SSPX Article:Our Lady of Fatima and the Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

[dellery]

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?" 

In  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-Kruegerism. Or shall I refer to them as a Dunning-Kruegerist?

How embarrassing.

[Gerard]

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?" 

In  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.

You 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.   

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?

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. 

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. 

[dellery]

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.

[Gerard]

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.

[Nazianzen]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Stalin 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. 

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.

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.

[Gerard]

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? 

[dellery]

How in the world did you get so smart?

By eating lots of cinnamon flavored Teddy Grahams.

[Nazianzen]

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. 

[awkwardcustomer]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Stalin 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. 

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.

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.

"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.

[crossingtherubicon]

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. 

....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. 

....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:

Chapter 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? 

2. 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) :

8. 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: 

....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.

[Xavier]

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.

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

[Xavier]

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

[Gerard]

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. 

[Gerard]

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.

[crossingtherubicon]

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.