Author Topic: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)  (Read 86986 times)

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1018
  • Thanked: 183 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #330 on: June 25, 2017, 06:47:34 PM »
Hi Gerard,

Quote from: Gerard
That's an inference you are drawing from the narrative which is even more unhinged.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent calls eating human flesh and drinking human blood "revolting" and God in His infinite wisdom made the administration of His body and blood in the form or bread and wine. 

Is this the passage to which you were referring? 

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
Nothing more becomes the piety of the faithful than, omitting all curious questionings, to revere and adore the majesty of this august Sacrament, and to recognise the wisdom of God in commanding that these holy mysteries should be administered under the species of bread and wine. For since it is most revolting to human nature to eat human flesh or drink human blood, therefore God in His infinite wisdom has established the administration of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, which are the ordinary and agreeable food of man.
There are two further advantages: first, it prevents the calumnious reproaches of the unbeliever, from which the eating of our Lord under His visible form could not easily be defended; secondly, the receiving Him under a form in which He is impervious to the senses avails much for increasing our faith. For faith, as the well known saying of St. Gregory declares, has no merit in those things which fall under the proof of reason.

I suspected that you had left out some context that would shine more light on the topic.

I found the passage about eating Our Lord under His Visible form interesting as it gives a reason for receiving under the appearances of bread and wine. However, does not contain a condemnation of receiving communion under a visible form.

In other words, the implied condemnation is not contained in the passage you cited, simply reasons for why God established communion under the form. 

Anyway, exam is on Wednesday and then I will have more time to examine your thesis.


So, you are holding to the idea that the Angel of Fatima (St. Michael according to Fatima.org) gave the children the Blood of Christ in His Incarnate form? 

How many Fatima adherents hold to this idea?

Gerard,
It is not a question of 'adherents'. It is a question of what was related by the witnesses to the event Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.

From the memoirs:

Quote
Then, rising, he took the chalice and the Host in his hands. He gave the Sacred Host to me, and shared the Blood from the chalice between Jacinta and Francisco 15, saying as he did so: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”

Based on this, the thesis is supported that it was the '... Blood of Jesus Christ' as Our Lord shed on the cross.  Following the theology of the Church, it contains both the "Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".

That is simply taking the words for their actual meaning and not attempting to add any inferences.

Further, I had not previously noted the footnote for this event:

Quote
Francisco and Jacinta had not yet received their First Communion. However,they never regarded this as a sacramental Communion.

Following Trent we have:

That a sacrament is "... a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification."

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
Besides the different significations already mentioned, a Sacrament also not infrequently indicates and marks the presence of more than one thing. This we readily perceive when we reflect that the Holy Eucharist at once signifies the presence of the real body and blood of Christ and the grace which it imparts to the worthy receiver of the sacred mysteries.

So the understanding of Francisco and Jacinta is consistent with the thesis that they did not receive the Blood of Our Lord under the species of wine, they received the Blood of Our Lord as such and did not make a sacramental communion but a "direct" communion.



 

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Sojourn

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8581
  • Thanked: 2994 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #331 on: June 25, 2017, 07:20:28 PM »
Quote
James I would only add that the request to hold the Third Secret until 1960 because the Pope would understand it better is also prophetic.

Missed that one, and yes you are correct.  That may be the number one proof, since 2 years later Vee Poo kicked off.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3900
  • Thanked: 1527 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #332 on: June 25, 2017, 10:13:37 PM »
So, you are holding to the idea that the Angel of Fatima (St. Michael according to Fatima.org) gave the children the Blood of Christ in His Incarnate form? 

How many Fatima adherents hold to this idea?

It is the same account whether you read it from Fatima.org, EWTN, SSPX or any number of sites.  It looks like they all adhere to it.

So I'll put the question back to you.  What do you think?

I doubt it happened at all. 

But I doubly doubt that our Lord, St. Michael and the Blessed Mother would want children to be drinking the Incarnate Blood. 

THE mystery of faith is the transubstantiation of bread and wine into His body and blood while retaining the accidents of the bread and wine. 

I don't know of any eucharistic miracles of bleeding hosts or hosts turning into cardiac muscle in which people did, or were expected to consume it in that form.

