Fatima and "Traditional" Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trinacria2020
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As SSPXers are traditional Catholics, I see no reason to draw a dichotomy between the two. Of course, not all traditional Catholics are SSPXers, but all SSPXers are traditional Catholics, and it is above your purview to decide whether an individual is a Catholic or not. The individual you describe seems to be throwing around the word “heretic” without fully understanding its meaning. But the fact that he unjustly called you a heretic does not mean you can turn around and do something similar to him, by implying that he is not really a traditional Catholic…Laymen who attend SSPX chapels are not even, canonically speaking, members
[/quote]
Some would argue that SSPX Ecclesiology is non traditional.

Since SSPX operates mostly outside
Canon Law, terms like “canonically speaking” don’t really apply.
 
It includes laity in a parish, with a pastor; parishes and pastors united with their bishop Ordinary, not in a symbolic way (picture on wall) but actually. Religious orders taking on no public ministries or chapels without permission of the local bishop Ordinary.
 
yankeesouth said:
Our Lady of Fatima said the final battle will be the attack on marriage and the family. Sure looks like we are there.

Some say the acceptance of Fatima is tied up with politics. Of course, not accepting Fatima can also be construed as a political statement.
Click to expand...
Really? Because I’m familiar with all three so-called messages, and none of them says anything about an “attack on marriage and the family” that I’m aware of. Would you happen to have a source that you can cite and quote directly from there?

And I supposed you could construe not accepting Fatima as a political statement…although I for one am not sure what that would be. My criteria for acceptance or rejection of any supposed Apparition is purely based on the evidence at hand. And since I would “check all the boxes” as a Traditional Catholic, I’m not sure what political statement I would want to make other than fealty to church and magisterium. Definitely interested in your opinion here.
 
. . . . I’m not going to link to their website, but if one chooses to go there, they can view a video which states " truth and grace have failed universally in the Church from the Pope on down." That is . . . not right. . . . There is no “state of necessity” as they claim, since there are FSSP and a number of orders (and diocesan priests) in full communion with the Vatican that say the Tridentine Liturgy (some uniquely). So, while I appreciate your opinion, but I reject it based on the teachings of the One True Church.
 
Last edited:
I’ve said the same thing forever. It’s literally a 2nd Gospel for so many people. If Revelation finished, then how can Mary come up with new ones? It makes Zero sense!! How many hours do people waste discussing the Third secret? I mean, really, what does this add to your life or faith? It’s a vain,prideful way to feel special. Believe it, but dont lose your common sense. Many folks go way too far.
 
Not the topic of the thread, but since you brought it up, I would 100% disagree with this, since there is nothing more protestant than separation from the church…no matter how you package it. I’m not going to link to their website, but if one chooses to go there, they can view a video which states " truth and grace have failed universally in the Church from the Pope on down."
Click to expand...
Well stated. I believe there are many good-willed clergy and laity associated with the SSPX, but history has proven time and time again that detaching yourself from the Roman Pontiff leads to disaster.
 
StudentMI said:
Geez. All that really happened?
Click to expand...
Since my previous tongue-and-cheek reply which I wrote in the spirit of collegiality was removed, I guess I’ll have to be more blunt. We don’t know if that all happened or not with ANY assurity. There are no contemporary sources or written records stating that a) Any of the children were physically touched or threatened when taken by the Mayor of Ourem.
b) that any of the so-called messages were ever written down…ever…prior to 1941 when they were delivered to Blessed Pope Pius XII (Santo Subito!!!)
c) While Sister Lucia’s mother publicly disavowed her daughter as a liar since she had made similar claims previously in her childhood of seeing a “snow white figure” and an “angel”, there is no evidence she was ever mistreated. Her mother told the newspaper “O Seculo” that (and I’m translating from the Portuguese) her daughter was “nothing but a fake who is leading half the world into error”.
d) Sister Lucia’s “prediction” that her cousins would suffer and die was recorded in 1927…2 years after the fact.

All of the mythos of this event comes straight from Sister Lucias memoires while she lived in a convent…written literally decades after the event (from 1935 - 1941). Had either the priest or the bishop she gave her supposed messages to simply wrote any of it down as she said it (let alone publish it) then I would be the first in line for the next pilgrimage (God has blessed me with the means to have visited 4 other Marian sites). But once again, since we have no evidence or documentation other than what was written literally decades later, all we have to go on is the word of Sister Lucia. And I’m not saying she was lying, but I’m saying that may be how she “remembered” things…which didn’t actually happen that way (I think we’ve all been guilty of that at some point in our lives).
 
