation, in one area of the culture war, and it came to dominate its area of operations, and was hugely successful. Numerous Soviet-connected individuals were involved. Most of the membership could have hated the Soviet Union, and nobody would have attempted to correct them.
Thanks, Nazianzen. Definitely, they infiltrated so many areas of public life, including those you mentioned, and even congresses. Let's not forget seminaries: "There is an affidavit that many people do know of, but one perhaps that many of you have never heard of, that is relevant: the testimony of a woman named Bella Dodd (1904-1969 — so, she died at the age of 65 almost exactly 50 years ago; Bella Dodd lost one of her legs in a tram accident in New York City when she was about 19 or 20, so she was a person profoundly familiar with human suffering; by the way, though she came to Amerca, she was born in Italy — "She was born in Picerno, Basilicata, Kingdom of Italy, in 1904 and baptized Maria Assunta Isabella").
And Bella Dodd's testimony in that signed affidavit is that, under instructions from the American Communist Party, of which she was a passionate and high-ranking member for many years, she had headed up a special operation to place 1,200 young men in seminaries, all of whom were agents of the Communist Party.
And this is what she said:
"In the late 1920s and 1930s, I personally put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to weaken the Catholic Church from within.
"The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops...
"Right now they are in the highest places where they are working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church's effectiveness against Communism.
"These changes will be so drastic that you will not even recognize the Catholic Church.
"Of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent."
From: https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-48-2018-some-enemy-has-done-this/
Edit: And no wonder also, because not only had His Holiness Pope Ven. Pius XII said this in 1933, after studying the Messages of Our Lady of Fatima, to Saintly Sr. Lucia,
"Suppose, 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." https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-suicide-altering-faith-liturgy/
But the Holy Father also instituted, based on the Virgin's seriousness in warning against the danger Communist terrorism posed to Chrisitianity and civilization, "The Decree Against Communism was a 1949 Catholic Church document issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and approved by Pope Pius XII, which declared Catholics who professed Communist doctrine to be excommunicated as apostates from the Christian faith." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism
Obviously, the Catholic Church was the worst enemy of the communist terrorists, and they had to all they could to infiltrate and destroy Her. His Holiness Pope Pius XI said, on March 19th, Feast of St. Joseph, 1937, "58. See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.
Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless." http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html
Russian Orthodox Christian Historian Vladimir Solzhenitsyn says this on the devastating terrorism wrecked by Communism. How grateful Catholic hearts should be to Our Lady of Fatima and Her Immaculate Heart, through the Catholic Church, the Popes and others, and to other good Christians who worked with us, for fighting against and overcoming this demonic menace. The battle is not yet fully won though.
"As a survivor of the Communist Holocaust I am horrified to witness how my beloved America, my adopted country, is gradually being transformed into a secularist and atheistic utopia, where communist ideals are glorified and promoted, while Judeo-Christian values and morality are ridiculed and increasingly eradicated from the public and social consciousness of our nation. Under the decades-long assault and militant radicalism of many so-called "liberal" and "progressive" elites, God has been progressively erased from our public and educational institutions, to be replaced with all manner of delusion, perversion, corruption, violence, decadence, and insanity.
It is no coincidence that as Marxist ideologies and secularist principles engulf the culture and pervert mainstream thinking, individual freedoms and liberties are rapidly disappearing. As a consequence, Americans feel increasingly more powerless and subjugated by some of the most radical and hypocritical, least democratic, and characterless individuals our society has ever produced.
Those of us who have experienced and witnesses first-hand the atrocities and terror of communism understand fully why such evil takes root, how it grows and deceives, and the kind of hell it will ultimately unleash on the innocent and the faithful. Godlessness is always the first step towards tyranny and oppression!
Nobel laureate, Orthodox Christian author, and Russian dissident, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his "Godlessness: the First Step to the Gulag" address, given when he received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion on May of 1983, explained how the Russian revolution and the communist takeover were facilitated by an atheistic mentality an a long process of secularization which alienated the people from God and traditional Christian morality and beliefs. He rightly concluded: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
The text of his Templeton Address is provided below. The parallels with the current crisis and moral decay in American society are striking and frightening. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear!
* * *
"Men Have Forgotten God" – The Templeton Address
by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Text from: http://orthochristian.com/47643.html
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 09:35:47 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 09:24:52 PM
How in the world did you get so smart?
By eating lots of cinnamon flavored Teddy Grahams.
I wasn't sure what you meant. I thought it was some kind of street name for psychodelic drugs. So I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary. Pretty gross.
Quote from: revival2029 on January 30, 2020, 08:23:49 AM
Thanks I have made the proper adjustments.
Jesus Christ, the hypostatic union, who is full of power, as the Rightful King and High Priest has authority and jurisdiction outside time, and inside time, and everywhere in between, and therefore can administer his Body and Blood, or Baptism, with no restrictions or limitations, so potentially one could become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ during the moment before the soul leaves the body, but that would be outside the authority and jurisdiction of the Institution put in place:
-to protect the Catholic Faith on Earth
-to gather all those men of good will into the Catholic Church, which is the same thing and equal to the Mystical Body of Christ, outside which no one will be saved.
Regarding Baptism. The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. So, the law of the Church provides for Baptisms outside the canonical norms. A valid sacramental baptism can be achieved with proper form, matter and intention. That's why the Orthodox and many of the Protestant baptisms are valid. They aren't baptized into Orthodoxy or the Methodist Church. They are Catholics. They may lose their connection to the Church at the age of Reason or when they embrace a false religion but there is only one Baptism. There's nothing in any of that, that reneges on the promises made to the Church.
A last minute save by Christ is also in conformity with His promises and doesn't step on the toes of the Church's authority. Christ will not break His promises.
Regarding the reception of Communion, it's Christ's authority that gives the Pope his power to regulate it. Christ won't contradict the Pope using His power because that would be tantamount to betraying the papacy. He promised He would back up, not undermine the Pope's in their exercise of power.
This is why Fatima doesn't refer to Christ's power and authority. He gave the Keys to Peter and the responsibility and authority to use them. If He wants to use His Mother or St. Joseph to save the world from war, He can still do that. But He's not going to extort it out of the papacy. If He wants to use the papacy for it, He's not going to take the free will of the Pope away. And if the Pope is fooled by a false apparition, He's going to stop him one way or the other before the Church defects.
Quote from: Gerard on January 30, 2020, 10:09:20 AM
Quote from: revival2029 on January 30, 2020, 08:23:49 AM
Thanks I have made the proper adjustments.
Jesus Christ, the hypostatic union, who is full of power, as the Rightful King and High Priest has authority and jurisdiction outside time, and inside time, and everywhere in between, and therefore can administer his Body and Blood, or Baptism, with no restrictions or limitations, so potentially one could become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ during the moment before the soul leaves the body, but that would be outside the authority and jurisdiction of the Institution put in place:
-to protect the Catholic Faith on Earth
-to gather all those men of good will into the Catholic Church, which is the same thing and equal to the Mystical Body of Christ, outside which no one will be saved.
Regarding Baptism. The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. So, the law of the Church provides for Baptisms outside the canonical norms. A valid sacramental baptism can be achieved with proper form, matter and intention. That's why the Orthodox and many of the Protestant baptisms are valid. They aren't baptized into Orthodoxy or the Methodist Church. They are Catholics. They may lose their connection to the Church at the age of Reason or when they embrace a false religion but there is only one Baptism. There's nothing in any of that, that reneges on the promises made to the Church.
A last minute save by Christ is also in conformity with His promises and doesn't step on the toes of the Church's authority. Christ will not break His promises.
Regarding the reception of Communion, it's Christ's authority that gives the Pope his power to regulate it. Christ won't contradict the Pope using His power because that would be tantamount to betraying the papacy. He promised He would back up, not undermine the Pope's in their exercise of power.
This is why Fatima doesn't refer to Christ's power and authority. He gave the Keys to Peter and the responsibility and authority to use them. If He wants to use His Mother or St. Joseph to save the world from war, He can still do that. But He's not going to extort it out of the papacy. If He wants to use the papacy for it, He's not going to take the free will of the Pope away. And if the Pope is fooled by a false apparition, He's going to stop him one way or the other before the Church defects.
Yes I would be most concerned about my most prior statement being accurate, which I do believe you confirmed is accurate. Besides requesting the consecration, is it your position that Fatima betrayed the papacy? And it what specific ways if you could.
Quote from: GerardNo. I disagree with the bishop because no one has addressed the threat-language in Fatima. Just curious, but why is the H in "Her" capitalized? I understand the tradition of capitalizing any pronouns used for God but not the BVM.
It is good to believe the Bishop on pious faith, especially because in addition the Holy Father Pope Pius XII some years later confirmed it saying, "The time for doubting Fatima is past". It's not a question of threats. Supposing a helpful messenger comes and warns that an army is coming against us, and we must put up some defenses to be able to fight, ought we not thank that messenger with grateful hearts? So too ought we to be grateful, Gerard, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for warning us of the empirically verifiable fact that Communism was even then planning and preparing a great battle against the Church, Christendom and all of civilization. How do you account for what Bella Dodd has testified to? She's made known that she was helping infiltrate seminaries in the 20s and 30s, but the world at large only came to become aware of it (and still some do not know it) after 1953 odd. But Our Lady asked for the Consecration in 1929, and Pope Pius XII said those words quoted above in 1933, about Communism's great plan to destroy all civilization.
As for why I refer to Her Majesty, Our Lady and Queen Mary, our Immaculate Mother, with the Pronoun Her, simply because She's a Queen, and Queen of Angels and Heaven at that. Is She worth less reverence than even the queens of the earth used to receive? Ought we not render to Her Majesty the highest homage and honor of Hyper-Dulia, or Hyper-Veneration, according to the Second Council of Nicaea and the Teaching and Practice of the Catholic Church?
QuoteLast time I checked, Van Noort despite his best attempt was not given the power to bind and loose the faithful of the Universal Church.
True, the Pope was given that; but then you disregard Pope Benedict XIV and Pope Pius XII also. ::) So if you revere the Keys given to St. Peter, and believe in the Promised Perpetual Guidance of the Holy Ghost to the Successors of St. Peter until the end of time, which is very good, then you should revere and accept all that they have determined of the supernatural origin of Our Lady's Miracle. Pope John Paul II consulted with Saintly Sr. Lucia for ages after his assassination attempt; acknowledged it was Our Lady of Fatima who saved his life, and then went ahead to perform the Consecration as the Queen of Heaven had requested. Were it not for Communist terrorist "advisor's" interference [the same Communist terrorists like Casaroli, who had ordered the assassination, according to Ali Agca, Gerard], the Holy Father, as he plainly wanted to, and repeatedly asked his advisors for "permission" (as they were threatening him), as Fr. Amorth who was there testifies, the Complete Consecration would have been done. We already got like a Partial Indulgence, a deliverance from what we could call temporal punishments, by partially fulfilling the conditions, thanks to the Papal Consecration, when Communism fell in the Soviet Union hardly less than a decade later. Gorbachev said the fall of the Soviet Union would have been impossible without Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II himself credited Our Lady of Fatima.
Now, dear Gerard, we must complete the good work begun by our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, knowing we are being fully faithful to his wishes. It's his Communist "advisors" we oppose. Communism's fall shows the Consecration's Efficacy.
QuoteWhat is "some sort" of sin?
A sin against piety, not directly against faith. I know you are a pious Catholic, Gerard. That's why I hope you tread carefully. Would you agree it would be a sin to condemn the Sacred Heart Devotion. Good Catholics can of course choose as they wish from the many Devotions God in His Goodness has given as Heavenly Treasures to the Church, Sacred Heart, Holy Face, Divine Mercy, Divine Will, Immaculate Heart, Our Lady's Rosary, Seven Sorrows Devotion etc etc etc. But we are not allowed to condemn any of them without sin.
Quote3. Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin". Do you do as the Pope taught, or do you do the opposite, and doubt or deny the supernatural and divine origin?
That's his opinion. He also stated that apparitions were only a subject of human faith. Human faith must be guided by prudence.
We believe they are divine and supernatural based on a human assent of pious faith, as mentioned. Prudence dictates that we accept them, since the Church our Mother has approved them as worthy of credence, for the benefit of the faithful, and the good of souls.
God Bless.
Quote from: Gerard on January 30, 2020, 09:51:38 AM
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 09:35:47 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 09:24:52 PM
How in the world did you get so smart?
By eating lots of cinnamon flavored Teddy Grahams.
I wasn't sure what you meant. I thought it was some kind of street name for psychodelic drugs. So I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary. Pretty gross.
Psychodelic drugs... how polite of you.
Did it occur to you that I may have been eating some at the moment?
Quote from: dellery on January 30, 2020, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 30, 2020, 09:51:38 AM
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 09:35:47 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 29, 2020, 09:24:52 PM
How in the world did you get so smart?
By eating lots of cinnamon flavored Teddy Grahams.
I wasn't sure what you meant. I thought it was some kind of street name for psychodelic drugs. So I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary. Pretty gross.
Psychodelic drugs... how polite of you.
Did it occur to you that I may have been eating some at the moment?
It explains a bit if you are eating psychedelic drugs.
QuoteAs for why I refer to Her Majesty, Our Lady and Queen Mary, our Immaculate Mother, with the Pronoun Her, simply because She's a Queen, and Queen of Angels and Heaven at that. Is She worth less reverence than even the queens of the earth used to receive? Ought we not render to Her Majesty the highest homage and honor of Hyper-Dulia, or Hyper-Veneration, according to the Second Council of Nicaea and the Teaching and Practice of the Catholic Church?
No, you just have a thing for mis-capitalising English words. "Hyper-Dulia", "Hyper-Veneration", "the Teaching and Practice", " "it is Mercy", "A Precursor", "the children are Saints", "by the Grace of Her Apparition", "obedience to Church Superiors", "your Episcopal Superiors", " obedience of a Saintly Nun", "a Heavenly Intervention": this is retarded.
Many of us have forgotten what is the Devotion and Reverence owed to a Queen. I like that text from an Eastern Liturgy: "O Queen of queens, All-Rich, Enrich Your servants with Your Grace". When referring to Her Majesty as Her, I do so for that reason. Mary is Queen Mother or Gebirah.
Yes, I do capitalize other words sometimes; it's deliberate and it's for emphasis. Others sometimes use bold or italics for the same purpose. That's their prerogative. Places, like Fatima, are always capitalized. Titles, like when we say Our Lady, are capitalized also. I capitalize when I want to emphasize. That's all. Everyone recognizes God and god don't mean the same thing. God refers to the True God. Whereas god or gods refer to one or more false gods.
Now, LOL. Where were we? Oh yeah, as the Popes have taught, it is pious to receive the Rosary, the Sacred Heart, the Immaculate Heart etc and the Apparitions associated with them with devotion and reverence. These are priceless things given to us from Heaven, for which we must feel grateful as Roman Catholics.
They make it easy for us to be saved. Think of the Scapular; whoever wears it devoutly and reverently, with love for Our Lord and Our Lady will be saved. Think of the Rosary; whoever prays it perseveringly can never be lost, as Our Lady Herself promised, and all those demons were forced to testify, before the whole crowd. Btw, those 15,000 demons refer to demons that would have been expelled from the earth, and banished back to hell, but almost were not, because of the heretic disrupting the Heavenly Plans of Our Lady. Thus, it was an act of God's Mercy, to permit the devils to visibly enter the heretic, so that the whole crowd may become aware of them, and of the Rosary's power in dispelling demons. In the end, he was freed.
""We have to say, however reluctantly, that not a single soul who has really persevered in her service has ever been damned with us; one single sigh that she offers to the Blessed Trinity is worth far more than all the prayers, desires and aspirations of all the Saints ...
"Now that we are forced to speak we must also tell you this: nobody who perseveres in saying the Rosary will be damned, because she obtains for her servants the grace of true contrition for their sins and by means of this they obtain God's forgiveness and mercy."
From: http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/secret-rosary33.htm
Similarly, God promised wondrous graces to all those devoted to His Sacred Heart, and His Divine Love manifested so abundantly in it. For, by Nine First Fridays, of Holy Communion after Sacramental Confession, we can receive the grace of final perseverance, and thus are enabled to save our souls, and those of our loved ones. Similar promises were made by Our Lord Jesus for Devotion to His Holy Face and to His Divine Mercy. Those who embrace and become apostles of Devotion to the Holy Face are promised Salvation by the Lord. Those who venerate His Image of Divine Mercy, the Blood and Water that flowed from His pierced Heart, that represents the Sacraments, are also promised Perseverance in Grace. If we really love souls, we will see how Precious are these Promises of the Lord, and how grateful we should be for them. And help others profit by them.
In just the same way, it is pious and devout to receive with humble gratitude, with thanksgiving and with love, the wondrous Promises of Our Lady of Fatima, and of the Immaculate Heart, to the promises of all the graces necessary for salvation in one's last hour, to all who practice the First Saturdays Devotion during life, out of love for God and Her, for Her Son and for our neighbor, Her children. So many have wasted their lives in unnecessary scruples as to whether they would be saved and receive perseverance. Why do that? Go and complete the Devotion, and do it many times for your loved ones, and you know that you will receive perseverance in grace and be saved. A high degree of perseverance in grace is the grace never to commit mortal sin again. This was promised in the Two Hearts Novena. Those who've made them know by experience the Truth of those Promises. The Bible tells us it is so good to rely in confident faith on God's Promises - He can never fail to keep them. From: http://www.themostholyrosary.com/appendix2.htm
Also: https://sites.google.com/site/doublegreatnovena/the-33-promises If you want to test it out, complete it once sincerely and see for your self.
We learned in school that it's a sin to capitalize pronouns for anyone but God.
If you read the Fatima Crusader, you'll often see Her Capitalized while referring to Our Lady. You see it in some earlier works which have Imprimaturs as well.
"The Fatima Crusader is published by The National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada and is wholly dedicated to promoting devotion to and interest in the Message of Our Lady of Fatima. The Fatima Crusader is published in a four-color deluxe 81/4 x 51/4 format. Subscriptions are free-of-charge though donations are greatly appreciated and necessary to continue this labor of faith.
Founded by Father Nicholas Gruner in 1978, the magazine has steadily grown to become the largest and most important publication in the world dedicated to the Fatima Message. Today, its readership is conservatively estimated to be at more than 1,000,000 souls per issue. In 1993, Pope John Paul II commended Father Gruner "for his very important apostolic work with The Fatima Crusader"." https://fatima.org/resources/crusader-magazine-subscription/
See also the main site: https://fatima.org/ and this issue in particular: https://fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CR124-Spring-2019_WEB.pdf
"What the Consecration of Russia will mean for the Church":
Through the Consecration of Russia, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be established in the world, and the office of the Pope and bishops will be exalted. Thus people will realize that this great grace that mankind has never seen before has been gained for us only through the merits and intercession of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.
People will turn with confidence and will be devoted to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart and thus many souls will be saved. So God's plan for saving souls is to establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. God will do this through the Pope's and the bishops' obedience to the demand that they consecrate Russia together on the same day in a solemn and public way to the Immaculate Heart.
But besides being a way to establish devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, it will also be the way to establish in the world that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God and that the Pope and the Catholic bishops are the only legitimate pastors appointed by God Himself to shepherd His flock. This is because when people see that it is through the obedience of the bishops to the Pope, and it is through obedience of the Pope to the requests of Our Lady of Fatima, that God has given the grace of conversion to Russia and peace to the world, they will also recognize that the Pope and the bishops have an exalted office.
Thus not only will devotion to Mary be increased many times over, but also will the world's respect and regard for the Pope and the bishops and their office increase.
It is important then for all to realize that by speaking about the urgent need for the Consecration of Russia, we do so with the purpose not only of saving countless lives and souls, but also of safeguarding the office of the Pope and even enhancing it. It is perfectly in keeping with a proper loyalty to the Pope to insist on obedience to Our Lady of Fatima's requests.