I also doubt any genuine apparition would undercut the authority of the Pope, who was given charge of the Church by Christ Himself.

I doubt an Angel would foreshadow the "beloved" post Vatican II "traditions" of EHMCs and First Communion without First Penance. 

 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3900
  • Thanked: 1527 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #333 on: June 25, 2017, 10:30:29 PM »

Gerard,
It is not a question of 'adherents'. It is a question of what was related by the witnesses to the event Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.

From the memoirs:

Quote
Then, rising, he took the chalice and the Host in his hands. He gave the Sacred Host to me, and shared the Blood from the chalice between Jacinta and Francisco 15, saying as he did so: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”

Based on this, the thesis is supported that it was the '... Blood of Jesus Christ' as Our Lord shed on the cross.  Following the theology of the Church, it contains both the "Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".

That is simply taking the words for their actual meaning and not attempting to add any inferences.

Further, I had not previously noted the footnote for this event:

Quote
Francisco and Jacinta had not yet received their First Communion. However,they never regarded this as a sacramental Communion.

Following Trent we have:

That a sacrament is "... a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification."

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
Besides the different significations already mentioned, a Sacrament also not infrequently indicates and marks the presence of more than one thing. This we readily perceive when we reflect that the Holy Eucharist at once signifies the presence of the real body and blood of Christ and the grace which it imparts to the worthy receiver of the sacred mysteries.

So the understanding of Francisco and Jacinta is consistent with the thesis that they did not receive the Blood of Our Lord under the species of wine, they received the Blood of Our Lord as such and did not make a sacramental communion but a "direct" communion.

I get everything you are stating.  You are drawing completely rational inferences from the implications presented in the details. 

I asked how many Fatima adherents also understand these implications and believe the children were literally drinking plasma/gore. 

The writer of the Remnant article obviously does not because he states the "lesson" being taught is about "Communion under both kinds."  I doubt he means bread and gore and more likely means the Holy Eucharist under the accidents of bread and wine. 

Perhaps we should be talking about each combination of four kinds,  bread, wine, cardiac muscle and gore. 

I'm not sure I buy into your concept of "direct communion"  can you cite something for it?  That would necessitate that sacramental communion as you referred to it is "indirect." 

Do we know of any other incidents of people consuming plasma/gore or eating cardiac muscle as a valid Holy Communion?  Also how would consuming the actual biological material form not also be sacramental?  The actual flesh and blood of Christ "signifies" the passion, death and resurrection of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for mankind.

 

Offline christulsa

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2825
  • Thanked: 1495 times
    • The Okie Traditionalist Blog
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #334 on: June 26, 2017, 12:47:22 AM »
Saw a Fr Gruner video where he referenced a book about apparitions how there's several ways errors can accidentally come out of an authentic apparition, from confusion, miscommunication, etc.

So this issue of the Angel giving communion could be one of those accidental errors.

By the way, do we have a quote where Mary is commanding or binding the pope to the consecration??  I asked this a couple times before.  I dont find anything. 

Otherwise, despite his seemingly noble efforts, Gerard's thesis falls apart.   :popcorn:
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3900
  • Thanked: 1527 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #335 on: June 26, 2017, 02:43:17 AM »

By the way, do we have a quote where Mary is commanding or binding the pope to the consecration??  I asked this a couple times before.  I dont find anything. 

Otherwise, despite his seemingly noble efforts, Gerard's thesis falls apart.   :popcorn:

Not sure what you mean, my whole "effort" is based on the most commonly talked about aspect of Fatima today.   I'm pointing out the simple fact that Mary doesn't have the authority to bind the Pope.  That's why the "request/command/threat" is based on an "either/or" quote.  To paraphrase, it's essentially a subtly disguised, "Either you and the entire authority structure of the Church obey me and consecrate Russia to "me" or you are going to suffer and the world is going to suffer."   So, it is undeniably a threat used to extort a consecration out of the hierarchy of the Church and subordinate the hierarchy to the claims of a "seer" of an apparition that does not have the authority or the ability to wield the Keys of St. Peter.

There is nothing like this in any other apparition of the BVM.  The BVM would not behave in this manner, so the consecration cannot be an authentic part of any appearance of the BVM.

