Fatima Documentary Wed. Dec. 8 PAX TV

[Brennan_Doherty]

FrmrTrad:

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.I think your quote here is very pertinent and useful. I think it is one of the reasons we run into so many roadblocks in discussing this issue.

Naturally, I would have to respectfully disagree. Do we need to accept the official teaching of the Church on things like contraception, abortion, Purgatory, etc.? Yes, absolutely.

If the Church tells us all is well do we need to believe that? No.

A while back I posted an excerpt from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s essay: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13671&highlight=belief+obedience

Here is a shorter excerpt:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision."

Thus, in the situation of Fatima, there is simply nothing wrong with a Catholic thinking that in order to consecrate Russia Russia needs to be named. Even if the Vatican says that it doesn’t need to be named, it is not sinful for a Catholic to respectfully disagree, particularly if he looks at the state of Russia today and can see no evidence that Russia has been converted.

As Catholics, we are not required to deny logic in order to square ourselves with a non-infallible pronouncement of the Vatican.

 

[FrmrTrad]

bear06:

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

My observation is that there is a slippery slope there, that the experience of preferring a rite tends naturally to conduce to a seeking of flaws in the Church. And, once a person has started to seek flaws, they look for support for their views; various visions are frequently invoked.

 

[FrmrTrad]

Brennan Doherty:

I think your quote here is very pertinent and useful. I think it is one of the reasons we run into so many roadblocks in discussing this issue.No, it isn’t among the main reasons. The reason why we run into roadblocks is primarily that you don’t want to acknowledge that rampant traditionalism focuses on conspiracies and indulges in half-truths, novel ecclesiology, and public excoriation of the Church.

If the Church tells us all is well do we need to believe that? No.I realize it’s not part of the higher magisterium, but it may be part of the ordinary magisterium that it’s a settled issue. But even more importantly, I would assume that the Vatican is better positioned to conduct the necessary research than I am. And, I know that those advocating a conspiracy are motivated because they are on thin ice with regard to their thinking about the Church. They need a fig leaf of some sort. Looking for vague visions into which to suffuse conspiracy is par for the course.

Thus, in the situation of

Fatima, there is simply nothing wrong with a Catholic thinking that in order to consecrate Russia Russia needs to be named.Right. But your interest is probably not really the well-being of Russia, or the world: the subtext is that this is driven by people who want a reason to be disobedient in a broader sense, to consider it acceptable to ignore the magisterium on other issues, to cleave to “Eternal Rome” at the expense of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the Pauline rite of mass. I bet that virtually all of those who write about this topic never consider the poor souls in Russia. They are thinking mostly about the Church, and how to work out an ecclesiology that will give them what they want. I “bet” that by observing the other reasoning and behaviors observable in the same population.

it is not sinful for a Catholic to respectfully disagree,There’s not a lot of respect in the disagreement I observe.

 

[bear06]

FrmrTrad:

My observation is that there is a slippery slope there, that the experience of preferring a rite tends naturally to conduce to a seeking of flaws in the Church. And, once a person has started to seek flaws, they look for support for their views; various visions are frequently invoked.

I would agree, however, I do know a rare few that simply prefer the Tridentine and don’t have a problem in the least with a licit Pauline Mass nor do they bash the Pauline Mass. In fact, I know some that would be jumping into this argument on our side in a heartbeat! Some have even come out of the SSPX.

 

[bear06]

P.S. This is why I like to distinguish between Trads and rad-Trads.

 

[FrmrTrad]

Catholics are all lovers of tradition, according to the Scriptures. But “traditionalism” is a word in Denzinger associated with a heresy (of rejecting the magisterium). My copy of Denzinger lists the heresy of traditionalism but alas the item to which it points doesn’t seem to mention the matter; I have the 1956. But “Rad-Trad” is an alienating term, so I would tend not to use that. We don’t actively call Protestants “heretics” anymore, because we are trying to woo them back to truth, rather than scare 'em with our vitriole. Hey, whatever works. I’m not sure the current approach is working, but Satan has lured many devoted Catholics away from true and complete unity! Those of us (not you) who have returned from the grave of traditionalism must do more to prevent people from that trap.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

bear06:

I think everyone’s point here is that it’s VERY dangerous to put your faith in a suspended priest, etc. The funny thing here is that I think you would agree on just about any other suspended priest or schismatic. It’s not like we can stop you from watching these disasterous programs but we can definitely do our best to try and convince others to boycott and I’m sure we will continue to do this.