It is well for us to realize that the Pope and the bishops need our help. Sister Lucia tells us that on July 13, 1917, the Blessed Virgin – speaking in the third person about Our Lady of the Rosary – said,"Only She can help you." So it is important for us, the lay people and the priests, to realize the importance of having a campaign of Rosaries for the Pope and the bishops so that they will receive the grace and receive the strength to resist the many and powerful forces against their making this act of Consecration."
Beautiful explanation from the Fatima Crusader. The calling of our generation, dear Brothers and Sisters, is for us all to be Fatima Crusaders.
Edit: We can do that, for e.g. by having Rosary Crusades, personally as individuals, and as families or parishes, and with all other Catholics, or by spreading the Message of Fatima and its urgent importance to all. Heaven has already given us the means to final victory. Those means are just waiting to be used, and the end result, will surely be obtained by the Powerful Graces of God given through Our Lady's Immaculate Heart - God can never fail in His Promise, but He only requires us to co-operated and do our part first. The world will see how powerful Devotion to the Immaculate Heart can be.
Quote from: dellery on January 30, 2020, 01:15:44 PM
Psychodelic drugs... how polite of you.
Did it occur to you that I may have been eating some at the moment?
No. My subscription to "Trad Stars Weekly" was not renewed. So I can't keep up on the comings and goings of the traditional Catholic elite. I just have to fantasize about what my favorite trad Catholic posters are eating at any moment.
I'm so sorry that you thought me impolite. After the various smears, false accusations, curt dismissals and flat out insults you've posted, I thought politeness wasn't in your atelier.
Quote from: queen.saints on January 31, 2020, 08:51:17 AM
We learned in school that it's a sin to capitalize pronouns for anyone but God.
The Blessed Virgin is not just
any woman and capitalizing pronouns for Her is a way to acknowledge this fact.
Capitalizing a pronoun is a way of using language for the purpose of veneration, and not an act of adoration.
Not capitalizing the Mother of God's pronouns makes it look like She's just any ol' "her".
Quote from: Xavier on January 30, 2020, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: GerardNo. I disagree with the bishop because no one has addressed the threat-language in Fatima. Just curious, but why is the H in "Her" capitalized? I understand the tradition of capitalizing any pronouns used for God but not the BVM.
It is good to believe the Bishop on pious faith, especially because in addition the Holy Father Pope Pius XII some years later confirmed it saying, "The time for doubting Fatima is past". It's not a question of threats. Supposing a helpful messenger comes and warns that an army is coming against us, and we must put up some defenses to be able to fight, ought we not thank that messenger with grateful hearts? So too ought we to be grateful, Gerard, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for warning us of the empirically verifiable fact that Communism was even then planning and preparing a great battle against the Church, Christendom and all of civilization. How do you account for what Bella Dodd has testified to? She's made known that she was helping infiltrate seminaries in the 20s and 30s, but the world at large only came to become aware of it (and still some do not know it) after 1953 odd. But Our Lady asked for the Consecration in 1929, and Pope Pius XII said those words quoted above in 1933, about Communism's great plan to destroy all civilization.
"It's not a question of threats."
It is a question of threats. This is the red flag that should not be ignored. The short cut way to know empirically whether an apparition is real or not is too see if there is anything that departs from the Catholic faith.
Usually, this is looked at from the point of theology. The "universalism" prevalent in the Medjugorje apparitions is what has ultimately skewered it, despite the fervency of the people and clergy who believe it's real. It doesn't matter if rosaries turn to gold or healings occur or people are converted. It's opposed to Catholic Doctrine. The whole thing has to go.
The problem with Fatima is less obviously doctrinal (though there are doctrinal issues as well) because it deals with upending the ecclesiology of the Church. The fact is, the BVM cannot and would not use the language of threats in order to take away control of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and make the Pope a puppet.
Long before Fatima, the Popes were aware of the threat of Communism and it's part in the war against the Church. Leo XIII wrote several encyclicals mentioning it. Humanum Genus for one.
There is no element of Fatima that cannot be pulled off by demonic trickery. And there are indicators of sloppiness in the deception. The weirdness of the children supposedly receiving Holy Communion from the angel. The "Fatima Prayer" often said within the Rosary "Lead ALL souls to Heaven." (Anyone remember just a few years ago the "ALL" in the consecration formula in the Novus Ordo? Universal salvation has been an ongoing problem since the 20th Century)
(more later...)
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: dellery on January 30, 2020, 01:15:44 PM
Psychodelic drugs... how polite of you.
Did it occur to you that I may have been eating some at the moment?
No. My subscription to "Trad Stars Weekly" was not renewed. So I can't keep up on the comings and goings of the traditional Catholic elite. I just have to fantasize about what my favorite trad Catholic posters are eating at any moment.
I'm so sorry that you thought me impolite. After the various smears, false accusations, curt dismissals and flat out insults you've posted, I thought politeness wasn't in your atelier.
I'm always polite. Even when being a big meanie to grown males that create, and assign, immature and divisive labels for their fellow Catholics.
At least you've stopped trying to get me to take your
Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist bait.
Next time you, and those who influence you, try to isolate, exacerbate, and polarize a contradiction between Believers, try not to do it in such a way that exposes your own childishness.
Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist... the least self-aware meme I've ever seen somebody try to force.
Quote from: Xavier on January 30, 2020, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: GerardNo. I disagree with the bishop because no one has addressed the threat-language in Fatima. Just curious, but why is the H in "Her" capitalized? I understand the tradition of capitalizing any pronouns used for God but not the BVM.
It is good to believe the Bishop on pious faith, especially because in addition the Holy Father Pope Pius XII some years later confirmed it saying, "The time for doubting Fatima is past". It's not a question of threats......
....... How do you account for what Bella Dodd has testified to? She's made known that she was helping infiltrate seminaries in the 20s and 30s, but the world at large only came to become aware of it (and still some do not know it) after 1953 odd. But Our Lady asked for the Consecration in 1929, and Pope Pius XII said those words quoted above in 1933, about Communism's great plan to destroy all civilization.
But the Secrets aren't approved by the Church. How could they be? Sr Lucy didn't tell the Canonical Enquiry about them.
And if the infiltration of the Church was all down to Bella Dodd and her communists, who was responsible for the infiltration of the Church by Modernists as described in 1907 by Pope Pius X.
You state that Our Lady asked for the Consecration in 1929. Sorry but this is typical Fatimism. The request wasn't made public until 1941 when Sr Lucy wrote down the Secrets for the first time. You have no way of knowing when "Our Lady asked for the Consecration". All you can say for sure is that the request was first known about publicly in 1941.
Quote from: dellery on January 31, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
I'm always polite.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Quote
Long before Fatima, the Popes were aware of the threat of Communism and it's part in the war against the Church. Leo XIII wrote several encyclicals mentioning it. Humanum Genus for one.
Exactly. And it wasn't only the Popes.
The threat of Communism was known about throughout Europe long before Fatima, and long before the Soviet Union even existed. Here's what Karl Marx wrote in 1848, in the Preface to the Communist Manifesto.
Quote
A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
The spectre of communism was already haunting Europe in 1848 and plenty were aware of it, long before Fatima.
Liberal Catholicism was already a force in the 19th century, and the Church was already infiltrated by Modernists according to 'Pascendi', published 10 years before Fatima.
There was already a Twelve First Saturdays devotion approved by Pope Pius X, before Fatima.
The first edition of the Communist Manifesto was
NOT translated into Russian.
Quote from: dellery on January 31, 2020, 10:15:43 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on January 31, 2020, 08:51:17 AM
We learned in school that it's a sin to capitalize pronouns for anyone but God.
The Blessed Virgin is not just any woman and capitalizing pronouns for Her is a way to acknowledge this fact.
Capitalizing a pronoun is a way of using language for the purpose of veneration, and not an act of adoration.
Not capitalizing the Mother of God's pronouns makes it look like She's just any ol' "her".
Anyone whose first language is English learned in school that capital pronouns are only for God, except for the first person singular. Not capitalizing the pronouns of Our Lady therefore shows two things:
1) An understanding of written modern English
2) An understanding that Mary is not God
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverential_capitalization
Quote from: queen.saints on January 31, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
Anyone whose first language is English learned in school that capital pronouns are only for God, except for the first person singular. Not capitalizing the pronouns of Our Lady therefore shows two things:
1) An understanding of written modern English
2) An understanding that Mary is not God
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverential_capitalization
An interesting link you should have read more carefully.
While it does say that,
"In short, when pronouns are capitalized which usually are lowercase, this usually implies that the writer personally reveres and regards as a deity the antecedent of that pronoun." it goes on to say further that the use of reverentially capitalizing pro-nouns for God became common in the 19th century to show respect and became less common in the 20th century.
At the close of your link the following is written,
"today there is no widely accepted rule in English on whether or not to use reverential capitalization.".
So this rule in the English language that you're implying does not exist.
Furthermore, an act of respect is not the same thing as an act of adoration --you're conflating the two.
If you don't capitalize the Blessed Virgin's pronoun that's your prerogative, but don't go telling people it's sinful to venerate Her with the way they formulate their words.
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
The "Fatima Prayer" often said within the Rosary "Lead ALL souls to Heaven." (Anyone remember just a few years ago the "ALL" in the consecration formula in the Novus Ordo? Universal salvation has been an ongoing problem since the 20th Century)
(more later...)
"Lacrimosa dies illa,
Qua resurget ex favilla,
Judicandus homo reus.
Huic ergo parce, Deus:
Pie Jesu Domine,
Dona eis requiem. Amen."
"Tearful [will be] that day,
on which from the glowing embers will arise
the guilty man who is to be judged.
Spare him then, O God.
Pious Lord Jesus,
grant them rest. Amen."
I guess the 13th century hymn "Dies Irae" is a work of those modernists who seek to subvert unquenchable truths from the bosom of Holy Mother Church, how dare a hymn asks for God to spare the condemned man from eternal embers, and asking God to grant those who will be condemned rest.
Gerard, if praying that all of mankind may be spared from eternal fire is a "problem of universal salvation," then your problem goes back to the 13th century and prior.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 31, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
The "Fatima Prayer" often said within the Rosary "Lead ALL souls to Heaven." (Anyone remember just a few years ago the "ALL" in the consecration formula in the Novus Ordo? Universal salvation has been an ongoing problem since the 20th Century)
(more later...)
"Lacrimosa dies illa,
Qua resurget ex favilla,
Judicandus homo reus.
Huic ergo parce, Deus:
Pie Jesu Domine,
Dona eis requiem. Amen."
"Tearful [will be] that day,
on which from the glowing embers will arise
the guilty man who is to be judged.
Spare him then, O God.
Pious Lord Jesus,
grant them rest. Amen."
I guess the 13th century hymn "Dies Irae" is a work of those modernists who seek to subvert unquenchable truths from the bosom of Holy Mother Church, how dare a hymn asks for God to spare the condemned man from eternal embers, and asking God to grant those who will be condemned rest.
Gerard, if praying that all of mankind may be spared from eternal fire is a "problem of universal salvation," then your problem goes back to the 13th century and prior.
No, because the 'Dies Irae' refers to a guilty man who is to be judged, and then pleads to God for mercy.
Whereas modern ideas of universal salvation deny man's guilt and God's judgement and call for all to be saved regardless.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 31, 2020, 06:45:51 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 31, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
The "Fatima Prayer" often said within the Rosary "Lead ALL souls to Heaven." (Anyone remember just a few years ago the "ALL" in the consecration formula in the Novus Ordo? Universal salvation has been an ongoing problem since the 20th Century)
(more later...)
"Lacrimosa dies illa,
Qua resurget ex favilla,
Judicandus homo reus.
Huic ergo parce, Deus:
Pie Jesu Domine,
Dona eis requiem. Amen."
"Tearful [will be] that day,
on which from the glowing embers will arise
the guilty man who is to be judged.
Spare him then, O God.
Pious Lord Jesus,
grant them rest. Amen."
I guess the 13th century hymn "Dies Irae" is a work of those modernists who seek to subvert unquenchable truths from the bosom of Holy Mother Church, how dare a hymn asks for God to spare the condemned man from eternal embers, and asking God to grant those who will be condemned rest.
Gerard, if praying that all of mankind may be spared from eternal fire is a "problem of universal salvation," then your problem goes back to the 13th century and prior.
No, because the 'Dies Irae' refers to a guilty man who is to be judged, and then pleads to God for mercy.
Whereas modern ideas of universal salvation deny man's guilt and God's judgement and call for all to be saved regardless.
What makes the Fatima prayer different?
Quote from: queen.saints on January 31, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: dellery on January 31, 2020, 10:15:43 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on January 31, 2020, 08:51:17 AM
We learned in school that it's a sin to capitalize pronouns for anyone but God.
The Blessed Virgin is not just any woman and capitalizing pronouns for Her is a way to acknowledge this fact.
Capitalizing a pronoun is a way of using language for the purpose of veneration, and not an act of adoration.
Not capitalizing the Mother of God's pronouns makes it look like She's just any ol' "her".
Anyone whose first language is English learned in school that capital pronouns are only for God, except for the first person singular. Not capitalizing the pronouns of Our Lady therefore shows two things:
1) An understanding of written modern English
2) An understanding that Mary is not God
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverential_capitalization
Of course this rule also includes the first person plural pronoun 'our'. Hence it's our Lady.
Quote from: dellery on January 31, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
I'm always polite.
Nah. That's a lie. Anyone can take a look at your posts and see what a load that is.
QuoteEven when being a big meanie to grown males...
No. You're not a big meanie. You're a little liar. I can tell you're winding down on this thread because you can't maintain your facade. It's clear you've brought nothing of value to this discussion at all. Your "opinions" are irrelevant when obvious heterodoxy is being brought about by "FATIMISTS" who can't tolerate the lowly position of a private revelation not being obligatory on the Universal Church. I mean, talk about the answer of a total loser.
You provide nothing, but snark and worthless smears. Worst of all, this thread is an occasion of sin for you since you lied repeatedly.
Quote
that create, and assign, immature and divisive labels for their fellow Catholics.
Yet more lies. You would not have the capability nor the guts to actually prove your meaningless accusations.
QuoteAt least you've stopped trying to get me to take your Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist bait.
Nonsense. I haven't tried to get you to take anything. You're just trolling the thread and I'm calling you on it. I've already shown you don't have the guts to answer even the most obvious of questions.
QuoteNext time you, and those who influence you, try to isolate, exacerbate, and polarize a contradiction between Believers, try not to do it in such a way that exposes your own childishness.
What's makes your opinion on this relevant?
Chris Ferrara and the other "FATIMISTS" wants Fatima to be elevated to Divine Public Revelation, thereby trashing the dogma that Public Revelation was closed with the death of the Apostle John. And you are too afraid to answer it correctly claiming your opinion isn't relevant. Why is that? Are you brainwashed or something?
While you think your opinions are somehow relevant when you write snark while chomping down your Teddy Grahams and utterly show yourself fully willing to invent lies whole cloth.
Your unwillingness to engage in any meaningful refutation of the points made shows you have no answers. You've asked plenty of questions and been answered thoughtfully and then dismissed them for no good reason. What does that point to? You're so emotionally crippled by the facts that you've actually decided to pretend that lies are the truth in order to spare yourself. And anyone who threatens that delusion is a target for attack.
QuoteFatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist... the least self-aware meme I've ever seen somebody try to force.
It's a shame that you'd be willing to fry in Hell making such malicious lies. I doubt you are a Catholic at all.
I'll have to say a Hail Mary for your repentance and conversion.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 31, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
The "Fatima Prayer" often said within the Rosary "Lead ALL souls to Heaven." (Anyone remember just a few years ago the "ALL" in the consecration formula in the Novus Ordo? Universal salvation has been an ongoing problem since the 20th Century)
(more later...)
"Lacrimosa dies illa,
Qua resurget ex favilla,
Judicandus homo reus.
Huic ergo parce, Deus:
Pie Jesu Domine,
Dona eis requiem. Amen."
"Tearful [will be] that day,
on which from the glowing embers will arise
the guilty man who is to be judged.
Spare him then, O God.
Pious Lord Jesus,
grant them rest. Amen."
I guess the 13th century hymn "Dies Irae" is a work of those modernists who seek to subvert unquenchable truths from the bosom of Holy Mother Church, how dare a hymn asks for God to spare the condemned man from eternal embers, and asking God to grant those who will be condemned rest.
Gerard, if praying that all of mankind may be spared from eternal fire is a "problem of universal salvation," then your problem goes back to the 13th century and prior.
Two points:
First regarding the Dies Irae:
Isn't there a section in the Dies Irae about the Sheep and the Goats and asking for God to put the person on His right side?
Is there somewhere in there some wish for the Goats and the wicked to be brought into the fold at the end a la Origen? I haven't seen anything in it to indicate universal salvation.
Second:
Was there or was there not a giant kerfuffle over the Novus Ordo translating the words of consecration as "for all" instead of "for many" from 1970 till around 2006 when Pope Benedict XVI corrected the translation?
You can also check the Catechism of the Council of Trent that specifically refers to the use of "for many" and not "for all" in the section on the Eucharist.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 31, 2020, 06:56:39 PM
QuoteNo, because the 'Dies Irae' refers to a guilty man who is to be judged, and then pleads to God for mercy.
Whereas modern ideas of universal salvation deny man's guilt and God's judgement and call for all to be saved regardless.
What makes the Fatima prayer different?
Does "Lead ALL souls to Heaven" include those in Hell? Does it try to override Jesus' definite statement that He will tell those on His left, "Depart from me..." and his many other statements of what the final Judgment will be like? How would you reconcile that prayer with what Jesus states in Luke chapter 13?
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:28:25 PM
Quote from: dellery on January 31, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
I'm always polite.
Nah. That's a lie. Anyone can take a look at your posts and see what a load that is.
QuoteEven when being a big meanie to grown males...
No. You're not a big meanie. You're a little liar. I can tell you're winding down on this thread because you can't maintain your facade. It's clear you've brought nothing of value to this discussion at all. Your "opinions" are irrelevant when obvious heterodoxy is being brought about by "FATIMISTS" who can't tolerate the lowly position of a private revelation not being obligatory on the Universal Church. I mean, talk about the answer of a total loser.
You provide nothing, but snark and worthless smears. Worst of all, this thread is an occasion of sin for you since you lied repeatedly.
Quote
that create, and assign, immature and divisive labels for their fellow Catholics.
Yet more lies. You would not have the capability nor the guts to actually prove your meaningless accusations.
QuoteAt least you've stopped trying to get me to take your Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist bait.
Nonsense. I haven't tried to get you to take anything. You're just trolling the thread and I'm calling you on it. I've already shown you don't have the guts to answer even the most obvious of questions.
QuoteNext time you, and those who influence you, try to isolate, exacerbate, and polarize a contradiction between Believers, try not to do it in such a way that exposes your own childishness.
What's makes your opinion on this relevant?
Chris Ferrara and the other "FATIMISTS" wants Fatima to be elevated to Divine Public Revelation, thereby trashing the dogma that Public Revelation was closed with the death of the Apostle John. And you are too afraid to answer it correctly claiming your opinion isn't relevant. Why is that? Are you brainwashed or something?
While you think your opinions are somehow relevant when you write snark while chomping down your Teddy Grahams and utterly show yourself fully willing to invent lies whole cloth.
Your unwillingness to engage in any meaningful refutation of the points made shows you have no answers. You've asked plenty of questions and been answered thoughtfully and then dismissed them for no good reason. What does that point to? You're so emotionally crippled by the facts that you've actually decided to pretend that lies are the truth in order to spare yourself. And anyone who threatens that delusion is a target for attack.
QuoteFatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist... the least self-aware meme I've ever seen somebody try to force.
It's a shame that you'd be willing to fry in Hell making such malicious lies. I doubt you are a Catholic at all.
I'll have to say a Hail Mary for your repentance and conversion.
That's a pretty long post. Could you summarize it for me?
