B
bear06
Guest
Holy cow! And the speculations keep coming. Do you have proof of this one either?
- Status
B
bear06
Guest
I’m not sure but I think he’s talking about the devotion that Fr. Gruner is spreading which basically says that the Vatican is lying and Russia has not been consecrated.
BTW:
I’m not so sure of this, are you? How many apparitions have proven to be false or not from God? As a matter of fact, I can think of one biggie that’s going on today which I will not mention for fear of another debate ensuing! Just because someone promotes Mary does not mean that it comes from God especially if the fruits of the work are division in the Church. Actually, I have a list growing in my head of organizations that promote Marian devotions that are definitely not from God! BTW, my comments have to do with fatima.org, not Fatima itself. I’m definitely a believer!
M
MrS
Guest
Do you mean this?
If I say someone in the Vatican is lying, and Russia (alone) has not been consecrated by name, by the Pope and by all the bishops at the same time… I am spreading a DEVOTION?
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
Just a ‘me too’ post: I like the summary you give here. And the basic problem I see with the conspiracy theory that there is something amiss in the response by the Vatican to Fatima is that it is closely associated with a point of view that is willing to second-guess the Church on a range of issues. And particularly, traditionalists focus on this ‘third secret’ issue because they appear to feel a need for support for their rejection of the magisterium–this is my theory–that in their separatist ecclesiology, they implicitly sense that they are on new terrain, and become disproportionately interested in this conspiracy. It comes up a lot in the literature. That third secret, they insist, would excuse us for being rude toward the Holy Father and for insisting that perhaps the Second Vatican Council wasn’t really ecumenical after all.
Brennan:
Actually I would not say that the Ottaviani “Intervention” is now irrelevant. It would possibly contain useful paradigms. However, the role the “Intervention” plays in the life of a traditionalist is much larger than simply an older source of insight that may still yeild something. Rather, it is assumed that based on who Card. Ottaviani was, the sweeping “Intervention” is sufficient to justify avoiding the Pauline rite of mass altogether: Card. Ottaviani did not become a different person in the last nine years of his life, and he plainly stated that the Pauline rite could no longer scandalize. That his writings are still influential is no surprise, but some conclusions cannot be drawn from the “Intervention”. One of the conclusions that cannot be drawn from it is precisely the one the traditionalist depends on. And it really all gets back to sin and pride. It is Satan’s masterstroke to make separatism wear the garb of holiness. The traditionalist wants to opt for the older liturgy, and has typically had a bad impression of the Pauline rite of mass. Perhaps having bad theological understanding to begin with, the traditionalist begins to understand his choice in terms of ‘error in the Church’: perhaps the rite is evil, perhaps the Council was not a true Council. From there novel ecclesiology sets in (the tell-tale sign of real error), usually in this case “Eternal Rome”. Then there is a desperate reach for support wheresoever it might be found: Canon Law from 1917, writings later superseded by their authors, and–wait for it–the Fatima conspiracy in re the third secret. There’s another revelation traditionalists love to speculate about; do you know which one? It’s the one from the late 1800s that the Church asked people not to speculate about.
We should put our salvation and that of others first. We should assume that Our Lord is with us. If the Church says that all is well, we should assume that this is so, even if the Church could conceivably do a consecration of Russia later anyway: they may have good reason to not do one now. It’s not the sort of thing we can see from our vantage point. There are some things we can see, and the rest runs the risk of being vain babbling or things above us. We may be interested in facts, but we are at risk when we start to scorn Holy Mother Church.
M
MrS
Guest
Don’t have to… read his own ramblings about traditionalists in post #143
traditionalists reject the magisterium
:banghead:
B
bear06
Guest
Yes, you do. Because he doesn’t agree with the rad-Trad mentality doesn’t mean he’s doing it because some rad-Trad has offended him personally. I do think he should clarify between rad-Trads(people who put one mass above another, etc., etc.) and people who are attached to the Tridentine mass but have no criticisms of the VII or the Pauline Mass as was intended (these are the people I call Traditionalists). Yours is speculation at best.Don’t have to… read his own ramblings about traditionalists in post #143
traditionalists reject the magisterium
M
Marie
Guest
No, you would be spreading a FALSE devotion. Big on the False, small on Devotion.
M
Marie
Guest
OK! Does this mean your not going to eat my Fruit Cake anymore?
Love you you smart young little know it all, no matter the hey! Your a good skate. Your just plain wrong.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Absolutely not, I love your fruitcake - besides you know the deja vu’s I keep getting - I’ve been awaiting your boubon balls though - think they may help me with the stress as the “reincarnated” rejoin and keep recycling.OK! Does this mean your not going to eat my Fruit Cake anymore?
It wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong and I’m sure if I am, it won’t be the last - however all of the statements throughout the years simply don’t fit - and then were was that 30-60 days delay between the pope’s announcement and the actual issuance when it was announced that this time was required for Vatican curial officials to vet the statement of the pope and provide us with an explanation. Then the statement made by them that perhaps “hell” as described by the seers may have come from some holy card - I must say by the time it finally got issued, I had big reservations.Love you you smart young little know it all, no matter the hey! Your a good skate. Your just plain wrong.
On the other side I see how Bishop Hnilca was made to “pay” for bringing Fatima to the attention of the pope and so there are questions, a great many of them, and I hope that OL of Fatima blesses Hnilca in a very special way. Gruner has been very unkindly and officiously treated on more than one occasion and again, I have more questions.
