Fatima Documentary Wed. Dec. 8 PAX TV

[misericordie]

Everyone, it will also air on PAX TV at 12:00AM Eastern Time tonight December 8.

HURRAY!!! the TRUTH of Fatima.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

misericordie:

Actually no, I know of couple of local CHURCH PASTORS here in my archdiocese who are in good standing with the bishop, offer ONLY the Novus Ordo, and they say the SAME thing: NOPE, I will not mention their names.

That is a good thing because their opinion is no greater than a lay persons as that they just men. Their ordination does not grant them any form of infalibility.

misericordie:

Everyone, it will also air on PAX TV at 12:00AM Eastern Time tonight December 8.

HURRAY!!! the TRUTH of Fatima.

Actually, that would be 12:00AM December 9.

Again the demographics. The Art Bell crowd.

 

[Marie]

Brennan Doherty:

Whoops, missed this one. Yes, she has stated in an interview after the 1984 Consecration that it did not fulfill Our Lady’s requests. I am going off memory right now, and can get the exact quote, but I believe it was an interview published in “Sol de Fatima” magazine, which is an official magazine of the Blue Army

Official statement - Blue Army
Blue Army:

Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (“Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984”: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis.

Sister Lucia in her own words!

The group then spoke about the statements of Nicholas Gruner, a Canadian priest suspended “a divinis,” who is collecting signatures insisting that the Pope finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and alleging that this has never been done.

Sister Lucia told the archbishop: “The Carmel Community has rejected the forms for the collection of signatures. I have already said that the consecration requested by Our Lady was done in 1984, and it has been accepted in heaven.”
Lastly, the conversation turned to Sister Lucia’s personal life. Some articles in the press suggested that her concern robbed her of sleep and that she was praying night and day.

The religious answered: “It’s not true. How would I be able to pray during the day if I did not sleep at night? How many things they attribute to me! How many things they make me do! They should read my book “The Appeals of the Fátima Message”]; the advice and appeals that correspond to Our Lady’s wishes are there. Prayer and penance, with great faith in God’s power, will save the world.” ZE01122008

MEETING WITH SR MARIA LUCIA

 

[FrmrTrad]

Brennan Doherty:

Pretty much anyone’s critique I have read of the Pauline rite accepts it as valid. That goes for Fr. Aidan Nichols, Cardinal Ratzinger, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, and others. None of these people’s critiques center on the Priest’s intent.

Attempts to impugn the validity of the Pauline rite of mass are as rampant as flies in Egypt. Equally widespread are attempts to insist that the Pauline rite is less spiritually beneficial, which is close to being a heretical insinuation, in the light of Trent, where it was said that the rites of the Church cannot be said to fail to conduce to piety. Of course we should be allowed to discuss the details of different rites, but the Tridentine liturgy is given a huge benefit of the doubt, and scorn is impulsively heaped on the Pauline rite. Things like the Fatima conspiracy theories are actively sought out by traditionalists, who instinctively sense that they need some source of support for their novel ideas about the Church.

“How is it that a country can be consecrated while deliberately omitting any mention of that country in the consecration?”

Check psalm 131: it may be that you are walking in things that are too lofty. It’s a possibility, I submit. By participating in schismatic theories and preferences, you are helping to divide the body of Christ, and giving quarter to the enemy.

I believe that those who wanted a change in the Church must have had some point, must have been right about some things, and that those who carried reforms too far made mistakes. But one thing we all lack is sufficient prayer and discernment. It comes with being sinners. But nonetheless, these ‘criticisms of the rites’ and conspiracy theories, etc., are damaging in numerous ways. For one thing, traditionalists occasion a significant reduction in attendance at daily mass, owing to their “preference” for a specific liturgy: in fact the Pauline rite is very holy and it’s even quieter during the week. And the fact that it may be somewhat noisy on Sundays doesn’t mean we should flee from it: we are the Church and must not abandon each other. Having separatist chapels where doubts about the Church herself are rampant is a harm, and is fed by conspiracy theories like the one that is the subject of this thread.