The lay faithful have since become convinced that the Popes have been "disobedient" to the Blessed Mother.  Not possible. The BVM doesn't command the head of the Church and she's not the messenger of God to give new instructions to the Pope.  That's not her role.

I haven't seen anyone dispute the essence of what I've simply pointed out.  The "thesis" doesn't fall apart at all.  Aside from a  few knee jerk reactions, snide comments and  accusations of blasphemy, nobody has been able to disprove the way I've framed the event and highlighted one aspect of it, that has been ignored by the majority of Catholics.

 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1018
  • Thanked: 183 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #336 on: June 26, 2017, 08:38:26 AM »

Gerard,
It is not a question of 'adherents'. It is a question of what was related by the witnesses to the event Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.

From the memoirs:

Quote
Then, rising, he took the chalice and the Host in his hands. He gave the Sacred Host to me, and shared the Blood from the chalice between Jacinta and Francisco 15, saying as he did so: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”

Based on this, the thesis is supported that it was the '... Blood of Jesus Christ' as Our Lord shed on the cross.  Following the theology of the Church, it contains both the "Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".

That is simply taking the words for their actual meaning and not attempting to add any inferences.

Further, I had not previously noted the footnote for this event:

Quote
Francisco and Jacinta had not yet received their First Communion. However,they never regarded this as a sacramental Communion.

Following Trent we have:

That a sacrament is "... a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification."

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
Besides the different significations already mentioned, a Sacrament also not infrequently indicates and marks the presence of more than one thing. This we readily perceive when we reflect that the Holy Eucharist at once signifies the presence of the real body and blood of Christ and the grace which it imparts to the worthy receiver of the sacred mysteries.

So the understanding of Francisco and Jacinta is consistent with the thesis that they did not receive the Blood of Our Lord under the species of wine, they received the Blood of Our Lord as such and did not make a sacramental communion but a "direct" communion.

I get everything you are stating.  You are drawing completely rational inferences from the implications presented in the details. 

I asked how many Fatima adherents also understand these implications and believe the children were literally drinking plasma/gore. 

The writer of the Remnant article obviously does not because he states the "lesson" being taught is about "Communion under both kinds."  I doubt he means bread and gore and more likely means the Holy Eucharist under the accidents of bread and wine. 

Perhaps we should be talking about each combination of four kinds,  bread, wine, cardiac muscle and gore. 

I'm not sure I buy into your concept of "direct communion"  can you cite something for it?  That would necessitate that sacramental communion as you referred to it is "indirect." 

Do we know of any other incidents of people consuming plasma/gore or eating cardiac muscle as a valid Holy Communion?  Also how would consuming the actual biological material form not also be sacramental?  The actual flesh and blood of Christ "signifies" the passion, death and resurrection of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for mankind.

That you have doubts is your opinion, the question is whether or not the events are consistent with Church Teaching, even if unprecedented.

The emhc inference to today's abuse is your own and is unsupported.  That Saints have received communion in extraordinary ways is common in the life of the Church. There is no theological reason why an angel could not bring communion to someone.

Fundamentally, following  Catholic Teaching, Catholics are eating flesh / drinking blood every time they go to communion as the substance is the same. That you are repulsed by the thought is simply an example of why God determined it would normally be better for catholics to receive under the accidents of bread and wine.

First penance is the rule to ensure proper reception of the body and blood of Christ. In other words that the recipient is in a state of grace.  God knows when a person is in this state and therefore, as the angel is the obedient messenger of God, it is assumed he knew that Francisco and Jacinta were in the state of grace.

As noted, the opinion of the remnant writer is that by receiving the blood of Christ we receive both the body and blood.  This is their point and is theologically correct.

The use of the word "direct" is my own as I do not know the correct theological term for receiving communion when both accidents and substance are consistent.

The bread and wine signify the presence of the body and blood of Christ, as the blood Jacinta and Francisco received was not under the appearance of wine, it was not sacramental.

That the events as related are theologically consistent with Church Teaching is demonstrated.

