Author Topic: SSPX Article:Our Lady of Fatima and the Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary  (Read 3665 times)

Offline Nazianzen

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1079
  • Thanked: 906 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, MundaCorMeum, Xavier

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2834
  • Thanked: 1248 times
  • Religion: Catholic

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.

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

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 
The following users thanked this post: TheReturnofLive

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2834
  • Thanked: 1248 times
  • Religion: Catholic
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.

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

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

Offline Nazianzen

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1079
  • Thanked: 906 times
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. 

   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. 

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.

Given 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.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Prodigal Son, except I do it at least once a week
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1047
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Saint Alexander Nevsky, pray for me a sinner
  • Religion: Unsure Traditional, Liturgical, Apostolic Christian

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 Rome

After 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 snippets


So 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.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 01:03:18 AM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Prodigal Son, except I do it at least once a week
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1047
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Saint Alexander Nevsky, pray for me a sinner
  • Religion: Unsure Traditional, Liturgical, Apostolic Christian

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:

Let 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"
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 01:07:23 AM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline Xavier

  • Trine Hearts of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Increase Your Love in our Hearts! We Love You! Save All our Souls!
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5057
  • Thanked: 3451 times
  • Aspiring-Missionary-to-the-UnBaptized-in-Training!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Religion: St. Thomas Indian Traditional Roman Catholic.
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 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: Live
he 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.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 02:58:21 AM by Xavier »
My Personal Motto in Life, that of St. Maximillian Maria Kolbe, founder of the Militia Immaculatae: "I want to be a Saint, and a great Saint". Make it your motto too.

"Dignáre, Dómine, die isto sine peccáto nos custodíre" (Deign, O Lord, to keep us this day without any sin). Please pray this prayer many times every day to end all sin.

St. Padre Pio: "I have made a pact with the Lord: I will take my place at the gate to paradise, but I shall not enter until I have seen the last of my spiritual children enter."

Come offer your Life to Jesus and Mary: TEXT OF THE LIFE OFFERING, adapted and pluralized: Dear Lord Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, We hereby Offer our whole Lives to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with our life, we place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all our Holy Communions, all Rosaries, all acts of consecration, all our good deeds, all our sacrifices, and the suffering of our entire life for the Adoration and Supplication of the Holy Trinity, for Unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father, Pope Francis the First; and for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. For His Eminence Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, His Excellency Metropolitan Hilarion, as well as His Eminence Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, that they may re-unite their flocks with the Roman Catholic Church, and there may soon be but One Fold and One Shepherd. For all the 220+ Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, for all 6000+ Bishops of the Universal Church that they may be true Apostles and Shepherds; and for the 400,000+ Priests, the 700,000+ Nuns, 50,000+ Monks, 100,000+ seminarians, that they may all become the Saints the Divine Will wishes them to be; for all the 1.35 Billion Members of the Church, the Millions of Catholic Catechumens and Children to be born and baptized in this Decade; we pray for good Priestly and Religious Vocations, and for All Souls until the end of the world. O my Jesus, please accept our life Sacrifice and our offerings and give us Your grace that we may all persevere obediently until death. Amen." https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

"Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix of the world, pray for us" [Promise: Release of 1000 Souls from Purgatory]"This short prayer, this insistent prayer, every time it is said, sets free from Purgatory 1000 Souls, who reach the Eternal Joy, the Eternal Light"(!). http://www.jesusmariasite.org/jesus-pray-my-children-that-the-fifth-marian-dogma-be-proclaimed/
 

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2834
  • Thanked: 1248 times
  • Religion: Catholic
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
   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. 

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

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kreuzritter

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Prodigal Son, except I do it at least once a week
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1047
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Saint Alexander Nevsky, pray for me a sinner
  • Religion: Unsure Traditional, Liturgical, Apostolic Christian
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 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: Live
he 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.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Prodigal Son, except I do it at least once a week
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1047
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Saint Alexander Nevsky, pray for me a sinner
  • Religion: Unsure Traditional, Liturgical, Apostolic Christian
Xavier, will you admit that the Catholic Church's judgment is supreme over apparitions?
 

Offline Nazianzen

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1079
  • Thanked: 906 times
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.


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.

Was she asked to describe the apparitions and locutions she had received?  This sounds likely.

Pure speculation, and of no value in achieving certitude.

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 …..

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. 

It 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
“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. 


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
   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. 

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.

 
 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Xavier

Offline Xavier

  • Trine Hearts of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Increase Your Love in our Hearts! We Love You! Save All our Souls!
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5057
  • Thanked: 3451 times
  • Aspiring-Missionary-to-the-UnBaptized-in-Training!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Religion: St. Thomas Indian Traditional Roman Catholic.
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."
My Personal Motto in Life, that of St. Maximillian Maria Kolbe, founder of the Militia Immaculatae: "I want to be a Saint, and a great Saint". Make it your motto too.

"Dignáre, Dómine, die isto sine peccáto nos custodíre" (Deign, O Lord, to keep us this day without any sin). Please pray this prayer many times every day to end all sin.

St. Padre Pio: "I have made a pact with the Lord: I will take my place at the gate to paradise, but I shall not enter until I have seen the last of my spiritual children enter."

Come offer your Life to Jesus and Mary: TEXT OF THE LIFE OFFERING, adapted and pluralized: Dear Lord Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, We hereby Offer our whole Lives to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with our life, we place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all our Holy Communions, all Rosaries, all acts of consecration, all our good deeds, all our sacrifices, and the suffering of our entire life for the Adoration and Supplication of the Holy Trinity, for Unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father, Pope Francis the First; and for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. For His Eminence Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, His Excellency Metropolitan Hilarion, as well as His Eminence Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, that they may re-unite their flocks with the Roman Catholic Church, and there may soon be but One Fold and One Shepherd. For all the 220+ Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, for all 6000+ Bishops of the Universal Church that they may be true Apostles and Shepherds; and for the 400,000+ Priests, the 700,000+ Nuns, 50,000+ Monks, 100,000+ seminarians, that they may all become the Saints the Divine Will wishes them to be; for all the 1.35 Billion Members of the Church, the Millions of Catholic Catechumens and Children to be born and baptized in this Decade; we pray for good Priestly and Religious Vocations, and for All Souls until the end of the world. O my Jesus, please accept our life Sacrifice and our offerings and give us Your grace that we may all persevere obediently until death. Amen." https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

"Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix of the world, pray for us" [Promise: Release of 1000 Souls from Purgatory]"This short prayer, this insistent prayer, every time it is said, sets free from Purgatory 1000 Souls, who reach the Eternal Joy, the Eternal Light"(!). http://www.jesusmariasite.org/jesus-pray-my-children-that-the-fifth-marian-dogma-be-proclaimed/
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1887
  • Thanked: 1249 times
  • Religion: Creed-affirming, sacramental, Yahweh-worshipping Christian Gnostic
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".

This is called begging the question.

Quote
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]

Nobody here has closed his mind to such statements; we have assessed them, reasonably, in light of the available evidence.
 

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2834
  • Thanked: 1248 times
  • Religion: Catholic
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.


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.

Was she asked to describe the apparitions and locutions she had received?  This sounds likely.

Pure speculation, and of no value in achieving certitude.

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 …..

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
It 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
“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

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. 
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 10:03:58 AM by awkwardcustomer »
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

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

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2834
  • Thanked: 1248 times
  • Religion: Catholic


Quote
   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. 

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

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