 

[MrS]

Official statement - Blue Army

Sister Lucia in her own words!

MEETING WITH SR MARIA LUCIA

Well, all I can say is something is fishy in Denmark.

Something just doesn’t seem right - explicit instructions for the consecration given by Our Lady… last surviving witness is secluded all her life, says one thing, then says the opposite - in each case to "credible’ witnesses… “fruits” of the consecration (correct or incorrect) are not impressive…

sure glad this is not critical to my salvation.

I love JPII, and if he were to say that he followed Mary’s directive (exactly - not the '84 consecration of the world in general), I would accept his statement. But he has never said it, and in the interest of preserving ecumenism, I don’t think he will. It will be a sad time for the Church if the 3rd secret does come true.

 

[Marie]

MrS:

I love JPII, and if he were to say that he followed Mary’s directive (exactly - not the '84 consecration of the world in general), I would accept his statement. But he has never said it, and in the interest of preserving ecumenism, I don’t think he will. It will be a sad time for the Church if the 3rd secret does come true.

Here is all the Fatima stuff at the Vatican site

Pope John Paul II Fatima - From the Vatican

Complete List by Year

Other Article from CWN Below
CWN:

Vatican, Mar. 24 (CWNews.com) - At his weekly public audience on March 24, Pope John Paul II (bio - news) recalled that 20 years ago, he consecrated “all of humanity” to the Virgin Mary, thus fulfilling “our Lady’s plea at Fatima.”

The Holy Father began his remarks by reminding his audience that Thursday, March 25, is the feast of the Annunciation, “which allows us to contemplate the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, made man in Mary’s womb.” He added that Mary’s “fiat” echoes the obedience of Jesus to the divine plan, “to which we must add our ‘Yes.’”

The Pope said that at three different times during his pontificate, he has made consecrations to the Virgin Mary. On December 8, 1978-- just weeks after his election-- he consecrated the Church and the world to the Immaculate Conception. In June 1979 he renewed that consecration during a visit to the shrine of the Black Madonna in Poland. **Then on March 25, 1984, he made the consecration which, he said, fulfilled the terms of the Virgin’s plea at Fatima. **

The Pope said:

Twenty years have gone by since that day when, in spiritual union with all the bishops of the world, I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady’s plea in Fatima.

Today’s world remains too full of “hatred, violence, terrorism, and war,” the Pope said. He asked for prayer for all the innocent people who suffer from violence as “so much blood continued to be shed.” He appealed to the Virgin Mary’s aid to help turn men’s hearts and minds, to end the violence.

Although his voice was halting, the Pope read the entirety of his remarks, in Italian. When he had finished his formal delivery, he offered greetings to the 14,000 people assembled in St. Peter’s Square for the audience, speaking to them in French, English, German, Spanish, and Polish. He remained in the Square for nearly an hour, giving his blessing to young couples and to the sick, and posing for pictures with pilgrim groups.

 

[MrS]

MrS:

I love JPII, and if he were to say that he followed Mary’s directive (exactly - not the '84 consecration of the world in general), I would accept his statement. But he has never said it, and in the interest of preserving ecumenism, I don’t think he will. It will be a sad time for the Church if the 3rd secret does come true.

How can a general consecration “fulfill” Our Lady’s directive: The Pope, all the bishops in their cathedrals, and Russia by name and specific??? sorry… still a puzzle.

 

[Marie]

MrS:

How can a general consecration “fulfill” Our Lady’s directive: The Pope, all the bishops in their cathedrals, and Russia by name and specific??? sorry… still a puzzle.

Whats the big deal and stumbling block??? Just because el Gruner say’s it MUST be said with Russia by name your going to accept that Sr Lucy, the Seer is a liar? Sheese! That would just mean the whole thing was a farce…and it most definately is not. El Gruner works to promote himself.

