Is Our Lady of Fatima Still Relevant?

[Victorious]

John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart; he did not mention Russia. Our Lady specifically asked for Russia to be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart; she did not ask for the consecration of the world. For this reason, many people, including myself, believe that the Consecration has not been done.

He did not mention Russia by name, but he does incorporate by reference Ven. Pius XII’s act of consecration (1943?), which does explicitly mention Russia.

In 1960 Sr Lucy was put inder a lifelong gag of silence about Fatima. She was the only person in the world forbidden to talk about Fatima. Why? Did they have something to hide? After Vatican II, the Vatican lifted the ban on publishing private Revelations. (Why?) Consequently we are flooded by questionable accounts, while the one true witness of the words of Our Lady, who at Fatima performed the Miracle of the Sun seen by at least 70,000 witnesses, is the only person not allowed to speak openly.

As of the late 1940s, after being released from her vows as a Dorothean, Sr. Lucia was a cloistered Carmelite nun. For her to run around speaking about any subject would have been inconsistent with the life of a cloistered Carmelite nun. And if you read her two sets of memoirs, she makes it clear that she is very reluctant to write about her experiences, and does so only under obedience. She also answers the question why she does not declaim from the rooftops about the consecration to the Immaculate Heart. (Short answer: because God did not choose to make her a prophet.)

What’s been overlooked here is the resurgence of Islam…At this point in time, I think Islam is a far greater threat to the Catholic Church than Russia, and as far as I’m concerned Russia has been consecrated to Mary.

I don’t think the focus on Russia overlooks the threat of Islam. Don’t forget the unholy alliance between Russia and jihadists. The Soviet Union was the principle engine of terrorism in the world, including Muslim terrorism, providing terrorists with arms, money, and training. And now Russia is supporting Iran in becoming nuclear.

When Our Lady appeared to veronica Lueken on April 7 (My birthday) in 1970 she and Jesus gave many startling messages concerning our Government, and the Church in the State it was now in. This happened until her death in 1995 ( A year after my birth).

Veronica Lueken and the Bayside “apparitions” have been judged false by the Church.

The message of Fatima is: Repent. Pray. Do penance. Stop offending God, for He is already too much offended. That message is ALWAYS relevant.

 

[KathleenGee]

Is the Bayside Apparition approved by Rome???

 

[callmeChris]

Is the Bayside Apparition approved by Rome???

LOOK AT THE LINK PLEASE:
roses.org/faq/faq.htm

tldm.org/News7/PopeJohn2BlessesOurLadyoftheRosesShrine.htm

 

[Dempsey1919]

And indeed there would be no need (and indeed it would be disastrous) in the event of there ever been a reunion if the Orthodox had to adopt the customs of the Latin rite and the past two Popes have made it clear they would be against such Latinisation of either the Easter Catholics (or in any potential future involving re-union) the Orthodox Churches.

Nobody has ever suggested that the Russian Orthodox would have to incorporate any Latin customs or traditions. The Catholic Church - the Universal Church - embraces all cultures and traditions; the Russians would never have to abandon their beautiful culture. As I said in my previous post, the Russians would lose nothing by reuniting with the Bishop of Rome but they would gain the fullness of truth and the consolation of being in full communion with the Vicar of Christ on earth. Furthermore, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have to adopt Western/Latin theological positions; they would be free to express the one true faith in their own theological language; they would share our faith, but express it differently.

I sympathise with the fact that the Russians are suspicious, but I have faith that the Mother of God would soften their hearts and reveal the fullness of truth to the Russian people. Remember, we are talking about a divine intervention; we’re not relying on ecumenism to bring about reunion; we are putting our faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the plan of His Most Holy Mother revealed at Fatima.

 

[momor]

Nobody has ever suggested that the Russian Orthodox would have to incorporate any Latin customs or traditions. The Catholic Church - the Universal Church - embraces all cultures and traditions; the Russians would never have to abandon their beautiful culture. As I said in my previous post, the Russians would lose nothing by reuniting with the Bishop of Rome but they would gain the fullness of truth and the consolation of being in full communion with the Vicar of Christ on earth. Furthermore, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have to adopt Western/Latin theological positions; they would be free to express the one true faith in their own theological language; they would share our faith, but express it differently.