Quote from: dellery on January 31, 2020, 03:37:21 PM
Quote from: queen.saints on January 31, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
Anyone whose first language is English learned in school that capital pronouns are only for God, except for the first person singular. Not capitalizing the pronouns of Our Lady therefore shows two things:
1) An understanding of written modern English
2) An understanding that Mary is not God
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverential_capitalization
An interesting link you should have read more carefully.
While it does say that, "In short, when pronouns are capitalized which usually are lowercase, this usually implies that the writer personally reveres and regards as a deity the antecedent of that pronoun." it goes on to say further that the use of reverentially capitalizing pro-nouns for God became common in the 19th century to show respect and became less common in the 20th century.
At the close of your link the following is written, "today there is no widely accepted rule in English on whether or not to use reverential capitalization.".
So this rule in the English language that you're implying does not exist.
Furthermore, an act of respect is not the same thing as an act of adoration --you're conflating the two.
If you don't capitalize the Blessed Virgin's pronoun that's your prerogative, but don't go telling people it's sinful to venerate Her with the way they formulate their words.
I read the whole link before posting. Like my Catholic grammar books taught, the fact that capitalizing pronouns in current English shows that the writer believes the person to who they are referring to be a deity, means this can only be done for God.
"Interpretation
The noted Mariologist Gabriel Roschini called the 1942 consecration of the human race to the Immaculate Heart of Mary "the greatest honour, which anyone can imagine. It is the highest manifestation of the Marian cult."[8] It opens new perspectives for salvation history. He and others see the consecration as a new "Marian way", a new definition of what human means between the collectivism and unlimited liberalism. The consecration to Mary by Pope Pius means "that an age of the Church" had begun: Through Mary we understand the super-natural destiny of mankind and every human being.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_Consecration_to_the_Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary#Interpretation
"And we, so that our fervent prayers and yours may more easily be heard, and to give you a special testimony of our particular benevolence, just as a few years ago we consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today we consecrate and in a most special manner we entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart, with the firm hope that soon, thanks to the all-powerful patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the wishes which we form with all of you and all good men may be happily fulfilled, for a true peace, fraternal concord and the liberty due to all, and in the first place to the Church. Thus by our prayer, united to your own and that of the whole Christian people, the Kingdom of the Saviour Jesus Christ will be firmly established over all the earth: «A Kingdom of truth and life, a Kingdom of holiness and grace, a Kingdom of justice, love and peace.»" http://www.1260.org/Mary/Vatican/Vatican_Pius_XII_Consecration_1952-07-07_en.htm
"9. Consecration all the peoples of Russia to Immaculate Heart
And therefore we, in order that Our and your prayers may be more easily answered, and in order to give you a special attestation of our benevolence, in the same way as a few years ago We consecrated the entire world to the immaculate Heart of the virgin Mother of God, so now, in a very special way, consecrate all peoples of Russia to the very same immaculate Heart, in the safe confidence that with the extremely powerful protection of the virgin Mary the wishes expressed by Us, by you and by every good person for a true peace for fraternal concord and due freedom for everyone and for the Church in the first place, may be answered as soon as possible; in such a manner that, through the prayer that We send up to Heaven together with you and all Christians, the reign of Christ, harbinger of salvation, which is "kingdom of truth and life, kingdom of sainthood and grace, kingdom of justice, of love and of peace", may triumph and steadily consolidate itself everywhere on earth"
Queen of the Holy Rosary,
Help of the Christians,
Refuge of the human race,
Conqueress in God's battlefields,
To You and to Your Immaculate Heart
In this tragic hour of human history
We entrust and consecrate ourselves,
And the Holy Church.
She is the Mystical Body of Your Jesus,
Suffering and bleeding in so many parts
And tormented in so many ways,
We consecrate to You the whole world torn by bitter strive
And consumed by the fire of hatred
The victim of its own wickedness.
Look with compassion to all material and moral destruction
To the suffering and fears of fathers and mothers
Of husbands and wives, of brother and sisters and innocent children.
Look at the many lives cut down in the flower of youth
So many bodies torn to pieces in brutal slaughter
So many souls tortured and troubled
And in danger of being lost eternally.
Oh, Mother of Mercy, obtain peace for us from God!
Obtain especially those graces, which can convert human hearts quickly.
Those graces, which can prepare, establish and insure peace.
Queen of Peace, pray for us;
Give the world at war the peace for which all are longing,
Peace in Truth, Justice and the Charity of Christ.
Give them peace of the arms and peace of mind,
That in tranquillity and order
The Kingdom of God may expand.
Grant Your protection to infidels
And to those still walking in the shadow of death;
Give them peace and permit that the sun of truth may raise upon them;
And that together with us
They may repeat before the Only Saviour of the World:
Glory to God in the highest
And peace on earth among men of good will (Lk2.14)
Give peace to the people separated by error and schism,
Particularly those, who have special devotion to You
And among whom there was no home,
Where Your venerable Icon was not honoured,
Though at present it may be hidden
In the hope for better days.
Bring them back to the One Fold of Christ,
Under the One True Shepherd.
Obtain peace and complete liberty for the Holy Church of God,
Check the spreading flood of neo-paganism,
Arouse within the faithful love of purity
The practice of Christian life and apostolic zeal,
So that the people who serve God,
May increase in merit and number.
All of humanity were once consecrated to the Heart of Your Son.
All our hopes rest in Him, Who is in all times
Sign and pledge of victory and salvation.
Forever we consecrate ourselves to You
And to Your Immaculate Heart,
Oh, Mother and Queen of the World!
May Your love and patronage hasten the victory of the Kingdom of God,
May all nations, at peace with each other and with God, proclaim You Blessed
And sing with You from one end of the earth to the other,
The eternal Magnificat of glory, love and gratitude
To the Heart of Jesus, in which alone,
They can find Truth, Life and Peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_Consecration_to_the_Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary#The_act_of_consecration
The entire Apostolic Letter in which the Papal Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (though without the Bishops) on July 7, 1952, showing Our Lady of Fatima's Message was already taken for granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs for the Universal Church long before this time. Indeed, the earlier Consecration to which the Pope refers was on October 31st, 1942. The Pope and all Bishops of the Catholic Church again solemnly showed they approved and believed Our Lady of Fatima's Message on March 25th, 1984, making Our Lady of Fatima's Message as approved as any private revelation can ever be, by the highest authorities in the Church all together. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-xii_apl_19520707_sacro-vergente-anno.html
"While the Holy Year happily turned towards its end, after by divine disposition it was given to us to solemnly define the dogma of the assumption into heaven and body of the great Mother of God virgin Mary, many from all over the world they expressed their lively exultation; among these there was no shortage of those who, in sending us letters of thanks, begged instantaneously that we consecrate the entire people of Russia, in the distresses of the present moment, to the immaculate Heart of the same virgin Mary.
This plea returned to us extremely welcome, since, if our paternal affection embraces all peoples, in particular it is addressed to those who, although mostly separated by historical events from this apostolic see, still retain the Christian name and they find in such conditions that not only is it very difficult for them to listen to Our voice and know the teachings of Catholic doctrine, but they are driven with deceptive and pernicious arts to reject even the faith and the name of God.
1. Constant remembrance in prayer
As soon as we were elevated to the supreme pontificate, Our thoughts turned to you, who constitute an immense people, distinguished in history for glorious endeavors, for love of country, for industriousness and thrift, for mercy towards God and the Virgin Mary.
We have never ceased to raise Our supplications to God, so that he will always assist you with his light and his divine help, and grant you all to be able to achieve, together with a just material prosperity, also that freedom, whereby everyone of you be able to protect your human dignity, know the teachings of true religion, and give due worship to God not only in the depths of your conscience, but also openly, in the exercise of public and private life.
After all, you know that Our predecessors, whenever the possibility arose, had nothing else at heart than to show you their benevolence and offer you their help. You know that the apostles of the Western Slavs, Saints Cyril and Methodius, who together with the Christian religion also brought civilization to the ancestors of those, went to this alma city, so that their apostolic activity was supported by the authority of the Romans pontiffs. And while they make their entrance in Rome, Our predecessor Hadrian III of happy memory "goes to meet them with great testimony of honors, accompanied by the clergy and the people" ( 2) and, after approving and praising their work, not only elevates them to the episcopate, but he himself wants to consecrate them with the solemn majesty of sacred rites.
2. A millennium after the first meetings
As for your ancestors, the Roman pontiffs, whenever circumstances allowed, tried to tighten or consolidate bonds of friendship with them. So in the year 977 our predecessor Benedict VII sent happy legates to his prince Jaropolk, brother of the famous Vladimiro; and to the same great prince Vladimiro, under whose auspices the Christian name and civilization were cast for the first time among your people, legations were sent by Our predecessors John XV in 991 and Sylvester II in 999; which was kindly reciprocated by Vladimiro himself, who in turn sent ambassadors to the same Roman popes. And it is noteworthy that in the time when this prince brought these peoples to the religion of Jesus Christ, eastern and western Christianity were united under the authority of the Roman pontiff, as supreme head of the whole church.
Indeed, not a few years later, that is, in 1075, your prince Isjaslav sent his son Iaropolk to the supreme pontiff Gregory VII; and this Our predecessor of immortal memory thus wrote to this prince and his august consort: «Your son, while visiting the sacred thresholds of the apostles, came to Us, and since he wanted to obtain that kingdom by Our hand as a gift of Saint Peter , having made profession of fidelity to the same prince of the apostles, he asked for it with devout supplications, assuring without any doubt that his request would have been ratified and confirmed by you, had he had the favor and protection of apostolic authority. Since these votes and requests seemed legitimate, both for your consent and for the applicant's devotion, we finally accepted them, and we have given him by Saint Peter the government of your kingdom, with this intention and with this ardent desire, that Blessed Peter with his intercession with God guard you, your kingdom and all your things, and make you possess that same kingdom in all peace and also with honor and glory until the end of your life. .... "( 3 )
Similarly, it is to be noted and to be taken in supreme consideration that Isidore, metropolitan of Kiev, in the ecumenical council of Florence, signed the decree with which the union of the eastern and western church was solemnly sanctioned under the authority of the Roman pontiff, and this for all its ecclesiastical province, that is, for the entire kingdom of Russia; and to this sanction of unity he, as far as he was concerned, remained faithful until the end of his earthly life.
3. Wonderful pages of generosity and love
And if in the meantime and afterwards, due to a accumulation of adverse circumstances, on one side and the other communications became more difficult, and consequently more difficult the union of souls - although until 1448 there is no document public that declares your church separate from the apostolic see - this however in general is not attributable to the Slavic people, nor certainly to Our predecessors, who always surrounded these populations with a paternal love, and when they were able they took care to support them and to help them in any way.
We leave out not a few other historical documents from which the benevolence of Our predecessors towards your nation appears, but we cannot fail to mention briefly what the Supreme Pontiffs Benedict XV and Pius XI did, when, after the first European conflict, especially in the southern regions of your homeland, huge multitudes of men, women, innocent boys and girls were hit by a terrible famine and extreme misery. In fact, driven by paternal affection towards your compatriots, they sent to these populations food, clothing and much money collected by the entire family of Catholics, to meet all those hungry and unhappy, and to be able to somehow alleviate their calamities. And Our predecessors provided, according to their possibilities, not only to material needs, but also to spiritual ones; in fact, do not pay to raise supplications to God, father of mercies and source of all consolation (cf.2 Cor 1: 3), they also wanted public prayers to be called for your religious condition so upset and troubled by the denials and enemies of God, determined to eradicate from the minds the faith and the very notion of Divinity. Thus the supreme pontiff Pius XI in 1930 established that on the day of the feast of St. Joseph, patron of the universal church, "common prayers were raised to God. . . in the Vatican Basilica, for the unhappy conditions of religion in Russia "; ( 4) and he himself wanted to be present, surrounded by a very large and pious multitude of people. Furthermore, in the solemn consistorial allocution he exhorted everyone with these words: «We must pray to Christ. . . Redeemer of mankind, so that peace and freedom to profess the faith to the unhappy children of Russia may be restored. . . and we want that according to this intention, that is, for Russia, those prayers that Our predecessor Leo XIII of happy memory has forced the priests to say together with the people after the Holy Mass be recited ; the bishops and the regular and secular clergy with every care should try to inculcate the above to their faithful or to anyone who attends the Holy Mass, and often they recall this ». ( 5 )
4. Impartiality of the Supreme Pontiff
We gladly confirm and renew this exhortation and this command, since the religious situation presently with you is certainly not better, and since we feel animated by these same people with the same lively affection and the same concern.
When the last terrible and long conflict broke out, we did everything that was in Our possibilities, with the word, with the exhortations and with the action, so that the disagreements were healed by a fair and just peace, and so that the peoples all, without a difference of lineage, united in a friendly and fraternally way, and together they collaborated to achieve greater prosperity.
Never, even at that time, a word that seemed unjust or harsh to a part of the belligerents came from Our mouth. Certainly we have tried again, as we should have, any iniquity and any violation of law; but we did so in order to avoid with all diligence all that could become, albeit unjustly, the cause of greater afflictions for the oppressed peoples. And when somewhere there was pressure for Us to somehow, verbally or in writing, approve of the war waged against Russia in 1941, we never agreed to do this, as we openly expressed on February 25, 1946, in the speech given before sacred college and to all diplomatic missions to the Holy See. ( 6 )
5. For the freedom of souls and for justice
When it comes to defending the cause of religion, truth, justice and Christian civilization, certainly not we can keep silent; However, Our thoughts and Our intentions are always directed towards this, that is, not with the violence of arms, but with the majesty of the right, all peoples are governed; and each of them, in possession of due civil and religious freedom within the boundaries of their homeland, is led towards harmony, peace and a hard-working life, so that individual citizens can obtain the necessary things for food, housing, to the sustenance and governance of one's family. Our words and exhortations concerned and concern all nations, and therefore also you, who are always present in our heart, and whose needs and calamities we wish to alleviate according to our strength. Those who love not the lie but the truth know that throughout the course of the recent hard conflict we have shown ourselves impartial towards all the belligerents, and we have often proved this with words and actions; and we have understood in our ardent charity all nations, even those whose rulers professed to be enemies of this apostolic see, and also those in which the deniators of God fiercely oppose everything that knows of Christian and divine, and seek to erase it from souls of citizens. Indeed, by mandate of Jesus Christ, who entrusted the entire flock of the Christian people to Saint Peter, prince of the apostles (cf. and we have understood in our ardent charity all nations, even those whose rulers professed to be enemies of this apostolic see, and also those in which the deniators of God fiercely oppose everything that knows of Christian and divine, and seek to erase it from souls of citizens. In fact, by mandate of Jesus Christ, who entrusted the entire flock of the Christian people to Saint Peter, prince of the apostles (cf. and we have understood in our ardent charity all nations, even those whose rulers professed to be enemies of this apostolic see, and also those in which the deniators of God fiercely oppose everything that knows of Christian and divine, and seek to erase it from souls of citizens. In fact, by mandate of Jesus Christ, who entrusted the entire flock of the Christian people to Saint Peter, prince of the apostles (cf.Jn 21 : 15-17) - of which we are unworthy successor - We love all peoples with intense love and wish to provide everyone's earthly prosperity and eternal health. All therefore, both in war with each other with weapons, and in contention for serious disagreements, are considered by us as many dear children; and nothing else we desire, nothing else we ask God for them with prayer, if not their mutual harmony, just and true peace, and ever greater prosperity. Indeed, if some, because deceived by lies and slanders, profess open hostility towards us, we are animated by them with greater commiseration and a more ardent affection.
6. Condemnation of error and charity for wanderers
We have undoubtedly condemned and rejected - as the duty of our office demands - the errors that the proponents of atheist communism teach and strive to propagate with the utmost damage and ruin of the citizens; but the wanderers, far from rejecting them, we want them to return to the truth and be brought back to the right path. Indeed, we have highlighted and tried these lies, which often appeared under false appearances of truth, precisely because we nurture paternal affection for you and seek your good. In fact, we have the firm certainty that you can only derive enormous damages from these errors, since they not only take away from your souls that supernatural light and those supreme comforts that come from piety and worship to God,
7. The powerful garrison of the Mother of God
We know that many of you keep the Christian faith in the intimate sanctuary of your conscience, who in no way allow themselves to be led to favor the enemies of religion, but rather ardently desire to profess the Christian teachings, the unique and secure foundations of civilian life, not only privately, but if it were possible, as befits free people, even openly. And we still know, with our greatest hope and great comfort, that you love and honor the Virgin Mary Mother of God with ardent affection, and that you venerate her sacred images. We are aware that in Clemlino himself a temple was built - unfortunately now removed from divine worship - dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary assumed into heaven; and this is a very clear testimony of the love that your ancestors and you bring towards the great Mother of God.
Now, we know that the hope of salvation cannot fail where the souls turn with sincerity and ardent pity towards the most holy Mother of God. In fact, although men strive, however impious and powerful, to evade the hearts of citizens of holy religion and Christian virtue, although Satan himself tries to promote by all means this sacrilegious struggle according to the sentence of the apostle of the nations: «. . . we do not have to fight against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers, against the rulers of this dark world, against evil spirits. . . »( Eph6, 12); however, if Mary interposes her valid patronage, the gates of hell cannot prevail. In fact, she is the most benign and most powerful Mother of God and of all of us, and it has never been heard in the world that anyone has made a pleading appeal to her, and has not experienced her very valid intercession. Continue, therefore, as you are used to, to venerate her with fervent piety, to love her ardently and to invoke her with these words, which are familiar to you: "Only you, the most holy and most pure Mother of God, have been granted to see you always fulfilled" . ( 7 )
8. Fervent appeal for peace
We, together with you, raise our plea to it, so that the Christian truth, decorum and support of human coexistence, will be strengthened and strengthened among the peoples of Russia, and all the deceptions of the enemies of religion, all their errors and their treacherous limbs are rejected by you far away; for public and private customs to return to conforming to evangelical norms; so that especially those who profess to be Catholics among you, although deprived of their shepherds, resist with fearless fortitude against the assaults of impiety until death; so that the just freedom that belongs to the human person, citizens and Christians, is restored to all, as is their right, and in the first place is returned to the church, who has the divine mandate to teach all men in religious truths and virtues; and finally, so that true peace may shine upon your most beloved nation and all humanity, and this peace founded on justice and nourished by charity will happily direct all people to that common prosperity of citizens and peoples which derives from the mutual harmony of minds.
May our most loving Mother of ours be pleased to look with benign eyes also on those who organize the ranks of militant atheists and give every impulse to their initiatives. May it illuminate their minds with the light from on high, and direct their hearts with divine grace to salvation.
9. Consecration of the peoples of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
We, therefore, so that more easily Our and your prayers are answered, and to give you a singular attestation of Our particular benevolence, as a few years ago we consecrated the whole world to the immaculate Heart of the virgin Mother of God, so now, so very special, we consecrate all the peoples of Russia to the same immaculate Heart, in the sure confidence that with the most powerful patronage of the virgin Mary the vows will come true, concord and due liberty to all and primarily to the church; so that, through the prayer that We raise together with you and with all Christians, the salvific kingdom of Christ, which is "the kingdom of truth and life, the kingdom of holiness and grace, the kingdom of justice,( 8 ) in all parts of the earth triumph and consolidate steadily.
And with a supplicative invocation we pray to the very most Mother, to assist each one of you in the present calamities and obtain for your minds Divine Son that light that comes from Heaven, and implore for your souls that virtue and that fortitude, for which, supported by divine grace, may you victoriously overcome all impiety and error.
Rome, at San Pietro, 7 July 1952, feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius, year XIV of our pontificate."
Quote from: queen.saints on February 01, 2020, 04:07:17 AM
I read the whole link before posting. Like my Catholic grammar books taught, the fact that capitalizing pronouns in current English shows that the writer believes the person to who they are referring to be a deity, means this can only be done for God.
That is NOT what your link says.
Capitalizing God's pronouns is an option not a rule.
