On Sunday afternoon, we published a report about Cardinal Ratzinger’s alleged admission that there is more to the Third Secret of Fatima than was revealed by the Church in 2000. Since that time, the post has been viewed nearly 70,000 times by visitors from around the globe — a testament to the relevance of this topic, almost a century later. It has been re-reported in German, Portugese, Spanish, French, Polish, and Italian publications. Among the Italians who have mentioned it are no less noteworthy figures than Roberto de Mattei, Marco Tosatti, and Antonio Socci — the first having written one of the definitive critical accounts of the Second Vatican Council, the latter two having both published books on this topic.
It is on Socci’s commentary — left on his official Facebook page — that I would like, for a moment, to focus my attention. I do not have a good English translation of it, so for the purposes of this blog post, I will work with the imperfect machine translation provide by Google rather than troubling one of our very busy translators in Italy. We should be able to understand, more or less, its meaning:
THE FOURTH SECRET OF FATIMA
In 2006 I published “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” (Rizzoli), where I presented the (many!) Evidence of a not yet published the Third Secret of Fatima, on the day.
Bid Today’s article OnePeterFive , commented by Tosatti, who brings a testimony that would confirm the existence of this part of the Secret not yet published.
But invite you to consider everything very carefully. I have many doubts and many doubts about the phrase attributed to Ratzinger …. I do not seem credible … [SS: He’s saying he does not find the attribution credible, in his opinion]
Moreover, it seems to me that he – beyond any words spoken in private – has already spoken clearly and officially as Pope Benedict XVI, in pilgrimage to Fatima on May 13, 2010.
On that occasion he stated that the Message of Fatima was not concluded with the events of the twentieth century, but which also concerned the near future and this message warned not only to persecutions of the Church from its external enemies, but also from great trials and persecution from within …
The Pope added:
“We are realists in expecting that evil always attacks, attacks from within and without, but which always forces the goods are present and that, eventually, the Lord is stronger than evil and our Lady is for us the visible, motherly guarantee of God’s goodness, which is always the last word in history.”
It’s a rough version, but you get the gist. This is, as far as it goes, a fair thing to say. It is a warning for caution, a suspicion that Father Dollinger’s statement is incorrect. It is not, in any conceivable sense of the term, an argument to the contrary. When it comes to Fatima, unfortunately all of us who question the official story have been relegated to speculation, suspicion, and the testimony of those closest to the people with a front-row seat to these events and the information that surrounds them. Often, all we have to go on is our gut. Our intuition. And I will not fault Mr. Socci for expressing his. In fact, I’m grateful that he is bringing this conversation to a wider audience. All that should concern us is the fuller truth behind the secrecy.
In a an ironic twist, the same day that Socci published his comment, I received his book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, in the mail. I have always had a healthy respect for the major approved Marian apparitions of the 19th and 20th centuries (Lourdes, Fatima, and to a lesser extent, Akita), and an innate sense that they are true. That said, I have not studied them in great detail. My purchase of the Socci book was intended as part of a larger effort to begin doing just that.
But as I opened it this morning, I found that Socci makes — immediately, in his introduction — the precise argument that animates my willingness to publish statements like those of Fr. Dollinger. Socci speaks of how, in 2005, just two days after the death of Sister Lucia, he sat down to read an article about the secrets discovered in her room. This article was penned by the respected Italian journalist, Vittorio Messori. Socci’s response to this was as follows:
I reacted to the new article by Messori with a journalistic polemic in which I defended with a sword the rightness of the Vatican (ungenerously above all toward the traditionalists), attacked the writer and liquidated all of his “dietrologies” (An Italian idiom for conspiracy theories that look behind [dietro] events for hidden plots) concerning unpublished documents. Certainly, I knew that after the fateful revelation of the Third Secret in 2000, doubts, suspicions, rumors, and critical observations had begun to circulate within the curial environment, and that they had found public expression in traditionalist circles. But I had never paid attention to the traditionalist publications because I believed that they originated from a burning disappointment over a Secret that negates all of their “apocalyptic” forecasts.
[…]
The traditionalists’ disputes with the Vatican on the revelation of the Third Secret (of June 26, 2000) have never been analyzed, confronted, and confuted by the ecclesiastical party and are unknown in the lay world — perhaps because their publications circulate almost exclusively in their own environment.
To me the choice by the Curia and the Catholic media to ignore and say nothing about them did not seem right, especially after having read the extremely harsh tone of their accusations against the Vatican.
[…]
Analyzing this literature — besides that circulating on the Internet — it occurred to me that throughout the Fatima affair, there are so many questions without answers as to color it a “detective story.” Perhaps the most fascinating and dramatic detective story of our times because it involves not only the Vatican, great powers and their secret services, as well as certain obscure apparatuses of power, but also each one of us, and the proximate destiny for all humanity and for the Church.
[…]
I tried…to understand the Vatican’s position in order to counter the accusations of the “Fatimists.” I investigated the concrete and reliable elements of criticism in the traditionalist literature, unfortunately buried in a mass of theorems, invective, absurdity, and unconfirmed hearsay. I caught certain of their contradictions, dismantled some theses, but in the end I had to surrender — thanks also to the revelations of an authoritative witness who furnished invaluable information. I had not expected the discovery of a colossal enigma, of a mystery that spans the history of the Church of the 20th century, something unutterable, something “chilling” that has literally terrorized different Popes who succeeded each other in mid-century, something that certainly regards the Church, but also the proximate future of us and our brothers.
Socci begins his narrative with a concession: that the evidence was such that it “contradicted [his] initial convictions, and surprised and impressed” him. There is something more going on that has not been revealed. There is an import to Our Lady’s message at Fatima that has caused it, in part, to be hidden, avoided, and shrouded in secrecy by the highest powers in the Vatican.
I look forward to the rest of his book, even if his presentation of the facts contradicts my own initial convictions. But what I am certain not to be disabused of is the very idea that we are being deceived in some way; that there is something Our Lady (and by extension, almighty God) thought important enough to warn us personally about. Something that, for human reasons, has been kept concealed.
It is in part for this reason that I do not want the discussion to remain circulating “almost exclusively” in the traditionalist “environment.” We have sought to confirm information that was already in that environment in the hopes it would reach new audiences. It is the message that matters far more than the messenger.
Some Catholics forcefully reject the implication that there is more to the story than we have been told. They do not like this assertion because they think it makes popes into liars. I don’t believe that this is a logical consequence of secrecy. It is possible for broad mental reservation cover a multitude of sins. No doubt fear — fear for the reaction of the faithful to what is contained in the full secret — plays a role in the suppression of information about the warning. But even if it does make them out to be liars, is avoiding such an unfortunate thought more important than the discovery of the truth? There is no charism of the papacy that prevents those who hold it from speaking falsehoods. And in any case, such a sin can be forgiven.
The confusion and debate I have seen in our comment boxes over the past few days makes clear why it is so important that the full truth be made known. Whenever the impression is given to people that they are being misled, or that those leading them are not trustworthy, it is human nature to begin filling in the missing data however possible — even if by imagination. It is this tendency that gives rise to conspiracy theories. And wherever multiple conflicting accounts exist — put forward by credible witnesses on all sides — the conditions are perfect for wild speculation of this kind.
Only the whole story has any hope of putting this controversy to bed. People are hungry for this information. Nothing we’ve ever published has garnered so much attention so quickly. Sadly, we are forced to wait, and to hope, and even to pray that someone like Pope Emeritus Benedict will come forward to set the record straight and to explain away the discrepancies. And the odds of this happening are decidedly slim.
All of this is, in reality, a facet of the larger problem in the Church.
I had a conversation with my wife today, and she, as a convert, expressed her frustration at the way Catholics fight amongst themselves. “I’m used to Protestants,” she says, “who are far more inclined to help each other.”
I reminded her that in contrast to this or that Protestant denomination, ours is a universal Church in chaos, struck by Satan and thereby divided. It is almost impossible to believe how so many otherwise very intelligent Catholics are unable to recognize that the post-conciliar Church has brought about the near-total gutting of Catholicism. It is an unqualified, unmitigated, disaster. The number of people who profess to be Catholic and still believe in essential Church teaching is such a tiny minority, it’s staggering.
The problem with Fatima — just as with the larger Church — essentially boils down to a crisis of confidence. The Church was once eminently credible, but through the actions of those who have led it these past decades, it has squandered much of its hard-earned regard. (Changing the unchangeable tends to do that.)
There are those who oppose Church leadership because they have strayed too far from the mission Christ gave. There are those who oppose Church leadership because they haven’t, in their opinion, strayed far enough. Oddly, these two groups (for brevity, let’s call them traditionalists and progressives, respectively) tend to see the problems in the Church the same way. Both groups agree, for example, that Amoris Laetitia opens the door to communion for the divorced and remarried. One sees this as a catastrophe, the other as a positive and long-overdue development, but there’s little quibble between them about the new reality on the ground.
It is the third group in the Church, therefore, which is the most troubling. These are the extreme loyalists, those so dedicated to their confirmation biases that they refuse to see what is staring them in the face. Colloquially, we can call these the “conservatives”, though it’s an odd turn of phrase when one considers that the only thing they seek to conserve is the new, late 20th-century ecclesiastical paradigm, all while typically glossing over the conflicts this presents to the Church’s previous 19 centuries. I call this phenomenon, “the Magisterium of the now.” This is the group that believes (to the extent they have been taught the truth of it) what the Church believes; they follow the pope and love him (to a fault); they attempt to grow in a true spiritual life, they receive the sacraments, they honor the moral teachings of Catholicism, they teach their children the same. These are good people who love God, but they are deeply deceived. If a pope or a council changes a thing, in their view, then that’s the new reality, and we just have to go with it and find a way to re-interpret our understanding of the Church “in light of” that new thing (rather than vice-versa). A good example of their attitude can be found in a comment I recently saw on Facebook from Dan Burke, Executive Director of the National Catholic Register:
This is a snapshot of a much longer conversation, but I think it stands on its own merits. This is the kind of inscrutable thinking the “conservative” Catholic mentality leads to. The idea that anyone who wants to restore what was good and retract the recently-added bad from a divinely inspired — and thus, immutable — religion is nonetheless somehow harmful or out of tune with reality. Later in the discussion, he doubled down: “Looking back is a practice of wound-lickers,” he said, “who are paralyzed in the past and do nothing to work to bring about the kingdom of God now.”
It’s a contemptuous statement, and it, too, is deserving of contempt.
How can the Church continue with such a dichotomy in her midst? How can Catholics continue to be so diametrically opposed in their fundamental understanding of what Catholicism is and what Catholics are supposed to believe, and how they are meant to worship? How can those who recognize the severity of the wounds in the Mystical Body of Christ work together with those who think they are merely superficial, or perhaps even an improvement?
Meanwhile, as so-called “conservatives” clash with so-called “traditionalists,” the so-called “progressives” are using every opportunity they can to exploit their new found power and expand it, with the aim of producing “irreversable reform.”
Ultimately, we all need to be able to trust that Rome has our best interests at heart. For “progressives,” this is something to aim for, even if they’re repeatedly told “no”. For “conservatives,” it is impossible to conceive of any other reality — even if it’s right in front of their nose. For “traditionalists,” it’s complicated; we believe that God has our best interests at heart, and that He leads His Church, but that it has fallen into the hands of bad shepherds. We believe He will eventually sort it out according to His own plan. But as we look around us and see the incalculable damage that has been wrought under the watch of those who should have protected and preserved our treasures, we are filled with righteous anger and fear that it will only become worse. We understand the boundaries that the progressives fail to acknowledge (ie., that the Church has an authority that comes from God and that there is no democratic revolution to be had); we also recognize the reality that the conservatives turn a blind eye to (ie., that infallibility and the promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail” is not a blanket guarantee of good leadership free from egregious error in matters of discipline and governance.) But we are left with a decided inability to trust those responsible for placing us in this dilemma, awaiting a divine solution when no human one seems possible.
To continue to deny this situation is foolhardy. As I said in response to a commenter earlier today:
The post-conciliar Church is a massive and demonstrable failure. It represents a deviation from the mission the Church had for nearly 2,000 years. It called into question — and continues to do so — a number of fundamental doctrinal points that previous popes and the entire Magisterium agreed upon.
The Catholic Faith under the leadership of the conciliar and post-conciliar popes has taken humanly irreparable damage. Belief in the Real Presence is decimated, as is (unsurprisingly, considering the previous fact) Mass attendance. Most surveys indicate over 90% of Catholics engage in contraception, and a similar number support same-sex relationships. Church doctrines on topics as diverse as religious liberty, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, the necessity of the Church for salvation, the indissolubility of marriage, the just use of capital punishment, just war theory, and the prohibition against those not living in the state of grace receiving Holy Communion are all under attack from within.
The Church has been infiltrated, and yes, it is a satanic detour from what Our Lord intended and the Magisterium had always been at pains to preserve.
Which brings us, in this moment, back to Fatima.
The popes of the past half century, whose job it was to preserve and defend the Church from this devastation, are the very same who have assured us that the Fatima message (which they originally suppressed, against Our Lady’s wishes, in 1960) has now been fully revealed. A message that, according to multiple credible accounts, predicted the very destruction that took place on their watch.
It doesn’t take a veteran detective to find motive there. Those who ask that we simply believe we have been told the whole truth in this matter ask too much.
Fatima matters because it is inextricably intertwined with the ecclesiastical crisis it so narrowly pre-dates. It is often dismissed as only private revelation, but that is not entirely accurate. The nature of the warnings that apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima contain make them something more. As Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote, “They are great miracles – in part miraculous healings, in part supernatural warnings – but they represent no additions whatever to Revelation in the strict sense of the word, which terminated with the Apostles. Not private revelations, as in the case of the holy mystics, for their messages were directed to all. The persons who experience them have more the character of a mouthpiece…”
A mouthpiece for Our Lady, who was, in turn, a mouthpiece for our God. As I look to the confusion and chaos around me, driven straight through the heart of the Church, I want to hear everything they have to say that could help us sort out this mess.
I want to know the whole Fatima story. I want to never have a reason to doubt our bishops and popes again. That seems a lofty goal, all things considered, but clearing up the questions around the Third Secret would be an incredibly important first step.
If a supernatural event claimed by some people that it is from God or the Virgin Mary, etc., causes fights and separate people from God, then it’s not genuine, it’s from Satan. And also, God has no secrets to reveal. God doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories. Therefore, I think Fatima is a hoax, same as many others so-called “apparitions” including Medjugorie.
The apparition isn’t what caused controversy; it’s the deception that surrounds it. And in Akita, which is rumored to essentially repeat the messages of Fatima, Our Lady makes clear that division in the Church is coming: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.”
The very fact that we are talking about it until now, is because it’s not genuine, in my opinion. But, on the other hand, Christ’s teachings are crystal clear. As I said, God doesn’t play hide-and-seek, a guess game and doesn’t have secrets to reveal. All has been revealed and the rest will be when Jesus Returns. Anything else is from Satan.
“God doesn’t play hide-and-seek, a guess game and doesn’t have secrets to reveal.”
So you’ve seen Him? Are you holding out on us, Jeff? 😉
Yes, because I read the Bible attentively. It’s all in the Bible.
Except for the stuff that is not in the Bible. Hopefully you haven’t gone “sola”.
We’ve let Jeff set the agenda here by letting his statement “Christianity causes fights” stand when this is wrong. Two things: first, we are talking about Catholicism here not ‘christianity.’ I’m adamant that we must make that distinction now. Second, in the Catholic Church there are no fights. There is truth and those who cling to it, and there is error and those who cling to that because they sin and want to continue to sin.