I sympathise with the fact that the Russians are suspicious, but I have faith that the Mother of God would soften their hearts and reveal the fullness of truth to the Russian people. Remember, we are talking about a divine intervention; we’re not relying on ecumenism to bring about reunion; we are putting our faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the plan of His Most Holy Mother revealed at Fatima.

Can you give an example of what you mean by this? I’m having a hard time understanding how Truth, Doctrine, and Dogma can be different East from West.

 

[Seamus_L]

Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which the Orthodox don’t believe in, and then say the Rosary, which they also don’t believe in, so Russia can return to being Orthodox, but not Catholic.
How about instead, the Orthodox pray to St Mark of Ephesus that the Roman Catholic faith me revived in Italy, Ireland, Spain, etc.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I heard this from a daughter who lives 15 miles outside Rome.This rather backfired – it was videoed (you can’t get away with too much these days) and the local papers joyfully splashed it over the front pages – “Bertone’s Gorillas rough up Socci and Paulini!” (Remember these are well-known figures in Italy).

Apologies – that needs correction. It was just Antonio Socci who was there. But he had the chance, before he was hustled completely away, to play in the hearing of the other reporters an audio recording of Mgr Capovilla confirming to Paulini that there are in fact two envelopes, containing different parts of ‘the third Secret’ –*one in the Vatican archives [containing the vision of ‘the bishop dressed in white’ etc], the other in the papal bedroom [with the words of Our Lady – never yet published].

 

[numealinesimpet]

To fulfill the consecration of Fatima, it was done, and I know many bishops in America did follow the Holy Father. …

It has to be all the bishops, and Russia must be mentioned by name. This has most definitely not been done. But the partial responses did bring graces to the world. But for that, ‘various nations’ would by now probably already have been ‘annihilated’.

 

[numealinesimpet]

1.- If I can find an article I saw showing you pictures of how the real and imposter Lucia looked, I will post it. Because in order for her to have looked the way she did during/after Vatican II, she would have needed plastic surgery and dental work. The most convincing clue that there were two Sister Lucias (aside from them not looking alike) is the fact that for a while Lucia was not allowed to be visited by anyone. Why would nobody be allowed to see her for a long period of time? If you think about it, you’ll eventually understand why…

Individual photgraphs can be very misleading. Check the internet and you will see many examples. You can’t base such a serious charge on such a shaky basis.

2.- Just because her handwriting was approved doesn’t mean it’s valid.

In other words, you are determined to believe the opposite.

And I guess something better to prove my point on the whole age thing is that I doubt God would have required her to live until 93 since Our Lady said she would “keep her around for a bit longer” or something like that.

Actually, to me it seems like exactly the kind of thing Heaven would say.

3.- You left out the part where Our Lady speaks of a great chastisement. Have you ever heard of the three days of darkness? She doesn’t specifically mention that, but that’s what she’s talking about. It’s supposed to come after the conversion of Russia. That is, if it’s converted in time.

You seem to be mixing up Fatima and Qito, Ecuador. The latter does need careful consideration, but we need to be clear that this was not mentioned at Fatima. You cannot just jumble up different sources like this.

4.-She did say JPII had completed the conversion. She said so in an interview. When asked she just said “yes”.

Can you please give the times & dates & sources? I stand by my assertion that none of such statements can be shown to be trustworthy. But it was done by imposing obedience and keeping the witness away from impartial witnesses, not by the foolishly melodramatic suggestion of planting a double.

Obviously the real Lucia would have said ‘no’ because JPII didn’t do it right. And the reason they planted an imposter Lucia is so that the real one would not speak out against anything that was happening at Vatican II. Vatican II is one thing Our Lady talks about in the real Third Secret. And consider this: If Luica was told the real Third Secret by Our Lady and the secret that was released in 2000 wasn’t true, why didn’t Lucia speak out against it and say it wasn’t the real secret? Like I said, there’s plenty of evidence.