If one doesn't Capitalize God's pronouns does this show they don't believe in Him??
Capitalizing a pronoun is optional, done out of respect, and usually done for God.
So if reverent capitalization is optional, done out of respect, and usually reserved for God, you have no argument here.
Worship/adoration is due only to God, but we can honor and respect His creations, especially His Bride.
You're saying we can not use our language to reverence the Blessed Virgin by trying to cast an optional practice as a firm rule and then conflating respect with adoration.
I'll have to take your word that your Catholic grammar-school taught you it's a sin to capitalize the Blessed Virgin's pronouns and did not teach you what an act of adoration is.
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 04:45:31 AM
The entire Apostolic Letter in which the Papal Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (though without the Bishops) on July 7, 1952, showing Our Lady of Fatima's Message was already taken for granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs for the Universal Church long before this time. Indeed, the earlier Consecration to which the Pope refers was on October 31st, 1942. The Pope and all Bishops of the Catholic Church again solemnly showed they approved and believed Our Lady of Fatima's Message on March 25th, 1984, making Our Lady of Fatima's Message as approved as any private revelation can ever be, by the highest authorities in the Church all together.
It doesn't matter how you spin the facts. The consecration hasn't been done as requested, and the Secrets containing the consecration request haven't been approved.
Where were the Bishops? Demonstrating their commitment to the consecration request? But never mind, with a bit of spin you can make it so.
Awkward Customer, you didn't answer my questions. All the Secrets were published with Vatican Approval no later than 2000 A.D. Secrets 1 and 2 were perhaps approved earlier, I haven't checked. But Secret 3 was made known to the public only in 2000. But it had already been made known to the Bishop in 1944, and made known by the Bishop to Rome no later than 1957. Now, answer my question:
"[1] I believe that that is the Church's Teaching. We should give a human assent of pious faith.
Do you see it differently? Can you cite a Saint or a Doctor or a Pope explaining what you believe is the Church's Teaching on the subject?
[2] Do you not piously believe in the Sacred Heart, Awkward Customer? Do not all Catholics piously believe in Our Lady's Rosary? Are those all not private Revelations to which we give an assent of pious faith, and which very greatly advance our piety, and increase our faith, when well made use of?" And [3] wouldn't it be a grave sin, against Piety, to condemn the Sacred Heart or the Holy Rosary as "diabolical" as some here wish to do?
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:47:38 PM
Does "Lead ALL souls to Heaven" include those in Hell? Does it try to override Jesus' definite statement that He will tell those on His left, "Depart from me..." and his many other statements of what the final Judgment will be like? How would you reconcile that prayer with what Jesus states in Luke chapter 13?
Why do you isolate the "lead all souls to heaven" part while ignoring the "especially those most in need of thy mercy" part??
Probably because it's the only way to make your argument work.
Asking Christ to mercifully lead all souls, particularly sinners, to heaven is not an affirmation of Universal Salvation but its refutation.
If we are all saved why would Christ need to mercifully lead a soul to heaven? Aren't all these souls, according to Universal Salvation, getting saved anyway?
Christ needs to lead souls to heaven because they are damned without Him, and that's exactly what the Fatima prayer is implying and asking Him to do.
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 07:33:37 AM
Awkward Customer, you didn't answer my questions.
You didn't answer my question.
What does the Church teach on the obligation to accept private revelations?
You've ignored it twice.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 01, 2020, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 07:33:37 AM
Awkward Customer, you didn't answer my questions.
You didn't answer my question.
What does the Church teach on the obligation to accept private revelations?
You've ignored it twice.
Actually I did answer it, and twice. See replies #68 and 70. But more to the point, you've never been able to answer St. Alphonsus, or even acknowledge his teaching on this subject. And the Doctor of the Church cites Pope Benedict XIV as well to explain it. I've cited it from the beginning of the thread, and you've not addressed it. Are you going to ignore it again?
"As
Almighty God in His goodness imparts His favors to His faithful followers in divers ways-----sometimes by enlightening their minds in a supernatural manner, and even conversing with them familiarly, as it were-----and as the nature of this work is intended to be practical, not controversial, 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." http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/blessed-eucharist.htm
So, Awkward Customer, does your opinion "savor of infidelity" or "savor of presumption", according to the holy Doctor? You tell me.
Do you give the human assent of pious faith spoken of by the Pope and other authorities like the Saints, or do you not? You tell me.
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 01, 2020, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 07:33:37 AM
Awkward Customer, you didn't answer my questions.
You didn't answer my question.
What does the Church teach on the obligation to accept private revelations?
You've ignored it twice.
Actually I did answer it, and twice.
Sure did.
Quote from: Xavier on January 28, 2020, 05:50:57 PM
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."
Quote from: Xavier on January 28, 2020, 06:28:05 PM
Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, right? Where Peter is, there is the Church. So Pope Benedict XIV represents the Church. So why is this, "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." not the Church's Teaching on the subject, Awkward Customer?
And there are some other statements as well:
Cardinal Franzelin: "It is not right to condemn such [private] revelations". To do so, Theologians explain, is to fail in the respect due to the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
[Edit - Monsignor Vant Noort: "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".]
Again, all Catholics intuitively know we cannot condemn the Rosary, or the Sacred Heart, as Protestants and Anti-Catholics do.
What we can do is choose which among the Wonderful Devotions that Almighty God has given His Church we enrich our spiritual life with.
Finally, from reply #46, the Bishop of Fatima's statement itself confirms the statement of earlier Saintly Bishops like Alphonsus Maria Ligouri. And the statement of Pope Ven. Pius XII itself, "the time for doubting Fatima is past" confirms the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV.
"What a beautiful statement from Bp. Joseph 13 years after the events on October the 13th: http://www.1260.org/Mary/Apparitions_Fatima/Fatima_Apparition_Approval_en.htm "It remains for us, beloved brethren in Our Lord, to warn you that, if, for us, it is a great reason for joy and consolation, this grace that the Most Holy Virgin has granted us, greater is the obligation on us to correspond with Her goodness."
So, it is a Great Grace, and a Greater Obligation incumbent upon us, to correspond to the Maternal Goodness of the Immaculate Heart of the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God, Our Lady Mary. Our Lady of Fatima's Apparition was a Great and Priceless Grace from God for His Church. He has not done in like manner for every people, as the Sacred Scripture says, but He gives such Great Graces for His Catholic Church."
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 01, 2020, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 07:33:37 AM
Awkward Customer, you didn't answer my questions.
You didn't answer my question.
What does the Church teach on the obligation to accept private revelations?
You've ignored it twice.
Actually I did answer it, and twice. See replies #68 and 70.
No, these responses did not answer my question.
My question is - what does the Church teach?
Quote
When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm
Do you accept this Xavier?
And Dellery?
Yes or no?
Yes, we do not give them a divine assent of Catholic Faith. We give them a human assent of pious faith. Do you acknowledge that?
And when are you going to answer the question on whether a good Catholic can condemn the Rosary or Sacred Heart or not?
Clearly, he or she cannot. One can certainly make use of the Seven Sorrows Devotion for e.g. or any other good devotion.
But to call the Rosary diabolical cannot but be terribly displeasing to God and His Mother. Are we in agreement on that much?
PBXIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
Therefore, if as Pope Benedict XIV says, we may no longer doubt their divine origin, it clearly follows the Church says we cannot say they are diabolical. To do such a thing, Awkward Customer, is for a Catholic to fail in the respect due to the Church. It has to do with Piety, sure, not directly Faith. Nevertheless, we cannot condemn pious things just as we like nor attribute them to Satan, without Manifest Impiety on our part. Therefore, we shouldn't.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 01, 2020, 12:01:56 PM
Quote
When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm
Do you accept this Xavier?
And Dellery?
Yes or no?
Of course. That's exactly what Xavier wrote.
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 12:08:33 PM
Yes, we do not give them a divine assent of Catholic Faith. We give them a human assent of pious faith. Do you acknowledge that?
You missed something out.
We give them a human assent of pious faith in
conformity with the dictates of prudence .....
Do you acknowledge the role of prudence here?
Quote
And when are you going to answer the question on whether a good Catholic can condemn the Rosary or Sacred Heart or not?
This is entirely irrelevant to my question and represents little more than a malicious attempt by you to equate the rejection of Fatima, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, with the rejection of the Rosary and Sacred Heart.
You are attempting to dogmatise Fatima as a private revelation that must be accepted by Catholics, contrary to the teaching of the Church.
Quote from: ACWe give them a human assent of pious faith in conformity with the dictates of prudence .....
Prudence is the virtue that dictates we receive them on pious faith. Therefore, to condemn and reject them is impious and imprudent.
You just ignore all the authorities that reject your view: Answer these 3 once and for all, or admit that you oppose them stubbornly.
Cardinal Franzelin: "It is not right to condemn such [private] revelations". To do so, Theologians explain, is to fail in the respect due to the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
Monsignor Van Noort: "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
Quotethe rejection of the Rosary and Sacred Heart.
is just as much a sin as is condemning and rejecting Our Lady of Fatima and Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart.
If the one is not a sin, then neither is the other. If the former is a sin, then so is the latter. In Truth, both are sins.
You insist on behaving like a bad Catholic publicly. Therefore, I am forced to rebuke you, for your own good.
It is a work of mercy to rebuke sinners, so that they may amend. And it is proved from authorities that this is sin.
If it were not a sin to reject and condemn the Holy Rosary, Almighty God would never have sent those 15,000 devils.
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 02:19:09 PM
Quote from: ACWe give them a human assent of pious faith in conformity with the dictates of prudence .....
Prudence is the virtue that dictates we receive them on pious faith. Therefore, to condemn and reject them is impious and imprudent.
You just ignore all the authorities that reject your view: Answer these 3 once and for all, or admit that you oppose them stubbornly.
Cardinal Franzelin: "It is not right to condemn such [private] revelations". To do so, Theologians explain, is to fail in the respect due to the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
Monsignor Van Noort: "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
Quotethe rejection of the Rosary and Sacred Heart.
is just as much a sin as is condemning and rejecting Our Lady of Fatima and Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart.
If the one is not a sin, then neither is the other. If the former is a sin, then so is the latter. In Truth, both are sins.
You insist on behaving like a bad Catholic publicly. Therefore, I am forced to rebuke you, for your own good.
It is a work of mercy to rebuke sinners, so that they may amend. And it is proved from authorities that this is sin.
If it were not a sin to reject and condemn the Holy Rosary, Almighty God would never have sent those 15,000 devils.
I'll say it again. You are attempting to dogmatise Fatima as a private revelation that must be accepted by Catholics, contrary to the teaching of the Church.
This is Fatimism, pure and simple.
May I remind you of the following, from above.
Quote
When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit;......
The Church approval of the 1917 Fatima apparitions in the Cova da Iria is a declaration that there is nothing in those apparitions that is contrary to faith and morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit.
But the Secrets, the consecration request and the 1916 angel apparitions have not been approved.
In your attempt to dogmatise Fatima, you consistently avoid this fact.
Man, if awkwardcustomer and Gerard can't see the difference between this,
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 01, 2020, 12:01:56 PM
Quote
no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.
and this,
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 02:19:09 PM
Cardinal Franzelin: "It is not right to condemn such [private] revelations". To do so, Theologians explain, is to fail in the respect due to the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
Monsignor Van Noort: "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
then maybe they have a mental block.
Possibly dellery diagnosed it a couple of days ago with this.
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 05:28:19 PM
You can not answer why you and others are forcing this Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist farce of a meme??
Who ever came up with this thing appears to be suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruegerism. Or shall I refer to them as a Dunning-Kruegerist?
How embarrassing.
QuoteDunning–Kruger effect
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.
Quote from: dellery on February 01, 2020, 07:55:56 AM
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:47:38 PM
Does "Lead ALL souls to Heaven" include those in Hell? Does it try to override Jesus' definite statement that He will tell those on His left, "Depart from me..." and his many other statements of what the final Judgment will be like? How would you reconcile that prayer with what Jesus states in Luke chapter 13?
Why do you isolate the "lead all souls to heaven" part while ignoring the "especially those most in need of thy mercy" part??
Probably because it's the only way to make your argument work.
Funny how you poison any attempt at discussion by imputing motives in an utterly nonsensical way.
I focused on "all souls" because the character of how Christ leads "all souls" to Heaven has nothing to do with Universal Salvation.
"Those most in need.." would, if we're talking about "all" souls be those in Hell if we're going with Universal Salvation and Origenism.
Quote
Asking Christ to mercifully lead all souls, particularly sinners, to heaven is not an affirmation of Universal Salvation but its refutation.
No it's not, see above. "all souls" means "ALL" souls.
Quote
If we are all saved why would Christ need to mercifully lead a soul to heaven?
For one thing, what other way would He lead a soul to Heaven? Mercilessly? Ambivalently? Grudgingly?
Quote
Aren't all these souls, according to Universal Salvation, getting saved anyway?
Theoretically, if you follow through with the logic of the prayer. People need varying degrees of mercy from Christ. So, if we're talking "all souls" those "most especially in need" would be the damned.
QuoteChrist needs to lead souls to heaven because they are damned without Him, and that's exactly what the Fatima prayer is implying and asking Him to do.
But that's not what the prayer says, It's doesn't say "Lead souls to heaven.." It says , "Lead ALL souls to heaven..." I wonder why you left that out. Probably because you.....
Hey MikeMac! Great to see you back!
Quote from: Awkward CustomerYou are attempting to dogmatise Fatima as a private revelation
Not at all, Awkward Customer. Not at all. You're not understanding the issue. Let me frame it as a syllogism.
Syllogism I:
Major: It is a sin to condemn the Rosary and the Sacred Heart [as you, Awkward Customer, concede]
Minor: Our Lady of Fatima and Her Immaculate Heart have the same status as those [private revelations]
Conclusion: Therefore, it is also and in the same way, equally and likewise, a sin to condemn Our Lady of Fatima.
This is very clear, and its an incontrovertible or irrefutable syllogism. Nobody can condemn Our Lady of Fatima and Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart any more than they can condemn Our Lady's Rosary or Devotion to the Sacred Heart. All are gifts of God to His Church.
Now, as usual, you have not answered any of the authorities. Let me number them for future reference.
Syllogism II:Major: Pope Benedict XIV clearly says no one is allowed to doubt the divine and supernatural origin of visions the Church has approved.
Minor: Awkward customer, fully knowing this (for it has been explained many times now), nevertheless rejects the Pope's teaching.
Conclusion: Therefore, Awkward Customer (and Gerard), and not Xavier (or Dellery or MikeMac) are not following the Popes.
Syllogism III:Major: Van Noort says its a sin to completely disregard approved private revelations. We fail in respect for the Church when we do so.
Minor: Some people here claim they can not only disregard it, but condemn it. Not only refuse to believe it divine, but claim it diabolical.
Conclusion: These people very clearly commit the sin that Van Noort and other Theologians and Doctors warn about. They should stop it.
The matter is simple and very crystal clear. We just crossed First Saturday for e.g. and are coming up on First Friday. You can very well practice First Fridays if you want, or First Saturday if you want to. Nobody can and will tell you not to, you are absolutely free to choose between approved devotion, as you want to. But you absolutely cannot condemn either as diabolical, and you are most seriously, and publicly, sinning, if you try to. That applies universally to all of us. It is the Church's respect for Our Good Lord and His Immaculate Mother that makes Her forbid us from impiously calling diabolical or demonic what She has called Divine and Supernatural. Not every Sin is Heresy, but there are lesser Sins against Piety as well.
QuoteBut the Secrets, the consecration request and the 1916 angel apparitions have not been approved.
They were all approved and published by the Church under Pope John Paul II, latest by 2000 A.D., as shown earlier with links. The Church already spoke very clearly in the time of Pope Ven. Pius XII. "The time for doubting Fatima is past". In 2000 A.D., the Church published this:
"Throughout history there have been supernatural apparitions and signs which go to the heart of human events and which, to the surprise of believers and non-believers alike, play their part in the unfolding of history. These manifestations can never contradict the content of faith, and must therefore have their focus in the core of Christ's proclamation: the Father's love which leads men and women to conversion and bestows the grace required to abandon oneself to him with filial devotion. This too is the message of Fatima which, with its urgent call to conversion and penance, draws us to the heart of the Gospel.
Fatima is undoubtedly the most prophetic of modern apparitions. The first and second parts of the "secret"—which are here published in sequence so as to complete the documentation—refer especially to the frightening vision of hell, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Second World War, and finally the prediction of the immense damage that Russia would do to humanity by abandoning the Christian faith and embracing Communist totalitarianism.
In 1917 no one could have imagined all this: the three pastorinhos of Fatima see, listen and remember, and Lucia, the surviving witness, commits it all to paper when ordered to do so by the Bishop of Leiria and with Our Lady's permission." http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
Quote from: mikemac on February 01, 2020, 04:05:35 PM
Man, if awkwardcustomer and Gerard can't see the difference between this,
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 01, 2020, 12:01:56 PM
Quote
no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.
and this,
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 02:19:09 PM
Cardinal Franzelin: "It is not right to condemn such [private] revelations". To do so, Theologians explain, is to fail in the respect due to the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
Monsignor Van Noort: "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
then maybe they have a mental block.
Possibly dellery diagnosed it a couple of days ago with this.
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 05:28:19 PM
You can not answer why you and others are forcing this Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist farce of a meme??
Who ever came up with this thing appears to be suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruegerism. Or shall I refer to them as a Dunning-Kruegerist?
How embarrassing.
QuoteDunning–Kruger effect
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.
Pope Benedict's XIV single snippet quote is fundamentally contradictory to what most Catholic sources, including New Advent Catholic Encyclopeia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, state about the nature of apparitions.
One says the Faithful have
no obligation to believe them (most sources), one says
you are obligated to believe it (which is the contrapositive of
not being allowed to doubt it) (Pope Benedict XIV).
The third quote is just as contradictory...and makes no sense as to why it would be a legal standard, considering that it does not define what the sin is in "outwardly denying" the apparition. What does "some sort of sin" mean...and why should I trust a single Cardinal's word as dogma?
The first quote is not contradictory to most Catholic sources, because here's what's happening here, the "misunderstanding":
Here is a perfect example of an intentional contorting of the definition "condemn" whose definition freely twists at the hands of the Fatimists here in order to, in fact,
dogmatize Fatima.
Condemn can mean two things in this context:
1. Doubting and not believing it.
2. Believing it to be innately dangerous or evil by its doctrinal content.
It's the difference between believing
1. Jesus never appeared to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.
2. Believing that the Sacred Heart devotion is inherently heretical and dangerous to souls.
Gerard and awkwardcustomer are not holding to "2." as it pertains to what was approved at the time, namely, the apparition of 1917. There is nothing doctrinal in content of the "1917" apparitions to condemn as dangerous.
HOWEVER, the post World War II revealed messages are doctrinal, and have not been approved, other than the Popes paying lip service to it.
Both Xavier and mikemac are playing a deceitful game by saying that they hold to 2., and then proceed to lambast Gerard and awkwardcustomer for not holding to 1.
Supernatural Graces are also known by their manifestly evident good fruits, a criterion Our Lord Jesus Himself gave. That some people who contemptuously disregarded the Rosary and the Sacred Heart later on went to lose the Catholic Faith, and even to sin against generic Christian Faith in Our Lord Jesus as God and All-Good, should be more than sufficient proof of the evil fruits of that. It never comes from authentic Christian holiness nor deep and lasting Catholic Piety to contemptuously treat such Great Graces. On the contrary, those who reverently and devoutly pray the Rosary, wear the Scapular, are consecrated to the Sacred Heart, and devoted to the Immaculate Heart, go from Grace to Grace, abound from Blessing to Blessing, always go to Mass and Eucharistic Adoration, perform much Penance and Reparation, hardly ever lose the Faith, in time will conquer all sin and become Holy. The Rosary is a Priceless Treasure given by the Queen of Heaven to the Catholic Church. That Millions of Catholics have Prayed the Rosary thanks to Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima, as She called Herself, is yet another clear and invincible proof for devout Catholics that Satan would be casting out Satan if he supposedly was behind this; and most certainly this came not from him but only from Heaven as another Great Grace from God's Mother. It is those who neglect to pray the Rosary, who become careless and lose their souls; as St. Augustine says, those who become heretics and lose their souls in it, are usually those who, had they remained in the Church, would have carelessly lost their souls, by not praying devoutly. The Mother of God has promised those devoted to Her through Her Rosary can never be lost, and in time will overcome all grave sin:
I. "Whoever shall faithfully serve Me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive signal graces.
II. I promise My special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.
III. The Rosary shall be
a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.