We tend to make things much more complicated than they are. The Catholic Church is One, and she is Holy, because she is the Mystical Body of Christ. She holds truth. Revealed truth.
When Our Lady comes, and the Church approves the apparition, we ignore her words at our peril.
Catholicism is the same thing as Christianity. And the Church’s life has been full of fights between Catholiics. Just saying.
Yes, there have been fights but these are not caused by Catholicism – but by lack of charity, greed, pride, etc. Christians are followers of Christ. Catholics are members of the Mystical Body of Christ. All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics. I don’t want to be called a Christian as I might be anything from a Baptist to a Methodist to a Four-Square-ite.
Catholicism has always striven to downgrade the exclusivity and authority of the bible because of the innate disharmony when compared to religious tradition.
What in the hell are you talking about? The New Testament wasn’t even written when the Apostles first began evangelizing after the Ascension, so how could there be some sort of “exclusivity and authority of the bible [sic]” in the Apostolic Age when the Bible as we know it didn’t even exist?
You can’t claim the Church has “always” tried to “downgrade” the Bible when the Bible didn’t exist for the first years of the Church’s existence.
“What in the h..l are you talking about?”
Suffice it to say I am not choosing to “talk” to you ; seeing where you are coming from.
Don’t blame yourself, Gerald. If I had no idea what I was talking about, I’d refrain from having a serious discussion about such matters as well.
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they
were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to
contain the books that should be written.” John 21:25
I would suppose too that every single sentence spoken by the Apostles is not recorded in Scripture as well. It may ‘all’ be in the Bible in some fashion or form, but it is certainly all to be found in the collective, orthodox, infallible, and authoritative teachings of Holy Mother Church.
Even the “stuff” that is not in the Bible is grounded in the Bible.
No. It is an inference from the Biblically-attested fact of the Faithfulness of God. He does not toy with people, but makes His Will known to them. The God Who is revealed in Holy Scripture is “clothed in inaccessible light” and He “knows the proud from afar”; but He is not a trickster deity. The Character of God can be discovered from Scripture – which is fully confirmed by the Father’s Self-disclosure in His Son, through Whom we receive the Holy Spirit.
Beautiful!
Fully agree!
2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
Well, we *do* have plenty of division within the Church even without Fatima and questions about its message(s) – and that was true before the present controversies about them blew up.
In fact, quite a lot of that is traceable to the Second Vatican Council and its implementation. Does that mean that Vatican II is also not genuine? Or that it is of Satan?
Vatican 2 is not the problem. The problem is in the paper trail from some of the schemata, to some interpretations of some of the 16 documents, to some of the implementing documents, to some of the later interpretations of the implementing documents.
What – IMHO – is needed, is an authoritative Roman interpretation of the 16 documents. There was something of the sort after Trent. The 16 documents function as a Rorshach blot. And that is unhelpful. I don’t see how V2 can be junked – the Church has taken it into it herself for 50 years, throughout the Catholic world, pontificate after pontificate. To disown it now would create unimaginable scandal and confusion. ISTM the Church has no choice but to make the very best use she can of V2.
Vatican 2 is not the problem
My question was intended to be provocative to Jeff, not declarative – and note well that I added the expression and its implementation. Because we can surely see that so many of the REFORMS of the last fifty years have been divisive, does this not, by the same logic, mean they may well be satanic in origin as well? If they aren’t, Jeff needs to draw out the necessary distinctions – or reconsider his thesis.
What – IMHO – is needed, is an authoritative Roman interpretation of the 16 documents.
I think this relates well to the “Syllabus of Vatican II” that Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called for.
To disown it now would create unimaginable scandal and confusion.
Perhaps – though it is possible that time and circumstances (if radically different enough) could lessen the sense of scandal. A late 21st century Church, far removed from any living memory of the Council or its implementation, in far different (perhaps far more desperate) straits, might see things in a different light.
It is also possible that only parts of it might be, in some sense, disowned, and other parts reduced to a nullity. That has happened with some past councils (and certainly some major synods), though none with such importance or impact, perhaps. This is one of those questions that can only be answered as time plays out – which may well mean that neither of us will live to see it.
Thanks for the reply 🙂 I think a very great deal of misery, crime, confusion and rascality, in the Church or out of her, can be accounted for by human fallibility, error and sinfulness, without bringing the devil into the mix. And I would include V2 And All That in this thought. ISTM people are more than capable of devastating the Church without any “help” from the devil – which does not mean I think only human agencies affect the Church – because I don’t believe that.
Sure, I grok what you’re saying. Just note that it was Jeff who brought Satan into the discussion – not me or Steve!
Vatican 2 may not be THE problem, but it is A problem. And it needs to be dealt with appropriately, not dismissed according to a non-existent hermeneutic of wishful thinking.
Many of Christ’s teachings became crystal clear only in retrospect. Try re-reading Matthew 13.
The sun probably caused thousands of people to have heat stroke and hallucinate too. Wake up the miracle happened on the day and hour as predicted.
Sounds to me like you don’t know anything about your own religion.
“Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt, but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.…” – St. Paul 1 Thess 5:20.
Sounds to me that you Jeff, can’t distinguish between Revelation concerning the LIFE of JESUS CHRIST which ended with the last Apostle, and the ongoing unfolding of history in God’s Church which continues to exercise the gifts of prophecy and miracles since lost to the Jews.
Are you a Protestant Jeff? it may explain why you have a problem with accepting the Church’s ongoing prophetic privileges that are only there in the Holy Catholic Church and not with the Protestant heretics.
How would you explain God’s warning message to Noah or to Lot?
How about the book of Job?
Ebes64,
Hey, I just wanted you to know I think your points are valid and I’d like to discuss this with you further, but my hands are tied, as you’ve observed….Also, I’m not the same ‘Kate’ as I see you’ve interacted with in the past……God bless.
In respect of the deception surrounding the Third Secret of Fatima, may I recommend Remnant columnist Christopher A. Ferrara’s book “The Secret Still Hidden”? I have read Socci’s and Ferrara’s works over and over and am amazed at the depth of detail each unravels.
No, there was no apparition. The so-called appearances and “secrets” (conveniently manifested in private, moderated by a religiously scrupulous child whose own mother said they were not true and that her daughter made things up for attention), along with the miraculization of cases of self inflicted solar retinopathy and normal post rainstorm visual weather events, were not “miraculous”.
And yet the Church has declared the apparition at Fatima worthy of belief (Medjugorje obviously is not in this category); and the whole succession of popes since then have at least given visible evidence of believing in its truth.
Now, such judgments, it will be argued, do not belong to the charism of infallibility; belief in them and devotion to them is not required of the faithful. But we would be in a most difficult situation if Fatima turned out, in fact, to be satanic in origin.
As for divisiveness: any number of critical points in the Church’s unfolding could be so characterized. Chalcedon was divisive. So was Nicaea. So was the Incarnation itself.
The fact that Christians are divided for 2016 years says that those who call themselves “Christians” are far from being ones. The world shall know that you are my disciples if you are one, Jesus says it (I’m paraphrasing), not Satan. But look at the world, after 2016, Christians are divided, not only into denominations, but among so-called “Catholics” themselves!!
I’m gonna stop your anti-Catholic thread hijacking right there. This is not where I want the conversation on this piece to go.
You posted against going to Mass in another thread, so you’re clearly not coming from a Catholic perspective. If you want to stay, be respectful of our beliefs. Otherwise, I’m going to boot you.
It is because I’m Christian, and Catholic that I’m writing this. But it’s OK. I’m leaving.
What does “being one” look like? Like Bono’s religious indifferentism?
Jesus warned us elsewhere not to follow false doctrines. If “being one” is to deny doctrinal differences, if doctrines were to be replaced… let’s say with social justice causes, why would Jesus warn us? I am not re-inviting against the Host’s or your wishes, only rejecting your over-simplification.
Christianity causes fights, as St. Paul said, “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
Christ said, “For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
Supernatural events lead some people to separate from God — those are the ones who reject the supernatural events that come from God, claiming them to be false when the Church has adjudged them to be true.
And Christianity causes fight among Christians themselves too? Then those who call themselves “Christians” are not really Christians. They are fake. They pretend to be. And their goal, their love, their end is anything but Jesus.
Please point out a time when Christians did not fight amongst ourselves. Even Paul rebuked Peter. We are humans, not angels.
Please point out any instance where people lived without disagreement at any point in history. A marriage is only two people and there will be fights among them. Catholicism doesn’t promise there will be a utopia on earth. It only gives the standards that we concupiscent mortals with our pull to sin must strive to live for.
“It [Catholicism] only gives the standards that we concupiscent mortals with our pull to sin must strive to live for”
BINGO!
This quite well exposes why Catholicism departs from the gospel of Christ Paul preached; which is all about what Christ has done for us, and that we are saved by believing it.
How about backing up your anti-Catholic screeds with actual evidence? I mean, if you know something we don’t, then by all means prove it.
We’ll wait . . .
In my various posts I make an effort to identify the source of my claims; i.e. the gospel of grace Paul preached. I frequently list appropriate chapter and verse. One day, who knows when, the world will see that Christendom has lost its way in departing from the Word of God Paul preached.
2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
No, sorry Gerald. You can’t quote Scripture as an argument against the Catholic Church because it is the very same Catholic Church that decided which books are canonical and which are not. You’re acting as if the King James Version just fell out of the sky, complete with an infallible table of contents that states directly which books belong in the Bible, as well as a handbook documenting precisely how to correctly interpret the Scriptures (seeing as how no two Protestant sects can agree on just what the Bible means, all non-Catholic bodies, ironically, are forced to defer to some extra-biblical authority, even though they claim to follow sola Scriptura).
So you have to either a) accept that the Catholic Church gave you the Scriptures you try to use to attack her, in which case your arguments are baseless and easily refuted, or b) try to make the case that the Catholic Church was correct and inspired up till some arbitrary moment at which she wasn’t. Whether you know it or not, you accept doctrines that are not explicitly stated in Scripture (e.g., the Trinity), so the onus is upon you to provide logical reasons that you accept some of the teachings (Traditions) of the early Church while also having the authority of your own accord to reject others.
1,000 likes Marc. It is true that not only did Christ say your aforesaid, he even said he came to bring the sword. As well as ‘the advocate who would teach us all things’…in short the Spirit would be with us forever.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
1 John 2:27
“And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His true and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught.” Once again, “YOU DO NOT NEED anyone to teach you”. Any who are of the esoteric Christ and his message already got the message, thus there is no need of anyone to teach you!! In short, I read this as we are not to ‘forfeit our minds’ to any man making himself out as equal or greater than Christ.
Isaiah 2:22 “Stop trusting in human beings, whose life’s breath is in their nostrils. For why should they be given special consideration? ” Indeed as there is no pope who is greater than our Lord. He is merely a man and as such cannot pretend to sit at the right hand of the father.
Brand new private account with only 16 comments.
New here, are ya Jeff?
Nothing you said made any sense.
Christ Himself said he came to bring a sword and turn people against each other because of Him.
Your entire premise makes absolutely no sense.
“”If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and
children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person
cannot be my disciple.” – Like 14:26
“”Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” – Matthew 10:34
The Church has already ruled it authentic and worthy of belief. it was demonstrated with a great miracle never seen before since the time of Joshua.
God doesn’t believe in conspiracies? Sounds to me that Mr. Jeff Duffy hasn’t heard of the Devil – the ultimate conspirator.
If this is a final battle between Our Lady and Satan, then do you actually think it’s going to go smoothly?
Do you believe everything you see on the news and television Jeff? On what flights of fancy are you sailing?
Prophets warned people in the OT quite a few times. God spoke directly to Noah (and Noah was ignored). Mary has been sent several times through out the course of history. Yes, you’re supposed to ignore an apparition if it contradicts Scripture or the teachings of the Church but “Pray and do penance” does not contradict Scripture or the Church.
Right on.
Dan Burke’s comments exhibit an utterly superficial view of how Catholicism works — one that is incredibly common nowadays (not that we should be surprised, given the catechesis and environment of the past 50 years). In reality, in its essence, Catholicism is both traditional and timeless. There is no going backwards or going forwards; there is being fully Catholic here and now, or not.
I have (in a sense) “pre-replied” to Dan Burke at NLM:
“Backwards vs. Forwards: What Does It Mean?”
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/05/backwards-vs-forwardswhat-does-it-mean.html
“Is Modern Man Irremediably Cut Off from Tradition?”
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2016/05/is-modern-man-irremediably-cut-off-from.html
“The Law of Liturgical Entropy”
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2016/05/the-law-of-liturgical-entropy.html#.VzzmWTUrKUk
…one that is incredibly common nowadays
And one that is incredibly American, if I may say so, too. (I am American, so I think I have standing to say that.)
And therein hangs another tale…
Earlier today I was pondering yet again the unfortunate and very frequent use by Jorge Bergoglio or Barry Soetoro/Obama or any given progressive of the call: We must move/march forward! There is no looking back! I ponder it in in the context of God’s eternal Word and Law. It seems that normalization via socio-engineering and then celebration of what God once and for all times set in stone as sin, a grave offence, an evil, is in a “progressive” mind equivalent to this forward direction. Instead of looking to the eternal, the true, and the God-ordained, they look to ever-increasing sin and call it progress.
To a follower of Jesus only moving toward Him, striving to become more like Him, can be considered as positive movement. Moving toward that which is an abomination to God, is a regression.
Can’t Jorge Bergoglio see that the more “forward” he pushes the Church, the farther away from God he directs it?
Don’t forget that if you want to stop and look back to where we may have gone off the tracks, you will surely be compared to Lot’s wife.
Well said. Only one out of this triad of traditional, conservative, and progressive can boast that it once encompassed each and every Catholic. Before the conciliar era there were simply Catholics (i.e. traditionalists) and heretics.
Mr Burke: As far as the “Good old days mentality” I refer you sir to the words of Jesus Christ (you know…the Son of God)
Matt 19:8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Sorry but it looks a lot as if Jesus was looking back, Basically he’s telling his fellow Jews “look, I am here to tell you Moses screwed up, he got it wrong, so we have to turn back the clock, no divorce and re-marriage, just like before … m’kay.?”
Hardly a “distraction” but wise advice. Vatican II was the distraction; time to shitcan the whole damned thing.
Michael F Poulin
Colloquially, we can call these the “conservatives”, though it’s an odd turn of phrase when one considers that the only thing they seek to conserve is the new, late 20th-century ecclesiastical paradigm, all while typically glossing over the conflicts this presents to the Church’s previous 19 centuries. I call this phenomenon, “the Magisterium of the now.”
By amusing coincidence, I happened to be reading Dr Joseph Shaw’s recent critique of a Russell Shaw book right before coming across this essay – wherein he offers the same basic definition: “A quick characterisation of neo-cons might be that they defend the teaching of the Church without being concerned about the ancient liturgy; perhaps that is how they see themselves. But as this small volume demonstrates, they have adopted so many of the premises of the liberals that their positions would be totally unrecognisable to orthodox Catholics of any time up to about 1970.”
Of course, this development has implications for far more subjects than hierarchical handling of Marian apparitions, as I think many of us have come to appreciate. And it is a peculiar and strange development in Catholicism by virtue of its persistent indifference or even hostility to the long history and tradition of the Church.