Sister Lucia told the archbishop: I have already said that the consecration requested by Our Lady was done in 1984, and it has been accepted in heaven."

Not a puzzel to her evidently. But Satan of course LOVES it! He wants nothing more than to defeat Our Lady. At the very least, since he knows he is losing, he wants to take down as many souls as he can.

 

[FrmrTrad]

Brennan Doherty:

If someone wishes to read a different side to the story … 062504frfox1.asp

From that source:

It has been more than twenty years since the consecration of the world, but not Russia, by the Pope and some bishops on March 25, 1984. Since that ceremony took place there has been no sign of the conversion of Russia, the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the period of world peace Our Lady promised if the Consecration of Russia were carried out according to Her request at Fatima.

Quite the contrary, over the past twenty years the spiritual and moral condition of Russia has only deteriorated. The Catholic Church now suffers overt persecution by the Putin regime, whose neo-Stalinist authoritarianism has drawn protests from the Vatican, world leaders and human rights organizations. Wars rage around the globe, and the holocaust of abortion continues unabated.

The reasoning deployed here is quite flimsy. It could easily be argued that authoritarianism comes from Germany, not Russia. Every detail is emphasized in a way that makes the argument: the Catholic Church is now “overtly persecuted” for example; yet is it really more than in previous periods? When have “leaders” not complained about things Russia has done? “Wars rage”? It’s Russia’s fault? Why can’t it be the Jews’ fault? Or the fault of capitalism? Any of those sources are equally bandied about, however erroneously. Or the fault of secular humanism? Is secular humanism from Russia? Abortion is an extension of contraception; is contraception from Russia?

As with all separatist movements focused on conspiracy theories, this one offers a novel ecclesiology: Fr Gruner’s suspension, it turns out, is a “canonical fiction”.

The conspiracy theory itself appears to rely upon Sr Lucy’s alleged testimony that consecration to the world is insufficient. What if Sr Lucy said that, but later realized that she was mistaken? Is Sr Lucy infallible? Is she permitted to change her mind upon being educated, perhaps? I don’t know the details but it seems to me that much is made of an alleged change of “testimony”. Education and discernment could easily account for a changed stance, if it occurred as alleged.

Is Russia really the instrument of chastisement? It seems to me that Islam is having much more success in this vein, although nothing is more successful than our own lack of prayer and discernment at bringing about our collective ruination. Why might the Holy Father have decided to focus on the world instead? Ecumenism did not exist as an ongoing focus of the Church back in 1917. The Church wants to avoid alienating the Orthodox in Russia. I think that’s a plausible reason. The Holy Father acts with the whole Church in view, and is entitled to act as he sees best.

Sure enough, too, the article, like many traditionalist screeds, dismisses the efforts of the Second Vatican Council to interact more with the world. Remember that the world is now constructed differently; people are radically individual now, there are no longer influential princes over people, and governments of all kinds are loathe to impose religion, except perhaps for the various Muslim states. The Church needs to find new ways. It’s a fact. The article linked above shows the intimate connection between criticizing the Church (in public, no less), and indulging in conspiracy theories.

 

[misericordie]

ByzCath:

That is a good thing because their opinion is no greater than a lay persons as that they just men. Their ordination does not grant them any form of infalibility.

Actually, that would be 12:00AM December 9.

Again the demographics. The Art Bell crowd.