That they are extreaordinary is not contested.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:41:40 AM by tradical »
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet

Offline jmjZelie

  • Mary Garden
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Thanked: 213 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #337 on: June 26, 2017, 09:18:34 AM »

Gerard,
It is not a question of 'adherents'. It is a question of what was related by the witnesses to the event Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.

From the memoirs:

Quote
Then, rising, he took the chalice and the Host in his hands. He gave the Sacred Host to me, and shared the Blood from the chalice between Jacinta and Francisco 15, saying as he did so: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”

Based on this, the thesis is supported that it was the '... Blood of Jesus Christ' as Our Lord shed on the cross.  Following the theology of the Church, it contains both the "Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".

That is simply taking the words for their actual meaning and not attempting to add any inferences.

Further, I had not previously noted the footnote for this event:

Quote
Francisco and Jacinta had not yet received their First Communion. However,they never regarded this as a sacramental Communion.

Following Trent we have:

That a sacrament is "... a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification."

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
Besides the different significations already mentioned, a Sacrament also not infrequently indicates and marks the presence of more than one thing. This we readily perceive when we reflect that the Holy Eucharist at once signifies the presence of the real body and blood of Christ and the grace which it imparts to the worthy receiver of the sacred mysteries.

So the understanding of Francisco and Jacinta is consistent with the thesis that they did not receive the Blood of Our Lord under the species of wine, they received the Blood of Our Lord as such and did not make a sacramental communion but a "direct" communion.

I get everything you are stating.  You are drawing completely rational inferences from the implications presented in the details. 

I asked how many Fatima adherents also understand these implications and believe the children were literally drinking plasma/gore. 

The writer of the Remnant article obviously does not because he states the "lesson" being taught is about "Communion under both kinds."  I doubt he means bread and gore and more likely means the Holy Eucharist under the accidents of bread and wine. 

Perhaps we should be talking about each combination of four kinds,  bread, wine, cardiac muscle and gore. 

I'm not sure I buy into your concept of "direct communion"  can you cite something for it?  That would necessitate that sacramental communion as you referred to it is "indirect." 

Do we know of any other incidents of people consuming plasma/gore or eating cardiac muscle as a valid Holy Communion?  Also how would consuming the actual biological material form not also be sacramental?  The actual flesh and blood of Christ "signifies" the passion, death and resurrection of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for mankind.

I do not believe that the children consumed blood that was not under the appearance of wine. Children and even many adults are so simple in their faith that they totally forget that the accidents of wine remain after consecration when they speak about reception of Holy Communion under both species. Add to that, many children seriously dislike the taste of wine. So to them, reception from the chalice aesthetically seems to be like drinking blood without accidents of wine. So they just talk about it as if it is blood. I know this because I have children and I have been an assistant teacher for First Holy Communicants.

We know intellectually, as adults, that wine tastes like that, and that we do actually receive Christ's Precious Blood when we receive from the chalice, even though the smell and appearance and taste (accidents) of wine remain. Plus, in all the reading that I have done about Eucharistic miracles, NEVER has a person gone ahead and consumed the Host or Precious Blood if more than transubstantion has occurred and the matter was visibly transformed into heart tissue or red blood. We are to receive sacramentally and Eucharistic miracles are meant for more than just that one communicant. It strengthens the faith of Catholics around the world.

One more thought, and this does leave the door open to the possibility that I am wrong. The pelican. A mother pelican is known for her willingness to shed her own blood to feed her hungry babies. She will literally peck a small wound in her breast and allow her babies to drink from it to stave off starvation. The pelican has been used as a symbol of Christ at times throughout Church history. The willingness of the mother to do this, and the willingness of the babies to submit, although they may be operating on instinct, do teach us something. And the fact that the children in their childlike trust of God and the angel would have been taught to regard the contents of the chalice as Christ's Precious Blood, and they willingly drank it, well it could have been lacking the accidents of wine altogether. I suppose that this is something we are not able to know however. Because who, as a faithful Catholic, who believes in Transubstantiation, would ever call it wine?
Swam the Tiber 2010
Discovered traditional Catholicism 2014
Please forgive my ignorance or apparent impertinence.
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3900
  • Thanked: 1527 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #338 on: June 26, 2017, 10:53:28 AM »
That you have doubts is your opinion, the question is whether or not the events are consistent with Church Teaching, even if unprecedented.