Let’s not forget that this mentality – modernism/progressivism – pervades the whole world not just the Church. In days of yore the Church was set apart – we could live our Catholic Faith safe in the arms of Mother Church. Since the Council the Church has become part of the mainstream – with all that that entails. Worldliness is the opposite of Catholicism.
Worldliness is the opposite of Catholicism.
But that has been the project of the last five decades – to make the Church worldly. Which is ironic, given that its refrain has been to shed baroque finery that it sees as worldliness, only to replace it with ever more pagan and libertine secular attitudes that amount to a far more tangible and corrosive worldliness.
Thank you, John XXIII. The world has “dysevangelised” the Church, instead of the Church evangelising the world. When the Church loses her savour, she is fit only to be thrown out on the rubbish-heap. The Church has become badly paganised.
It is an inevitable consequence of failing to heed the Word of God:
“He who becomes a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
James 4,4.
This is absurd. Can the Church lose her Saviour? Nothing can be more preposterous!
If God was faithful to the stiff-necked Israelites, then can He be less faithful to His Bride?
“Savour,” Marc, not “Savior”. It means “taste”, as in the salt of the earth losing its savour.
Sorry, my error. I thought it was merely a typo on James’ part.
It’s because James M used the European spelling “savour” (which my computer will highlight as being misspelled). We’ve all gotten used to reading typos and mentally adjusting as we go. The first time I read it, I though “savior” as well.
I was in denial about the depth and gravity of the crisis until a few years ago. It reminds me of the description of alcoholism as : ‘the only disease that tells you you haven’t got it’.
Good analogy. I wasn’t really in denial, and knew that we had a big problem, but not to the extent we now find it. It’s a catastrophe of epic proportions what is happening inside the Church in 2016.
Alcoholism is an odd disease in that one can quit it whereas one can not quit cancer or leukemia.
All right, let’s lay all the cards on the table here. In this article it seems that you are characterizing the post-conciliar popes, the popes of the last half-century, as “bad shepherds.” Of these six popes, two are canonized saints, one is a beatus and of the other two: Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is still living Pope John Paul I reigned for only 33 days.
Thus, it would seem that Heaven has given an overwhelmingly positive assessment of the last six popes (those still living excluded of course). However, it would certainly be logical to conclude that if these men lead the Church with whose governance they were charged into such grievous error they would not be saints. Is that your argument? That the canonization of Popes John Paul II and John XXIII and the beatification of Pope Paul VI were done in error?
Would that not bring the infallibility of Pope Francis into question since it is my understanding that canonizations and beatifications are infallible pronouncements?
By their fruit you shall know them. We are living out a Revolution and nothing is as it seems.
Beatifications are not infallible. It is or was a widely-held opinion that canonisations are infallible, but recent canonisations like that of Pope John Paul II make that difficult to believe, given that some of his acts contradict the teaching of his predecessors.
If Heavens has approved of these Popes, then one can only infer that some earlier canonised Popes are not Saints. Your post saves the recent canonisations of Popes – at the cost of undermining earlier ones. Which simply shifts the difficulty, without solving it. Or maybe none of these Popes are Saints.
Cards on the table? Yes, I question the prudence of a drastically revised process that rushes saints to the altar. Pope St. Pius X was the first sainted pope in 400 years, and somehow not only John XXIII and John Paul II but even Paul VI beat popes like Leo XIII and Pius XI to this revered status?
It’s all very questionable. And yes, it’s taboo to say so. But as long as we’re looking for conspiratorial agendas, for post conciliar-popes to canonize everything sufficiently post-conciliar is a manifestly self-serving agenda.
At the end of the day, I’ll submit to the Church on the matter, but these canonizations will require, in my opinion, review — when the Church comes to her senses. If for no other reason than that they were forced through. (Did you know that the miracle attributed to John Paul II was later called into question entirely, for example? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/05/nun-cured-pope-parkinsons-ill )
There’s a reason why the Church took its time in ages past, canonizing saints only after a long process and careful evaluation. The “santo subito” process is imprudent, bordering on reckless.
Took its time in ages past? St. Francis of Assisi was canonized two years after he died.
But I’m really not here to argue, I was genuinely curious as to where you stood. I have had reservations about the canonization of John XXIII since it was announced but I’ve never doubted John Paul II is a saint. Maybe I’m just a product of my generation
Yes, speaking of hasty, I was a little surprised to see that Francis has proposed Dorothy Day for canonization. Am I totally wrong to question this? It seems that the bar has been significantly lowered…
The mistake here is to assume that sanctity is attaining perfection without blemish here on earth. Great saints are not mistake free, but their perfection in the attainment of heroic virtue is necessary without being sufficient. The greatness of St John Paul both as Pope and Saint is for me indubitable, and those here who are belittling it remind me of pygmies judging a giant for being too tall.
I understand that saints make mistakes even serious ones. But this seems to indicate outright deception and cover up of a mistake to a level that leads one to question the sanctity of the person who made those mistakes
There’s a very good article on this here:
“It is one thing to say a saint has flaws; it is another thing to say he did something fundamentally harmful to the faith or contradictory to the nature of his office. We see St. Francis, with the zeal of a new convert, going beyond the boundaries of prudence and giving away his father’s silks without permission. We can understand this. We sympathize. We, too, know the experience of being too overzealous about something and inadvertently hurting someone else because of it. This is not a real strike against Francis’ sanctity. It just demonstrates his human side.
But suppose Francis, wanting to give to the poor, had gone out and robbed and beaten up someone in order to steal money that he would in turn give to poor, Would we be so likely to sympathize with him then? Would we understand that? And what if he did this, not in the zeal of a new convert, but very deliberately in his eighth year of religious life and then again sixteen years later? And what if these were not isolated incidents, but were exemplary of Francis’ general approach towards giving to the poor?
In that case, it would be very hard to sympathize with him, because we would be dealing not with an understandable weakness of character due to zeal that could happen to any son of Adam, but a series of very deliberate actions that are calculated, reasoned out, and executed with precise intentionality. In the former examples, we have instances of saints demonstrating imperfections despite their will to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”; in the latter hypothetical example, we have a person utilizing their will to engage in activity that is objectively hurtful to others. We can understand and sympathize with the former; we are confused and scandalized by the latter and feel no sympathy for it. Perhaps if we still had a Promotor Fidei, it would be easier to sort out or categorize these sorts of things.
To what category, then, do the actions of the late John Paul II fall? What human weakness caused him to “accidentally” invite the leaders from all the pagan religions to Rome to encourage them to pray to their false gods and not preach the Gospel to them the entire time they were present? That’s not the sort of thing one just “falls” into. One does not simply go to the trouble of scheduling a papal visit to Togo where one engages in prayer in common with animists just due to common “human weakness.” These are not things that just happen to anybody. These are deliberate actions that John Paul II intentionally chose to do or intentionally allowed to happen- and those of us who choose to be intellectually honest understand that they were confusing and scandalous to the faithful, in addition to sending the wrong message to the pagans, who were encouraged in the worship of their false gods. And, even if John Paul II did somehow “fall” into the Assisi meetings in 1986, even if these were a “slip-up”, it is hard to see why he went ahead and did them again in 2002. Clearly they were intentionally set up to go down exactly as they did. So this is not really a matter of saying, “Eh, he’s not perfect.” This is matter of deliberate actions done that were confusing or potentially harmful to the faithful, to say nothing about their harm on the participants, who were falsely led into believing it is acceptable to worship their false gods.
We must remember, when we canonize a person who holds an office, we are also approving the manner in which he administered that office. One of the biggest misunderstandings modern Catholics have about canonization is that it is simply a declaration that someone is in heaven. I’m so sick of hearing that! “What’s the big deal? All it means is that he’s in heaven.” If that were all it was, then we could canonize a death-row murderer who maintained his impenitence until a moment before death when he suddenly decides to accept baptism one minute prior to execution. After all, he’s in heaven! Clearly this is too simplistic.”
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-phantasm-of-fiat-continuity.html
This is just an excerpt. The whole thing merits reading.
I believe this is the correct article you meant to link, Steve: http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.ca/2013/07/saints-arent-perfect.html
Re: idubitable greatness of Pope St. John Paul II cf. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/onepeterfive/on_fatima_story_pope_emeritus_benedict_xvi_breaks_silence/#comment-2690201167
Hi again;)
I echo again:
The Canonization of Saints by the Pope
The cause for canonization of a Saint requires an examination of the facts of that person’s life. If witnesses are still alive who knew the Saint personally, they provide testimony. Copies of the Saint’s writings, sometimes in their own handwriting, are examined, along with records of that Saint’s life.
Lastly, evidence of a miracle, received after praying for that Saint’s intercession, is presented. The evidence is frequently in the form of a miraculous healing, so that medical testimony or other evidence is examined. Without such evidence, the cause for canonization could not go forward, and no conclusion could be reached about that person’s sanctity.
The decision of the Church on the canonization of a Saint is necessarily and almost entirely dependent on the claims of fallible human persons and on a subjective evaluation of evidence that is not certain. This evidence and testimony establishes their sanctity, and its degree, and its perseverance, and its manifestation in reported miracles due to their intercession.
But none of this evidence is infallible. None of this evidence is found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). But the Magisterium is absolutely limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in Tradition and Scripture. Therefore, the Magisterium is completely unable to teach that any person is a Saint (except for those persons mentioned in Tradition or Scripture). Neither the Pope himself, nor the entire Body of Bishops united with him, can teach that such a person is a Saint.
The Pope cannot teach this infallibly, under papal infallibility, nor can he teach it even non-infallibly, under the Ordinary Magisterium. Likewise, the Bishops united with the Pope, even in an Ecumenical Council, cannot teach that such a person is a Saint. For the Magisterium is unable to teach truths found entirely outside of the Deposit of Faith.
Now the Saints who are mentioned in Tradition and Scripture, such as Saint Peter the Apostle, are a separate case. Since their lives and holiness is attested to in infallible Divine Revelation, the Church can infallibly teach their holiness and can infallibly declare them to be Saints.
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
JAMLY,
euie
Of these six popes, two are canonized saints…
Well, history also tells us that even canonized popes make mistakes. St Celestine V was quite holy but also on almost all accounts spectacularly ill-suited to be pope. St. Leo IX led an actual army in battle (he was beaten) and formally relied upon the Donation of Constantine (now known to be a clever forgery) in advancing papal claims.
And as Steve says, there’s grounds to…if not reject, then at least cast an eye of concern upon a greatly relaxed process for the cause of saints that has been put in place over the last few decades. (And yes, beatifications have generally not been considered infallible in the first place. Canonizations are a somewhat thornier question.)
Our Lady told Lucia that bad things would happen unless reparation was done. It has not been done. Bad things are happening. What’s hard to understand? Do we really need to read the rest of the message? We KNOW what it says already – bad things are going to happen, in the world, and in the Church – really bad things. This is Nineveh all over again. They were called to repentance or bad things would happen. They repented. They were spared.
There is no way our hierarchy is going to reform in our lifetime. Our next few popes will be elected from the tainted pool we have now. Steve, things are not going to get better. Prepare your children and later on your grandchildren. Keep away from the world as much as you can. Investigate The Benedict Option. Will the Muslims overrun Europe, will they begin to overrun Asia and North America? Will the Russians attack us? Will the Church be almost destroyed, save for a handful in each country?
Steve, you and other intelligent Catholic bloggers report all the instances of destruction in our beautiful Church, yet you keep asking when this will end — who will speak up — which bishop, which Cardinal will lead the charge back to Christendom. It’s not going to happen.
Each of us is on our own now, within our families and in those faithful parishes we can find. That’s where the Church will hide until better times.
Pretty depressing but could be accurate. Uhboy.
But I will maintain hope for a divine intervention. For all we know it could happen any minute now.
But here’s the rub…
All of those bad things were CONDITIONAL!
They can be Averted! God gave us a parachute!
How?
By having the Pope obey Him!
What was the Pope to do?
1) To Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary Publicly.
2) To consecrate Russia specifically for its specific sins and errors against God.
3) That the Pope should exercise his authority to order the entire World’s Catholic Bishops to simultaneously join him in doing so so as to emphasize this very public nature of the Consecration before the entire world and show their unity with the Pope in contrast to the Schismatic Russian Orthodox.
That’s it! World Peace! Mass Conversions! A miracle to demonstrate to the world the true Religion! All on a silver platter!
Fatima is important! It is important to our eternity just as it is important to our here and now!
God has given us an opportunity to change this all around in a day!
Why hasn’t the Church and our Popes obeyed Him?
‘Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune.” – Jesus Christ to Sr. Lucia, August 1931.
Way to go, Johnno! I agree with you 200%.
I agree with you—I want to know the TRUTH about Fatima. So far, it has been muddled and suppressed by those in charge, who are supposed to be open, honest and reliable. They failed us.. which makes one think they did so to cover up what they have been doing against the Faith.
You do well in describing in attempting to describe the incomprehensible interior contradiction of Roman Catholicism during the twentieth century now into the twenty-first. Surely the roots go further back – recall the weeping Virgin of LaSalette. Where is the explanation for a twenty-eight year pontificate of John Paul who could have extinguished the vermin running rife within the Church? Where is the real explanation for Pope Benedict’s resignation? “I don’t feel good” doesn’t cut the mustard. Where are the answers as we are fed propaganda from a Vatican that today is in the hand of God knows what? I
keep seeing pictures of a dove descending into the hand of Pope Francis, and these theologically unintelligible notions spouted by this one and that. Do these individuals not realize they are making fools of themselves, a mockery of the Church, and fools of the faithful? Where are their appeals to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than the offered excuses for the compulsions of concupiscence? Is there no self-examination? The train is long off the track and those still able to remember what the Church is called to be are a band of severely wounded survivors wandering among the wreckage.
The Popes do not and have not taught error. Once you accept that, you happily accept the “Magisterium of Now” and you don’t worry about whether or not Pope St. Pius X was a “heretic” for allowing the Schismatic orientals to receive communion.
As one who was married in an SSPX chapel and dabbled in sedevacantism, I can tell you there is nothing but division there. The safest course is to pray, pay and obey and have faith that God is in control of His Church.
The Popes do not and have not taught error.
Arguably, no (I’ll set aside the arguments over Honorius and John XXII). But “to teach” in this context is rather narrowly defined in Church dogma. It leaves plenty of room for expression and actions, not just by pontiffs but certainly by lower prelates, that are more open to problematic characterization.
I don’t think anyone here is advocating for sedevacantism.
You bring up a curious perspective. I’ve never had any contact with the SSPX, although I have been tempted to look into it. But might it be true that a fraction, all be it well meaning, disposed to “rebel” for good reason, is really a nest of dissent, rebellion — argumentativeness? Kind of like the current climate in our corner of things, only magnified?
Brilliant!
Never taught error when speaking ex Cathedra, otherwise if you know your Church history you would know that a number of Popes have led many souls to perdition by their heterdox words and immoral example. Evil must come, but woe to him through whom it comes remember? Besides prayer and obedience (hopeful not blind) Christ told us to watch and resist evil, wherever it comes from.
“The Popes do not and have not taught error.” Not officially, but unofficially have casually spewed out all kinds of anti Catholicism. Doctrine doesn’t change officially from the chair, but by unofficially promoting anti Catholic ‘Doctrine’ through the back door so to speak.
I currently attend a wonderful SSPX chapel. The folks causing division (the “Resistance”) in the SSPX left about 3 or 4 years ago. Yes, I too have faith that God is in control of His Church.
You must distinguish the statement “The Popes do not and have not taught error”. That is true *only under specific circumstances*, that is when speaking infallibly. That is not true of most of what is said or written by popes.