IV.
It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the heart of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things.
Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means!
V.
The soul which recommends itself to Me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.
VI. Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries,
shall never be conquered and never overwhelmed by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death (unprepared for heaven).
The sinner shall convert. The just shall grow in grace and become worthy of eternal life.
VII. Whoever shall have
a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the sacraments of the Church.
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 30, 2020, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: GerardNo. I disagree with the bishop because no one has addressed the threat-language in Fatima. Just curious, but why is the H in "Her" capitalized? I understand the tradition of capitalizing any pronouns used for God but not the BVM.
It is good to believe the Bishop on pious faith, especially because in addition the Holy Father Pope Pius XII some years later confirmed it saying, "The time for doubting Fatima is past". It's not a question of threats. Supposing a helpful messenger comes and warns that an army is coming against us, and we must put up some defenses to be able to fight, ought we not thank that messenger with grateful hearts? So too ought we to be grateful, Gerard, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for warning us of the empirically verifiable fact that Communism was even then planning and preparing a great battle against the Church, Christendom and all of civilization. How do you account for what Bella Dodd has testified to? She's made known that she was helping infiltrate seminaries in the 20s and 30s, but the world at large only came to become aware of it (and still some do not know it) after 1953 odd. But Our Lady asked for the Consecration in 1929, and Pope Pius XII said those words quoted above in 1933, about Communism's great plan to destroy all civilization.
"It's not a question of threats."
It is a question of threats. This is the red flag that should not be ignored. The short cut way to know empirically whether an apparition is real or not is too see if there is anything that departs from the Catholic faith.
Incorrect private judgment. The short cut way to know whether an apparition is supernatural and not contrary to faith, for the lay Catholic faithful, is to see that the Church, through Her Pope and Bishops has declared it supernatural, free from harm, and for the good of souls. Your private judgment is not essentially different from Martin Luther's private judgment that St. James' Epistle was not Sacred Scripture because it contradicted his own private judgment of faith. That was heresy, yours is not heresy but a lesser sin, but still it is wrong.
QuoteUsually, this is looked at from the point of theology. The "universalism" prevalent in the Medjugorje apparitions is what has ultimately skewered it, despite the fervency of the people and clergy who believe it's real. It doesn't matter if rosaries turn to gold or healings occur or people are converted. It's opposed to Catholic Doctrine. The whole thing has to go.
The Catholic Church has not declared Medjugorje supernatural. She has declared Fatima divine or supernatural in origin. It is simple.
QuoteThe problem with Fatima is less obviously doctrinal (though there are doctrinal issues as well) because it deals with upending the ecclesiology of the Church. The fact is, the BVM cannot and would not use the language of threats in order to take away control of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and make the Pope a puppet.
There are no threats. To use a reference from popular culture, Aragorn comes and warns King Theoden "An Army of Orcs. 10,000 strong. They will be here by nightfall". And speaks of putting up the defenses. Everyone is grateful to him, and he saves the day. A Million times more we must be grateful to Our Lady of Fatima nad Her Immaculate Heart, Who has already saved the day and saved countless souls and even lives, and helped Christendom win its battles against Communism. Communism is going to be crushed soon.
QuoteLong before Fatima, the Popes were aware of the threat of Communism ...
Yes, and they began to become even much more severe against it, after approving Our Lady of Fatima as supernatural in origin.
QuoteThere is no element of Fatima that cannot be pulled off by demonic trickery.
False and utterly impious from you. The Holy Ghost would not allow the Popes to declare as divine and supernatural what was demonic.
QuoteThe weirdness of the children supposedly receiving Holy Communion from the angel.
Nothing weird about that at all. Holy Communion is called the Bread of Angels in Scripture and Tradition.
QuoteThe "Fatima Prayer" often said within the Rosary "Lead ALL souls to Heaven."
The meaning is obviously, (1) Lead all those, who are in most need of Your Mercy, to Heaven. This applies in a special way to the souls who are going to die that day. This is why it's a great victory for Heaven that Millions of Catholics say this Fatima prayer at every Rosary, so 100s of thousands of the many hundred thousands who die that day, can be saved by the prayers of the Catholic Church. (2) It also applies in a special way to the Souls in Purgatory, who according to the Saints and Doctors suffer greater torments than anyone on Earth. And therefore they are most in need of Mercy, on account of the greater severity of their torments. Finally, (3) just as Jesus prayed even for Judas, though he was foreknown to be reprobate, St. Augustine says the Church prays for all, just as Jesus died for all, though He knew, and She knows, in advance, that He and She both will not be heard for some, on account of their obstinacy in mortal sin until the end. The most important work of all, as Our Lady of Fatima clearly teaches us, is to pray and sacrifice to save souls.
These Pharisaical objections which are not interested in saving souls but rather in attacking God and Our Lady do not come from Charity for Souls. True Charity for souls would recognize that it is a Great Grace from God and Heaven that Millions of Catholics now pray this.
Quote(more later...)
[Can't Wait] In the meanwhile, Pope Benedict XIV says you are not to doubt, but must assent by pious faith. Van Noort says it is a sin. Pope Pius XII said the time for doubting Fatima is past, which means we cannot doubt it. The Bishop of Fatima said clearly we have the obligation to correspond with the Maternal Goodness of Immaculate Mother Mary, Who gave this Great Grace. If you revere the Pope and the Bishops, and claim to abide by the Keys given to the Successors of St. Peter, the way is clear. Fatima is supernatural in origin.
leading a soul in hell to heaven will actually happen, and it will be a most unfortunate thought.
of course souls in hell can never leave hell, but they are allowed views of it, and it will be a source of great sorrow for them, to see what they have lost.
and it was not, most in need of thy mercy.
it was, most in need.
most in need of thy mercy signifies that the greater the sinner, the more they need mercy.
most in need represents the down-trodden, the poor in spirit, those people with good will who need to be lead to heaven.
and could easily signal Mary's great compassion for all.
Quote from: Xavier on February 03, 2020, 12:33:38 AM
[Can't Wait] In the meanwhile, Pope Benedict XIV says you are not to doubt, but must assent by pious faith. Van Noort says it is a sin. Pope Pius XII said the time for doubting Fatima is past, which means we cannot doubt it. The Bishop of Fatima said clearly we have the obligation to correspond with the Maternal Goodness of Immaculate Mother Mary, Who gave this Great Grace. If you revere the Pope and the Bishops, and claim to abide by the Keys given to the Successors of St. Peter, the way is clear. Fatima is supernatural in origin.
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917, and Catechism of the Catholic Church, says you are allowed to doubt it. There is
no obligation to believe it.
2. Even so, the
only thing about Fatima that has been approved is the 1917 apparition. The Catholic Church approved Fatima
before the messages were released. Nothing more. The messages were released after World War II by Lucia, who just happened to have held on to them for 30 years and then decided to release them.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on February 03, 2020, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: Xavier on February 03, 2020, 12:33:38 AM
[Can't Wait] In the meanwhile, Pope Benedict XIV says you are not to doubt, but must assent by pious faith. Van Noort says it is a sin. Pope Pius XII said the time for doubting Fatima is past, which means we cannot doubt it. The Bishop of Fatima said clearly we have the obligation to correspond with the Maternal Goodness of Immaculate Mother Mary, Who gave this Great Grace. If you revere the Pope and the Bishops, and claim to abide by the Keys given to the Successors of St. Peter, the way is clear. Fatima is supernatural in origin.
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 says you are allowed to doubt. There is no obligation to believe it.
2. Even so, the only thing about Fatima that has been approved is the 1917 apparition. Nothing more. The messages were released after World War II by Lucia, who just happened to have held on to them for 30 years and then decided to release them.
It makes sense that you should have the choice to ignore it. Fatima added nothing to the Catholic Faith. I see it as more of a geopolitical warning.
Asking for all souls to be lead to heaven could be seen as very cruel.
Asking for those in Hell to have a vision of heaven is horrible, but brings about that reality, and St. Thomas Aquinas says, that we will derive indirect joy from the reality of hell. And our God is a jealous God. Mocking those in Hell with visions of what is going on in Heaven is not out of the realm of possibility.
Xavier, answer me this: How is your behavior here NOT Phariseeism?
"They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others....
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."
You are here
1. Posting your devotion to Fatima to show off to others how devout you are to Our Lady. It's evident to everyone. "Lord, I thank thee I am not like other men..."
2. You are tieing burdens on others that go against the express dictates of the Church (The Catechism officially says that private revelations do not belong to the deposit of Faith, and New Advent Encyclopedia says that the Faithful are not obligated to believe in it) and lay them on people's shoulders, and do nothing to move them with a finger (Believe in Fatima or sin against God).
It's no different than telling people they must fast daily otherwise they sin against the Holy Spirit.
Ergo,
A. You shut off the Kingdom of Heaven for others
Ergo,
B. You don't enter into it.
I am defending Fatima, Live, for the same reason I defended the Rosary, and counselled you to pray it every day. You yourself told me the Rosary had been beneficial and helpful to you. Likewise, Our Lady of Fatima, Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart, and the Five First Saturdays, are extremely beneficial to souls, as already clearly proven in hundreds of millions of Catholics. Fatima naysayers are a very small minority in the Catholic and even the trad world. The vast majority of Catholics, trad and otherwise, believe and love Our Lady of Fatima. There's nothing exception and special about doing so - but there most certainly are many benefits to souls from the Devotion.
Even if only 10 Catholics believed it, and 10 million were against it, I would defend Fatima because I've experienced its spiritual fruits, just as I've experienced the spiritual fruits of the Rosary - and therefore would defend the Rosary against someone claiming it was harmful. I didn't compel anyone to pray the Rosary or to make the Five Saturdays; I just have said it would be helpful to their soul if they made it. I stand by that. Have you made the Five Saturdays, Live? It's the easiest thing in the world. Make it once and see if you don't believe me. You'll feel so much better and relieved, like a weight of your mind, and receiving so many more Graces, when you do.
I defend Our Lady of Fatima because it is one of Heaven's most important messages today. It shows Catholics they should not be modernists nor naturalists, denying the Supernatural and the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith. It shows them that they should be very devoted to God and to Our Lady. It shows the necessity of praying and making reparation. It shows this universally to all Catholics. Even good non-Catholics can try to practice its counsels and live in its spirit, and then they would be gradually enlightened by God.
Pope Benedict XIV and Pope Pius XII are the greatest authorities and they are clear. Do not doubt the divine origin. Do not doubt Fatima.
So it is very simple. If we really want to live a Devout life, as St. Francis De Sales counsels to all in every state of life, we will recognize this is a Grace of Divine and Supernatural Origin, freely given to all of us, for us to make use of. Imagine being given a Gift of 1 trillion dollars and throwing it back in the Giver's Face. If we reject the Gift of Final Perseverance to the Five Saturdays, we are doing worse. We are rejecting the Maternal Goodness of Mary, we are despising Her Graces, we are going against what the Bishop of Fatima clearly said. She has given us this Great Grace in our times, Live, and therefore we have a greater obligation to correspond to Her Goodness.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on February 02, 2020, 09:26:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on February 01, 2020, 04:05:35 PM
Man, if awkwardcustomer and Gerard can't see the difference between this,
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 01, 2020, 12:01:56 PM
Quote
no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.
and this,
Quote from: Xavier on February 01, 2020, 02:19:09 PM
Cardinal Franzelin: "It is not right to condemn such [private] revelations". To do so, Theologians explain, is to fail in the respect due to the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XIV: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
Monsignor Van Noort: "Such a revelation ought to be believed by both the one who receives it and the one for whom it is destined. The rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin".
then maybe they have a mental block.
Possibly dellery diagnosed it a couple of days ago with this.
Quote from: dellery on January 29, 2020, 05:28:19 PM
You can not answer why you and others are forcing this Fatimist vs. Anti-Fatimist farce of a meme??
Who ever came up with this thing appears to be suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruegerism. Or shall I refer to them as a Dunning-Kruegerist?
How embarrassing.
QuoteDunning–Kruger effect
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.
Pope Benedict's XIV single snippet quote is fundamentally contradictory to what most Catholic sources, including New Advent Catholic Encyclopeia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, state about the nature of apparitions.
One says the Faithful have no obligation to believe them (most sources), one says you are obligated to believe it (which is the contrapositive of not being allowed to doubt it) (Pope Benedict XIV).
The third quote is just as contradictory...and makes no sense as to why it would be a legal standard, considering that it does not define what the sin is in "outwardly denying" the apparition. What does "some sort of sin" mean...and why should I trust a single Cardinal's word as dogma?
The first quote is not contradictory to most Catholic sources, because here's what's happening here, the "misunderstanding":
Here is a perfect example of an intentional contorting of the definition "condemn" whose definition freely twists at the hands of the Fatimists here in order to, in fact, dogmatize Fatima.
Condemn can mean two things in this context:
1. Doubting and not believing it.
2. Believing it to be innately dangerous or evil by its doctrinal content.
It's the difference between believing
1. Jesus never appeared to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.
2. Believing that the Sacred Heart devotion is inherently heretical and dangerous to souls.
Gerard and awkwardcustomer are not holding to "2." as it pertains to what was approved at the time, namely, the apparition of 1917. There is nothing doctrinal in content of the "1917" apparitions to condemn as dangerous.
HOWEVER, the post World War II revealed messages are doctrinal, and have not been approved, other than the Popes paying lip service to it.
Both Xavier and mikemac are playing a deceitful game by saying that they hold to 2., and then proceed to lambast Gerard and awkwardcustomer for not holding to 1.
Pope Benedict XIV is saying that no one may any longer
doubt their supernatural and divine
origin. That is different from "no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."
Regarding what Monsignor Van Noort says, if you look at this link (https://books.google.ca/books?id=2dHHCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&lpg=PT10&dq=Such+a+revelation+ought+to+be+believed+by+both+the+one+who+receives+it+and+the+one+for+whom+it+is+destined.+The+rest+of+the+faithful+cannot+outrightly+deny+it+without+some+sort+of+sin&source=bl&ots=wXG4qfga1Q&sig=ACfU3U3SudWrsZGVkseyU0UCKUifwDApKA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiagduBlbbnAhVPn-AKHe3aDfUQ6AEwAHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=Such%20a%20revelation%20ought%20to%20be%20believed%20by%20both%20the%20one%20who%20receives%20it%20and%20the%20one%20for%20whom%20it%20is%20destined.%20The%20rest%20of%20the%20faithful%20cannot%20outrightly%20deny%20it%20without%20some%20sort%20of%20sin&f=false) you will see that Fr. William A. Hinnebusch is not only agreeing with it, he also says "When he refuses to do so, he does violence to his own reason."
That said, I don't know whether it would be a sin or not. They'd have to speak to their priest about it.
Edit to add the following.
By the "Popes paying lip service to it" the Popes are showing their approval of the entire Fatima message; from the three secrets, to the consecration requests, to the five first Saturdays; the whole kit and caboodle. Below is the second secret of Fatima for your perusal.
QuoteYou have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
Quote
Pope Benedict XIV is saying that no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin. That is different from "no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."
Regarding what Monsignor Van Noort says, if you look at this link you will see that Fr. William A. Hinnebusch is not only agreeing with it, he also says "When he refuses to do so, he does violence to his own reason."
That said, I don't know whether it would be a sin or not. They'd have to speak to their priest about it.
Edit to add the following.
By the "Popes paying lip service to it" the Popes are showing their approval of the entire Fatima message; from the three secrets, to the consecration requests, to the five first Saturdays; the whole kit and caboodle. Below is the second secret of Fatima for your perusal.
Paying lip service does not constitute official approval.
Several Popes paid lip service to the Fifth Marian dogma. Others, including the bastion of orthodoxy himself, Pope Benedict XVI, have rejected it. Just because the former have, approved it, and the latter have not, doesn't mean the Church has officially both approved and denied the Fifth Marian dogma and all Catholics are necessarily under the pain of sin and anathema.
Here's an analogy.
Pope Alexander III outcried at the martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket. That does not mean that Thomas Becket was instantaneously a Saint by the Church's status. Instead, he had to be canonized by the Pope.
It would be a horrible thing to happen if every single document ever written by a Pope - nay, anything ever spoken by a Pope, was to be constituted as infallible dogma.
Perhaps we should campaign for Pope Innocent III's dogma of dressing up Jews and Muslims in public to show their infidelity to the world and forbidding them from public office.
Quote from: Xavier on February 03, 2020, 02:18:15 PM
I am defending Fatima, Live, for the same reason I defended the Rosary, and counselled you to pray it every day. You yourself told me the Rosary had been beneficial and helpful to you. Likewise, Our Lady of Fatima, Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart, and the Five First Saturdays, are extremely beneficial to souls, as already clearly proven in hundreds of millions of Catholics. Fatima naysayers are a very small minority in the Catholic and even the trad world. The vast majority of Catholics, trad and otherwise, believe and love Our Lady of Fatima. There's nothing exception and special about doing so - but there most certainly are many benefits to souls from the Devotion.
Even if only 10 Catholics believed it, and 10 million were against it, I would defend Fatima because I've experienced its spiritual fruits, just as I've experienced the spiritual fruits of the Rosary - and therefore would defend the Rosary against someone claiming it was harmful. I didn't compel anyone to pray the Rosary or to make the Five Saturdays; I just have said it would be helpful to their soul if they made it. I stand by that. Have you made the Five Saturdays, Live? It's the easiest thing in the world. Make it once and see if you don't believe me. You'll feel so much better and relieved, like a weight of your mind, and receiving so many more Graces, when you do.
I defend Our Lady of Fatima because it is one of Heaven's most important messages today. It shows Catholics they should not be modernists nor naturalists, denying the Supernatural and the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith. It shows them that they should be very devoted to God and to Our Lady. It shows the necessity of praying and making reparation. It shows this universally to all Catholics. Even good non-Catholics can try to practice its counsels and live in its spirit, and then they would be gradually enlightened by God.
Pope Benedict XIV and Pope Pius XII are the greatest authorities and they are clear. Do not doubt the divine origin. Do not doubt Fatima.
So it is very simple. If we really want to live a Devout life, as St. Francis De Sales counsels to all in every state of life, we will recognize this is a Grace of Divine and Supernatural Origin, freely given to all of us, for us to make use of. Imagine being given a Gift of 1 trillion dollars and throwing it back in the Giver's Face. If we reject the Gift of Final Perseverance to the Five Saturdays, we are doing worse. We are rejecting the Maternal Goodness of Mary, we are despising Her Graces, we are going against what the Bishop of Fatima clearly said. She has given us this Great Grace in our times, Live, and therefore we have a greater obligation to correspond to Her Goodness.
That defense should not extend to condemning the interior dispositions of others' souls, and insinuating that those who don't believe in Fatima are evil, poor Catholics who hate the Virgin Mary.
How do you know if a prostitute will go to Heaven or Hell?
Nor does it extend to misinformation.
Quote from: mikemac on February 03, 2020, 02:20:27 PM
Pope Benedict XIV is saying that no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin. That is different from "no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."
They are identical.
Not doubting = fully believing.
Doubting = not fully believing.
If you are not allowed to doubt, you are not allowed to not fully believe in it.
Which is identical to saying,
If you are not allowed to doubt, you must fully believe in it.
Thus,
Pope Benedict XIV's quote can be understood as follows:
Everyone must believe in their supernatural and divine origin.