And then there is a certain cardinal with his political agendas who always seems to be afoot - so I can’t say I have come to a final decision - I would say more that I have many, many questions.
frankly whichever way it is - we ought to have a simply done consecration to the Theotokos - this would stop at least half of the questioning and since the pope just did another one today “of the world” and in particular of Iraq, I fail to see what harm it could do and who knows - we might get a special blessing or two.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Okay, let me quote Father Colin Donovan from EWTN regarding the issue at hand (whether Russia has been consecrated or not) and schism:
One’s views about Fátima, however, cannot separate one from the Church. Private revelation does not oblige, so neither can a particular interpretation of it. No matter how wrong-headed Fr. Gruner’s views are, they can never, in themselves, constitute disbelief or schism.
Revised 20 September 2001
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/fr_gruner_old.htm
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Deo Gratias - for a while there I thought it was me as I :yawn:
and said - what IS this? If I want a homily I know where to go - sheesh.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Well then you can continue to aim for your goals in a thread where they are the subject - they don’t, as far as I can see, have much relevance to the Fatima program which was on the other evening and that is what the thread is about isn’t it?
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
If I had a backlog of EWTN’s shows I’d love to go look for the quote. Just because the quote is from Fatima.org’s site does not mean they simply made the quote up out of whole cloth. If they did, I would suspect there would be many who would point out, “I saw Mother Angelica’s show that day, and she said nothing of the sort!” Even if one completely disagrees with Fatima.org’s website, I really doubt they are so dishonest or even stupid to give an exact quote with an exact date regarding a show watched by thousands of people (or more) that is completely false and actually believe no one would disprove it.
B
bear06
Guest
B
bear06
Guest
Brennan Doherty:
Unfortunately, I don’t have the same faith in your sources. How many years did “the Pope said mass with a Buddha on the altar” float around when it was completely untrue? Supposedly hundreds, if not thousands saw this too and it was a complete lie which was sent around the rad-Trad publications like wildfire! Like I said, context is also very important.
B
bear06
Guest
I believe that it was MrS that made the comment. So, I guess that we’re supposed to just let the speculations go? This thread was about the Fatima show which was being heavily promoted by Fr. Gruner. All of the conversations seemed to have pertained to why people should or should not put their faith behind this one and to defend FrmrTrad, his comments were pointing out the faults in the show. You might want to re-read to see who actually strayed from the topic. I seem to remember somebody speculating on why people believe what they do which, I agree, has nothing to do with the topic.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I had already read that while the General Instruction changed in response to the Ottoviani Intervention the actual new liturgy did not. Here is a quote from the Preface to the Ottoviani Intervention published by Tan Books:
A Theoretical Exercise
Code:
We have spoken at some length of the changes in the General Instruction. Did the controversy which the *Intervention* provoked also lead Rome to make changes in the New Order of Mass so that the rite itself would reflect a more “Tridentine” theology?
In a word, no. The revisions of terminology in the 1970 Instruction had no practical effect whatsoever on either the prayers or the rubrics of the New Order of Mass. The revised Instruction turned out to be a purely theoretical exercise — as if an architect, confronted with evidence that a building he designed was unsafe, had altered his drawings, but left the tottering structure itself exactly as it was built.
The Order of Mass now employed in parish churches, therefore, is identical to the *Novus Ordo* promulgated in 1969....Also, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the Preface to the French Edition of the “Reform of the Roman Liturgy” by Msgr. Klaus Gamber which critiqued the new rite of Mass.
Having said all that, if you wish to start a discussion on the Ottoviani Intervention or the new rite of Mass that is fine, of course. But I do think it should be started on another thread so we don’t get too far off topic.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
First off, Bravo, Bravo! These are just the type of questions we should be asking and analysis we should be doing. My question is, are you willing to apply the same sort of analysis to Archbishop Bertone’s statement regarding his 2 hour interview with Sister Lucia? I’d love to read it!Translation
Reverend Father Umberto,
In answer to your letter, I shall clarify
things: (hmmm! So where is HIS letter so we know what she was asked to clarify???
Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request,
referred only to the consecration of
Russia.(True-Her original request was for Russia- so what, everyone knows that…notice that time frame?)
In the letter I wrote to the Holy Father,
on the instruction of my confessor, I asked
for the consecration of the world with ex-
plicit mention of Russia. (Again-no secret there)
Yours devotedly, in union of prayer.
Coimbra, 13 April 1980.(and then there is the date…1980)
Sister Lucia.
We have no clue what question he asked her. We have no idea what Our Lady has said to her in the ensueing years. The letter was only about the original request, before the Consecration etc.
ZIP! - Satan tries to confound again. El Gruner is a master at that.
Here is the same info with a little bit more background information:
- Sister Lucy’s Testimony to Father Umberto, Published in L’Osservatore Romano:
At a certain moment I said to her: “Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be. But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you … Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?” "No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia … In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia)."18
- Sister Lucy’s Handwritten Letter Confirming Her Testimony to Father Umberto:
Below is a translation of the letter written by Sister Lucy to Father Umberto on April 13, 1980.
fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox2.asp
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Yes, I know. You had earlier said:
Originally Posted by bear06
*I’ve even it heard said that there is a picture of a letter saying something contrary to Russia being consecrated. *
I had never heard of such a letter (after the 1984 Consecration) and thus was not sure which one you were referring to. I remembered the photocopy of the letter I posted again above so I provided a link to that. Maybe you can give some more info on where you heard about this supposed letter.
B
bear06
Guest
It was just a couple of days ago but I’m not sure which site it was. I don’t think it exists since it’s not plastered on Fr. Gruner’s site.
- Status