“The Popes do not and have not taught error”. – Can only be said by those who for whatever reason, refuse to see the erroneous, damaging and novel teaching of Pope Francis and his pontificate. An example, just today cf. 1P5 Podcast: Episode 36 – Fed Up? Laugh & Keep Going. [https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/1p5-podcast-episode-36-fed-laugh-keep-going/] and Pope: Understanding for sinners, no negotiating the truth [http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/05/20/pope_understanding_for_sinners,_no_negotiating_the_truth/1231164].
Dan Burke would do well to heed an old Russian proverb:
“If you keep one eye on the past you are blind in one eye.
If you keep both eyes on the future you are blind in vothe eyes!”
Here’s the punchline: There really is no controversy or confusion regarding Fatima for the thinking, informed Catholic. As Mr. Socci discovered, after he set out to refute the “Nutty Fatimists”, the evidence that 1) There is a portion of the Third Secret not publicly revealed (namely, the words of the Blessed Virgin, which always accompany Her visions, and which Cardinal Bertone himself inadvertantly admitted exist on Italian television), and, 2) The consecration of Russia that the Blessed Virgin requested has never been performed, is simply overwhelming, on both counts (and especially the first). It doesn’t take the acceptance of any sort of “conspiracy theory” to bring one to this view, but only a simple analysis of the facts.
And you are quite right that Fatima is bound up quite tightly with this crisis in the Church. It’s by no means strictly necessary to have knowledge of Third Secret (which predicts “diabolical disorientation” of the upper hierarchy, among possibly even more specific things) to see clearly what we’re living through, but it helps, and, to the point, those who stubbornly deny the latter will deny even any possibility of the former even more fiercely. To be trite, but accurate, I think, it’s a defense mechanism.
I recently made the argument to a friend that the Consecration has not been performed (which is actually a bare fact, given that Our Lady called for the public Consecration of Russie by the pope in union with all the world’s bishops, and there is no one who actually claims that has been done per se). This man is a very intelligent Catholic – he’s got a doctorate degree and taught philosophy at the university level for decades. After looking at the evidence, he admitted that it was overwhelmingly in favor of my position.
And then, the very next day, he fell back on, “I put my trust in the rumor that John Paul II murmured ‘Russia’ to himself in the 1984 consecration”. I pointed out that if this were true, it would not have made the consecration a public consecration of Russia in union with the bishops (who would not have been aware of the pope’s secret).
He was searching for some way, any way to be able to continue to believe the Party Line. Because that is so much more comfortable. This is what happens when you get enough sand between your neurons.
Here is one of my own little contributions to the battle:
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/response-to-dr-howard-p-kainz/
On the contrary, not only did neither Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI ever state that the entire Third Secret has been revealed..
Ahem…
CONGREGATION
FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA
INTRODUCTION
As the second millennium gives way to the third, Pope John Paul II has decided to publish the text of the third part of the “secret of Fatima”. …
Thus we come finally to the third part of the “secret” of Fatima which for the first time is being published in its entirety..
You seem to be confusing Vatican spokesmen for a supreme pontiff.
Can you produce a statement from one of these popes stating unequivocally, for the record, and specifically to settle the “controversy,” that there is no aspect of the Secret not revealed? Certainly not.
However, we do have numerous statements that suggest the opposite, especially that of Pope Benedict XVI. For example, this was widely reported, including by secular media:
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/gn/perspective604.asp
Ahem
As the second millennium gives way to the third, Pope John Paul II has decided to publish the text of the third part of the “secret of Fatima”
It is right in front of you and yet you continue to deny its existence.
Odd
Indeed, the Vatican published a text that is part of that Secret.
What you and all the rest of the Fatima deniers will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge can, and has, filled books, which you refuse to read.
OK, your position is that he who had Universal Jurisdiction and authority had been controlled by others.
Well, who are they?
Masons, Commies, Sodomites, The Knights who say, Ni?
Authority in the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church can not be dismissed either lightly or with some putative logic of grave mass and persuasiveness.
A Pope Saint and his successor has said the entire secret was released and that’s good enough for IANS.
Hearsay neither undermines a written public affirmation of a fact nor does it negate its effect on everyone – just on a tiny minority (what, 1%?) within the Body of Christ.
O, and just for the heck of it, try that tactic during a real trial not just the mock trial going on here
But, now, IANS is a Fatima Denier according to a one-percenter.
Smashing…:)
“The answer is revealed by an incident of which I was reliably informed during a recent Ignatian retreat at the Retreat House of the Society of Saint Pius X in Ridgefield, Connecticut. During an audience with the Pope, Bishop Fellay found himself alone with the Pope for a moment. His Excellency seized the opportunity to remind the Pope that he is the Vicar of Christ, possessed of the authority to take immediate measures to end the crisis in the Church on all fronts. The Pope replied thus: “My authority ends at that door.” (Castel Gondolfo August, 2005)”
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0615-ferrara-vatileaks.htm
Dear Steve. IANS has read that before but it is more a confession of his personal dislike of confrontations (many men hate them – they are not like me and thee) than it was reflective of reality for he later lifted the excommunications of the sspx bishops and promulgated Summorum Ponitificum against strident and public opposition.
Maybe Bishop Fellay miunderestimated the situation; in any event, the putative exchange is hearsay, right?
The Vatican is so riddled with intrigue, so obfuscated by careful casuistry and deception, it is almost impossible to say for certain what any of it means. It is, I’m told, a distinctly American obsession that everything in journalism must be empirical. Those who have lived closest to the workings of the Church in Rome the longest have a cultural understanding that the best we ever really get from within the walls of the Holy See is credible hearsay.
I’ve read two accounts in the past few days of how Pope John Paul II wished to consecrate Russia explicitly in 1984, but was halted by the Ostpolitik of his advisers. There simply are, as in any deeply political institution, practical limits on papal authority.
Francis ignores these, of course, because he is a destroyer. He does not care about burning bridges, because he’s content to burn everything he sees. He has made a great many enemies because of this, but it seems not to concern him. It’s sad, really, that a man of his ideology has so much more backbone and will than his comparatively far better predecessors.
I think also of how John XXIII, after praising the prepatory schema that was three years in the making, and holding a vote that upheld them, still managed to be prevailed upon by Cardinal Bea and Tisseront and co. to throw it all out, against procedure and ecclesiastical precedent, after being confronted in some way that has never been disclosed.
Popes in recent history have proven time and again that they do not see themselves as absolute monarchs.
Steve. You are a highly intelligent man and so you know that Vatican intrigue and hearsay is a very manipulative, complex, and even captious process and at the end of any particular period of sturm und drang, it is anybody’s guess as to what really happened and what really happened is often the most recent product of insider reports that might just be reflective of the personal proclivities and prejudices of the man privileged (cursed more like it) with leaks so as to produce a report favorable to one side or the other enmeshed in intrigues that are sempiternally at a roiling or barely perceptive boil.
In any event, it doesn’t seem wise to side with those emotionally scarred in the infighting over a public document purporting to be the last word on a controversy.
Just look at how the progressive/modernists outflanked the conservatives at the start of the council whereas men like Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini, Bishop Siri, and Abbe du Lac were slow to organise resistance.
We Trads are going to “lose” the battle for the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church on earth (we certainly are not going to fare better than did Jesus) but such pain is the coin of purchase in the economy of Divine Salvation.
O, and that does not mean that knowing we will lose justifies running-oft into some schism or sedevacantism or sedeprivationism or whatever latest novel excuse is invented to justify flight rathe than remaining to fight.
But, that is easy for IANS to write because he is Irish-Injun and is derived from a heritage that enjoys fighting and is accustomed to losing.
I am not sure what your point is, but here’s mine: I pray every morning for wisdom and guidance in the work that I do, I consecrate this apostolate to the Immaculate Heart daily, I put on my spiritual armor, and I go into the arena to fight.
You say trads will “lose” this battle; if that’s so, then what you’re really saying is that Catholicism will.
You speak of what happened at the Council. Yes, the progressives were very clever and evidently nobody saw them coming. But we’ve been hunting them now lo these many years.
I will not be put off what I believe is true, not by the endless attacks I suffer at the hands of the credulous Catholic media, not by the spiritual attacks I endure almost daily, and not even by a statement I’m supposed to believe came from a Pope Emeritus, as though our scrappy little operation here warrants a response from such an august figure when so many other things could be better served by his attentions.
Unlike the late Cardinal Ottaviani (may he rest in peace), they will find that my microphone is not so easy to shut off.
You say trads will “lose” this battle; if that’s so, then what you’re really saying is that Catholicism will.
Morally (not numerically) speaking that’s an ineluctable truth; that is, Will Jesus find any faithful at His Parousia?
Me and thee are destined to lose but commanded to fight which is all the glory and defeat any man could desire because we can only win by losing.
Hell, man, winning in the here and now is not only impossible, it is insane for you well know what is desired of you if you are to win. Will you win by severing one of the Bonds of Unity in worship, doctrine, authority (the sine qua non of catholicism?)
No way; there is no way Mr. Steve Skojec runs oft into schism, sedevacanstisn, or seddeprivationism.
pax tecum, Dear Steve.
Dear Steve. Although IANS disagrees with you on whether or not this secret was released in its entirety, one can at least be speculatively secure that were it not released in its entireity there would not be mortal sin being committed by the Popes in having not released it, right?
It is a private revelation and, thus, not binding.
Far more dangerous is the modern papal praxis of not preaching the Gospel in its entirety because failure to do that is, according to tradition, a mortal sin:
Cornelius a Lapide on Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel
Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. It appears from this that strict injunctions were given to the Apostles (S. Matt. xxviii. 19) to preach the Gospel and teach all nations, insomuch that, if they had neglected to do so, they would have sinned mortally. For on those that neglect this their duty he pronounces the woe of the wrath of God and of hell. By the same injunctions all pastors, Bishops, and Archbishops are now bound.
IANS is not a Fatima Denier anymore than he is a cabernet denier, gospel denier, or a beautiful strawberry blonde denier, but Fatima can be ignored without mortal sin whereas not preaching the Gospel can be (prolly is) a mortal sin.
I’m not sure why that’s important in this discussion (though it certainly is as regards the souls of the popes in question.)
It seems to me that the reason Fatima is such a controversial (and feared) topic in the Vatican is that it ties all the post-conciliar destruction together with a prophetic warning about the chastisement man would suffer (and has suffered) for failing to be faithful to God. It stands as an accusation that the aggiorniamento project was not performed with the blessing of Heaven; and more to the point, it is actively contrary to God’s will.
Infidelity to the Gospel would certainly be included there.
I also think it’s important to trot out a little logic here. If the Fatima message is legitimate (and the Church says it is) and if it has a message for the whole Church and the whole world (it does) and was intended to be revealed as such by the pope as Universal Shepherd, it is impossible to conclude that it does not have a more profound status as a form of public prophecy (as distinct from public revelation) and is of far more import than the visions of this or that mystic, or even lesser Marian apparitions.
That one does not sin in not heeding Our Lady’s warnings at Fatima appears true; that one is foolish to ignore them seems undeniable.
Dear Steve. Public prophecy is a neologism invented by Fr Gruener, right, or is it part of Tradition?
Don’t we Catholics just have Divine Revelation and Private Revelation?
The Divine Revelation of Holy Scripture and Tradition is far more captious and calamitous than is Fatima.
Actually Dietrich von Hildebrand described it much this way (without using the exact phrase.) There was some mention, IIRC, of the singular importance of Fatima in the official Vatican texts released in 2000, as well.
I am really not familiar with Fr. Gruner’s work, so I can’t speak to it.
But pure reason shows that Fatima has a unique significance among other private revelations. It was meant as a warning for the whole world, and thus, had a very public dimension.
If the Church says its valid, the Church can’t simultaneously downplay its public significance. The two go hand in hand.
It might have been the disobedient renegade vagus who initially demanded everyone had to believe in and actualise all that happened at Fatima;
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/fatima12b.htm#NOTE2
but like in so many of his other claims, he was wrong:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1165
Don’t get IANS wrong. He LOVES Mary and does not despise one iota of her apparitions (and his daughter’s Confirmation name was , Bernadette) but Fr. Gruener was an disobedient vagus priest and that is not the sort of man Mary works with although many in here think he was a saint
Excuse me, but +Fr. Gruner was NEVER a vagus priest. He was unvaccinated in the diocese of Avellino and worked outside the diocese with the permission of his Bishop. When he was released from the diocese of Avellino he was incardinated in the diocese of Hyderabad India.
Read Fatima Priest by Chris Ferrara if you don’t believe me.
http://www.fatima.org
1976 – Bishop Pasquale Venezia ordained Fr. Gruner. He refused to serve the diocese of Avellino and left for Canada without permission.
1978 – Bishop Venezia sent Gruner a letter saying that he could remain in Canada if a local bishop incardinated him. None did and no applications were made.
Bishop Gerardo Pierro ordered him to return to his diocese. Fr. Gruner did not answer his letter.
Cardinal Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, wrote to him and ordered him to return to Italy and his bishop. Fr. Gruner refused.
1989 – Bishop Gerardo Pierro again sent Gruner a letter ordering him to return or find another bishop in 30 days.
1990 – Fr. Gruner went to Avellino and met with Bishop Pierro to give him time to seek incardination. This was granted but two years later he still had not started the process or found a receptive bishop.
1992 – Cardinal Sanchez and Archbishop Sepe stated in L’Osservatore Romano that Fr. Gruner and his Apostolate had not been approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities (October 14, 1992).
1994 – The new bishop of Avellino issued a decree declaring Fr. Gruner a vagus priest. Such priests have no faculties and cannot publicly offer the sacraments.
Perhaps your information is part of a fifth secret 🙂
You forgot that he was incardinated in the diocese of Hyderabad India. So even if he was vagus before (which he was NOT if you read Fatima Priest), then you would know that for the rest of his life he was validly incardinated.
I don’t know what you have against the poor man. He’s already gone before the Judgement seat of God. At the very least you could pray for his soul (and yes, I do pray for him).
Dear Margaret. Your ad hoc hagiography is admitting of discontinuities within continuity; first he was not vagus and then, ok, maybe he was vagus (but he wasn’t).
Who had a more legitimate claim to carry on the work of Fatima, Sister Lucy or the vagus Priest?
Sister Lucy.
Who was obedient to authority?
Sister Lucy
And who do the Gruenerites attack?
Sister Lucy.
If this is the way Mary works, you got your own self a scoop here.
” And who do the Gruenerites attack?
Sister Lucy.”
Are you serious??? NO ONE (except the liberals and their allies) attack Sister Lucia.
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/2016/newsviews0526.asp
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/LuciaSlanders.htm
In spite of the horror accusations against +Fr. Gruner (d. 4/29/15), it actually confirms what he said:. that Russia has NOT been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. On each occasion (whether it was Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II) it was the world – NOT Russia – that was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
This might help you out: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/father2.asp
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4086
Dear Margaret. You do not even believe what is, in effect, the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church when it comes to Fr Gruener but you do believe every single one of his demonstrable lies.
You are not a Catholic, are you?
Meh, after 20 some odds years and STILL no legal action? Still time i guess now that he’s dead one year later…
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/2016/newsviews0526.asp
FYI, my last reply to you on this topic is above. I have no more time for the game here. Cling to your theory if you must, and have the last word if you’d like it. For some of us, against a fact there is no argument.