So far, you guys have given many “this happened, that happened” statements with NO documentation proving these accusations or you’ve provided only half the truth like the Ottoviani statements. I think all I’ve provided were Vatican documents and things with definite footnoting on where it came from. I’m still waiting to see where Sr. Lucia contradicted that the consecration wasn’t done in '84 and then it was done. I’ve even said I heard the rumor of a picture of a letter and yet nowhere could this be found. All we’ve got are reposts of what is supposed to be contained. We’ve said the Sr. Lucia said this and the Vatican suspended Father Gruner for that which can be found in the Vatican’s own files so we know that they are saying this. You guys have said that Sr. Lucia was being pressured and the Vatican is being mean to poor old Fr. Gruner. Sorry if I don’t see these as evidence of the truth.

First off, let me try to make this as explicit as possible. Fr. Gruner could drop off the face of the earth tomorrow and these issues would still be here. I do not believe Russia has not been consecrated because of anything Fr. Gruner has said, and I don’t think I have quoted him once. Again, to me, this issue does not require Fr. Gruner. The main points I am going by are, one, Our Lady asked for the Consecration of Russia. Russia was not named in the 1984 Consecration. There has been no positive evidence for Russia’s conversion. And coming to this conclusion does not require any twisting of logic or a vast conspiracy theory.

As far as evidence goes, I believe there is indisputable evidence that prior to the 1984 Consecration Sister Lucia very clearly said why the previous Consecrations were not valid. It was either, Russia was not mentioned, or all the Bishops of the world were not involved, or both. In 1984 Russia was again not mentioned and all the Bishops of the world were not involved. Thus right there it is very understandable how people can doubt the Consecration was valid.

In fact this, and the lack of any positive evidence of Russia converting since 1984 to me is very strong evidence even if Sister Lucia did not say another word about Fatima after 1984.

Nevertheless, after the 1984 Consecration I do take seriously the September 1985 interview in Spain’s Blue Army Sol de Fatima magazine where Sister Lucia said the consecration was not done.

It is also interesting that it was not until 1989 that the word started spreading that the 1984 Consecration was valid. Why was this news not spread immediately after the 1984 Consecration by anyone?

Further, one reason I recommend Christopher Ferrara’s article, particularly Part II here:

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox2.asp

is that he does make specific citations which at the very least establish what Sister Lucia considered necessary for a valid consecration before she supposedly changed her mind in 1989.

Now, I suppose one can just dismiss some or all of the citations cited by Christopher Ferrara. I don’t see any real reason to disbelieve these specific citations.

And finally, it is just the weight of the logic. Heaven asked for a consecration of Russia, not the world. One needs to name what they are consecrating. If the consecration of 1984 was accepted by heaven, there ought to be some evidence of a conversion of Russia or a period of peace.

 

[FrmrTrad]

I see no special reason why a sincere Catholic may not respectfully pose the questions you are posing. Has the Vatican respectfully answered the question as to why the consecration is valid? If so, I see no special reason why a sincere Catholic may not respectfully continue to wonder about the consecration. I don’t think I have ever seen a respectful Catholic wonder about the consecration, but in the abstract, it is possible. What actually happens is that people voicing erroneous disputes against the Church cling to conspiracy theories. Problematic material is always a single jump away from any of this conspiracy material. Finally, it is inherently speculative; someone above said my own post was speculative but my point was that it is easy enough to speculate in the opposite direction on any of the relevant issues: it is a speculative question, and the Scriptures discourage the faithful from indulging in such. Considering the real audience and source for this and all similar conspiracy theories, it is easy to perceive the truth of St. Paul’s concern with speculation.

This ends my contributions to this thread. May God bless you.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

FrmrTrad:

My observation is that there is a slippery slope there, that the experience of preferring a rite tends naturally to conduce to a seeking of flaws in the Church. And, once a person has started to seek flaws, they look for support for their views; various visions are frequently invoked.