Which is identical to saying that
There is an obligation of the faithful to believe in their supernatural and divine origin.
Belief in their supernatural and Divine origin necessarily implies a belief that they are true, because God would not directly give false apparitions.
Therefore,
There is an obligation of the faithful to believe they are true.
Which is the complete opposite of
There is no obligation of the faithful to believe in them.
I'm not making a judgement on Fatima, but, with regard to "lead all souls to heaven"--what I've heard (could be wrong) is that it's a bad translation. (It actually doesn't even seem to be that literal of a translation, but more of a paraphrase.) Supposedly in the original Portuguese, the phrase "souls" was alminhas, which refers specifically to the souls in Purgatory. (It's the diminutive form of almas "souls". By using the diminutive form, it changes the meaning to "little souls" which is the Portuguese equivalent of the English phrase "poor souls"). So that line would have been better translated into English as "lead all the poor souls to heaven". (This is documented here (http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/articles/FatimaPrayer.htm).)
Whether or not this is correct, I don't know. But when I pray that prayer, my intention is only for all the souls in Purgatory. Not for all souls in general, and certainly not for the souls in hell.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on February 03, 2020, 05:44:15 PM
Quote
Pope Benedict XIV is saying that no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin. That is different from "no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."
Regarding what Monsignor Van Noort says, if you look at this link you will see that Fr. William A. Hinnebusch is not only agreeing with it, he also says "When he refuses to do so, he does violence to his own reason."
That said, I don't know whether it would be a sin or not. They'd have to speak to their priest about it.
Edit to add the following.
By the "Popes paying lip service to it" the Popes are showing their approval of the entire Fatima message; from the three secrets, to the consecration requests, to the five first Saturdays; the whole kit and caboodle. Below is the second secret of Fatima for your perusal.
Paying lip service does not constitute official approval.
...
Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942.
Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary without the bishops in 1952.
Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1964.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1982.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1984.
Pope Benedict XVI said "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." in 2010.
Pope Francis consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 2013.
That's much more than "Popes paying lip service". The above clearly shows the complete approval of the entire Fatima message by the Vatican.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on February 03, 2020, 05:57:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on February 03, 2020, 02:20:27 PM
Pope Benedict XIV is saying that no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin. That is different from "no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."
They are identical.
Not doubting = fully believing.
Doubting = not fully believing.
If you are not allowed to doubt, you are not allowed to not fully believe in it.
Which is identical to saying,
If you are not allowed to doubt, you must fully believe in it.
Thus,
Pope Benedict XIV's quote can be understood as follows:
Everyone must believe in their supernatural and divine origin.
Which is identical to saying that
There is an obligation of the faithful to believe in their supernatural and divine origin.
Belief in their supernatural and Divine origin necessarily implies a belief that they are true, because God would not directly give false apparitions.
Therefore,
There is an obligation of the faithful to believe they are true.
Which is the complete opposite of
There is no obligation of the faithful to believe in them.
Not believing in an apparition as opposed to spewing it all over the forum that Fatima is false and from the devil like you, Gerard and awkwardcustomer have been doing are two completely different things. Pope Benedict XIV was speaking against the latter. I'm starting to think that it is sinful.
Quote from: mikemac on February 03, 2020, 07:31:00 PM
Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942.
Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary without the bishops in 1952.
Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1964.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1982.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1984.
Pope Benedict XVI said "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." in 2010.
Pope Francis consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 2013.
That's much more than "Popes paying lip service". The above clearly shows the complete approval of the entire Fatima message by the Vatican.
And yet still no consecration as requested.
There has been no "complete approval of the entire Fatima message by the Vatican". Only the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria have been approved, and those apparitions did not include the consecration request, the Secrets or the Angel Apparitions.
You are trying to bind Catholics to apparitions that have not been approved.
Quote from: mikemac on February 03, 2020, 07:31:00 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on February 03, 2020, 05:44:15 PM
Quote
Pope Benedict XIV is saying that no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin. That is different from "no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."
Regarding what Monsignor Van Noort says, if you look at this link you will see that Fr. William A. Hinnebusch is not only agreeing with it, he also says "When he refuses to do so, he does violence to his own reason."
That said, I don't know whether it would be a sin or not. They'd have to speak to their priest about it.
Edit to add the following.
By the "Popes paying lip service to it" the Popes are showing their approval of the entire Fatima message; from the three secrets, to the consecration requests, to the five first Saturdays; the whole kit and caboodle. Below is the second secret of Fatima for your perusal.
Paying lip service does not constitute official approval.
...
Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942.
Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary without the bishops in 1952.
Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1964.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1982.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1984.
Pope Benedict XVI said "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." in 2010.
Pope Francis consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 2013.
That's much more than "Popes paying lip service". The above clearly shows the complete approval of the entire Fatima message by the Vatican.
Yes, Mike, Fatima is as approved as any Private Revelation in Church History has ever been; and rather more than most have been.
QuoteBelow is the second secret of Fatima for your perusal.
Quote from: Our LadyYou have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
Yup. And so the Roman Pontiff, in performing the Acts of Consecration, demonstrate Papal Approval to all of this.
Quote from: awkward customerAnd yet still no consecration as requested.
Because of the interference of Communist terrorists in the Vatican, as Fr. Amorth has documented. If the Popes had already done it, all the errors associated with Communism, including abortionism, secularism, evolutionism, atheism, separation of Church and state etc etc etc would already have ended. The Popes have begun the good work toward completing it. Now, it is for Catholic Action to do the rest. That is good work that must be completed. Unfortunately, opponents and naysayers of Fatima are preventing (1) souls being saved (2) even lives being saved (3) that good work from being completed. (4) those errors from being overcome (5) The Truth from prevailing.
When the Fatima Consecration is fully completed, all those five things will be done. That's what Fatima Crusaders are working for. You too, Awkward Customer, with Gerard, and Live, and all others, are invited to pray and work for it. Shouldn't love of souls impel us to do so?
Quote from: Return of LiveHow do you know if a prostitute will go to Heaven or Hell?
I don't know and don't claim to know; in fact I hope and pray that she, or he, will go to Heaven and save their soul. But I have every right to say that prostitution, objectively speaking, is wrong and harmful, and that is all that I'm saying. To condemn Our Lady of Fatima's Message as being satanic is entirely unacceptable and is, objectively speaking, wrong and harmful.
If you have some respectful doubts, you should respectfully raise them to a Bishop. For e.g. you could say "Your Excellency, I know the Church has told us Fatima is supernatural in origin. However, I have this-and-that question about Saintly Sr. Lucia etc". Then, the Bishops may examine your question, give you a reply, and then you should defer or submit to that judgment.
Most likely, they would only repeat what the Church has already discerned, namely that they are supernatural and not to be doubted. Regarding your other objection, "Everyone must believe in their supernatural and divine origin." - yes, but on pious faith only. If someone said St. James was not Scripture, as Luther did, because he denies public revelation, he would objectively be in heresy. If he stubbornly went on insisting on this sin, he would be a heretic. But that is not the case with private revelations, because they are not the obligatory object of Divine and Catholic Faith. They are the object of a pious faith only; which means we do well to believe them, and we sin against piety if we condemn them.
Quote from: Xavier on February 04, 2020, 04:08:25 AM
Yes, Mike, Fatima is as approved as any Private Revelation in Church History has ever been; and rather more than most have been.
No, Xavier. Only the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Ira have been approved.
Quote
Yup. And so the Roman Pontiff, in performing the Acts of Consecration, demonstrate Papal Approval to all of this.
No again. The Roman Pontiff has NOT carried out the consecration as requested in the unapproved second secret.
The secret containing the consecration request has not been approved and the consecration has not been carried out.
But no doubt you will continue to make your assertions until the cows come home.
QuoteBecause of the interference of Communist terrorists in the Vatican, as Fr. Amorth has documented. If the Popes had already done it, all the errors associated with Communism, including abortionism, secularism, evolutionism, atheism, separation of Church and state etc etc etc would already have ended.
Apparently free will doesn't exist. Just do a consecration and everyone magically stops believing these things. What a load of crap. Total delusion.
QuoteNo again. The Roman Pontiff has NOT carried out the consecration as requested in the unapproved second secret.
If Pope Ven. Pius XII didn't believe it, why did the Holy Father carry out the consecration of Russia in the Year 1952? He plainly believed it.
If Pope John Paul II didn't believe it, why did the Holy Father carry out the consecration of the world in A.D. 1984? He would have consecrated Russia, if his advisors had let him.
QuoteApparently free will doesn't exist. Just do a consecration and everyone magically stops believing these things. [expletives deleted]
In less than 8 years after the 1984 Consecration, Communism fell. Gorbachev credited the Roman Catholic Church.
That's the reality that some of you don't believe in. You know, the Triumphant Power of God's Grace that you mock.
Quote from: Xavier on February 04, 2020, 07:54:05 AM
QuoteApparently free will doesn't exist. Just do a consecration and everyone magically stops believing these things. [expletives deleted]
"Expletives deleted". You're hilarious.
QuoteIn less than 8 years after the 1984 Consecration, Communism fell. Gorbachev credited the Roman Catholic Church.
Did Communism fall or is it still around? Make up your mind.
QuoteThat's the reality that some of you don't believe in. You know, the Triumphant Power of God's Grace that you mock.
The reality is Communists and belief in Communism still exist, just like "abortionism, secularism, evolutionism, atheism, separation of Church and state" will if that's what people choose to believe.
Communism fell in the Soviet Union. The Russian people have returned to Christian Faith. One of my relatives was in Russia recently, and he was amazed at their love for God, and especially at their devotion to the All-Pure Mother of God. The Russian people are very devout Christians. There are some slight mistakes in modern Russian Theology, which the Roman Catholic Church will correct when they come to Council with us.
The reality is God's Grace is powerful. The reality is God's Grace converted nearly 10 millions souls in an astonishingly short time through Our Lady of Guadalupe. The reality is Our Lady of Fatima has benefited 150+ Million people by causing the USSR and Soviet union to fall.
QuoteCommunism fell in the Soviet Union. The Russian people have returned to Christian Faith.
Delusions. Religiosity and church attendance are as bad in Russia as in the secular West.
QuoteOne of my relatives was in Russia recently, and he was amazed at their love for God, and especially at their devotion to the All-Pure Mother of God.
Thanks for that worthless anecdotal account.
QuoteThe reality is ...
that you're now dodging the reality that Communism as an ideology is alive and well. Slimy.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 04, 2020, 07:35:22 AM
QuoteBecause of the interference of Communist terrorists in the Vatican, as Fr. Amorth has documented. If the Popes had already done it, all the errors associated with Communism, including abortionism, secularism, evolutionism, atheism, separation of Church and state etc etc etc would already have ended.
Apparently free will doesn't exist. Just do a consecration and everyone magically stops believing these things. What a load of crap. Total delusion.
I don't think these people have the true Faith. This delusion makes it possible for them to explain away all the problems in the Church. Also, it comes in very handy in not having to discuss any of the Church's enemies. Even the so-called communists are off the hook because the Church is in error for not listening to the Lady. But it's real convenient for not having to mention the one enemy which you really can't mention.
Speaking of free will, I recently watched on TV the Hollywood movie Bruce Almighty. It was actually kind of cute. Either way, God tells Bruce, as he receives his powers temporarily, you can't tell anyone you're God and you can't get around free will. Even a silly movie understands that.
What enemy are we supposedly afraid to name? Jewish Talmudists, who hate Gentiles, who were among the first Bolsheviks, who hate Christians more, and who hate Jesus and Mary most of all? No, we are not afraid to name them, just as we are not afraid to call you who are opposed to Our Lady of Fatima and Her Immaculate Heart out either, as not being strongly enough opposed to Communism, and suspect of sympathy toward its spread; because you prevent the one means guaranteed to destroy it forever. Too bad if you don't have the Faith to believe that; I guess you don't believe in the God of the Bible, then, who asked His Prophet Joshua to command the People in His Name, to march seven times around the walls of Jericho. And because they obeyed in faith, it fell; and if they had not, it would not have fallen. See then how obedience brings blessing and disobedience leads even to curses from Almighty God.
Joshua 6:15 "But the seventh day, rising up early, they went about the city, as it was ordered, seven times." ... 20So all the people making a shout, and the trumpets sounding, when the voice and the sound thundered in the ears of the multitude, the walls forthwith fell down: and every man went up by the place that was over against him: and they took the city."
Hebrews 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land: which the Egyptians attempting, were swallowed up. 30By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, by the going round them seven days.
And the example of King Saul's disobedience to the Word of the Lord spoken to him through the Mouth of His Prophet Samuel.
1 Samuel 15:22-23 "And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat or rams. 23Because it is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch, therefore, as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king."
So do you actually still believe all this, or do you just, like your naturalistic secularist friends, consider them to be old fairy tales? St. Alphonsus says some refuse to believe in supernatural manifestations of the Lord to cover their naked infidelity. We believe it, and that's why we believe in the God Who still works wonders, and Who has worked and will miracles through His holy Mother.
And now, just for you, Innocent Smith, from a Jewish Site, YNetNews, proofs on how some Talmudist Jewish leaders, owing to their anti-Christian and anti-Gentile hatred, collaborated with Communists in persecuting Christians in Russia and the former Soviet Union. From all these horrors, Almighty God through His Immaculate Mother has delivered us: "Stalin's Jews We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish ... And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."
Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.
Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.
Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.
Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin." https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
I've seen this insane mindset so many times before among ideological true believers, in Marxists, White Nationalists, Black Nationalists, Muslims, you name them, and it's apparent there's no difference in this Catholic. The mindset, the methods, the responses, the attitude, it's all the same.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 04, 2020, 12:30:47 PM
I've seen this insane mindset so many times before among ideological true believers, in Marxists, White Nationalists, Black Nationalists, Muslims, you name them, and it's apparent there's no difference in this Catholic. The mindset, the methods, the responses, the attitude, it's all the same.
Haven't you been there as well? Haven't I been there?
There's a reason you have to be 35 to be President.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2020, 02:31:56 AM
Quote from: mikemac on February 03, 2020, 07:31:00 PM
Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942.
Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary without the bishops in 1952.
Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1964.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1982.
Pope John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1984.
Pope Benedict XVI said "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." in 2010.
Pope Francis consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 2013.
That's much more than "Popes paying lip service". The above clearly shows the complete approval of the entire Fatima message by the Vatican.
And yet still no consecration as requested.
There has been no "complete approval of the entire Fatima message by the Vatican". Only the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria have been approved, and those apparitions did not include the consecration request, the Secrets or the Angel Apparitions.
You are trying to bind Catholics to apparitions that have not been approved.
Nobody is trying to bind you or any other Catholic to Fatima or any other apparitions. You don't have the obligation to believe in any apparition. It is you guys that are on the attack, and right from the first page of this thread. We are simply defending the honour of Our Lady of Fatima from your slanders.
I some what believe what Gerard thinks about Pope Leo XIII's vision of the 100 years that satan was allowed, but in a different way. I think this is why the consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart has not been done exactly as Heaven requested. Sister Lucy called this diabolical disorientation.
You are really stuck on the fact that the Vatican has approved the entire Fatima message, aren't you? Well here's more proof of the approval of Fatima by the Popes.
Quote
Approvals by the Popes
In 1917, as the First World War was being fought across Europe and showing no signs of concluding peacefully, Pope Benedict XV turned in petition to the Blessed Virgin Mary, through Whom all graces are dispensed. The Pope urgently asked all of the Christian people to beg the Virgin Mary to obtain the peace of the world, and to solemnly entrust the task to Her alone.
He wished the world to "have recourse to the Heart of Jesus, throne of graces, and to this throne to have recourse through the intermediary of Mary", and he ordered that the invocation 'Queen of Peace, pray for us' be permanently added to the Litany of Loreto. Then, confidently placing the peace of the world in Her hands, the Pope made another appeal:
To Mary, then, who is the Mother of Mercy and omnipotent by grace, let loving and devout appeal go up from every corner of the earth – from noble temples and tiniest chapels, from royal palaces and mansions of the rich as from the poorest hut – from blood-drenched plains and seas. Let it bear to Her the anguished cry of mothers and wives, the wailing of innocent little ones, the sighs of every generous heart: that Her most tender and benign solicitude may be moved and the peace we ask for be obtained for our agitated world.
The gracious Virgin responded quickly to the urgent pleas of the Pope: only eight days later She appeared at Fatima and gave to the Pope and humanity a plan for peace. However, this plan first required the obedience of the people and especially of Christ's Vicar on earth, the Pope. God and the Blessed Virgin agreed to give the world peace, but since it was the Pope who asked to be shown the way to peace, his cooperation in the designs of Heaven became requisite.
Thus, from the beginning the Holy Father has had a specific role in the Message of Fatima: because of his insistence God sent His holy Mother to Fatima; and when the Pope fulfills God's demands, the Blessed Virgin will bring peace to the world. Therefore, because their role in the Fatima Message is so primary, let us examine how the Popes have approved of and promoted Fatima.
Firstly, Pope Benedict XV re-established the ancient diocese of Leiria on January 17, 1918, and in an April 29, 1918 letter to the Portuguese bishops, he referred to the occurrences at Fatima as "an extraordinary aid from the Mother of God." In 1929, at an audience of the Portuguese Seminary in Rome, Pope Benedict's successor, Pius XI, personally offered each seminarian two pictures of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima. Pope Pius also wished to read all the results of the Canonical Process of Fatima so that he would be personally acquainted with Our Lady's apparitions.
On October 1, 1930 the Sacred Penitentiary under Pius XI granted a partial indulgence to those who individually visited the Shrine and prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, and a plenary indulgence once a month to those who went there in a group. These indulgences granted in Rome came just in time to prepare minds to receive with entire confidence the soon-to-be-announced Episcopal approval, which the Holy See had thus discreetly supported.
With the knowledge and consent of Pope Pius XI, on October 13, 1930 Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) announced the results of the official inquiry of Fatima in a pastoral letter on the apparitions. This official approval contained these important paragraphs:
In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby:
1. Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.
2. Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.
Pope Pius XII, whose Episcopal consecration took place on May 13, 1917, the date of Our Lady's first apparition at Fatima, 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."
In 1940, Pope Pius XII spoke of Fatima for the first time in an official Papal text, his encyclical Saeculo exeunte, which was written to encourage the Church in Portugal to further its foreign missionary activity. In the text he stated: "Let the faithful not forget, especially when they recite the Rosary, so recommended by the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, to ask the Virgin Mother of God to obtain missionary vocations, with abundant fruits for the greatest possible number of souls...."
He then concluded the encyclical with, "Without any doubt God in His goodness will pour out His abundant blessings on these generous enterprises and on the most noble Portuguese nation. The Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of the Rosary venerated at Fatima, the Holy Mother of God who brought victory at Lepanto, will assist you with Her most powerful assistance...." Also in 1940, the Holy Father granted the new diocese of Nampula, in Mozambique, Our Lady of Fatima as its Patroness.
In October of 1942, in response to a message given to him by Sister Lucy in 1940, Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention of Russia. In early 1943, Sister Lucy explained that the Lord told her that He would accept this Act of Consecration to help speed the end of the World War II, but that it will not obtain worldwide peace. As predicted, this act obtained the end of the war, but did not usher in the reign of peace Our Lady promised, as it was not a consecration of specifically Russia, and the world's bishops did not participate in it.
On May 4, 1944, the Holy See instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In 1946 His Eminence Cardinal Masella, acting as the personal Legate of the Holy Father, crowned Our Lady of Fatima, "Queen of the World." The entire Portuguese episcopate and over 600,000 pilgrims gathered at Fatima for the event.
In 1950 Pope Pius XII even said to the Master General of the Dominicans: "Tell your religious that the Pope's thinking is contained in the Message of Fatima."