You seem to be not in the least troubled by this obvious lie and, so, it seems your way to evade the consequences of a Saint Pope and the CDF Prefect lying to you is to try and mask the malicious malignity of the official statement by resorting to lawyering it out of existence.
For Lord’s sake, is that the way we have to operate?
Must we have a Pope take an oath on a bible (preferably a Catholic one) swearing to tell the truth each time he causes an official statement to be promulgated?
Can you produce a statement from one of these popes stating unequivocally, for the record, and specifically to settle the “controversy,” that there is no aspect of the Secret not revealed?
But we DO have an on-the-record statement testifying that the entirety of the third secret was revealed and you do not believe that (in essence, your position is that Pope Saint john Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger were lying) and so if they were willing to lie the first time, why would you believe the next thing they say no matter what it is they are saying and no matter whether or not they had sworn an oath prior to saying it?
When your wife tells you something, imagine her delight at you demanding she swear an oath before she tells you anything else again.
Spartacus,
contra factum non argumentum est – the fact are the facts, my friend. It is a veritable fact of reason that there is a part of the Secret not fully revealed, whether you, or I, like it or not. And, despite what you maintain, it isn’t a fact that any pope has directly asserted the contrary.
You seem woefully naive regarding Vatican intrigue and politics, for starters. If that’s due to nothing but proper Catholic respect for authority, well, tragically, that is one sad aspect of this crisis. No, we simply cannot blindly trust to receive solid food from our prelates anymore.
But, by what grounds do you declare that I am not or have never been troubled by the duplicity of Vatican prelates here? As a matter of fact, I went through an extended period of quite troubled reflection, followed by vigorous investigation. But what I wanted was the truth, not some conforting platitude.
Must we have the pope swear on a Bible? Actually, not really – we just need a proper Catholic understanding of the limits of papal infallibility, common sense, and enough faith in the Bride of Christ to understand that She does not stand or fall on the foibles of fallible men.
What seems to have occurred is that popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were muscled into silence regarding release of all aspects of the Secret. What is a fact is that Pope Benedict XVI subsequently all but told us directly that there is an aspect not revealed. Another fact is that Cardinal Bertone declared on Italian television that words of the Virgin explaining the vision of the Third Secret exist, and no such words have been disclosed!
So, one can cling to theory, seeking the comfort the mother gives her child, or open one’s eyes, painful though the sunlight may be. The end result of this latter road is greater faith, not lesser, to be sure.
…
Regarding credibility, I wrote the following to a friend not long ago:
You rest your case on the credibility of people like Cardinals Bertone and Sodano, and, in fact, that’s quite a powerful argument with many souls, understandably – good Catholics want to believe that high-level churchmen in general are holy people. It is holy to have such inclinations! And, in most times, it is sensible to rely on such an assumption. But, when the evidence – overwhelming evidence – says otherwise, a person, using their God-given intellect, must pay it heed.
So, let’s look at a few things regarding those two men here, that have nothing to do with Fatima (indeed it is easy to prove that Cardinal Bertone has lied regarding Fatima, as he’s even contradicted himself).
Wikipedia: “Jason Berry writes that Sodano, as John Paul II’s secretary of state, ‘pressured Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, in two notorious cases,’ the Hans Hermann Groër case and the Marcial Maciel case, to stop investigations into abuse.’”
The Washington Post had this to say: “It was also Sodano who so energetically protected Father Marcial Maciel, the late, prolifically abusive founder of the Legionnaires of Christ, long after he’d been credibly accused. There may have even been a quid pro quo involved, since as Berry – who all Catholics who want a cleaner church owe a a big grazie – has also reported in NCR, Sodano took at least $15,000 in cash gifts from the Legionnaires, as personally arranged by Maciel.”
You can find those references easily. Here’s more sickening detail: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican
Take the general credibilit of these men – which is in question, at the least – and add to that the very well-documented fact that Sr. Lucy said the opposite of what she purports to say in this document for decades beforehand, on numerous occasions, and logic is not on your side.
Add to that further details such as Pope Benedict himself contradicting his earlier thoughts on the Secret, Pope John Paul II making it clear he did not believe the 1984 consecration (that did not mention Russia even one time, even according to EWTN) accomplished the Consecration Russia as Our Lady requested), Cardinal Bertone making an absolute fool of himself with contradiction after contradiction on Italian television and elsewhere, and logic is on our side – that of the nutty Fatimists, that is. I do not and have never gone for “conspiracy theories” of the type that aren’t backed with essentially overwhelming evidence. Bold claims do take much hard evidence, and that we have here.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not just “Vatican spokesmen.” It is the oldest, most authoritative, and most distinguished of the congregations of the Roman curia.
The CDF’s task is to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines. It serves as the final court of appeal in trials of heresy. It’s like the US Supreme Court.
Ideally, the Pope does not issue a document without approval by the CDF. Which is why then Card. Ratzinger, who was prefect of the CDF in Pope JPII’s time, had to be involved in this, the revelation of the third secret of Fatima.
You’re right – “CDF” would be more precise. But, your point is…? The CDF is composed then & now by fallible, peccable men. (And – if we have to go there – as has been pointed out already the men involved in our question here had a documented history of going to great lengths over the course of many years to cover up for notoriosu pedophiles such as Marcial Maciel.)
What I stated was that no pope has gone on-record *personally* to declare that there is not another part of the Secret since this “controversy” erupted. They could so easily lay this massive, decades-long controversy to rest by doing so, but they have not. But, well beyond that, we have Pope Benedict XVI: He largely reversed his earlier position (the part he played in the publication of the vision in 2000) to declare that “one would be deceived who thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded”. Many are indeed still quite deceived.
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/gn/perspective604.asp
I realize that many simply cannot buy into this as their minds rebel from the prospect of considering this type of duplicity even possible from Church leaders. So be it; I am not in the business of trying to bend anyone’s will. Again, contra factum non argumentum est – we have the facts and they cannot lie. They tell any person willing to use their God-given intellect that there is indeed another part of the Secret, the words of the Virgin, which has been referred to directly and indirectly in well-documented statements by numerous churchmen and others for many decades.
The people who cling to the “churchmen cannot trick us” line are not interested in the facts – they never engage them. Never. It is a head-in-the-sand position, which many essentially admit.
Below is just a little bit of that evidence. It’s all out there, easily accessible (I’d recommend starting with Ferarra’s “Secret Still Hidden”). References exist for all of the below.
Looking at what the Secret refers to makes it not so surprising at all that there exist men in the Church who would seek to suppress it at all costs.
I’m finished here.
…
– The Secret concerns a ‘divine warning’ about ‘suicidal’ alterations in the liturgy and theology of the Church (the future Pope Pius XII, 1931).
– It contains a prediction that after 1960, ‘the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders’ by causing ‘religious and priests to fall away from their beautiful vocation… dragging numerous souls to Hell’ and that ‘nations will disappear from the face of the earth’ (Sr. Lucia to Fr. Fuentes in 1957).
– Its contents ‘so delicate’ that they cannot be allowed ‘for whatever reason, even fortuitous, to fall into alien hands’ (Cardinal Ottaviani, 1967).
– It is a text ‘diplomatically’ withheld because of the ‘seriousness of its contents’ and which predicts, after 1980, ‘great trials’ and ‘tribulation’ for the Church which ‘it is no longer possible to avert’ and the destruction of ‘whole areas of the earth’ so that ‘from one moment to the next millions of people will perish’ (John Paul II at Fulda, 1980).
– It is a ‘religious prophecy’ of ‘dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore of the world’ (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1984).
– It is a predication of ‘apostasy’ in the Church that ‘begins at the top’ (Cardinal Ciappi, 1995).
– A warning of a material chastisement of the world which accompanies the great apostasy in the Church, like that predicted in the Church-approved apparition of Our Lady of Akita in 1973, whose message is ‘essentially the same’ as the message of Our Lady of Fatima (Ratzinger to Howard Dee, Phillipine ambassodor to the Vatican, 1998).
– A warning to avoid the ‘tail of the dragon’ referred to in Revelation (12:3-4), which sweeps one-third of ‘the stars’ from Heaven (Pope John Paul II, May 2000, sermon at Fatima when he beatified Jacinta and Francisco). (Many believe the Pontiff was here revealing the Secret in a subtle manner here.)
You are right, of course. I myself don’t believe the whole of the secret has been revealed in 2002. But that’s just me.
My point is, notwithstanding common sense and evidences, such as those you mentioned above, all that have been neutralized by the force of the official document as presented here by Not Spartacus.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
CONGREGATION
FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA
INTRODUCTION
As the second millennium gives way to the third, Pope John Paul II has decided to publish the text of the third part of the “secret of Fatima”. …
Common sense can’t be neutralized.
Thank you for the link. I finally got to read it.
However, I have to disagree with your second paragraph. The Holy Father will not get the graces he needs in order to make the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary until the revelation of the Third Secret (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady which follow:. “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”, currently held by “etc”.).
I’ll post a link ASAP for you.
It would be grand to trust our clergy, even to Rome. But nary a week goes by withut the pontiff saying yet another distressing thing, or another settled issue open again for discussion with often seems like pre-determined outcomes. The Lord must intervene! The darkness ad evil cesspool are drowning us.
Like the writer’s wife i came into the Church via the traditionalist parish here in Melbourne. However i have seen protestants fighting-i came from the Churches of Christ – which when I was growing up was soaked in Dispensationalist premillenialism. If you held either the amillenial ,posmillenial or a post tribulation rapture of the church then you were held to be a heretic. But if you were Catholic,well you were bound for Hell.This in an Australia that had witnessed sectarianism as a result of a conscription referendum held twice in WW1 – when our volunteer army needed more men ,the Catholic ArchBishop of Melbourne supported the No vote-probably as a result of the executions of the Easter Rebellion leaders in his native Ireland.
Great article, because it expresses the prevailing emotion we are personally feeling these days, a bit too much like panic. This situation is like a festering wound, and the more you look the worse it seems to get, for all the reasons you state and even more. Imploding, the church seems to be imploding, they have removed the bones of our faith and there is nothing left to support it. Some of this is pretty infuriating, because they surely can do math, and see how there are fewer and fewer people even bothering with participating in the faith even in NO churches, so how can they justify this, or is that the goal. Can these men really be such stupid men that they don’t comprehend this is only going to drive more and more people out of the church and is not going to motivate anyone else to come in? Are they seeing such a “Pope Francis bounce” that the churches are filled with new progressives who have found religion since he was elected? Somehow I doubt.
These men are nothing but evil, and they are also wildly successful.
This cannot go on.
Lord, please don’t abandon us any further. Hear our cry and come to our rescue.
“Can these men really be such stupid men that they don’t comprehend this is only going to drive more and more people out of the church and is not going to motivate anyone else to come in?” Yes, and yes, and yes, they are that stupid
I don’t think so. I think they are totally blinded by their diabolical ambitions.
Actually they are actually brilliant because that is probably their aim.
I have a dear Protestant friend whom I have been telling about the faith. These discussions are not frequent, but there was receptivity to it. Recently I sent her a link to the excellent podcast catechesis, by Fr. Jackson, FSSP. Her reply ” not as interested anymore in conversion.” I did not get a chance to ask why, but I’d bet a case of Pilsner Urquell it has a lot to do with Pope Francis.
We all want to know the full truth of Fatima.
The truth is we need to pray, do penance , make reparation and pray for the the Church and Pope. We do this because there are powers and principalities that have spread the errors of Russia all over our apostasized world.
The first error of Russia was its schism which was then followed by the errors of communism (athiesm, materialism, culture of death, feminism, etc etc). These errors have engulfed the West and even the Church like a brush fire that has no answer.
Our Lady even showed the children Hell – hell the very place that no “educated” modern person can fathom exists.
So without knowing the full words of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima, I am confident we know enough based on the information we have and what the Church and world are going through to merit the graces our Church and world need.
Pray the rosary everyday and pray for the faithful clergy to have the courage to persevere to the end.
We must merit and know with great hope that in the end it’s head is crushed. Merit at the foot of the cross like Our Lady of Sorrows.
Pray your rosary and be faithful to your duties in your state of life.
Well said and spot on the button! Have no fear for Our Lord is near as is our Mother Mary.
AMEN!! This is EXACTLY where we faithful should be directing our battle. Very well said.
One point:. In 988 (when both East and West were united in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church), was when St. Vladimir, Grand Prince of Kiev, was baptized in the Dneiper River. The Kievan Rus today is Ukraine , Belarus and a portion of Russia. At that time Moscow (then called Muscovy) was a tiny village in the middle of nowhere. It wasn’t until the last Byzantine princess married the Grand Duke of Muscovy in the 1450s that Moscow began to emerge as we know it.
Ach, my family transferred to another state nine weeks into the Russian history class I was taking in high school. Any books you can recommend?
Sorry for the delay in responding to you. I can’t find any books but this might help:.
http://www.royaldoors.net/2013/08/the-new-martyrs-of-the-ukrainian-greco-catholic-church/
It’s about the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Byzantine Catholic Saints declared Blessed by Pope John Paul II (obviously, before he was declared a saint).
The most important bit we can take from this article is this:
The Pope added:
“We are realists in expecting that evil always attacks, attacks from within and without, but which always forces the goods are present and that, eventually, the Lord is stronger than evil and our Lady is for us the visible, motherly guarantee of God’s goodness, which is always the last word in history.”
So perhaps we can rest from the dire predictions and bemoanings and remember that: God’s goodness is the last word in history.
But it’s not good enough to go merrily on our way and say “the Lord is stronger than evil” and He will take care of everything…this is the worst presumption. We are to strive for HOLINESS, each of us, all of us. Only then will He meet us and give us the graces to keep on and on.
Where in my post did I say that “we go on our merry way because the Lord is stronger than evil” ?
There is absolutely no presumption on my post but a simple call to the reality that while we are making all these dire prediction and bemoaning the state of the Church, God is the God of History and sees to it.
With everything that has been happening, people seem to forget that after all, this is Christ’s Church. So if it is happening, God is allowing it. What we do is pray and make sacrifices just as our Lady has called us to do, not to make dire predictions to the point that we start questioning the authority of those whom Christ has put in authority.
John 14:1 “Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me.”
We haven’t been given the full 3rd Secret and the world and not “Russia” has been consecrated to Our Lady who told Sister Lucia it must be “Russia” by the Pope with the Bishops. For more information join us on Facebook: Consecratio – World Group for Consecration of Russia and Fatima Message https://www.facebook.com/groups/329670727086733/
Thanks Steve. Good stuff. ‘The Fourth Secret of Fatima’ book is excellent. My opinion is that there is really no new news in any of this. The Third Secret speaks of devastation in the Church which is now here for all “with eyes to see”. The only question left is the timing of the denouement (coming chastisement/tribulation) which was not contained in the secret.
“With eyes to see”? It is something of a mystery why “conservative” Catholics are not able to see what most traditional Catholics easily get considering the devastation in the Church since Vatican II. My guess is that they are subservient to authority, non-cognizant of the past, comfortable with Vatican II moral flexibility (emphasis on conscience), unwilling to confront reality, have weak spiritual lives (seldom go to confession), may practice contraception, etc. We must pray hard for these lukewarm folks as they are people without real faith.
And how did these “conservative” folks get so blind and lukewarm? My guess it is because Bishops and Cardinals stopped shepherding their flocks to heaven and, in many cases, by the absence of direction, allowed them to wander off on the road to hell. Lord have mercy.
My guess is that they desire to serve The Common Ground rather than The Common Good. To deny the Divinity of The Word of God Who serves for The Common Good, is a recycling of The Arian Heresy.