Actually I am glad you realize that priests are not infallible, lets add Cardinals and Bishops to the list: they are the ones saying(a few) that the consecration was done. Since you critisize the hour, I guess then for YOU this is extra late, must be if your very old. Yes, yes, scholars are up late conducting research into the chaos in sectors in the Church. But you won’t know because you are probably sleeping: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_8_4v.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_11_1.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_11_4.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_11_115.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_11_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_11_116.gif

 

[misericordie]

FrmrTrad:

How much of the enthusiasm for the Fatima conspiracy (that Russia was not consecrated and that Our Lady’s message is being actively ignored) is an extension of anxiety about the “new mass”? I think that traditionalism, especially in relation to doubting the Second Vatican Council and believing that the Pauline rite of mass is not the “true mass”, requires some sort of corroboration: since it is not appropriate to disbelieve an ecumenical council nor a rite promulgated by the Church, traditionalists seize upon such things as Fatima, which are inherently less well-defined and thus more susceptible to interpretation. In a similar vein, traditionalist critiques of the mass focus often on the priest’s “intent”: of form, matter, and intent, the latter is the least clarified and yet the most automatic. Traditionalists’ theology (if it can be called that) about “intent” is non-credible because their notions of form are quite ignorant: they frequently quote an old catechism as if the catechism were itself a dogmatic statement rather than an explanatory one. The form used in the Pauline rite of mass is dogmatically sound. If they can’t evaluate “form”, how can they evaluate “intent”?

Sungenis is among those who promote the conspiracy theory regarding Fatima. I am increasingly getting the impression that Sungenis has become something of a crank. It isn’t his embracing of geocentrism; I’m not a scientist and frankly I can’t evaluate the evidence. I know most scientists consider geocentrism to be laughable; my faith doesn’t require geocentrism but it won’t surprise me much to find out in the next world that it is actually true. So it’s not that. One thing that bothers me on Sungenis’ site is the criticism of the New American Bible. I tried to follow their critique of footnotes, and I was, in several spot-checks, unable to duplicate the text at issue, and more frequently I couldn’t follow the argument being made about a given footnote: it seemed to be written with sloppy reasoning by people with less than adequate training. Also, Sungenis’ criticism of the Assisi gatherings appears to be a nonsense, and also makes the error of giving scandal by criticising the Holy Father publicly. So with all that, how can I trust Sungenis to meaningfully evaluate who said/did what in relation to Fatima?

This documentary is probably akin to the “In the Spirit of Chartres” video that tries to argue that the Church has been damaged by the rites promulgated by the Church. The video all but asserts that the Church is presently without a valid hierarchy. It appears to be a documentary but the information contained is based mostly on emotional appeal and is thin on facts. The “third secret” is tantalizing to traditionalists, who are desperate to find some basis for rejecting the Pauline rite of mass. But this is Satan’s illusion to them: an act of selfishness is disguised as holiness. The father of lies appeals to the separatist instinct and dresses it up as higher spirituality. There is no reason to reject the Pauline rite of mass, even if one prefers the Tridentine liturgy. But one only understands that in faith: this is why the traditionalist movement is dangerous. Faith is traded in for preference, preference is disguised as faith, and support is sought from quarters that lack the foundation.

So you would have us believe that fatima is old stuff=pre vatican II? Up, seems like your own disaste for tradition and traditionalists is what is seperatist here friend. Of course Fatima is a thorn in the side of the “SPIRIT” of Vatican II people , it’s not in accordance with thier agenda.

 

[misericordie]

I saw it, and so did many friends, priests and a Bishop HERE in the USA who agrees with the documentary: we all loved it.

Tommarow I will send the fatima Apostolate a hefty donation too.

 

[HagiaSophia]

misericordie:

I saw it, and so did many friends, priests and a Bishop HERE in the USA who agrees with the documentary: we all loved it.

Tommarow I will send the fatima Apostolate a hefty donation too.

I saw it thanks to the notice in the forum and enjoyed it very much. I was quite impressed for a “small budget” production with the guests, the commentary and I felt they did an excellent job presenting their case. The only thing I wish they had been able to include were various statements about the contents made PRIOR to the secret being revealed. Vastly different than what we got.

 

[HagiaSophia]

misericordie:

So was Padre Pio and the founder of Opus Dei at one point: what does this prove???