I suppose then Cardinal Ottoviani must have been headed down a slippery slope. Along with Cardinal Ratzinger who recently, in 2001, held a conference where speakers forthrightly critiqued the new rite. It is in book form called, “Looking again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger” by Dom Alcuin Reid OSB http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/books.html

Then again, Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press has published books which critique the new rite such as “Looking at the Liturgy: A Critical View of Its Contemporary Form” by Father Aidan Nichols, OP. Or “Reform of the Reform” by Fr. Thomas Kocik which has essays by Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. Aidan Nichols, and Fr. Parsons which critique the new rite.

It is simply not wrong to express concern over practical decisions of the Roman Pontiff or of a local Bishop which are not infallible and do not seem beneficial to the faith.

Nevertheless, while this issue may be related someway, it does seem to be going a bit off course from the main question of this thread, which is whether Russia has been consecrated or not.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

FrmrTrad:

I realize it’s not part of the higher magisterium, but it may be part of the ordinary magisterium that it’s a settled issue. But even more importantly, I would assume that the Vatican is better positioned to conduct the necessary research than I am. And, I know that those advocating a conspiracy are motivated because they are on thin ice with regard to their thinking about the Church. They need a fig leaf of some sort. Looking for vague visions into which to suffuse conspiracy is par for the course.Right. But your interest is probably not really the well-being of Russia, or the world: the subtext is that this is driven by people who want a reason to be disobedient in a broader sense, to consider it acceptable to ignore the magisterium on other issues, to cleave to “Eternal Rome” at the expense of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the Pauline rite of mass. I bet that virtually all of those who write about this topic never consider the poor souls in Russia. They are thinking mostly about the Church, and how to work out an ecclesiology that will give them what they want. I “bet” that by observing the other reasoning and behaviors observable in the same population.There’s not a lot of respect in the disagreement I observe.

I simply do not see how the Consecration of Russia could be part of the teaching of the Magisterium to which Catholics must submit at all. It does not relate to Faith or Morals.

And to question whether or not it has been done is not being disobedient as Catholics do not have to agree with every statement out of the Vatican.

I hope my post above (#166) shows there are reasons enough to doubt the 1984 Consecration without being accused of indulging in conspiracy theories. Even if one disagrees with him, I think the writings of Christopher Ferrara and others have been attempts to use logic, reason, and evidence to bolster a point, even if it is simply not possible to totally prove a point, particularly about Sister Lucia.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

FrmrTrad:

I see no special reason why a sincere Catholic may not respectfully pose the questions you are posing. Has the Vatican respectfully answered the question as to why the consecration is valid? If so, I see no special reason why a sincere Catholic may not respectfully continue to wonder about the consecration. I don’t think I have ever seen a respectful Catholic wonder about the consecration, but in the abstract, it is possible. What actually happens is that people voicing erroneous disputes against the Church cling to conspiracy theories. Problematic material is always a single jump away from any of this conspiracy material. Finally, it is inherently speculative; someone above said my own post was speculative but my point was that it is easy enough to speculate in the opposite direction on any of the relevant issues: it is a speculative question, and the Scriptures discourage the faithful from indulging in such. Considering the real audience and source for this and all similar conspiracy theories, it is easy to perceive the truth of St. Paul’s concern with speculation.

This ends my contributions to this thread. May God bless you.

Well, thanks and God bless you too. I certainly can agree with the first part of your statement. I have to say that it is hard for me to imagine someone who genuinely looks into both sides of this issue who wouldn’t wonder about the consecration.

I have to strongly disagree with the incessant use of the phrase, “conspiracy theory.” That phrase does not seem to deal with the genuine concerns people have about the consecration. Rather it tends to lump the whole thing with something proposed by weirdos or nutcases who have a tenuous grasp on reality. It seems to be a way to avoid the issues brought up. And I have to say I don’t see how Paul’s warnings about “speculations” in 1 Tim 1:3-7 applies here. It seems to be another way which would effectively bar any discussion on this topic because it is all really meaningless talk. You seem to simply be imposing your interpretation of 1 Tim. 1: 3-7 on the question of the Consecration.

Well, my hope, again, is that people look at both sides of the issue.

Thanks again and God bless.

 

[Marie]

MrS:

Marie, you aren’t implying that it is Mary who dropped her first request for a Russia consecration in favor of one for the world instead, are you??