Actually, she did indeed make that point in several indirect ways, subject to her vow of obedience. See later posting.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Please don’t get me wrong: I meant no slur against the Russian people and their beautiful devotion to the Faith under frightful persecution. Padre Pio once said that Nazism was much more dangerous than communism. “the Nazis offer a real religion that attracts the Germans. But Marxism will never satisfy the Russian soul. Russia will return to Our Lady and to God!”

As to re-union, yes I desire it, but one must understand the natural suspicions of the Orthodox as to that and many of them see no need for it. Only be admitting in all humility that mistakes and slurs were both made and cast by both sides historically can any slow progress be made.

By the time the collegial consecration is actually done, the Roman Catholic church, as an institution, will have little enough to be arrogant about – decades of disobeying the Mother of God, then trying to cover it up.

It should be noted that for many years I saw myself as an atheist (and by that I mean I was full of more vitriol towards the Church than even such luminaries as Dawkins) and it was in learning about my wife’s faith that I re-embraced my own.

And indeed there would be no need (and indeed it would be disastrous) in the event of there ever being a reunion if the Orthodox had to adopt the customs of the Latin rite and the past two Popes have made it clear they would be against such Latinisation of either the Easter Catholics (or in any potential future involving re-union) the Orthodox Churches.

Actually, it is against Canon Law, under pain of Mortal Sin, to attempt to extinguish a valid Catholic Rite or to force those born into one Rite of changing. This law was introduced in response to over-zealous missionaries of the Latin rite. naturally, the Trads of the Latin rite have pointed out the irony of the Vatican having, since the 60s, attempted it on the Latin Rite itself.

I don’t know much at all abaout the Eastern Rites, but what happens to the Ukranians – or the Russians – who accept full re-union with Rome? They certainly don’t have to abandon their Liturgy, but I personally don’t know what else happens.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Is the Bayside Apparition approved by Rome???

See on Catholic Answers Forum

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/apparition

Some people in my parish follow the Bayside apparitions and are encouraging me to do the same. What does the Church say about this group? * * *

”
A:
The Bayside apparition (“Our Lady of the Roses”) is totally and completely false. A Catholic should ignore it and have nothing to do with it or its literature. The supposed seer, the late Veronica Leuken, issued bizarre revelations and false prophesies that have not come to pass, such as the claim that “the Warning spoken of through the ages will occur in the year 1997.” This Warning—not to be confused with the Three Days of Darkness or the Chastisement that some speak of—"is the worldwide cataclysm predicted by little Jacinta Marto, the youngest of the three child-seers at Fatima."

She also said Mary told her that test-tube babies do not have souls, a philosophically and theologically impossible proposition, since all living human beings have souls.

Furthermore, the late bishop of the diocese in which Veronica Leuken resided (Bishop John Mugavero) had repeatedly condemned the apparition as a fake. The condemnation remains in force. The full text of Mugavero’s 1986 declaration concerning the “Bayside Movement” can be found at www.ewtn.com.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Can you give an example of what you mean by this? I’m having a hard time understanding how Truth, Doctrine, and Dogma can be different East from West.

S. Teresa of Avila wrote that The Faith is too great for one single soul to embrace in its entirety (no doubt, tho’ I read this a long time ago & don’t remember in so many words, not counting Our Lady, who is unique). therefore god raises up different souls to embody different aspects of the Faith. some are very simple, direct and loving some erudite and learned; some manly and heroic, some gentle and floral.
In addition, culture also is a reality. there is more than one way to live a good life, and more than one way to run a good, God-fearing country. In addition, many beautiful sapects of the Faith are handed down by tradition, and these differ from place to place. This fact is, I think, more evident in Europe than across the Atlantic. Pope John paul II explored this issue in his encyclical* Veritatis splendor.* “I” have a free choice as to my actions in the next minute; but I did not choose who “I” am; it is a product of my genes and upbrining as well as my experiences. It is not actually possible to arbitarily change our culture. The church has “baptized” each culture it has evangelised, but in individual ways. thus it would be against Natural Justice to try forcibly to extinguish a culture. The Ancient western and Middle Eastern cutlures were ‘baptized’ millennia ago; there is a real problem over the correct way to evangelise modern tribes and cultures. I would say that the missionary endeavour since Vatican II has erred far too much on the side of encouraging and maintaining inappropriate native traditions. We all went through this. The Irish baptized their culture, ‘held fast to what is good’ but allowed other practices to fade away and be forgotten. Hence the attempts of the “Neo-Pagans” to revive the Druidic religion are merely sad. It is 99% guesswork, because we consciously left all that behind us 1500 years ago. But I’m digressing. Sr Lucia before she was silenced by the Vatican was emphatic that the “Conversion of Russia” meant her full incorporation into the Catholic church. But there was no question of abandoning her own liturgy or authentic practices.