Great post !
Being a convert into a “conservative” Catholic world who later found the “traditionalist” circles, I can say that a lot of the mentality is based in an over-emphasis on the scriptural passage that “the gates of hell shall not prevail.” They can’t prevail so everything is always going to be ok and there’s no way that the liturgy or pope(s) can be bad because the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church!
I’m the only one of my many friends and acquaintances who could truly be considered “traditionalist” though I don’t like the term (dividing the Catholic Church up into brands of Catholic seems a little too protestant for me and I’ve had enough of that for one lifetime.) So I hear the conservative party lines very often. It’s not a willful ignorance and I don’t think it can be called lukewarmness. It’s a whole culture of papal and conciliar positivism, and it takes a great deal to learn that everything or most everything you’ve been taught about the Church is wrong or from a distorted point of view. More than anything, it makes me sad (and unfortunately few of them listen to me when I talk about how I see things… some are starting to when I say the Novus Ordo is deficient.)
Batman is not impressed.
Lol!!!
Very good Jafin. Keep up your good work. Blessings always.
Great article, Steve!
It is my recollection that Mr. Burke is a convert. If indeed that is the case it becomes somewhat more understandable that he is more tuned into the “school” of thought that brought him into the Church. Surely he is a good and faithful man, but unless you know the territory from birth your perspective is more secure in the area where you have traveled and been affirmed. Those of us who have lived all our lives — some since well before the Council have a wider perspective. It would be well for Mr. Burke, given his position, to a reconnoiter the territory a bit more, rather than find an false security in a facet of Catholic life that is surely well intentioned, but less critically observant than the current situation requires. Vigilance is absolutely essential today, without doubt, particularly from faithful Roman Catholic journalists
The idea that cradle Catholics have a better perspective than converts is belied by the fact that the vast majority of those who hold to the nouveau Catholicism in the Church are indeed cradle Catholics. Millions of other cradle Catholics have left the Church.
Now, do some prominent converts publicly spout the New Church line ad nauseum? You betcha…they have been taught well by the cradle Catholics in New Church who converted them via RCIA programs, or other Catholics who themselves lack proper catechesis. Some were converted through reading books that give a wonderful evangelical overview of the Faith, but don’t go into the issues that are causing some of the current problems, like papal infallibility for example.
Personally, I think we need to drop the idea that some Catholics are ‘more equal’ than others when it comes to perspective.
Would you agree that a sensus Catholicus is important? I was a cradle Catholic who fell away from the Church 40 years ago. Not to blame them but my parents didn’t pass on the faith to me. I didn’t realize what I was walking away from. After 30 years I returned. But my sensus Catholicus did not develop overnight. It took a lot of reading and studying. I’m not saying I’m better than Dan Burke but to say that what Catholicism was in the past can just be thrown away indicates that he has an issue which he needs to resolve.
Of course it is important! I think we are in basic agreement.
I am a convert (2008). I read a lot of those evangelical Catholic books and converted in a Novus Ordo parish. The RCIA program was a nightmare. I had to introduce the catechism to the other converts because the spiritual director said, “We don’t use that in our diocese.” Tip of the iceberg stuff. I have spent years inculcating a sensus Catholicus and it is hard work because those resources that should be easily and readily available–and widely shared in parishes–are not. And, because so few Catholics know the Faith anymore. Those of us who are learning the Faith, step by step, are mightily blessed, even though we are few in number. I told my former pastoral administrator (a permanent deacon bound and determined to transform the parish) that I did not become a Catholic only to find I had converted to another flavor of Protestantism.
Certainly I didn’t mean to imply that any convert is less “Catholic” than a born and baptized Catholic. Actually in my experience I find converts to be more ardent in their commitment. However given the grievous fracture within the Church that ardor is greatly characterized by what “camp” drew them into the Church. Perhaps what I was unsuccessful in conveying – and write this with some caution and regret – is those who know life in Roman Catholicism before “the council” have a greater depth of field when understanding the Church today. That doesn’t
mean they necessarily have a greater commitment, understanding or assent to the Gospel, Apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium. It is difficult to convey what an entirely different entity Roman Catholicism is today from what is was. I assure you, this reality is not a “development” in a positive sense in anyway at all. Quite the contrary.
Your insight as to the level of depth understanding and commitment among the born and baptized is undoubtedly correct – even among the hierarchy, clergy and religious. It is as if the vast swath of the Catholic laity have been systematically deprived of core catechesis, it being replaced by some confection of notions, tastes and drives. Devotion replaced – at best by personality cults. It has been subsumed in the United States into a dark mirror of the political landscape. Fractured, a trembling axis, losing it gravitational pull. A tragedy. But our Lord will prevail. He promised.
I think we are in agreement. I feel the same as you do on most points. A tragedy indeed. The more Catholic I become, the more tragic it seems to me, but, the more hope I have that all will be set right. It is imperative that we point out the evil and denounce it, but it is just as imperative that we know the reason for our hope and voice that, too, as you did. I stick close to St. Paul at times like this. Romans is a little lifeboat.
I completely understand what you are saying. I have converts in my life who are quite faithful, but they didn’t get that way from EWTN, Shea, Akin, etc… They needed to be exposed to tradition and history, to see that the Church was so much more than what it is in this tiny slice of time. You can be completely on fire for something, but if you don’t fully understand what that something is, you are bound to run into trouble. I think this is why we see so many Catholic celebrity apologists who will back every statement of Pope Francis (well, it’s orthodox if you turn it this way, hold it up to a dim light, and kind of squint). Too much of their identity of Catholicism was based upon a wrong concept of the pope. If he is in error, it seems to shake them to their core. For me, it’s “Well, we survived other bad popes. I guess this is what we deserve right about now.”
There is much to be said for the feeling of just being Catholic in your bones, to have had the living of the Faith from the time you were a baby. Sunday Mass, school Masses, Lenten penances, praying the Stations of the Cross, Advent anticipation, Rosaries, family Baptisms and Confirmations, May Crownings, and Mary as our mother were a given, like the sun coming up the next day. Sure we may have fallen away at some point or made bad choices, but there was always this sense that Catholic was what we were. It’s like the difference between a new marriage with all the optimism and chemistry, and a still thriving, decades old marriage.
What you are describing is “living” one’s Catholic Faith. It’s not something you think, or talk about, or share. Being Catholic means striving for holiness, instead of just trying to be a good Catholic. We talk a lot about the Church, the Faith, the hierarchy, the pope – who’s good, who’s bad and on and on. Our real focus must be on how do we become holy and grow in grace day by day. It’s not a ‘thing’ it’s a life.
I do think about the cradle Catholics you describe, and my heart goes out to them. As bad as this is, I realize for those folks it is far worse, the very ground they stand on has been shifted under their feet. I feel upset about what is going on, to my core, but I did not experience an entrenched Catholic life as a child. I’m very sorry for those who did. When I think of those people, I get annoyed at the men in power who give every appearance of giving those people no thought whatsoever.
Hi Steve, Indeed, your Holy Rosaries of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, are working!
We all need to continue our Daily Rosary, for sure!
I echo: “The Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope and all the Catholic Bishops of our planet to be accomplished on the same day within the same hour is wanting!”
1. What is a “consecration”?
A: It is a ceremony by which a person, group of persons, or thing is set apart as sacred and dedicated to the service of God or another sacred purpose.
2. What is meant by “the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”?
A: At Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady told Sister Lucy that “God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Communions of reparation and for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart … In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
Our Lady’s request is very simple: Russia—the fount of so much evil in the 20th Century—must be set apart and made sacred by its consecration to the Mother of God.
3. Why is it necessary to consecrate Russia in particular?
A: Because God wills it. As Our Lady told Sister Lucy at Fatima: “Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation …”
And as Sister Lucy disclosed in her published memoirs and letters, Our Lord Himself confided to her that He would not convert Russia unless the consecration were done, “Because I want My whole Church to recognize that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.” Sister Lucy has explained that because Russia is a well-defined territory, the conversion of Russia after its consecration to the Immaculate Heart would be undeniable proof that the conversion resulted from the consecration and nothing else. The establishment in the world of devotion to the Immaculate Heart would thus be confirmed by God Himself in the most dramatic manner.
4. And what if the consecration of Russia is not done?
A: At Fatima, Our Lady warned that if the consecration were not done as She requested, then “Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.” By the same token, the miraculous conversion of Russia after its consecration by the Pope and the bishops, and the resulting peace in the world, will be a sign of the power of God’s grace acting through ministers of His Church and the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
5. How exactly is this consecration supposed to be accomplished?
A: True to Her word at Fatima, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy at Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929, to say that: “The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.” The phrase “by this means” is crucial, because it signifies that the consecration is not merely a symbol of the coming conversion of Russia, but the very means by which it will be accomplished. Thus, without the act of consecration there will be no conversion of Russia, and without the conversion of Russia, Russia’s errors will continue to infest the world, producing the persecution of the Church, the martyrdom of the good, the suffering of the Holy Father and ultimately the annihilation of nations forewarned at Fatima.
Over the ensuing decades, Sister Lucy has explained time and again that the act of consecration requires that the Pope “choose a date upon which His Holiness commands the bishops of the entire world to make, each in his own Cathedral, and at the same time as the Pope, a solemn and public ceremony of Reparation and consecration of Russia …”
6. But isn’t Fatima just a private apparition no Catholic has to believe?
A: Far from it. The apparitions at Fatima were confirmed by a public miracle witnessed by 70,000 people—the Miracle of the Sun. Pope John Paul II himself declared at Fatima in 1982 that the Message of Fatima “imposes an obligation on the Church”, and he publicly attributed to Our Lady of Fatima his escape from death in the assassination attempt of May 13, 1981—the very anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima.
In fact, the Pope himself has twice attempted to perform the consecration (May 13, 1982 and March 25, 1984), although Russia was not mentioned on either occasion, and the bishops of the world did not participate. These attempts demonstrate that the Pope himself recognizes an obligation to consecrate Russia, even if he has not yet been able to accomplish a consecration in the manner specified by Our Lady: a solemn public ceremony, mentioning Russia specifically, and involving all of the world’s bishops. Yet Our Lady Herself has promised us that this event will ultimately occur.
7. Didn’t the Pope succeed in performing the consecration of Russia in 1984?
A: No. As Sister Lucy herself declared in a September 1985 interview, the attempted consecration of March 25, 1984, did not satisfy Our Lady’s requests because “there was no participation of the bishops and there was no mention of Russia.” In consecrating the world in general on that date without mentioning Russia, the Holy Father himself acknowledged in the presence of tens of thousands of witnesses, both during and after the ceremony, that the people of Russia were still “awaiting our consecration and confiding.” The next day these statements were reported in the Pope’s own newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, and the Italian Bishops’ publication, Avvenire.
8. Wasn’t the consecration of the world by the Pope in 1984 enough to fulfill Our Lady’s request?
A: No. For her entire life since the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, Sister Lucy has insisted that Russia must be specifically mentioned.
For example, in a 1978 interview with her confidant, Father Umberto Pasquale, and in a letter to Father Pasquale in 1980, Sister Lucy was asked the question: “Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world?” During the interview, Sister Lucy answered:
“No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady promised: ‘I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia …’ In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country.”
And, in the 1980 letter (dated April 13 of that year), Sister Lucy confirmed what she had said in the interview, stating in her own handwriting that “Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request, referred only to the consecration of Russia.” Both the 1978 interview and the 1980 letter (photographically reproduced) were published in the May 12, 1982, Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano.
Does not our own common sense tell us that if Our Lady of Fatima requested the consecration of Russia, then Russia must at least be mentioned in the act of consecration? We might also reasonably ask what possible reason there could be for not uttering one simple word—Russia—in the act of consecrating Russia. No explanation has ever been given for this mysterious omission in the attempted consecrations of 1982 and 1984.
9. But doesn’t the “collapse of Communism” after the 1984 consecration ceremony show that Russia is beginning to convert and that the consecration must have been effective, despite its failure to mention Russia?
A: Hardly. In 1997 Russia enacted legislation which discriminates against the Catholic Church and in favor of Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Catholic parishes are required to apply for an annual “registration” which can be revoked at will by any local bureaucrat, while priests and nuns are given only three-month visas which cannot be renewed. The Vatican has condemned the new law as a great setback for the Church in Russia.
In all of Russia today there are some 300,000 Catholics—fewer than there were in 1917, the same year Our Lady came to Fatima and promised the ultimate conversion of Russia, which has yet to occur. The Russian Revolution, which has been exported in various forms to other nations, confirms Our Lady’s prophecy of the spread of Russia’s errors throughout the world. Today Muslims outnumber Catholics ten-to-one in Russia. Compare this with the true miracle of conversion which occurred after the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico in the 16th Century: within nine years some 9 million Aztecs turned from devil-worship and human sacrifice and were converted and baptized as Catholics. Yet in Russia today, more than 14 years after the supposed “consecration” of 1984, we see barely a trickle of converts, and fewer Russian Catholics overall than there were 80 years ago!
Even the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Alexi II, publicly admitted on December 24, 1998, that since the supposed “fall of communism” in Russia, Christian culture “is not only being pushed into the background and oblivion, but is also being mocked and ridiculed … as something extinct and unnecessary.” Alexi also decried the “rise of neo-paganism … totalitarian sects, black magic practitioners, astrologers, and occultists” in “post-communist” Russia.
Meanwhile, Boris Yeltsin has been forced to cede power to the Communist-dominated Russian parliament, and his new prime minister, the former head of the dreaded KGB, has placed Communists in control of the entire Russian economy, producing what even the liberal NY Times has called “a shift to the left” and a return to Soviet-style government.
Most telling of all: Since the “consecration” of 1984, more than 600 million children have been slaughtered in the womb around the world—including Russia, where legalized abortion began. The war on the unborn is the greatest war in the history of the world. Thus, it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that the period of peace promised by Our Lady if Russia were properly consecrated has yet to occur.
The conversion of Russia promised by Our Lady of Fatima has simply not happened. This can only mean that the consecration has not been done, for Our Lady’s promises cannot be false.
10. Isn’t it too late for the consecration of Russia anyway, since Russia’s errors have already spread throughout the world?
A: No! As Our Lord Himself confided to Sister Lucy at Rianjo in August of 1931: “They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France, they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will already have spread its errors in the world …”
So the consecration will ultimately be done, and, as Our Lady promised at Fatima, “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to mankind.” Our Lord Himself confided to Sister Lucy, regarding the consecration, that “It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”
11. What is so urgent about the consecration now?
A: As Our Lady warned at Fatima: “If My requests are not granted, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.”
We have yet to witness the annihilation of nations foretold at Fatima. Must we wait until it happens before we finally do exactly what Our Lady commanded us to do in God’s name? In view of the accelerating decline of morality and the disintegration of social order around the world, simple prudence should tell us that we cannot delay even one moment longer the consecration of Russia, and only Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
12. But if the Pope feels he has done the consecration, what right does anyone have to question him?
A: The Pope has never publicly stated to all the members of the Church that he has performed the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. On the contrary, the Pope’s words as quoted in L’Osservatore Romano demonstrate that he knows the consecration has yet to be done. In view of this, the faithful have every right to petition their Pope for the definitive consecration of Russia. In fact, the God-given right of the faithful to petition the Supreme Pontiff in matters affecting the good of the Church was infallibly defined as Catholic doctrine by two ecumenical councils: Vatican I (1870) and the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and is also guaranteed by the current Code of Canon Law (Canon 212).