I have doubts about the whole event.  I am positive that specific elements attributed to the event are inconsistent with Catholic teaching.  If they are authentically part of the event, the whole event is false. 

Quote
The emhc inference to today's abuse is your own and is unsupported.

It's every bit as supported as the Remnant article's claim of Fatima "teaching" us about Communion under both kinds.

Quote
That Saints have received communion in extraordinary ways is common in the life of the Church.

There are also a lot of dubious stories about extraordinary events concerning Holy Communion. 

Quote
There is no theological reason why an angel could not bring communion to someone.

Sure there are.  The Pope is the ultimate authority on earth concerning the sacraments and their protection and the governance of the Church.  God Himself gave the Pope that authority.  That is a theological truth.  God is not going to double cross the Pope when a sainted Pope not yet 5 years before laid down in binding law the theological reasons why children were not to be denied First Penance before First Communion and the necessity of the age of reason, as well as the authority concerning First Holy Communinon belonging to the parents and the parish priest. 

Quote
Fundamentally, following  Catholic Teaching, Catholics are eating flesh / drinking blood every time they go to communion as the substance is the same. That you are repulsed by the thought is simply an example of why God determined it would normally be better for catholics to receive under the accidents of bread and wine.

Not "normally" but "always."  Christ said, "the bread that I will give is my flesh…"  Jesus never intended direct cannibalism of Him.  It's perverse to think otherwise.

Quote
First penance is the rule to ensure proper reception of the body and blood of Christ.  In other words that the recipient is in a state of grace.  God knows when a person is in this state and therefore, as the angel is the obedient messenger of God, it is assumed he knew that Francisco and Jacinta were in the state of grace.

Doesn't matter.  If Mary had to go through purification rituals and Jesus had to be circumcised, following the law by itself is a fulfillment of justice.  In justice, the Pope's laws are to be followed.  What he has bound on earth is bound in Heaven.  That includes First Penance and the sanctifying graces that that sacrament gives.  As a priest told me one time, "Confession isn't a washing machine. It gives grace and strength."

Quote
As noted, the opinion of the remnant writer is that by receiving the blood of Christ we receive both the body and blood.  This is their point and is theologically correct.

That's not the opinion of the writer, that's the fact of it.  The opinion of the writer is that the "Angel" was actually "teaching" us a lesson in foresight of the practice of Communion under both kinds. 

That's nonsense.  I simply pointed out that if that were truly the case, the Angel is "teaching" us the value of EHMCs and First Communion with no First Penance.  So, the "Angel" jettisons tradition in foresight of Vatican II and its abuses. 


Quote
The use of the word "direct" is my own as I do not know the correct theological term for receiving communion when both accidents and substance are consistent.

It's called cannibalism. 

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=358785&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 2/12/2001:
Dear Michael, All this is wonderful and true and I accept it all. But the question is one of cannibalism, do we eat the flesh of Christ. The only answer is the one I gave - Jesus' whole substance is present but not his accidents. If His accidents were present, we could see Jesus, hear His voice, see his black hair, His carpenter's large fingers. We don't have these things, we have His essence, whole and entire, the whole of Jesus substantially, essentially. Berengarius in 1088, the Protestants 500 years later, and even some Catholics today all deny His substantial presence, His REal Presence. But that does not include His external features. Otherwise, we would all be guilty of cannibalism. God bless. Fr.Bob Levis



Quote
The bread and wine signify the presence of the body and blood of Christ, as the blood Jacinta and Francisco received was not under the appearance of wine, it was not sacramental.

That the events as related are theologically consistent with Church Teaching is demonstrated.

That they are extreaordinary is not contested.

No. What you are describing raises more questions than it answers.

Are you claiming that Jacinta and Francisco because they drank gore did not receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?

Bread and wine signify the presence of body and blood, but if there's no wine, you have an incomplete confection of the Holy Species.

You've got bread and biological blood.  Where was the wine that was consecrated with the Host?  Did the Angel simply swipe it from a Mass somewhere? 

Or did God suddenly rewrite His truths regarding consecration? 

It would make more sense if both a cardiac muscle and blood were present, but the narrative starts to become less plausible. 