 

[KathleenGee]

To believe as a church is to know each of us is a part of Christ’s body, we need each other to fully comprehend the fullness of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God in our lives.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by **numealinesimpet **
I heard this from a daughter who lives 15 miles outside Rome.This rather backfired – it was videoed (you can’t get away with too much these days) and the local papers joyfully splashed it over the front pages – “Bertone’s Gorillas rough up Socci and Paulini!” (Remember these are well-known figures in Italy).

Apologies – that needs correction. It was just Antonio Socci who was there. But he had the chance, before he was hustled completely away, to play in the hearing of the other reporters an audio recording of Mgr Capovilla confirming to Paulini that there are in fact two envelopes, containing different parts of ‘the third Secret’ –*one in the Vatican archives [containing the vision of ‘the bishop dressed in white’ etc], the other in the papal bedroom [with the words of Our Lady – never yet published].

Sorry yet again – Paulini was there. See

Fatima journalists roughed up by Vatican goons
catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=2178160.0;wap2

VATICAN GOONS ROUGH UP SOCCI, PAOLINI OUTSIDE BERTONE PRESS CONFERENCE

Cardinal enters by side door, refuses *questions
Rome, Sept. 22nd (Fatima Network) -

The Italian press and *public were scandalized this weekend by reports in the Roman media of a *confrontation late Friday afternoon between Vatican security guards and noted *Italian journalist Antonio Socci and Fatima researcher Solideo Paolini. The two men, widely known for their recent research and writings on the Third *Secret of Fatima,suffered some bruisesas they were shoved away from the *entrance to the Pontifical Urbaniana University, where Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone *was about to hold a press conference. The meeting was organized by the Vatican to relaunch Cardinal Bertone’s *book, L’Ultima Veggente di Fatima, which was received with considerable *scepticism when it was first published in May. They also promised to produce evidence to counter Dr. Paolini’s reports of his interviews with Archbishop Loris Francesco Capovilla. Dr. Paolini has said repeatedly – most recently at the OnlyWay toWorld *Peace conference in Brazil in August – that Archbishop Capovilla confirmed *that there are in fact two texts to the Third Secret of Fatima, only one of *which has been revealed by the Vatican. Archbishop Capovilla has never denied *having said this.

So it was with the purpose of hearing anything further that *the Archbishop might have said, that Socci and Paolini went to the press *conference. Accompanied by Alessandro Fuligni, the Fatima Center’s representative in *Rome, Mr. Socci and Dr. Paolini were admitted to the hall where the conference *was to be held.

However, when Mr. Socci was advised by Father Federico Lombardi, *Director of the Holy See Press Office, that he (Socci) would not be allowed to *ask questions or otherwise challenge the Cardinal, the two men left the building *hoping to see Cardinal Bertone when he arrived.

It was when the Cardinal arrived that the scandalous disturbance began. As *Bertone got out of his limousine at the front entrance to the conference hall, *he spotted Socci, who he knows well as the author of Il Quarto Segreto di *Fatima, the book which directly challenges the Vatican’s version of the *Third Secret. On seeing Mr. Socci, the prelate turned on his heel and walked quickly to a *side door, accompanied by security guards who interposed themselves between the *Cardinal and Socci and Paolini. When Socci and Paolini tried to go back inside *the building, they were turned away by the guards.