The good of the Church and the safety of the whole world demand absolute certainty that the requests of Our Lady of Fatima have been carried out. The matter will be settled only when the definitive consecration is performed, or when the Pope declares in an official, binding way to the whole Church that he has already performed the consecration in a manner sufficient to satisfy Our Lady’s requests. Neither event has occurred, and therefore the matter remains open to free discussion and petitions by the faithful, who have every right to address a matter of such obvious importance for the Church and the world.
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
JAMLY,
euie
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for your post. ?
You are very welcome, Margaret!
JAMLY,
euie
Who can tell how long before it will be too late to receive Christ and His salvation by faith that He died for one’s sins?
2 Corinthians 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
Religion has always led men astray from the truth of God’s Word.
Says the man who wouldn’t even have God’s Word if the Catholic Church hadn’t codified the canon of Scripture. You’re welcome.
“Religion has always led men astray from the truth of God’s Word.”
Well done.
I’ll be sending you a miter and crosier via post, my brother bishop-to-be Gerald.
Soon, soon!
Are you a protestor? You sound like a protestor to me.
I’ve noticed quite a few protestors over the past 15 years or so joining with the atheists and secularists in holding this ridiculous notion.
I think it has to do with them, after 500 years, being unable to get along and agree with each other on doctrinal matters and constantly dividing so much so that they have now thrown their hands up in the air and just given up trying, so they join with the atheists in condemning whatever “organized religion” they see, especially the Holy Catholic Church.
What it actually says in “God’s Word” regarding the visible church, the sacraments, church hierarchy and discipline, etc. etc. be damned. They’ll just ignore these “hard verses” like they’ve done from day 1. It shows just how much respect they REALLY have for Sacred Scripture.
I will pray a rosary for you. I will ask my mother and yours to intercede with Her son for you.
Peace
😎
No I am not a “protestor” nor am I a “Protestant.” I have nothing to “protest.”
Are you Catholic?
That is, just to be clear – as a lot of protestors like to call themselves “catholic” these days (with a lowercase “c”) – do you belong to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that has Pope Francis as its earthly head?
Call me what you will. I was baptized as a helpless infant by a Roman Catholic Church and educated for around 10 years in Catholicism. Now 83 , by the grace of God I believe what the bible says and whenever I visit a Catholic Church, I hear a completely different story than what I find in my bible; so I don’t return. 🙂
Your Bible? Did you write it? Does it have any books missing, by any chance?
A great piece. But it should be said that, in fact, the Popes themselves have not told us that the Message has been fully revealed. The vision pertaining to the Secret was not revealed until 2000, after which John Paul II observed a conspicuous silence concerning the controversy over the completeness of the revelation. And in 2010, as Socci has put it, Benedict not only declined to say that all had been revealed but rather “reopened the dossier” on the Third Secret by alluding to contents that clearly do not appear in the vision. Further, Benedict sent Socci a note thanking him for publishing The Fourth Secret of Fatima (which I translated into English), even though it accuses the Vatican apparatus of concealing a pertinent text.
What is missing, clearly, is the Virgin’s own explanation of the vision, without which we were left in the absurd position of being informed by the Vatican that Cardinal Sodano would interpret it for us. And it is he and his successor, Cardinal Bertone, who have promoted the party line that the Secret pertains only to the 20th century events recounted in the second part of the Great Secret, which would make the third part (i.e. the Third Secret) redundant.
The massive evidence that this is a coverup is explored in my The Secret Still Hidden, which received a personal endorsement by the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, as reported in Inside the Vatican magazine by Bob Moynihan (his personal account). So, this story has spread beyond traditionalist circles, but this article is an important contribution to keeping it there.
Thanks, Chris. These are helpful data points.
Now, I see a valid & reliable expert (Mr. Ferrara) on Fatima in this forum!
O Mary, you never cease to amaze me!
Ave Maria!
Why not bring our Holy Father, Benedict, to a safe haven and ask him?
This is simply diabolical. Here is the public statement professing the entirety of the third secret has been revealed:
CONGREGATION
FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA
INTRODUCTION
As the second millennium gives way to the third, Pope John Paul II has decided to publish the text of the third part of the “secret of Fatima”. …
Thus we come finally to the third part of the “secret” of Fatima which for the first time is being published in its entirety..
Mr. Ferrara, you note: Further, Benedict sent Socci a note thanking him for publishing The Fourth Secret of Fatima (which I translated into English), even though it accuses the Vatican apparatus of concealing a pertinent text.
That Vatican apparatus is Ratzinger himself, and the Saint Pope he conspired with to publicly lie.
So, Ratzinger privately confirms the third secret has not been entirely revealed after, as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, publicly testifying (at the behest of a Saint pope) the third secret has been entirely revealed.
But then that means that Ratzinger willingly conspired with a Saint Pope to publicly deceive ( LIE) the Catholic Church and the entire world for there is no way to claim that the action of the CDF is in any way covered by a justifiable mental reservation for such a justifiable mental reservation does not cover a blatant lie that was not necessary to make.
That Ratzinger privately encouraged Socci and said the secret was not released is a tacit confession of his participation in a conspiratorial lie.
So, other than these few things, everything is jake in our new esoteric Faith in which only the privileged few know whether or not what is being proclaimed publicly is the truth or not.
IANS pines for the days of the old exoteric faith.
O, and what secret sign (a raised right eyebrow, a glance at his left foot?) does Ratzinger use when he is telling the truth?
Have you actually READ The Secret Still Hidden by Chris Ferrara? If not. I strongly suggest that you read it before casting stones.
IANS has read what the CDF produced at the behest of a Pope Saint and that alone is substance enough to judge for both Pope Saint John Paul II and the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said what they produced is the entire Third Secret.
Why would anyone need to have that interpreted by anyone else for what was claimed by them is either the truth or a lie.
Now, if Ratzinger later said privately that the entirety of the Third Secret was not released then he has a duty to tell us publicly why he intentionally deceived us and Pope Saint John Pau II also had a similar duty.
The behavior of Ratzinger – if accurate as described – is classically manipulative and suggestive of a personality disorder.
As one of their lambs, it is not the duty of iANS to try and figure out when his shepherds are to be believed or not by consulting texts by others and IANS wants to make it very clear that he admires the work of Mr. Ferrara and has read his opinions for a long time as a former subscriber to
“The Remnant” and so the comment here is in no way to be thought of as a criticism of him.
It is a modern marvel that the vast majority of Catholic Traditionalists do not have the least bit of a problem with the (false?) claims made publicly about the Third Secret; rather, various explanations/defenses of that obvious lie are generated.
Written otherwise, can anyone identify a soi distant traditionalist who does not accept this lie/deception with equanimity?
Like Mr. Ferrara said, the third secret has been revealed but the explanation of said secret is still missing. Hence, they can correctly say that the third secret in itself has been revealed – just not the entire discourse from Our Lady.
Otherwise, (and this is where I am confused myself) you have to try and explain how bishops, cardinals, and other priests since the 1950s who have examined the third secret, plus the rest of the explanation from Our Lady, always talk about a crisis of faith/apostasy, etc. This is from men decades ago, who have nothing to gain, and were not even traditionalists. Why would they say it has something to do with a crisis in the Church, spurred on by her leadership, and yet what was revealed by the Vatican in 2000 says nothing about this?
This makes no sense to me, unless a bunch of men, throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, who were not trads or conspiracy guys, are all liars. Lying to gain nothing. They were ordinary Churchmen, not trads or crazy people etc.
What is YOUR explanation for the inconsistency between the men who have read the entire Fatima message and what was revealed?
I am not entirely sure myself, but it sort of makes sense to say that the entire “third secret” was revealed – thus not making Benedict or John Paul of Unhappy Memory liars, yet the entire DISCOURSE from Our Lady was not revealed (different from the “third secret” itself). This would match perfectly from all the testimony form the cardinals, bishops, and other men who have read the third secret.
It appears to be the only thing that makes sense. One side says the secret was not fully revealed, yet Popes say it was; this makes no sense. The other side says it was fully revealed, yet account after account from bishops and cardinals contradict what was revealed; this also makes no sense. The only explanation that seems to make sense, at least for now, is what Ferrara has said.
Otherwise, what is the explanation for all those men, who have no agendas, who are not crazy, who are not trads, who were bishops, cardinals, and priests – all of whom read the entire message and tell us of a crisis of faith stemming from leadership?? Where is the explanation for this? A bunch of unrelated men spanning three or four decades, who have no agenda to fulfill, and are not crazy trads, are all liars? Isn’t that strange to you?
Also, just because someone is a “Pope Saint” doesn’t really mean anything these days.
A “Pope Saint” made accommodations for pagans to worship their gods (which scripture calls demons) on consecrated Church ground in Assisi; accommodating the breaking of the first commandment.
Perhaps everyone should follow the example of this “Pope Saint” and urge their pastors to do the same in every local Church.
“But not everyone is perfect…” Yes, yes, the standard party line. Not every Saint makes a mockery of God which goes unrepented and uncorrected causing Scandal, just some right?
What I am trying to say here is that if John Paul of Unhappy Memory can make a blunder this big, then surely he can either have been 1. Deceived about the third secret and the rest of the message or 2. He really did reveal the entire third secret but opted not to reveal the rest of the message for fear of confusion and discord among the faithful it may have caused (a pastoral judgement in light of the time period). See how that makes more sense than the other two party lines?
Apparently Dan Burke hasn’t read either the “Alta Vendita” or Franco Bellegrandi’s book “NikitaRoncalli.” However, his newspaper did just publish the interview with Bishop Fellay, without any hidden bias that I detected (though I could have missed it). As for trusting that Rome has our best interests at heart, unfortunately, they do: the interests of human respect expressed through false mercy/false compassion, rather than the interests of God.
To be deep in history is to cease being able to read the National Catholic Register — except Pentin.
The important point to note about this post is that Dan Burke is the Executive Director of the National Catholic Register. This is affiliated with EWTN. Oops. Perhaps confusion is going to be present in the church, rather than an anchor.
Dan Burke has the modernist mentality – everything needs to keep up with the times. Most people, foolishly, say that we don’t have to believe in apparitions to be saved. That is an imprudent approach to truth. The Church did not consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and look at the results – WW2, 50 million dead, and massive destruction. Communism has spread throughout the world, and it still holds sway, now under the “practical atheism” form for most within the Church. Liberation Theology, rampant in Central and South America. History shows the foolishness of ignoring Heaven’s instructions, even by the hierarchy, up to the pope. The only way back is the Wrath (Justice) of God. I hope it starts today.
I hope it can be avoided through an act of Faith. The denial of The Filioque is the source of all heresy; to deny that there is only One Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father and The Son, is to deny the essence of both The Father and The Son, in The Ordered, Communion of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.
There aren’t enough of us living in faith, hence there is no way to avoid it. And the faith declines more every day, with no end in sight. Read your Old Testament to see what happens when faith declines that way. The Book of Judges is a good example in shorter stories (i.e. per Judge).
I have always been under the impression from things I’ve read (no, I can’t name what and when – just in general over the years) that Sr. Lucia said that the consecration of Russia in 1984 was approved by heaven. Can anyone disabuse me of this belief by pointing me to or giving me some factual information?
Thanks
Anybody?
Dear David,
Please check out http://www.fatima.org. That is the best resource for the full Message of Fatiima.
To answer your question:. Sister Lucia advocated and spoke of the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In 1984-1986, she specifically said on various occasions that the March 25, 1984 ceremony did NOT fulfill the requirements for the Collegial Consecration.
So 2-3 years later (1989-1990 et seq.) she suddenly contradicts almost 50 years of insisting that the Pope and all the bishops of the world must consecrate Russia and only Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? It doesn’t make sense.
Here’s what Our Lady said June 13, 1929:
“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.”
Again, please check out http://www.fatima.org.
I hope this helps you.
Cf. Fatima Consecration – Chronology | EWTN [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/FatimaConsecration.htm]
Good article. It is encouraging to know there are other Catholics scattered throughout the world who see the crisis. I am reminded immediately of 1 Peter 5:9: Resist him, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world. But the God of all grace, who hath called us into his eternal glory in
Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little, will himself perfect
you, and confirm you, and establish you.
http://www.msjc.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Marianist-LGBT-Final-2-15.pdf
The best protection for our beloved sons and daughters from sexual abuse of any nature, is to affirm The Catholic Teaching in regards to The Sanctity of human life and the Sanctity of marriage and the family. Any claim that God Created man to live in Loving relationship in communion with The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinitu, according to sexual desire/preference/inclination/orientation, in direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery, is a lie from the start. Any claim that it is consistent with our Catholic Faith, that the desire to engage in sexual acts, outside the marital act, which is life-affirming and life-sustaining, and can only be consummated between a man and woman united in marriage as husband and wife, is immutable, and that it is not possible for those who have developed a same-sex sexual attraction to overcome this disordered inclination and develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are respectful of themselves and others in public as well as in private, is a lie from the start. It is scandalous that bishops, who have a fiduciary duty to defend and affirm our Catholic Faith, continue to deny our beloved The Truth of Love.
There is nothing Loving or Merciful about condoning and promoting disordered sexual desires or sexual acts of any nature, iincluding between a man and woman united as husband and wife.
Let no one deceive you, your children are not safe in any environment, that denies the inherent Dignity of the human person as a beloved son or daughter, but rather, desires to reorder man according to sexual desire, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual…which sexually objectifies the human person and demeans our inherent Dignity as beloved sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers.
Exactly why I can’t figure out how Catholics can continue sending their children to public schools. Wake up and smell the indoctrination.
This crisis of Faith is due to a denial of Genesis, and thus a denial of The Sanctity of human life from the moment of creation at conception, and The Sanctity of marriage and the family as God intended, and yet those Baptized Catholics, who deny Genesis, are permitted to present themselves to receive The Holy Eucharist, making it appear as if a Catholic can be for Christ or anti Christ.
This past synod, by not addressing this obvious deception, appears to be a charade.
Steve, you say belief in the Real Presence has been “decimated”. Decimated means reduced by 1/10. I would venture it has been far more than decimated!
Historically, yes, that’s the meaning of the word. Colloquially, it’s “kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of.”
And that’s the sense I’m using.
Thank you. I didn’t know it could mean general widespread destruction.
Will make my point after giving a thumbs to to Steve & Chris for I don’t wish to be misread!
The stickler here seems to be what is meant (within the Fatima messages) by *Russia and her errors*. What was understood at the time they were given and the working out of those words into the Third Millennium.
In 1917 most understood the point and outcome of the Leninist revolution picking up steam in Russia. The Revolutionary Moment had been occurring for decades – throughout Europe and South America – ever since upheavals of 1848 (and nearing near total victory in Paris in 1871). The (near century long) revolutionary temper of the age was both political (the demolition of all remaining monarchies) and cultural (the leveling of all). The great promise of communism (both its atheistic and its social leveling aspects) was well explained by thousands of books, broadsides, and newspapers – in English, French, German, Italian, Russian, Polish – and Portuguese. There was a well-entrenched cult of revolutionary heroes and martyrs.
When it – the Revolutionary (Communistic) Age – arrived in Russia it was already very much a French & German affair. The French Revolution of `1789/1792 made it so.). Did that age reach a crucible of near perfection in Russia that it couldn’t elsewhere? Or, at the time of Fatima, Russia was on its way of becoming so, the Revolutionary Age perfected. Is that why the Lady focused specifically on Russia – for she knew of its future threat?