Last edited:
From my previous discussions with others who thought I’m waisting time “hating” on a belief in the actual events, basically, if the Church determines that it doesn’t contradict church teaching it is worthy of belief. No one has to believe it, so we should stop complaining about those who do. Basically, we shouldn’t think we are smarter than the Chirch Authority. To me, the fact that so many people get “lost” and confused by apparitions is why we should ignore them. This isnt a popular view, but it’s the one I take.
 
Last edited:
As an FYI, I don’t think anyone here is “hating” on anything here. A comment was made about certain events surrounding Fatima, which is why I presented the facts the way I did. It is for every individual to decide what they want from them. I personally loath misinformation and gang-mentality from ANY direction, which is a bit why I can’t understand why so many Traditional Catholics take every rumor they have heard about the Fatima narrative as fact, when many approach pretty much ANY other topic with skepticism.
 
I know it’s not hating but because we are bothered by it, we are the problem. Truth should matter most, but it doesn’t. . . . Sometimes you hear people say it’s taken too far and that’s not ok, but what’s done about it? Nothing that I can see. These movements seem huge though. I’ve come across or been given so many books and people who eat this stuff up. Maybe it’s not as common as it seems?
 
Last edited:
Something you should probably know is that I used to support the SSPX, so I’m familiar with everything in the “SSPX playbook”. This sort of argument is nothing new. “We never left the Church.” “We possess supplied jurisdiction.” “We remain faithful to eternal Rome.” Etc, etc. As intelligible as these arguments initially sound, they ultimately do not hold up. There is no true “unity” in a situation in which the Church itself has explicitly stated the SSPX is in an irregular status, not sure how many times that has to be stated. At best, it is imperfect or incomplete unity (which is likely being generous, because I’m not sure such a thing even exists). At worst, it’s schism.

Even before Pope Francis granted the SSPX jurisdiction to offer two of the Sacraments, this argument was still more or less prevalent, there just wasn’t such a gesture from the Pope for the SSPX to use as further ammo in presenting its case. Trust me, this isn’t my first rodeo with these discussions. I just used to be on the opposite side of the fence.
I’m sure it isn’t your intention to attack Pope Francis, but I’d err on the side of caution and give him the credit he deserves, assuming that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the legal system over which he is the supreme legislator.
Click to expand...
This is a bit of a shifty tactic - trying to make it look as if I’m inadvertently criticizing Pope Francis. . . .

I wouldn’t be surprised to see this thread locked soon, but even if it’s not, I’m not replying back or reading anymore of it. These sorts of debates usually go nowhere because everyone, right or wrong, is determined to dig their heels in to defend their position. It’s subjectivity over objectivity, except those operating on subjectivity always believe they are the ones with the facts, presenting “truths” on matters they often aren’t even qualified to speak on. But I have stated my position. I wouldn’t do so if I didn’t consider it important. I’d probably still be with the SSPX or some similar faction if I didn’t start thinking for myself long ago instead of believing what random people and websites on the internet said about the state of the Church. I encourage you and every other SSPX-sympathizer reading this to do the same and not allow your mind to be so easily influenced by half-truths and deception.
 
Last edited:
You are attributing arguments or statements to me I never made. For example, I did not necessarily have you in mind when I mentioned “being brainwashed by random people or websites”.

Your posts suggest not as much thinking is going on as you’d like people to believe, just resorting to fallacious arguments to make your point, which is exactly what people start doing when they know they’ve lost an argument. There’s no substance to your argument - just sophistry. It isn’t worth the time to engage with someone who isn’t willing to have a charitable discussion.

You have a blessed day, too.
 
Last edited:
Trinacria2020 said:
40.png
StudentMI:
Geez. All that really happened?
Click to expand...
Since my previous tongue-and-cheek reply which I wrote in the spirit of collegiality was removed, I guess I’ll have to be more blunt. We don’t know if that all happened or not with ANY assurity. There are no contemporary sources or written records stating that a) Any of the children were physically touched or threatened when taken by the Mayor of Ourem.
Click to expand...
Wait–really? I know some of the information were only written down later but them being threatened wasn’t reported by any of them at the time?
b) that any of the so-called messages were ever written down…ever…prior to 1941 when they were delivered to Blessed Pope Pius XII (Santo Subito!!!)
Click to expand...
Sorry–I’m a little unclear on this. What do you mean by “the so-called messages”? If we’re talking the Secrets, that’s true. But I know there were messages they shared prior to that, just not the Secrets–though it’s frustrating to figure out exactly what was shared when, as people sort of clump everything together regardless of when it was shared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top