On October 13, 1951 the Pope's Legate, Cardinal Tedeschini, was sent to Fatima for the closing of the Holy Year. He told the crowd that Pope Pius XII had himself seen, repeated in Rome, the Miracle of the Sun that had occurred at the last Fatima apparition. It is clear that the Holy Father chose Fatima for this major event, to bring attention to the Message of Our Lady of Fatima. The Holy Father had, in fact, been graced to see the Miracle of the Sun on four separate occasions the previous year: October 30 and 31, November 1 (the day Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption), and November 8 (the octave of the same solemnity).
On July 7, 1952 Pope Pius XII, in response to the petitions of the Russian Catholics, consecrated Russia and her people to the Immaculate Heart. Unfortunately, the petitioners were unaware that the Holy Father had to do the Consecration in union with the bishops of the world. Thus, Pius XII did the Consecration in a private ceremony, without inviting the world's bishops to join him, as Our Lady requested.
On October 11, 1954 His Holiness issued an encyclical on the Queenship of Mary, and in it he referred to Her miraculous image at Fatima. Two years later the Church that stands on the apparition site at Fatima was elevated to the rank of Basilica.
In 1964, during the Second Vatican Council, at the solemn closing ceremonies at the end of the third session, before all the Catholic bishops of the world, Pope Paul VI renewed Pius XII's consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He also announced that a special envoy was to be sent to Fatima. In the Pope's name the Papal Legate would carry, as a symbolic gift, a Golden Rose to the Fatima Shrine. The inscription on it would say that Pope Paul was entrusting the entire Church to the care of Our Lady of Fatima. Then, in fact, on May 13, 1965, through his Papal Legate, as he had announced at the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul presented the Golden Rose at Fatima, commending the whole Church to Our Lady of Fatima's care.
On May 13, 1967, on the fiftieth anniversary of the first Fatima apparition, the Holy Father went on a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. He wrote an encyclical on the occasion of his pilgrimage. While there, he also blessed seventy National Pilgrim Virgin statues, to travel continually so that many nations would remember and practice the Message of Fatima.
Before his election to the Papacy, Pope John Paul I exhibited a particular devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, and as Cardinal Patriarch of Venice he led a pilgrimage there. It was during this trip that he met with Sister Lucy, and was very struck by the meeting.
Pope John Paul II has many times exhibited his approval of Fatima. He has visited Fatima three times – in 1982, 1991 and 2000. During his 2000 visit he beatified the two deceased seers, Jacinta and Francisco. He has also made the Feast day of Our Lady of Fatima universal by ordering it to be included in the Roman Missal.
During his homily at Mass in Fatima on May 13, 1982, Pope John Paul II said, "The appeal of the Lady of the Message of Fatima is so deeply rooted in the Gospel and the whole of Tradition that the Church feels that the Message imposes a commitment on Her." He also said, "The Message is addressed to every human being.... Because of the continuing increase of sin and the dangers, such as nuclear war, now threatening humanity, the Message of Fatima is more urgent and relevant in our time than it was when Our Lady appeared 65 years ago."
He also stated, "Today John Paul II, successor of St. Peter, presents himself before the Mother of the Son of God in Her shrine at Fatima. In what way does he come? He presents himself reading again with trepidation the motherly call to penance, to conversion, the ardent appeal of the Heart of Mary that resounded at Fatima 65 years ago. Yes he reads it again with trepidation in his heart because he sees how many people and societies – how many Christians – have gone in the opposite direction to the one indicated in the Message of Fatima. Sin has thus made itself firmly at home in the world, and denial of God has become widespread in the ideologies, ideas and plans of human beings."
Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways.
Source (https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-facts/approvals-by-the-popes/)
It's as clear as the Light of Day that Our Lady of Fatima is as approved as any Heavenly Manifestation can ever be, and rather more approved than most are. Our Lady of Fatima is so clearly a supernatural proof of the Catholic Faith, that if all people were open and receptive to the Grace of God, the whole world would have been converted to Her, and to the Catholic Church, thanks to Her stupendous Public Miracle, before 70,000 astonished eyewitnesses. Very many thankfully have converted and become Catholic thanks to Our Lady of Fatima. Gideon Lazar is one example of many.
"Fatima
The thing that initially triggered my move towards Catholicism is Our Lady of Fatima. One of my friends was telling me about the fruits Fatima had on her own life. She read what the Theotokos had said to the children about modesty, and it caused her to become more modest in her dress. She also told me about how her priest had visited Fatima and when he came back, he preached a fiery sermon about the reality of hell. I had been told by my fellow Orthodox Christians that Fatima was at best a hoax and at worst demonic, so I decided to investigate Fatima for myself.
The view that Fatima is simply a hoax cannot be the case. It has a miracle connected with it that was witnessed by thousands of people, many of whom were atheists who came to the event specifically to refute what the children were saying. Skeptics have argued that it was simply a mass hallucination, but Christians should be skeptical of this argument. Skeptics of the resurrection of Jesus often respond to the fact that there were 500 witnesses by pointing to Fatima. If Fatima was a mass hallucination, so could the resurrection of Jesus have been. No other mass hallucination has ever been recorded though. In reality, Fatima was actually the most seen public miracle since the time of the exodus about 3500 years ago.
The other objection to Fatima is that it is demonic. However, the vision doesn't sound like Satan at all. Would Satan command people to pray 53 Hail Marys and 6 Our Fathers, both fully Orthodox prayers, every single day? Would Satan command people to pray that Jesus "lead all souls to heaven" 5 times every day? Would Satan remind people about the reality of hell in a time when even the Church is forgetting about it? Would Satan seal all of this through a public miracle witnessed by thousands of atheists, causing many to convert and dedicate their lives to Christ? If this is Satan's plan, it isn't a very good one.
I did find one way to stay Orthodox after discovering this. Fatima was true and Orthodoxy is true. After all, the message of Fatima seems entirely Orthodox. There are some major problems with this though. First, Our Lady said that "in Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved." Portugal has remained Catholic, with only a tiny Orthodox minority. If Orthodoxy is true, the dogma of the faith has not been preserved in Portugal. In addition, Our Lady requested that Russia, the largest Orthodox country, be consecrated by the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, to the immaculate heart (a Catholic devotion rejected by many Orthodox as heretical) so that it will be converted. I reconciled this by saying that it needed to be converted from communism back to Orthodoxy. However, why would God request Catholics to do this in a very Catholic way? One Orthodox priest I read tried to fix this by saying that the "Holy Father" was actually the Patriarch of Moscow. This is already a stretch because the Patriarch is not called by this title while the Pope is. He goes even further by claiming that "the immaculate heart of Mary" is actually the true teachings of the Orthodox Church but the Theotokos needed a way to communicate this to peasant children. At this point this is such a stretch that it's just easier to draw the obvious conclusion, if Fatima is true then Catholicism is true."
From: https://thesplendorofthechurch.com/2019/09/21/why-i-converted-from-orthodoxy-by-gideon-lazar/
Quote from: mikemac on February 05, 2020, 04:18:23 PM
Nobody is trying to bind you or any other Catholic to Fatima or any other apparitions.
Xavier is.
Quote
You don't have the obligation to believe in any apparition.
Tell Xavier.
Quote
You are really stuck on the fact that the Vatican has approved the entire Fatima message, aren't you? Well here's more proof of the approval of Fatima by the Popes.
Quote
Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways.
This is the usual obfuscation.
And what's a "decisive way " of approving an apparition. As far as I know, there is only one way.
The Secrets and the Angel Apparitions have not been approved in the only way that counts.
From what MikeMac posted: The Holy See's stance is crystal clear. Let those who love the Vicar of Christ do as he said. The time for doubting Fatima has passed. The time for Action is now.
Firstly, Pope Benedict XV re-established the ancient diocese of Leiria on January 17, 1918, and in an April 29, 1918 letter to the Portuguese bishops, he referred to the occurrences at Fatima as "an extraordinary aid from the Mother of God." In 1929, at an audience of the Portuguese Seminary in Rome, Pope Benedict's successor, Pius XI, personally offered each seminarian two pictures of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima. Pope Pius also wished to read all the results of the Canonical Process of Fatima so that he would be personally acquainted with Our Lady's apparitions.
On October 1, 1930 the Sacred Penitentiary under Pius XI granted a partial indulgence to those who individually visited the Shrine and prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, and a plenary indulgence once a month to those who went there in a group. These indulgences granted in Rome came just in time to prepare minds to receive with entire confidence the soon-to-be-announced Episcopal approval, which the Holy See had thus discreetly supported.
...
Pope Pius XII, whose Episcopal consecration took place on May 13, 1917, the date of Our Lady's first apparition at Fatima, 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."
On May 4, 1944, the Holy See instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In 1946 His Eminence Cardinal Masella, acting as the personal Legate of the Holy Father, crowned Our Lady of Fatima, "Queen of the World." The entire Portuguese episcopate and over 600,000 pilgrims gathered at Fatima for the event.
In 1950 Pope Pius XII even said to the Master General of the Dominicans: "Tell your religious that the Pope's thinking is contained in the Message of Fatima."
"On October 13, 1951 the Pope's Legate, Cardinal Tedeschini, was sent to Fatima for the closing of the Holy Year. He told the crowd that Pope Pius XII had himself seen, repeated in Rome, the Miracle of the Sun that had occurred at the last Fatima apparition. It is clear that the Holy Father chose Fatima for this major event, to bring attention to the Message of Our Lady of Fatima. The Holy Father had, in fact, been graced to see the Miracle of the Sun on four separate occasions the previous year: October 30 and 31, November 1 (the day Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption), and November 8 (the octave of the same solemnity).
In the Pope's name the Papal Legate would carry, as a symbolic gift, a Golden Rose to the Fatima Shrine. The inscription on it would say that Pope Paul was entrusting the entire Church to the care of Our Lady of Fatima. Then, in fact, on May 13, 1965, through his Papal Legate, as he had announced at the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul presented the Golden Rose at Fatima, commending the whole Church to Our Lady of Fatima's care.
During his homily at Mass in Fatima on May 13, 1982, Pope John Paul II said, "The appeal of the Lady of the Message of Fatima is so deeply rooted in the Gospel and the whole of Tradition that the Church feels that the Message imposes a commitment on Her." He also said, "The Message is addressed to every human being.... Because of the continuing increase of sin and the dangers, such as nuclear war, now threatening humanity, the Message of Fatima is more urgent and relevant in our time than it was when Our Lady appeared 65 years ago."
"Today John Paul II, successor of St. Peter, presents himself before the Mother of the Son of God in Her shrine at Fatima. In what way does he come? He presents himself reading again with trepidation the motherly call to penance, to conversion, the ardent appeal of the Heart of Mary that resounded at Fatima 65 years ago. Yes he reads it again with trepidation in his heart because he sees how many people and societies – how many Christians – have gone in the opposite direction to the one indicated in the Message of Fatima. Sin has thus made itself firmly at home in the world, and denial of God has become widespread in the ideologies, ideas and plans of human beings." https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-facts/approvals-by-the-popes/
(https://www.bluearmy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Sister-Lucia-with-Bishop-Silva.jpg)
From: https://www.bluearmy.com/sister-lucias-long-journey-in-spreading-the-first-saturday-devotion/
"On Feb. 15, 1926, the Child Jesus appeared to Sister Lucia in the courtyard of her convent in Pontevedra. After a brief conversation, he asked her, "And have you been spreading around the world what the heavenly Mother asked of you?"
This was the impetus for her to begin the long and difficult road to getting the Church to approve the First Saturday Communions of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart, which Our Lady had requested on Dec. 10, 1925.
Lucia explained to Jesus that her Superior, Provincial Mother Monfalin, was unsure how to move forward. It seemed impossible. But Jesus simply assured her that He would take care of it, and He did.
By 1927, the devotion began to spread thanks to Mother Monfalin's belief in its authenticity. She took every opportunity to do what she could, including having a small prayer card printed with the elements of the devotion. Lucia also made every attempt, especially through her own mother and friends, and her spiritual director, Father Aparicio. Lucia soon learned from him that the devotion was being embraced in the Communities in Lisbon. Likewise, her mother spread the devotion among relatives, friends and neighbors in Fatima, and her Confirmation sponsor, Mrs. Maria Filomen Morais de Miranda, began to make it known. Lucia's enthusiasm for the devotion was evident in her letters. She wrote that she was never as happy as when the First Saturday arrives.
These simple efforts sparked the flames for the devotion to grow. Yet it would be a much harder challenge to get the Church to officially approve it. Resigned to her limitations in this regard, Sister Lucia surrendered constantly to the will of God, lamenting often: "I can do nothing more than pray and suffer."
She often revealed what she felt the Lord was communicating to her, such as in this letter to the Bishop José Alves Correia de Silva, bishop of Leira, on October 1928.
If I am not mistaken, the good Lord in His infinite mercy is complaining that He can no longer accept the offenses that are committed against the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mary. He says this is the sin for which a great number of souls are falling into hell, and promises to save them in the measure that the following devotion is practiced in order to make reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother.
]
In 1928, the apparitions of Fatima were still being studied and not yet fully approved. Bishop José was not ready for the devotion of the First Saturdays. Lucia then sought help from Father Aparicio, who had sent information to the bishop. In several letters, she expressed her great desire for this devotion:
The greatest joy I feel is seeing the Immaculate Heart of our most tender Mother known, loved and consoled, by means of this devotion. (Dec. 1928) ....Your Reverence has no idea of the extent of my happiness in thinking of the consolation that this devotion is going to give to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary as well as the thought of the huge amount of souls that are going to be saved through this lovable devotion. (March 1929)
On June 13, 1929, Sister Lucia received the vision of the Holy Trinity in the chapel of the convent in Tuy, Spain, in which Our Lady said the time had come to request the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. It set off an even greater urgency in her to spread the devotion of the First Saturdays, as she saw the two requests intertwined. Despite the delays, she told Father Aparicio that God had made her aware that "His grace was setting hearts afire with the love and desire to make reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
In 1934, she finally heard back from Bishop de Silva, wherein he promised to begin promoting the "Devotion of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart" in the coming year. She continued to work through her spiritual director and other priests, not only to advance the mission of the First Saturdays, but also the consecration of Russia. Father Aparicio was as diligent in writing to Bishop de Silva for official approval.
It was not until 1939 that things started to move forward, and by then, the rumblings of war were being heard. Sometime that year, Lucia had received another communication from the Lord, which she detailed as follows:
Ask, insist again on the publication of Reparatory Communion in honor of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on the First Saturdays. The moment is coming when the rigors of My justice are going to punish the crimes of various nations. Some will be annihilated. In the end, the rigors of My justice will fall most severely on those who wish to destroy My Kingdom in souls.
She wrote several times to Father Aparicio about the urgency of the matter:
Whether there is going to be peace or war in the world depends on the practice of this devotion along with the Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is why I am so anxious for its propagation; and above all, because it is the Will of Our Dear Lord and Our Dearly Beloved Heavenly Mother. (March 1939)
Our Lady promised to postpone the scourge of war, if this devotion is spread and practiced. We see her putting off this chastisement in the measure that efforts are being made to spread it. But I am afraid that we are not doing all that we are able to, and that God, in no way satisfied, may raise the arm of His mercy and let the world be ravaged by this punishment, which will be as never has been, horrible, horrible! (June 1939)
Bishop de Silva finally gave official approval to the devotion in September 1939, after the war had broken out. Lucia continued her efforts to get the devotion spread worldwide throughout the Church. She poured out her heart to the Bishop of Gurza in a letter May 27, 1943, expressing the real need for this devotion:
I long for the coming of the Office in honor of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, throughout the whole world. When I put this request in the letter to the Holy Father, I put it as a simple desire of my poor heart, and that's the truth. But, in fact, it isn't only mine. Someone up there entrusted it to me. It belongs to the Most Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
They love and desire these devotions, because by them, they attract souls to themselves. All their desires are summed up in this: To save souls, many souls, each and every soul (emphasis Lucia's).
A few days ago, He said to me, "I really want the spread of the cult and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; for it is the magnet that will attract souls to me; the spotlight that will throw the rays of my light an love on the earth, the eternal spring that will flood the earth with the living water of my Mercy.
In 2020, during our prayer campaign for the Church, we are asking everyone to commit to completing five consecutive First Saturdays in reparation for the blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and to adopt the practice monthly as a sign of your love for Our Mother and the salvation of many souls. Sister Lucia, pray for us!"
God chose 3 Saintly Witnesses to Our Lady of Fatima's Apparitions, beside the 70,000 eyewitnesses, to be recipients of Her Messages. And those amazing and sweet Child-Saints, St. Francisco and St. Jacinta, already amazed their persecutors by their heroism, their courage and their bravery, and astonished all who knew them, by always sacrificing and suffering for the good of souls, and telling everyone to bring many offerings and make many sacrifices in reparation to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and to cease offending God.
"The holy death of St. Jacinta and the 1918 flu"
(https://www.bluearmy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Jacinta-statue-at-St.-Anthony-Parish_Aljustrel-1-1024x848.jpg)
A statue of Jacinta in front of St. Anthony's Church in Aljustrel
by Donal Anthony Foley –
St. Jacinta Marto endured a prolonged and painful illness that led to her death on the night of Feb. 20, 1920, in the Estefania Hospital in Lisbon. Only a night nurse, Aurora Gomes, was present in the ward that evening, but when questioned, she could not recall any details of the young seer's death, nor anything about the child herself. As Our Lady foretold, Jacinta died alone, far from her relatives and friends, due to complications arising from the Spanish Flu pandemic, which swept around the world between Jan. 1918 and Dec. 1920.
The Spanish Flu was a particularly virulent influenza pandemic that infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide, leading to between 50 and 100 million deaths. At the time, the world population was less than two billion, so this pandemic affected a significant percentage of mankind, and is regarded as one of the most deadly epidemics ever to have affected humanity, possibly comparable with the Black Death that ravaged Europe in the 14th century. The fact that it happened just as World War I was entering its final stages only made it more deadly, as crowded conditions and large scale troop movements facilitated the spread of the virus.
An unusual characteristic of this pandemic was that, unlike most flu outbreaks that target young children and the elderly, the Spanish Flu particularly affected healthy young adults, causing many deaths. Scientists discovered the reason for this recently; older people who had suffered through the Russian Flu pandemic of 1889-1890 had developed some immunities to the Spanish Flu.
This was the case in Fatima as well. Except for Ti Marto, the father of Francisco and Jacinta, the whole Marto family was struck down by the flu in the autumn of 1918. Around this time, Our Lady appeared to Francisco and Jacinta and said that she would take Francisco to heaven shortly, but asked Jacinta if she would stay longer to suffer for sinners. Francisco died on April 4, 1919 at the age of 11; Jacinta was just shy of age 10 when she passed. The flu also claimed the lives of their older siblings, Florinda and Teresa. One wonders how the Marto parents handled such grief.
The symptoms of the Spanish Flu included fever and chills, muscle aches, runny nose and a cough. In some people, more serious conditions developed, including bronchopneumonia, a bacterial infection that can cause rapid heartbeat, difficulty breathing, pleurisy, congestion and other complications. This was the case with Jacinta, whose sufferings grew as her illness progressed.
Jacinta related to Lucia, who was not seriously affected by the flu, that the Blessed virgin had told her she would go to two hospitals, but would not be cured. Rather, she would suffer more for the conversion of sinners and in reparation for sins.
After Francisco's death, Jacinta became very sad at his absence. Added to this, her bodily pains, including severe headaches, grew worse. With the onset of bronchopneumonia, a purulent abscess formed in her lungs causing her acute pain, but she bore this increased torment with great fortitude.
Her little body was reduced to skin and bone as she wasted away, and this was her condition when she was admitted to Estefania Hospital in January 1920.
First, she stayed in an orphanage run by a sister, Mother Godinho, who was greatly impressed by Jacinta's wisdom far beyond her years. Jacinta spoke of the sins of the flesh, which cause the most souls to go to hell, and of the moral dangers of coming fashions. She also said, "If men knew what eternity is they would do everything to change their lives." Despite her suffering, it was a great delight for her to be staying in a house that had a chapel with the Blessed Sacrament and to be able to receive Holy Communion daily.
