Fatima tries to drive out Traditional Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cfnews.org/disrupt.htm

The Society of St. Pius X went to Fatima to make reparations for the Hindu sacrilege that occured there last year. Attempts were made to get rid of the crowd by blaring loud music at them while they prayed the rosary at the chapel.
 
40.png
jimmy:
As it is reported, it seems like the nuns were very uncharitable. They should have allowed them to pray, it was the Rosary. But it seems like it is a little over the top. I can’t see nuns behaving in that manner.
Click to expand...
I still think we have to be careful of sources. The article comes from a notoriously “rad-trad” site. The nuns may have been in the middle of their own customary routine.
 
I couldn’t get your link to work. For what it’s worth, your title for this thread is misleading. That group is not traditional, it is schismatic.
 
Surely that is a cardboard cut out of a picture of a Nun? Please? Yes?? 😦

It just looks way to straight and rigid to be a person…
 
40.png
Fergal:
Surely that is a cardboard cut out of a picture of a Nun? Please? Yes?? 😦

It just looks way to straight and rigid to be a person…
Click to expand...
There is another thread on the nun. It’s true and she has already been reprimanded by her superior.
 
I think Novus Ordo feels threatened by SSPX and they are obviously insecure or they would’ve let them come and consecrate the chapel. I don’t understand why they would allow them to come and then treat them badly. Not all the people there were from the Society either.

I do think the Society went a little overboard when they called Novus Ordo the “new devil-inspired religion”. Just because there are vindictive people doesn’t mean their religion is wrong.

Let’s just all hope that the Soceity and Rome can reconcile and bring a little more peace. I really hope they allow priests to say the latin mass freely because a priest in our diocese who said the latin mass was given the boot and he was no longer allowed to say the latin mass even though his masses were full. Bishops can be so cruel. Many holy priests are persecuted. God have mercy.
 
40.png
lexorandi:
I think Novus Ordo feels threatened by SSPX and they are obviously insecure or they would’ve let them come and consecrate the chapel. I don’t understand why they would allow them to come and then treat them badly. Not all the people there were from the Society either.

I do think the Society went a little overboard when they called Novus Ordo the “new devil-inspired religion”. Just because there are vindictive people doesn’t mean their religion is wrong.

Let’s just all hope that the Soceity and Rome can reconcile and bring a little more peace. I really hope they allow priests to say the latin mass freely because a priest in our diocese who said the latin mass was given the boot and he was no longer allowed to say the latin mass even though his masses were full. Bishops can be so cruel. Many holy priests are persecuted. God have mercy.
Click to expand...
When a chapel or a church needs consecrating, it’s done by the local ordinary or someone he designates. If there was a consecration needing to be done, it wasn’t the place of a bunch of schismatics to do it. They did this to make press, that’s all. An act of reparation can be made without showing up at the scene of the crime (we should all make acts of reparation for the misuse of the Holy Name or for a lack of reverence to the Eucharist). I suspect they wanted a showdown of sorts and they got it.
 
40.png
Fergal:
I gave you a picture above what more definitive proof do you need?
Click to expand...
We saw the picture but that picture is not proof that they were worshiping there. I see a man dressed in what I assume a Hindu might wear.

I find it odd, you object to Hindus worshiping at the shrine in Fatima (if they did) yet you think its a great thing that a protestant partook of the Eucharist.
 
Does anyone know of any article written from an unbiased source as to what happened? The links given only gave the one side. I am suspicious of how much truth came through, since they found it necessary to emotionally load it with such a slant.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
We saw the picture but that picture is not proof that they were worshiping there. I see a man dressed in what I assume a Hindu might wear.

I find it odd, you object to Hindus worshiping at the shrine in Fatima (if they did) yet you think its a great thing that a protestant partook of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Who is a protestant here? If you call the SSPX protestant, then you go far beyond what Rome views them as.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I find it odd, you object to Hindus worshiping at the shrine in Fatima (if they did) yet you think its a great thing that a protestant partook of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I find it odd that you think I think its a great thing that a protestant partook of the Eucharist. Go back and look at my posts.
 
Isn’t it true that one of the ‘Bishops’ for the SSPX - Bishop Williamson is a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite (I could be mistake so please correct me if I am wrong…)? I heard this was one of the MAJOR sticking stones between any possible communion between SSPX and Rome.

God bless,
 
40.png
Fergal:
I find it odd that you think I think its a great thing that a protestant partook of the Eucharist. Go back and look at my posts.
Click to expand...
It sure seems in that other thread that you seem to think that Br Roger, a protestant, recieving the Eucharist at Pope John Paul II’s funeral was not only a good thing but that it was something he had a right to do.

Or did I misunderstand what you are saying there.
 
40.png
JNB:
Who is a protestant here? If you call the SSPX protestant, then you go far beyond what Rome views them as.
Click to expand...
No I was not calling the SSPX protestant. I was commenting on a posters comments from another thread.

But… the root of the SSPX’s faults do not differ much from the protestants, that is they have lifted themselves above the Church. They have made themselves the final authority.

They are just as much in error but in some cases they are worse as they lead people away from the true Church into schism.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
It sure seems in that other thread that you seem to think that Br Roger, a protestant, recieving the Eucharist at Pope John Paul II’s funeral was not only a good thing but that it was something he had a right to do.

Or did I misunderstand what you are saying there.
Click to expand...
Can you point me please to that thread??? I can’t find it.

Yes! You did misunderstand me. My point is simple. We do know of Br Rogers desire for full Communion. We do know it was well know at the Vatican.

We do not know for certain whether it really was an error or not. Cardinal Ratzinger was very much against intercommunion, Br Roger was very much against intercomomunion. Both are highly intelligent men. Why then when they both realised it was something very wrong did it occur? Surely both realised the implications of going through with the action? Why did Cardinal Ratzinger give it? Why did Br Roger receive instead of gesturing a no??

There has to be more to it than just a mistake. I feel there was a deeper significance.

I am no fan of intercommunion either as I understand very well the scandal it causes.

Remember that our own dear President of Ireland, who is Catholic received Communion at an Anglican service and that move caused the then primate of Ireland, Cardinal Desmond Connell to state that it was a sham for Catholics to partake of Communion in a Protestant Church.

There was uproar. I was very much with him and supported him completely as I knew what he was saying and believed what he was saying. now I know he could have said it a little less bluntly, but the sentiments were correct.

In this frame of mind, if either man involved in this situation moved to give or receive Communion deliberately, then I repeat Cardinal Connells words it is a sham also for a Protestant to partake of Communion in a Catholic Church when there is no mandate for it.

I hope I have made myself clear.
 
40.png
Fergal:
It happened alright with the blessing of the local ordinary, Bishop Seraphim and the Rector Mons. Guerra. It is known that it is not the first time that it has happened at has happened as far back as the time Paul VI visited Fatima, in fact just before his visit.

With the security around the site there is no way anyone would get onto the Altar in the Apparitiion Chapel without permission. Just look at Fr Gruner!!
Click to expand...
Fergal, while I haven’t been to Fatima as many times as you, I spent three days in Fatima last October. I never saw much security there and saw many times when someone could have gone to the altar, though I’m sure some security would have shown up.

And what’s going on in the photo you posted? What are the two guys in the back doing? I never saw the glass enclosure removed like that and it gives me the impression that they are doing some work up there. That is a very confusing photograph.

If a Hindhu celebration took place at Fatima, it was not right. You seem certain that one did take place and also certain that it was sanctioned, but I don’t see any evidence of that.

It is sad that such controversy has to exist over Fatima.

Reminder: For First Saturday devotees, check the calendar! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top