It would also make sense if God wanted the children to have their First Communion he would have a sainted priest appear like St. Louis de Montfort as a herald to Mary. 

But even that would still not justify the double crossing of the Pope's authority. 

And in all of that, the rational for the children being given the Precious Blood in the form of either wine or gore is completely incoherent. 

It's that incoherence which makes the Remnant author take such a stretch to explain it as some bizarre teaching about communion under both kinds.  But he can't because it opens to the door to justifying modern abuses. 

 

Offline christulsa

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2825
  • Thanked: 1495 times
    • The Okie Traditionalist Blog
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #339 on: June 26, 2017, 05:20:00 PM »

By the way, do we have a quote where Mary is commanding or binding the pope to the consecration??  I asked this a couple times before.  I dont find anything. 

Otherwise, despite his seemingly noble efforts, Gerard's thesis falls apart.   :popcorn:

Not sure what you mean, my whole "effort" is based on the most commonly talked about aspect of Fatima today.   I'm pointing out the simple fact that Mary doesn't have the authority to bind the Pope.  That's why the "request/command/threat" is based on an "either/or" quote.  To paraphrase, it's essentially a subtly disguised, "Either you and the entire authority structure of the Church obey me and consecrate Russia to "me" or you are going to suffer and the world is going to suffer."   So, it is undeniably a threat used to extort a consecration out of the hierarchy of the Church and subordinate the hierarchy to the claims of a "seer" of an apparition that does not have the authority or the ability to wield the Keys of St. Peter.

There is nothing like this in any other apparition of the BVM.  The BVM would not behave in this manner, so the consecration cannot be an authentic part of any appearance of the BVM.

The lay faithful have since become convinced that the Popes have been "disobedient" to the Blessed Mother.  Not possible. The BVM doesn't command the head of the Church and she's not the messenger of God to give new instructions to the Pope.  That's not her role.

I haven't seen anyone dispute the essence of what I've simply pointed out.  The "thesis" doesn't fall apart at all.  Aside from a  few knee jerk reactions, snide comments and  accusations of blasphemy, nobody has been able to disprove the way I've framed the event and highlighted one aspect of it, that has been ignored by the majority of Catholics.

What I mean is if we can look at exactly what Mary is purported to have said about the consecration, then it may be read in a more moderate, balanced way than "Fatima extremists" read it.  Perhaps her tone was a request without anything binding and not an either/or ultimatum but an if/then opportunity.  That the pope would be moved out of the law of charity to the Mother of God and not strictly out of any kind of obedience of the papacy to Mary.

Lets look at what Mary actually said.

By the way, hasn't Mary made requests of bishops plenty of times such as to build churches at the site of her apparition?  Our Lady of Guadalupe, Lourdes, etc.
 
The following users thanked this post: martin88nyc

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3900
  • Thanked: 1527 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #340 on: June 26, 2017, 10:47:57 PM »

What I mean is if we can look at exactly what Mary is purported to have said about the consecration, then it may be read in a more moderate, balanced way than "Fatima extremists" read it.  Perhaps her tone was a request without anything binding and not an either/or ultimatum but an if/then opportunity.  That the pope would be moved out of the law of charity to the Mother of God and not strictly out of any kind of obedience of the papacy to Mary.

Lets look at what Mary actually said.

By the way, hasn't Mary made requests of bishops plenty of times such as to build churches at the site of her apparition?  Our Lady of Guadalupe, Lourdes, etc.

An if/then opportunity would not include the threat of an if not/then consequence.

Either:
 
"If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace;"

Or:

"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. "

Much pressure being applied here?  Five separate threats for failure to comply with the directive including personal suffering for the Pope. 

Even the follow up is like a salesman putting the hard sell as if resistance is futile because the outcome is inevitable. 

"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."


…So, why not avoid all of that unpleasantness and do what I want? 

Regarding Mary's requests in Lourdes or Guadalupe, first, can anyone cite an accompanying punishment if the requests are not heeded?

Second, we are not talking about a lone bishop  and a request for a shrine next to the garbage dump, we are talking about the Supreme authority in the Church with all of the other bishops being told what to do, or the Pope will suffer, nations will be annihilated, dogs and cats will be living together…Mass hysteria!