It was only a short respite, however, as in February she was moved to the Lisbon hospital under the care of Dr. Castro Freire, one of the most famous children's specialists in the capital. He diagnosed her condition as purulent pleurisy and osteitis (inflammation) of the seventh and eight left ribs. She also had tuberculosis by this time.
On February 10, she endured an operation to remove her two diseased ribs, an operation that, because of her weakened condition, could only be carried out with a local anesthetic. The operation was a success, but left a large wound in her side that required daily dressing, an agonizing procedure for the young girl.
(https://www.bluearmy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Jacinta-and-Lucia-graves_2-683x1024.jpg)
Jacinta is buried next to Lucia in the Basilica at the Shrine of Fatima
On the night of her death, she said she was feeling worse and the parish priest arrived about 8 p.m. to hear her confession. Despite her protests that she would soon die, he did not give her Holy Communion as Viaticum, thinking she would be fine until morning. She died just two-and-a-half hours later. When Mother Godinho came to help clean her body in the hospital mortuary, she reported positively that there were stains of dried blood on Jacinta's face.
In dying as she did, Jacinta gives us a wonderful example of conformity with God's will, in accepting just the sort of death that He willed for her. One can rejoice with St. John Paul II, who stated at Francisco and Jacinta's rite of beatification at Fatima in 2000, "the Church wishes to put on the candelabrum these two candles which God lit to illumine humanity in its dark and anxious hours."
Quote from: mikemac on February 03, 2020, 07:48:18 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on February 03, 2020, 05:57:27 PM
Quote from: mikemac on February 03, 2020, 02:20:27 PM
Pope Benedict XIV is saying that no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin. That is different from "no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."
They are identical.
Not doubting = fully believing.
Doubting = not fully believing.
If you are not allowed to doubt, you are not allowed to not fully believe in it.
Which is identical to saying,
If you are not allowed to doubt, you must fully believe in it.
Thus,
Pope Benedict XIV's quote can be understood as follows:
Everyone must believe in their supernatural and divine origin.
Which is identical to saying that
There is an obligation of the faithful to believe in their supernatural and divine origin.
Belief in their supernatural and Divine origin necessarily implies a belief that they are true, because God would not directly give false apparitions.
Therefore,
There is an obligation of the faithful to believe they are true.
Which is the complete opposite of
There is no obligation of the faithful to believe in them.
Not believing in an apparition as opposed to spewing it all over the forum that Fatima is false and from the devil like you, Gerard and awkwardcustomer have been doing are two completely different things. Pope Benedict XIV was speaking against the latter. I'm starting to think that it is sinful.
Nope. Not me, at least.
Also, Satan cannot cast out Satan.
Quote from: Xavier on February 05, 2020, 06:15:36 PM
From what MikeMac posted: The Holy See's stance is crystal clear. Let those who love the Vicar of Christ do as he said. The time for doubting Fatima has passed. The time for Action is now.
How is it the case that
1. Because Popes have referenced Fatima's secrets in speeches and given symbolic gestures towards Fatima's secrets, Fatima's secrets are undoubtedly binding and those who disagree with necessarily do not love the Vicar of Christ and do not obey his orders
BUT
2. The CDF issuing three formal condemnations of Our Lady of Nations and
an exorcism which Xavier himself promotes says it's a work of the devil is insufficient for it to be false, and we ought to believe in such falsehood because a local Bishop currently promotes it and a modified version of its Divinely-revealed prayer that the Vatican had to modify because it suggested heresy?
Only one who tries to play to bind a Leviathan to a fishhook cannot see how deluded he is.
Quote from: Xavier on February 03, 2020, 12:33:38 AM
Quote from: Gerard on January 31, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 30, 2020, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: GerardNo. I disagree with the bishop because no one has addressed the threat-language in Fatima. Just curious, but why is the H in "Her" capitalized? I understand the tradition of capitalizing any pronouns used for God but not the BVM.
It is good to believe the Bishop on pious faith, especially because in addition the Holy Father Pope Pius XII some years later confirmed it saying, "The time for doubting Fatima is past". It's not a question of threats. Supposing a helpful messenger comes and warns that an army is coming against us, and we must put up some defenses to be able to fight, ought we not thank that messenger with grateful hearts? So too ought we to be grateful, Gerard, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for warning us of the empirically verifiable fact that Communism was even then planning and preparing a great battle against the Church, Christendom and all of civilization. How do you account for what Bella Dodd has testified to? She's made known that she was helping infiltrate seminaries in the 20s and 30s, but the world at large only came to become aware of it (and still some do not know it) after 1953 odd. But Our Lady asked for the Consecration in 1929, and Pope Pius XII said those words quoted above in 1933, about Communism's great plan to destroy all civilization.
"It's not a question of threats."
It is a question of threats. This is the red flag that should not be ignored. The short cut way to know empirically whether an apparition is real or not is too see if there is anything that departs from the Catholic faith.
Incorrect private judgment.
Not at all. Truth is not private judgement. 2+2=4 is not private judgement.
QuoteThe short cut way to know whether an apparition is supernatural and not contrary to faith, for the lay Catholic faithful, is to see that the Church, through Her Pope and Bishops has declared it supernatural, free from harm, and for the good of souls.
No. That's not a "short cut" way at all. That's the long way if anything. The fact that the Medjugorje apparition promoted heterodox ideas means you don't have to wait for the Church to approve it or disapprove of it. They can't force it on you and if you know right out of the box it's bad, you can reject it.
The second part of this is that, the Church can't infallibly determine whether something is preternatural, supernatural or free from error etc. They can do their best, but that doesn't mean they will always be correct.
And by the way, you need to distinguish between preternatural and supernatural. Supernatural strictly refers only to God Himself. The actions of Angels and Saints and Demons that are beyond the normal workings of nature but still within nature.
QuoteYour private judgment is not essentially different from Martin Luther's private judgment that St. James' Epistle was not Sacred Scripture because it contradicted his own private judgment of faith. That was heresy, yours is not heresy but a lesser sin, but still it is wrong.
Oh C'mon. Can you stop with the pathetic slurs and the comparisons to Martin Luther? There is no comparison. Heresy and apparitions are not even in the same category. Catholics are bound to believe the Canon as defined. To reject that while knowing is a heresy, heresy basically means, you've made your choice even though you've been informed by the Church of your error.
The very fact of apparitions is that the Church allows you to have the choice to believe or not believe in approved apparitions.
You keep hitting away with Pope Benedict XIV's private opinion that people shouldn't doubt the apparitions approved up to his time. But Vatican I declared and defined the infallibility of the papacy, which prevents those personal statements of belief from binding the Church.
QuoteThe Catholic Church has not declared Medjugorje supernatural. She has declared Fatima divine or supernatural in origin. It is simple.
But it has allowed people with reservations to follow its false messages for decades. And again, "divine or supernatural" is redundant.
QuoteQuoteThe problem with Fatima is less obviously doctrinal (though there are doctrinal issues as well) because it deals with upending the ecclesiology of the Church. The fact is, the BVM cannot and would not use the language of threats in order to take away control of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and make the Pope a puppet.
There are no threats. To use a reference from popular culture, Aragorn comes and warns King Theoden "An Army of Orcs. 10,000 strong. They will be here by nightfall". And speaks of putting up the defenses. Everyone is grateful to him, and he saves the day. A Million times more we must be grateful to Our Lady of Fatima nad Her Immaculate Heart, Who has already saved the day and saved countless souls and even lives, and helped Christendom win its battles against Communism. Communism is going to be crushed soon.
Your LOTR analogy fails. Aragorn doesn't demand obedience from Theoden in exchange for Aragorn's assistance. He doesn't send someone claiming to have seen him and quotes him as saying, "I will save you if you hand your power over to me and gives me the tribute I want. If not, Rohan will be destroyed and Theoden will have much to suffer."
The more accurate reference from popular culture is from The Godfather. "I'm gonna make 'em an offer they can't refuse."
QuoteQuoteLong before Fatima, the Popes were aware of the threat of Communism ...
Yes, and they began to become even much more severe against it, after approving Our Lady of Fatima as supernatural in origin.
That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
QuoteQuoteThere is no element of Fatima that cannot be pulled off by demonic trickery.
False and utterly impious from you. The Holy Ghost would not allow the Popes to declare as divine and supernatural what was demonic.
No. It's completely an orthodox point of view. You are wrong. Demons of air and darkness and Lucifer as an "angel of light" could easily pull off the "miracle" of the sun. Especially if God allows them by giving them, time, permission and power.
The Holy Ghost offers no protection to Popes when it comes to apparitions.
The Holy Ghost will however stop a Pope from consecrating Russia while being coerced by a false apparition. He won't let the Keys fall under the dominion of an evil spirit.
This is probably why no consecration "by the book" has been done in the decades. God won't allow it.
QuoteQuoteThe weirdness of the children supposedly receiving Holy Communion from the angel.
Nothing weird about that at all. Holy Communion is called the Bread of Angels in Scripture and Tradition.
A pious and angelogically incorrect nickname for the Eucharist is irrelevent. You obviously don't know the story. It's very weird and sacramentally incorrect and undermines papal directives and parents prerogatives and is singularly illogical.
QuoteQuoteThe "Fatima Prayer" often said within the Rosary "Lead ALL souls to Heaven."
The meaning is obviously, (1) Lead all those, who are in most need of Your Mercy, to Heaven. This applies in a special way to the souls who are going to die that day. This is why it's a great victory for Heaven that Millions of Catholics say this Fatima prayer at every Rosary, so 100s of thousands of the many hundred thousands who die that day, can be saved by the prayers of the Catholic Church. (2) It also applies in a special way to the Souls in Purgatory, who according to the Saints and Doctors suffer greater torments than anyone on Earth. And therefore they are most in need of Mercy, on account of the greater severity of their torments. Finally, (3) just as Jesus prayed even for Judas, though he was foreknown to be reprobate, St. Augustine says the Church prays for all, just as Jesus died for all, though He knew, and She knows, in advance, that He and She both will not be heard for some, on account of their obstinacy in mortal sin until the end. The most important work of all, as Our Lady of Fatima clearly teaches us, is to pray and sacrifice to save souls.
This is all speculation on your part and is not indicated in the wording of the "prayer" at all. And anything pious and good in Fatima is already contained in the Church. What is unacceptable is this nonsense about a consecration and, "...if you don't...you are going to suffer!" Coercian and threats are anti-thetical to the BVM, and totally contrary to Christ's will where it concerns the Papacy.
Quote
These Pharisaical objections which are not interested in saving souls but rather in attacking God and Our Lady do not come from Charity for Souls.
Imputing motives and making personal smears is not Catholic. You really need to apologize. I don't attack God nor our Lady. You're behavior is proof to me that I'm right. Devotion to Fatima is something you are willing to lie about to protect. Not good.
QuoteTrue Charity for souls would recognize that it is a Great Grace from God and Heaven that Millions of Catholics now pray this.
True charity for souls would recognize that pointing out a blatant error is an act of charity. Millions of Catholics could be praying more efficacious prayers without this distraction going on. And we would probably get a good Pope sooner, if not for this consecration scam.
QuoteQuote(more later...)
[Can't Wait] In the meanwhile, Pope Benedict XIV says you are not to doubt, but must assent by pious faith.
Pope Benedict's personal opinion as you've presented it is wrong. Urban VIII, Vatican I and St. Pius X disagree. But Benedict XIV did actually state that you were to "follow the rules of prudence."
Quote
Van Noort says it is a sin.
Van Noort has no authority on that matter. He doesn't even explain what kind of sin. Just "some kind" of sin. Which means he's BS'ing. He's wrong.
Quote
Pope Pius XII said the time for doubting Fatima is past, which means we cannot doubt it.
Well, the time for doubting is back due to a new perspective. If you are correct in what the Pope stated, that's only a personal opinion by a Pope. If he bound the faithful to Fatima, one of two things occurred, he either became an anti-Pope or was an anti-Pope or the whole Catholic faith is a crock because Vatican I was wrong and the dogma of closed Public Revelation was wrong. Which also means Fatima is not worthy of belief.
QuoteThe Bishop of Fatima said clearly we have the obligation to correspond with the Maternal Goodness of Immaculate Mother Mary, Who gave this Great Grace. If you revere the Pope and the Bishops, and claim to abide by the Keys given to the Successors of St. Peter, the way is clear. Fatima is supernatural in origin.
The long dead bishop of Fatima has no jurisdiction on what I'm obligated to believe. Let's be clear: The Blessed Mother did not appear at Fatima nor make a "request" for a consecration that is blatantly a coercive threat against the Popes.
I'm not obligated to "revere" any particular Pope or Bishop. Most of them are worthy of scorn. I do however revere the offices of the Papacy and the Bishopric. And the Fatima narrative is a very spectacular show with lot of distraction to hide an obvious (once you see it) attack on the papacy.
Quote from: Gerard on February 06, 2020, 01:06:31 AM
Quote from: Xavier on February 03, 2020, 12:33:38 AM
Your private judgment is not essentially different from Martin Luther's private judgment that St. James' Epistle was not Sacred Scripture because it contradicted his own private judgment of faith. That was heresy, yours is not heresy but a lesser sin, but still it is wrong.
Oh C'mon. Can you stop with the pathetic slurs and the comparisons to Martin Luther? There is no comparison. Heresy and apparitions are not even in the same category. Catholics are bound to believe the Canon as defined. To reject that while knowing is a heresy, heresy basically means, you've made your choice even though you've been informed by the Church of your error.
[/quote]
Think of the number of former Catholics who hear the words "Catholic Church" and picture pederast priests, miserable nuns dishing out beatings, and pig-headed, holier-than-thou oafs like Xavier because of their experiences.
Nothing in this thread, and none of the attitude behind it, has anything to do with the Gospel or resembles Jesus Christ in any way.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on February 06, 2020, 12:14:02 AM
Quote from: Xavier on February 05, 2020, 06:15:36 PM
From what MikeMac posted: The Holy See's stance is crystal clear. Let those who love the Vicar of Christ do as he said. The time for doubting Fatima has passed. The time for Action is now.
How is it the case that
1. Because Popes have referenced Fatima's secrets in speeches and given symbolic gestures towards Fatima's secrets, Fatima's secrets are undoubtedly binding and those who disagree with necessarily do not love the Vicar of Christ and do not obey his orders
BUT
2. The CDF issuing three formal condemnations of Our Lady of Nations and an exorcism which Xavier himself promotes says it's a work of the devil is insufficient for it to be false, and we ought to believe in such falsehood because a local Bishop currently promotes it and a modified version of its Divinely-revealed prayer that the Vatican had to modify because it suggested heresy?
Only one who tries to play to bind a Leviathan to a fishhook cannot see how deluded he is.
Why even go there when the Holy See's stance on Vatican II and the Novus Ordo is crystal clear? But if Francis abolished the Tridentine Mass indult, what do you suppose Xavier would do? Believe and obey?
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 06, 2020, 10:31:25 AMQuote
Quote from: Gerard on February 06, 2020, 01:06:31 AM
Quote from: Xavier on February 03, 2020, 12:33:38 AM
Your private judgment is not essentially different from Martin Luther's private judgment that St. James' Epistle was not Sacred Scripture because it contradicted his own private judgment of faith. That was heresy, yours is not heresy but a lesser sin, but still it is wrong.
Oh C'mon. Can you stop with the pathetic slurs and the comparisons to Martin Luther? There is no comparison. Heresy and apparitions are not even in the same category. Catholics are bound to believe the Canon as defined. To reject that while knowing is a heresy, heresy basically means, you've made your choice even though you've been informed by the Church of your error.
Think of the number of former Catholics who hear the words "Catholic Church" and picture pederast priests, miserable nuns dishing out beatings, and pig-headed, holier-than-thou oafs like Xavier because of their experiences.
Nothing in this thread, and none of the attitude behind it, has anything to do with the Gospel or resembles Jesus Christ in any way.
Funny how people don't give up on television or movies when they see a far greater percentage of bad shows and upsetting films. But they look for the exit door as fast as possible when it comes to the Church. That tells me its more about them than what they experienced from other people.
There are plenty of idiot Catholics and plenty of idiot former Catholics. Most of the former Catholic idiots just use the comparatively small number of pervert priests and battle axe nuns to justify their exit. They have decided what sin are "not sins" or what "they feel" is right and wrong. If you asked them to point out anything good in the Church or actually explain the faith that they've abandoned, they can't. They usually get mad at that point.
I've run into this cartoonish and defensive attitude similarly with anti-Catholic Jews who come onto Catholic forums looking for a fight from time to time. I tell them I'll point out any number of sins and failings among Catholics and corruption of Churchmen if they are willing to point out to me the worst elements among their community. You can guess how that goes over. It's pride and the confessional that ultimately force people to decide to stay or go. Fleeing from self condemnation is powerful stuff.
As to the comparison with the Gospel, it is chock full of religious hypocrisy and infighting. But, we haven't gotten to the point nowadays on forums of stoning anyone or crucifying people.
How did Fatimism come to hold such a powerful grip on Tradition in particular?
It's as if an extremely skilful propagandist has been at work, employing the latest psychological manipulation techniques.
The harmless and uncontroversial apparitions of 1917 in the Cova da Iria are approved by the Church in 1930. Then the Secrets and the Angel apparitions, which form the basis of the attack on the Papacy described by Gerard, are revealed little by little, and although not formally approved, become the inspiration for Fatimism.
The Church approves Fatima and then finds it has Fatimism and its attack on the Papacy on its hands. It's a bait and switch operation, employing various techniques, including 'Fear then Relief' as mentioned before.
Clever.
Awkward Customer, the below is for you. This is the Marvelous Work Our Lady of Fatima is doing now for Her Beloved Russian People, who will be chosen to be the Catholic Missionaries and Saints of tomorrow, and for the propagation, spread and Triumph of the Catholic Faith in Her Immaculate Conception and Her Immaculate Heart in Holy Russia. Should it not cause joy and gladness to every heart that is still Catholic, even those weighed down by despair? God shows in many ways Fatima is from Him only.
"Our Lady of Fatima Taking Her Place in St. Petersburg
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 SOURCE: FSSPX.NEWS
(https://fsspx.news/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/media/dici/new-news/fatima_sanctuaire_russie.jpg?itok=6Tg_Vq1D)
About 40 bishops and ordinaries of sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches gathered at the Vatican from September 12-14, 2019. Received in audience by the Supreme Pontiff, approved a project to construct the first official sanctuary dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima in St. Petersburg, in the heart of Russia.
The first sanctuary officially dedicated by the Catholic Church to the Virgin of Fatima will soon see the light of day in Russia, more than a century after the apparitions of Our Lady in Portugal. The information has been confirmed from Siberia by the Apostolic Administrator of Novosibirsk, Bishop Joseph Werth.
Surprising as it may seem from a Catholic view, "the Orthodox confessions are not opposed to this project. Many Russians have a great devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, who interceded for the conversion of Russia during the Communist persecution," as Fr. Alejandro Burgos, a Spanish priest exercising his apostolate in St. Petersburg.
To promote the devotion to Our Lady of Fatima to the Easterners, Fr. Burgos had an icon depicting the Virgin made with the quotation: "It is in you that unity is realized." May the Virgin of Fatima indeed hasten the return of the Eastern Orthodox to Catholic unity, in the same faith and the one Church founded on Peter.
The future sanctuary which will house the icon will be dedicated to the Byzantine Rite. The cost of the project is estimated at 3 million euros, a large part of which will be financed by the Spanish Conference of Bishops, who have been particularly involved in this endeavor.
The Society of Saint Pius X has a regular apostolate in Russia: a chapel dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima exists in St. Petersburg, while another, under the patronage of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, regularly opens its doors to the Latin Rite faithful in the Russian capital
(Source : Gaudium Press - FSSPX.Actualité - 30/09/2019)" The day draws near now when Russia will invoke the Immaculate Heart of Our Mother Mary.
What a pity the SSPX is promoting Fatimism.