Not to mention that the great St. Teresa (Avila) was thrown out of her convent more than once and Rosmini who was banned during the time of Pius X has currently been “rehabilitated” and was quoted in Fides et Ratio.

One of my favorite stories however, (and for the life of me I can’t remember which pope he was) is the story of a poor friar who seeking to attend the papal installation ceremonies is turned away, no ticket, no sponsor, shabbily dressed and obviously “nobody”. A few years later he is saying to a member of the curia as HE (the poor friar), is being made pope, ’ Just to think the last time I came, they would’nt let me in". I’ve always loved that story. The ups and downs of those in church history covers every group, saints and sinners alike.

 

[HagiaSophia]

ByzCath:

Proves that you are either misinformed or trying to mislead.

I am not positive about the found of Opus Dei but Padre Pio was never suspended. He was not allowed to hear confessions and was only allowed to say Mass in the private chapel of the monastery he lived in.

He was set up and serious charges were made against him by a well placed priest in Rome and Padre Pio lived under a serious cloud for some time until the entire matter was cleared up.

And everyone was not always obedient - life at some of the early church councils got pretty rough - poor Photius lost his beard at one point. God works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform, - all do not “perform” in the same style. The church has been a large enough Umbrella to hold us all. If the Bernini columns are open wide enough to include the likes of McBrien, McCormick and a few others - they can hold Gruner too.

I might also add that St. Anthony opened one of his famous outdoor sermons with “You in the miter over there…” (I’d of paid to hear that one)…

 

[HagiaSophia]

proud2bcatholic:

I was also shocked that Gerry Matatics was willing to appear on this biased documentary.

I was impressed with al the guests - I wasn’t shocked at anything they said because I’ve met many other Catholics who wonder about the entire thing. I do not consider Matatics or Sugenis fools nor alarmists.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

ByzCath:

Nope, not according to the listing found on the TV Guide or the PAX TV websites.

But then seeing that it is biased and full of conspiracy theories, airing at the same time the Art Bell radio show is on makes sense. After the same demographics.

They did a really good job with this documentary.

I watched it at 9 p.m. last night on satellite. PAX lists their programming under titles like “Paid Programming.”

Thus, the show, counting regular TV, cable, and satellite, was aired at 9 AM, 12 PM, 9 PM and 12 AM at least on the West Coast.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

FrmrTrad:

From that source:
The reasoning deployed here is quite flimsy. It could easily be argued that authoritarianism comes from Germany, not Russia. Every detail is emphasized in a way that makes the argument: the Catholic Church is now “overtly persecuted” for example; yet is it really more than in previous periods? When have “leaders” not complained about things Russia has done? “Wars rage”? It’s Russia’s fault? Why can’t it be the Jews’ fault? Or the fault of capitalism? Any of those sources are equally bandied about, however erroneously. Or the fault of secular humanism? Is secular humanism from Russia? Abortion is an extension of contraception; is contraception from Russia?

As with all separatist movements focused on conspiracy theories, this one offers a novel ecclesiology: Fr Gruner’s suspension, it turns out, is a “canonical fiction”.

The conspiracy theory itself appears to rely upon Sr Lucy’s alleged testimony that consecration to the world is insufficient. What if Sr Lucy said that, but later realized that she was mistaken? Is Sr Lucy infallible? Is she permitted to change her mind upon being educated, perhaps? I don’t know the details but it seems to me that much is made of an alleged change of “testimony”. Education and discernment could easily account for a changed stance, if it occurred as alleged.

Is Russia really the instrument of chastisement? It seems to me that Islam is having much more success in this vein, although nothing is more successful than our own lack of prayer and discernment at bringing about our collective ruination. Why might the Holy Father have decided to focus on the world instead? Ecumenism did not exist as an ongoing focus of the Church back in 1917. The Church wants to avoid alienating the Orthodox in Russia. I think that’s a plausible reason. The Holy Father acts with the whole Church in view, and is entitled to act as he sees best.