Third has Mary ever insinuated herself into the politics of the day?  The proper order is like the Battle of Lepanto for the Pope to initiate the request for the help of the Blessed Mother, not for her to take the reigns and tell the Pope what to do. 

Every time I read these messages, it becomes more and more clear that these cannot be the words or wishes of the Blessed Mother. 

« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 10:54:38 PM by Gerard »
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12135
  • Thanked: 6799 times
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #341 on: June 27, 2017, 02:20:34 AM »

James I would only add that the request to hold the Third Secret until 1960 because the Pope would understand it better is also prophetic.

Why?

Based on the bullets and arrows vision published I don't see any connection to 1960.

How can it be "prophetic" if we don't know what the other part of the third secret says?

If it explicitly warned about Vatican 2, then why on earth was Sister Lucia so cosy with the modernists and kissing the hands of JP2 like he was a rockstar and she a teenaged fan.  Why didn't she make the connection and leave to join a convent of Traditionalists?
 
The following users thanked this post: Kaesekopf

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20568
  • Thanked: 6287 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #342 on: June 27, 2017, 02:24:02 AM »
Quote
James I would only add that the request to hold the Third Secret until 1960 because the Pope would understand it better is also prophetic.

Missed that one, and yes you are correct.  That may be the number one proof, since 2 years later Vee Poo kicked off.

That pope then said it wasn't for his time, completely ignored Fatima, and went ahead with his dumb Council.

What a great prophecy. 
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Lynne

  • happy to be Catholic!
  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9405
  • Thanked: 4150 times
  • We're all special snowflakes
  • Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #343 on: June 27, 2017, 07:10:23 AM »
Quote
James I would only add that the request to hold the Third Secret until 1960 because the Pope would understand it better is also prophetic.

Missed that one, and yes you are correct.  That may be the number one proof, since 2 years later Vee Poo kicked off.

That pope then said it wasn't for his time, completely ignored Fatima, and went ahead with his dumb Council.

What a great prophecy.

Free will.
In conclusion, I can leave you with no better advice than that given after every sermon by Msgr Vincent Giammarino, who was pastor of St Michael’s Church in Atlantic City in the 1950s:

    “My dear good people: Do what you have to do, When you’re supposed to do it, The best way you can do it,   For the Love of God. Amen.”
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Blue Violet

Offline Pheo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2386
  • Thanked: 680 times
Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #344 on: June 27, 2017, 07:35:31 AM »
An if/then opportunity would not include the threat of an if not/then consequence.

ETA: I don't mean to sound cranky in this post, Gerard.  Hadn't had my morning coffee yet, but now that I have I hope I can avoid any misunderstanding :lol:
----------

Gerard, you haven't stumbled across some profound insight with this threat narrative, because it's simply not a threat, at least not in the way you're using that word.  Calling it a warning would be far more accurate.

When you call it a threat, you're implying that a lack of consecration means the negative result will be positively inflicted by the party speaking.  But no, that's not how it works here.  We were warned that a lack of consecration would simply allow us to experience the fruits of our own sin.  Big difference there.

Kind of like how Benedict XIV 'threatened' the Christian world:
"The observance of the Lenten fast is the very badge of the Christian warfare. By it we prove ourselves not to be enemies of the cross of Christ. By it we avert the scourges of divine justice. By it we gain strength against the princes of darkness, for it shields us with heavenly help. Should mankind grow remiss in their observance of Lent, it would be a detriment to God's glory, a disgrace to the Catholic religion, and a danger to Christian souls. Neither can it be doubted that such negligence would become the source of misery to the world, of public calamity, and of private woe."

Hey look at that, even contains an 'if not/then' sequence in bold.  But you see, he was just employing the same foresight that was used at Fatima.  There's a long history of that in the Church.  Yet again, not a threat - just a warning.

When you walk by a transformer station and see the "keep out due to high voltage, [if not there's a] risk of injury/death" do you think to yourself, 'how dare that sign threaten me'?  Of course not, because 'if not/then' doesn't automatically plop us into the category of a threat.  Yet again, just a warning.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 09:06:52 AM by Pheo »
Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Críostóir