Nope!

El Gruner??? still. you may not admire him or even like him at all, but he is a priest forever.

And Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve Original Apostles. He is listed forever as such. He was also a Traitor and justly called the “Man from Perdition.”

It is no secret, among the Saints, nor the church, that there are many Judas Goat’s who are and have been priests. Hell has a special love for such Priests.

 

[Marie]

Brennan Doherty:

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.

The one on the Vatican Website. I have posted it numerous times. It is both a copy of the original and the Translation in English, just as El Gruner’s old 1980 letter is.

Not to mention, it is an official Letter Lucy wrote to “The Holy See”, not some nebulous unknown priest. And official Document which has been written by Lucy who is the Seer who should know.

 

[Marie]

bear06:

I dont’ have a problem with people who “pose the tough questions”. I have a problem with people who try and supply unsubstantiated responses to the tough questions as factual truth. This is pretty much the make-up of fatima.org

I can certainly agree with that.

I asked her three more questions:

"Is it true that speaking to Rev. Luigi Bianchi and Rev. José dos Santos Valinho, you cast doubt on the interpretation of the third part of the “secret”?

Sr Lucia answered: “That is not true. I fully confirm the interpretation made in the Jubilee Year”.

“What have you to say about the stubborn assertions of Fr Gruner, who has been collecting signatures, asking the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at last, as if this has never been done?”.

Sr Lucia replies: I have already said that the consecration desired by Our Lady was made in 1984, and has been accepted in Heaven".

She further repudiated El Grunerite’s conspiracy theories again:

“Is it true that Sr Lucia is deeply upset by recent events, that she can no longer sleep and is praying night and day?”

Sr Lucia answers: “It is not true. How could I pray during the day if I did not rest at night? How many things they are putting in my mouth! How many things they make me seem to do! Let them read my book: in it are all the recommendations and appeals that correspond with Our Lady’s wishes. Prayer and penance, together with great faith in God’s power, will save the world”.

 

[bear06]

Then again, Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press has published books which critique the new rite such as “Looking at the Liturgy: A Critical View of Its Contemporary Form” by Father Aidan Nichols, OP. Or “Reform of the Reform” by Fr. Thomas Kocik which has essays by Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. Aidan Nichols, and Fr. Parsons which critique the new rite

Excuse me. Fr. Fessio is far from a critic of Vatican II. These books you’re talking about are in no way a criticism of Vatican II and the normative mass. They are definitely a critique of the implementation. Go ahead. I dare you. Write Fr. Fessio and ask him his views on the the TLM and the Pauline Mass. I’m sure you’ll be surprised.

 

[bear06]

Marie:

The one on the Vatican Website. I have posted it numerous times. It is both a copy of the original and the Translation in English, just as El Gruner’s old 1980 letter is.

Not to mention, it is an official Letter Lucy wrote to “The Holy See”, not some nebulous unknown priest. And official Document which has been written by Lucy who is the Seer who should know.

Doesn’t your mind get tired of the “we need to believe Sr. Lucia when she says this but not that”? Did Sr. Lucia say that the consecration was done in 1984? Other than the Blue Army article, sorry I can’t remember if it actually contained proof other than a he said, she said, does anything contradict this?

 

[bear06]

Oh boy! Here’s another theory from the Fatima Crusader, the only place I can find the translation of the Blue Army article.

FATIMA CRUSADER EDITORS’ NOTE: This article reflects the Doctrine of the Blue Army before its “updating” in the years 1985 - 1986. The Blue Army underwent some fundamental changes in direction in 1985 - 1986 due to its International leadership.

 

[bear06]

FATIMA CRUSADER EDITORS’ NOTE: This article reflects the Doctrine of the Blue Army before its “updating” in the years 1985 - 1986. The Blue Army underwent some fundamental changes in direction in 1985 - 1986 due to its International leadership.

BTW, this probablly means that Ferrara can’t corroborate his quote. Surprise, surprise!

 

[katolik]

Has the country of Russia,whose capital is Moskva, and who has been ruled by Communists since 1917, been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary???

No it has not been consecrated directly as The Blessed Virgin Mary wanted us to do. Is russia Catholic, or even Orthodox? No it is not.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Thank you for your participation in this discussion. The thread is now closed.