Sure enough, too, the article, like many traditionalist screeds, dismisses the efforts of the Second Vatican Council to interact more with the world. Remember that the world is now constructed differently; people are radically individual now, there are no longer influential princes over people, and governments of all kinds are loathe to impose religion, except perhaps for the various Muslim states. The Church needs to find new ways. It’s a fact. The article linked above shows the intimate connection between criticizing the Church (in public, no less), and indulging in conspiracy theories.

I fail to see why a straightfoward discussion on whether Russia has been consecrated or not has to be labeled as a “conspiracy theory.”

I would agree that Sister Lucia is not infallible. If she has changed her mind, and now says that Russia has after all been consecrated, contradicting what she has previously said, that would not mean that Russia has actually been consecrated. I am not saying she has contradicted her previous testimony.

Yes, Russia is not responsible for every evil in the world. Nevertheless, there seems to be no postiive evidence that Russia has been converted, and I thought the documentary did a good job of pointing that out and contrasting Russia’s supposed “conversion” with what happened with Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico and the mass conversion there and also with the great positive blessings and protection Portugal experienced when the Bishops of that country specifically, by name, consecrated Portugal to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

bear06:

And exactly who are these people? I keep hearing this floated and haven’t seen a source. Are these the same people who “resist the Pope to his face”?

As far as authors go, I have probably read Christopher Ferrara the most. There are other books here:

https://secure.fatima.org/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=1&cat=Books+on+Fatima

I do not know the names of all the authors of “We Resist You to the Face” and have not seen that video.

I merely point out that there are others who have written about Fatima and the Consecration of Russia who are not supposedly “suspended” or in schism. And certainly the people I recognized on the documentary were not schismatics or heretics, even if someone may strongly disagree with their views.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

FrmrTrad:

Attempts to impugn the validity of the Pauline rite of mass are as rampant as flies in Egypt. Equally widespread are attempts to insist that the Pauline rite is less spiritually beneficial, which is close to being a heretical insinuation, in the light of Trent, where it was said that the rites of the Church cannot be said to fail to conduce to piety. Of course we should be allowed to discuss the details of different rites, but the Tridentine liturgy is given a huge benefit of the doubt, and scorn is impulsively heaped on the Pauline rite. Things like the Fatima conspiracy theories are actively sought out by traditionalists, who instinctively sense that they need some source of support for their novel ideas about the Church.Check psalm 131: it may be that you are walking in things that are too lofty. It’s a possibility, I submit. By participating in schismatic theories and preferences, you are helping to divide the body of Christ, and giving quarter to the enemy.

I believe that those who wanted a change in the Church must have had some point, must have been right about some things, and that those who carried reforms too far made mistakes. But one thing we all lack is sufficient prayer and discernment. It comes with being sinners. But nonetheless, these ‘criticisms of the rites’ and conspiracy theories, etc., are damaging in numerous ways. For one thing, traditionalists occasion a significant reduction in attendance at daily mass, owing to their “preference” for a specific liturgy: in fact the Pauline rite is very holy and it’s even quieter during the week. And the fact that it may be somewhat noisy on Sundays doesn’t mean we should flee from it: we are the Church and must not abandon each other. Having separatist chapels where doubts about the Church herself are rampant is a harm, and is fed by conspiracy theories like the one that is the subject of this thread.

How is not believing Russia has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary indulging in a “schismatic theory”? There are things that Catholics can discuss and disagree on, which are not part of the Deposit of Faith.

As far as things too lofty, the request itself for the Consecration of Russia is so simple a child could understand it. The lack of positive evidence for any conversion of Russia is really not that difficult to discern.

As far as the Pauline Mass, even Cardinal Ottoviani, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, critiqued it in the Ottoviani Intervention (available online) and I certainly would not consider him to be approaching a “heretical insinuation”. And I certainly would not put Cardinal Ratzinger in that category who has also critiqued it.