I once was taken to the woodshed (by a very *famous* individual) for the point I’m going to say next, but I’ll lay it down once more time. Russia is not the concern or the threat (either without or within the Church) here in the Third Millennium.
Today’s world – now subjected to the organizing principle of Queer Theory – would be befuddlement by any consecration of Russia. For the moment (and I can confirm this by simply walking around corner and down the hill from where I live) the LGBTQ+ “community” finds today’s Russia a greater Christian threat to their *revolutionary” plots than (let’s say) today’s Rome. In point of fact, they fear Russia. They fear her as we once did as school lads & laddies hiding under desks in anticipation of Russia dropping the neutron bomb over our heads. Your local LGBTQ+er beds down each night with a palable hatred of all things Russian. (It was a
Got off point! So why was I taken to the woodshed? For suggesting that Moscow was not the issue, concern, or threat – that the Revolutionary Age did not reach near perfection in Moscow; the hole for that hellish perfection was Frankfurt, Germany.
What snaked from Frankfurt had more to do with the demolition of the Mass and the disintegration of Catholic life and morals than any fog rising off the Volga (understood strictly, narrowly in geo-political terms). The Revolutionary Age had its near perfection – the French Revolution its second nativity – in Frankfurt. Just ask any German cardinal!
None of this understates the Soviet Union’s brutal, atheistic communist past: which is more recent than we care to remember.
But the question still begs, what is truly meant by *Russia and her errors*?
Denying The Faith has consequences.
http://www.christendomrestored.com/blog/2012/07/the-filioque-cause-why-the-west-is-west-and-the-east-is-east/
The denial of The Filioque, is the source of all heresy. To deny that there can only be One Spirit Of Perfect Love Between The Father And The Son, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And The Son, in The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, is to deny the essence of both The Father and The Son.
God Is Love. Love exists in relationship.
Acknowledging that the full record of the Fatima messages are not public. (I shy away from the use of the term “secret”), how does the Flioque enter in; how (and where) is it referenced – except under the general category of *errors*? Which only demonstrate my original point (or question): what is truly meant by “Russia and her errors”, how is the phrase to be properly interpreted. For like any written or spoken, it is bound over to interpretation.
On this thread a reader had observed that , up to a point, one does not need to wording of what has been withheld. All on needs to do is simply observe the present state of the Church (its liturgy and its Catholic life and culture) to know what was being warned out (prophesied is the conditions of repentance and reparations were not met). That’s wisdom.
So, now, an ancillary question can be asked: from what source, from which direction, came the corrupting influences? I maintain my prior: such wickedness swam across the Tiber from the backside of the Alps, not the front slopes of the Urals. From Frankfurt not Moscow. True, hoisting up Frankfurt as the font of evil is a fairly general statement; but by locating the source of rancid, polluted water in Frankfurt (instead of Moscow) is simply identifying (or localizing) an idea rather than a place.
Wrong ideas are always more invasive, imperial, and tyrannical, than any half-witted Romanov (or Bourbon) ensconced on a throne. That’s the nut of the matter which Lenin understood too well. A did, a century before, Napoleon (whose monarchical credentials were nil) who, in order to go about braying across Europe, had to turn (to reconstitute) his person into an idea.
So when cold-eye observing the trials & travails of the Church today (or (1917) – which since the current papacy have paraded wildly and wide open – isn’t it near obligatory to, once the [resent “errors” are identified, to back trace them to their origins, to what fathered & mothered them? Can not a case be made that the nursery of those “errors” was more Frankfurt (or even Paris) than Moscow? And in a long time coming.
Again, none of these remarks diminish the attempt by an atheistic, Marxist/Leninist Soviet Union (yes, I know, I didn’t say Russia) to infiltrate and take down the Catholic Church (or Catholicism as a culture wherever it still stayed standing after WWII). You do not know what I know! The KGB (and its previous organs) were well entrenched in the Vatican, making use of Freemason fellow travelers – and any personnel, priest or cardinal they could blackmail. We all know that. The various intelligence services certainly did: British, American, French, the Nais, with the Israelis making use of them all. They all had rat-lines and conduits which tangled together in Rome. We all know that. (As a very low, secondary point of entry into this story just read an honest biography of the Kennedy or Bush clans.)
Yet, we also know that the Church could survive such a period of use and manipulation. But what the Church found difficult to resist was the infiltration of users and manipulators from other (through, at times, crossover) sources: from Frankfurt, Paris, from a America university culture which quickly succumbed cultural Marxism, and, above all, the swelling leftist political parties which swamped Europe after the War. The Church, “headquartered” in Rime, found all this difficult to to rouse the faithful against. And so the great “listening tour” of Vatican 2.
Maybe some would call this the “spread of Russia’s errors”. I don’t, for the reasons I stated earlier: the parentage of all this was French & German. With the history books to tell us which on was the prostitute and which the client! Again, once more, when the Revolutionary Age arrived in Russia in the 19th Century it was already French & German: with one billboarding her whoredom, the other procuring for her.
Guess I need to ask, how does the wonderous and fearful message of Fatima lay aside or ignore the great swaths of European culture the Revolutionary Age had already absconded before it disembarked with Lenin at the Finland Station in St. Petersburg? (That’s too much of a summation, telescoping a long gestation, but you get my meaning.) Why would Fatima’s message ignore Wagner & Nietzsche?
Disclosure: I lived among he Orthodox, was an Orthodox for many years – though not Russian, Antiochian Patriarchy/Damascus. I do comme into Catholicism with an Orthodox prejudice (in the Samuel Johnson/Edmund Burke sense of the word). At times it has been helpful; for instance, getting a mental grip around Francis’ papacy, in not turning papal personalities into worshipful things. The Russians never do that with their hierarchy (or monastic authorities); their temptation to do so lies elsewhere, in idolizing their monarchs into exaggerated and unwarranted fatherhood. A failing that has taken their history into various stupors. No need to tell them that, they already know.
My has this gone on far too long – and certainly settles nothing. Something about Fatima still remains hidden, but I was much impressed by the reader who urged us to simply look around round, at the present state of the Church, and her trials, to read her secrets.
I am still taken back on how the Flioque enters into this discussion, without even the barest of background of its history on why the West felt compelled need to insert it into the Creed. I mean, really, what was the assumptionist heresy in Spain which, supposedly, provoked this urgency? At the least, like any good Thomist, the opposing position must be laid out in honest, painful detail (as if one truly believed it) in order to refute it. No? And, only then, lay out the pathway in which this relates to Fatima’s message.
The Lady’s message at Fatima is both urgent and current, and , as the originating articles, pointed out, the *crisis* of Fatima (both its message and controversy) mirrors the present crisis of the Church.
Hike over the Alps to Frankfurt, bask on the banks the sluggish river flowing past (from) her; fill your mug with half Burgundy wine & Bavarian Beer, you’ll see, get my meaning. The taste is foul , and there’s no working of foam to tickle of pleasure of tasting & seeing.
Being half French and half German is the worst of breeds. One doesn’t need a Russian in the mix to turn that sour – though, these days, a good flushing in of Mohammedanism is certainly making a bitter brew.
Which, in itself, makes a point: if Our Lady, with her grace oif poigency and foresight, is warning off Europe, the World – and the Church – would she ignore the greatest destroyer and corrupter of Christendom – Islam? At Fatima? The Francis Papacy is near to proclaiming an Islamo-Catholicism, of sorts. His current statements regarding this are worrisome. Difficult to believe that Our Lady’s Fatima message does not encompass this threat. Maybe Pope Francis will play an ace at World Youth Day in Krakow this summer, shame Catholic Poland for resisting the edict of Brussels to be swarmed by the Muhammadan horde. We will see.
In the meanwhile, let’s all focus on Rothschild Jews!
The Filioque confirms there can only be One Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father and The Son, thus The Truth of Love is not relative, nor is it merely a matter of opinion.
We’re talking past each other.
Again, the first item to confirm is the foundational doctrine: Three Persons of the One God. How that is to be affirmed and expressed (in short, confessed) comes (“logically”) before any statements about roles, functions, and energies of the Holy Trinity.
Question: how is Perfect Love between the Holy Spirit and the Father, and the Holy Spirit and the Son, revealed? What is it’s manifestation, its relation? Perfect Love is exchanged between Persons. How is it exchanged between the Holy Spirit and the Father, between the Holy Spirit and the Son?
Regarding The Third Person of The Blessed Trinity, The Lord and Giver of Life:
“What is the final purpose of love? What is the goal of anyone who loves? The final goal of love is union, union between the one lover and the one loved. That is why already in the Old Testament, in the Canticle of Canticles the marital embrace of husband and wife is the divinely revealed symbol of the union between a loving Creator and the world, especially man whom he loves. This is the same reason why Christ more than once speaks of the kingdom of heaven as a marriage feast. What is the final goal and purpose of anyone who loves? It is to be united with the one whom we love.”
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_031.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c3a8.htm
“So, with Augustine’s help, let us illustrate something of the Holy Spirit’s work. He noted that the two words “Holy” and “Spirit” refer to what is divine about God; in other words what is shared by the Father and the Son – their communion. So, if the distinguishing characteristic of the Holy Spirit is to be what is shared by the Father and the Son, Augustine concluded that the Spirit’s particular quality is unity. It is a unity of lived communion: a unity of persons in a relationship of constant giving, the Father and the Son giving themselves to each other. We begin to glimpse, I think, how illuminating is this understanding of the Holy Spirit as unity, as communion. True unity could never be founded upon relationships which deny the equal dignity of other persons. Nor is unity simply the sum total of the groups through which we sometimes attempt to “define” ourselves. In fact, only in the life of communion is unity sustained and human identity fulfilled: we recognize the common need for God, we respond to the unifying presence of the Holy Spirit, and we give ourselves to one another in service.
Augustine’s second insight – the Holy Spirit as abiding love – comes from his study of the First Letter of Saint John. John tells us that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). Augustine suggests that while these words refer to the Trinity as a whole they express a particular characteristic of the Holy Spirit. Reflecting on the lasting nature of love – “whoever abides in love remains in God and God in him” (ibid.) – he wondered: is it love or the Holy Spirit which grants the abiding? This is the conclusion he reaches: “The Holy Spirit makes us remain in God and God in us; yet it is love that effects this. The Spirit therefore is God as love!” (De Trinitate, 15.17.31). It is a beautiful explanation: God shares himself as love in the Holy Spirit. What further understanding might we gain from this insight? Love is the sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit! Ideas or voices which lack love – even if they seem sophisticated or knowledgeable – cannot be “of the Spirit”. Furthermore, love has a particular trait: far from being indulgent or fickle, it has a task or purpose to fulfil: to abide. By its nature love is enduring. Again, dear friends, we catch a further glimpse of how much the Holy Spirit offers our world: love which dispels uncertainty; love which overcomes the fear of betrayal; love which carries eternity within; the true love which draws us into a unity that abides!
The third insight – the Holy Spirit as gift – Augustine derived from meditating on a Gospel passage we all know and love: Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. Here Jesus reveals himself as the giver of the living water (cf. Jn 4:10) which later is explained as the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 7:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The Spirit is “God’s gift” (Jn 4:10) – the internal spring (cf. Jn 4:14), who truly satisfies our deepest thirst and leads us to the Father. From this observation Augustine concludes that God sharing himself with us as gift is the Holy Spirit (cf. De Trinitate, 15, 18, 32). Friends, again we catch a glimpse of the Trinity at work: the Holy Spirit is God eternally giving himself; like a never-ending spring he pours forth nothing less than himself. In view of this ceaseless gift, we come to see the limitations of all that perishes, the folly of the consumerist mindset. We begin to understand why the quest for novelty leaves us unsatisfied and wanting. Are we not looking for an eternal gift? The spring that will never run dry? With the Samaritan woman, let us exclaim: give me this water that I may thirst no more! (cf. Jn 4:15).” – Our Holy Father, Benedict.
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, The Giver of Life,
Who Proceeds from the Father and the Son,
Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
Who Has spoken through the prophets.”
“According to The Summa Theologiae, Part I, Q. 27, Art. 1, St. Thomas says it is the prerogative of God, and God alone, to have a temple; therefore the Holy Spirit is here revealed to be God, and our bodies are revealed to be his temple.”
Just as The Third Person of The Blessed Trinity Is The Temple for The Love Between The Father and The Son, so too, is the family a temple for the Love between a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife.
Man is not an end in himself, nor is man a means to an end; man was Created for Communion with God, Who Willed us worthy of Redemption.
One more time, the Orthodox are first concerned about affirming the *Person* of the Holy Spirit. That cannot be done by reducing person to relation, to an exchange.
In your formula above3 why no phrasing about the *essence* of the Holy Spirit?
“Errors” are mistakes. What were the mistakes in Russia. During the Romanov dynasty, much of the country, like the United States currently, forgot about God. Another mistake was to allow a Rothschild Jew controlled private central bank set up in Moscow. Jewish Bolshevism has a hatred for Russia that goes back centuries. Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky were all Talmudic Zionist jews. This was the evil scheme that Our Lady at Fatima warned about. These “errors” would be repeated in nation after nation. Vladimir Putin threw out the Rothschild jews and that is why NATO and the west will go to war against Russia. It is guaranteed.
Nonsense.
Some do their research. ?!
I wanted to give everyone a heads up. Rorate Caeli just posted a response from Vatican officials that this story about the full complete 3rd secret not being relased, is not true. These officials are quoting Pope Benedict himself. Of course, we have not heard from Pope Benedict “on camera” since he fled, I mean was forced out, I mean stepped down. Rorate is obviously taking the Vatican’s words as gospel on this matter. I Peter 5 is getting under the skin of someone at the holy see. People there are getting nervous about the still unreleased 3rd secret of Fatima. Keep up the good work!
I am interested in the origin of this photo…anyone?
http://www.fatimamovement.com/images/img-third-secret-of-fatima/Third-Secret-of-Fatima-large.jpg
Rorate Caeli published a denial of Rome quoting Pope Emeritus. Funny is that i stopped to believe anything that Rome publishes lately.
I wonder why Rorate Caeli does not think it is inconsistent for our Holy Father, Benedict to have broken his silence in regards to The Secret of Fatima, but has been silent about the unveiling of those within the heirarchy who denied Genesis at the recent Synod. I wonder who is controlling our Holy Father’s responses?
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/sermon-for-trinity-sunday-2016.html#more
“I’m used to Protestants,” she says, “who are far more inclined to help each other.”
Are they really? Perhaps that was her own experience. I wonder if it’s really common? And if they disagree, don’t they just start a new church?
I’d say the rest of the Third Secret is OBE by now. If there was a suppressed warning, that train left the station some time ago. There can be no doubt that we were headed for disaster. And, here we are.
I have posted on previous blogs, about the availability of a 2-volumed booklet from the Fatima Crusade, an apostelate of the late Fr. Nicholes Gruner, and written by Fr. Paul Kramer……
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Final-Battle-Father-Kramer/dp/0966304659 ;
http://www.fatimamovement.com/i-DevilsFinalBattle.php
http://www.fatima.org/crusader/cr94/pg22.pdf
The extensive research and extraordinary amounts of footnotes and references lead one to strongly believe how much the Smoke of Satan had entered into the Halls of the Vatican, and the extensive Machialvelian intrigue occurring within and amongst many devious Cardinals with demonic agendas.
Crtiques are provided on each link, with more extensive reviews on the last 2 links listed below.
Its time to get over all the stupidity. The Third Secret has been revealed in its entirety. Maybe there are 3 million secrets yet to be revealed. But after all the hoopla perhaps nothing will ever be revealed again. Thank God!