All this was witnessed by several members of the Roman media, who knew of the *war of words between Bertone and Socci and had anticipated this confrontation. These members of theFourth Estate rushed to interview Mr. Socci, to find out *why the Cardinal had refused to speak even one word to him.

*When they saw that Mr. Socci and Dr. Paolini had started to talk to the *press, the Vatican-hired security guards advanced on the two men and ordered *them off the university campus. When Socci objected, the guards seized him as *well as Paolini – the latter being rather a slight man – and pushed and shoved *them in the direction of the front gate. During the melee, Dr. Paolini’s cell phone was seized by one of the thugs, *who told him that he was not allowed to record what was going on. In fact, *Paolini’s cell phone does not have a video recording function.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Bertone’s press conference went ahead as planned, with no *voices of dissent being heard from the hand-picked guests. Once again the *Vatican has succeeded in silencing those who wish to find out the truth – the *whole truth – about the Third Secret of Fatima.
…]
The truth will *out!

References: “Who - between you and me - is Deliberately *Lying?”*by Antonio Socci “Bertone vs. Socci: Civil War Rages in Rome Over Third Secret of *Fatima”***by Christopher *A. Ferrara

"My Meetings with Archbishop Capovilla and the Socci-Cardinal *Bertone Struggle"*by Solideo Paolini * “The Explosive Testimony of Archbishop Capovilla: A Discussion *with Solideo Paolini”*by John Vennari * Declaration of Dr. Solideo Paolini (Sept. 18, *2007)

"Cardinal Bertone’s Version of Third Secret *Refuted" *

"Antonio *Socci Refutes Cardinal Bertone’s New Book on the Third *Secret"

 

[Dempsey1919]

Can you give an example of what you mean by this? I’m having a hard time understanding how Truth, Doctrine, and Dogma can be different East from West.

The Catholic faith is the same throughout the world. However, the Latin rite and the Eastern rites express the truths of the faith using different theological language and terms; for example, the Latin rite celebrates the Assumption of the BVM, and the Eastern rites celebrate the Dormition of the BVM. Both feasts celebrate the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin when her earthly life ended, but they language in which this truth is expressed is different.

 

[momor]

The Catholic faith is the same throughout the world. However, the Latin rite and the Eastern rites express the truths of the faith using different theological language and terms; for example, the Latin rite celebrates the Assumption of the BVM, and the Eastern rites celebrate the Dormition of the BVM. Both feasts celebrate the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin when her earthly life ended, but they language in which this truth is expressed is different.

OK. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[callmeChris]

Bishop Mugavero condemned the Bayside apparitions without even doing an investigation. neither Veronica, or her personal friend Mrs. Ann Ferguson! Veronica Lueken and the Shrine were never approached and interviewed in the context of a proper church investigation, not even by telephone. This statement was confirmed by Monsignor King (who was serving in the Brooklyn Archdiocese at the time) in a radio interview with a Canadian radio station. Therefore there could have never been any investigation, as the principal witness, the seer herself, was never given the opportunity to be interviewed as part of what should have rightly been a major aspect of the formal investigative process.

None of the Shrine workers, including her personal secretary, Mrs. Ann Ferguson, has ever been questioned or interrogated.

No attempt was made by the Archdiocese to investigate any of the thousands of miraculous cures and spiritual conversions received by the faithful attending the vigils or through the intercession of Our Lady of the Roses.
It is impossible to obtain from the Brooklyn Archdiocese the names of the investigative committee, or even the most rudimentary documentation which provides explicit dates when and where the investigation was conducted.

The fact that the Bishop of Brooklyn had personally affixed his name to the declaration on the Apparitions does not bind Catholics under obedience or pain of sin to disbelieve in or remain away from the prayer vigils or the apparition site. Under Canon Law, Ecclesiastical permission is not required for the publication of revelations, visions, miracles or with respect to the frequenting of non-recognized places of apparitions. (See the Canon Law decrees abrogated below)

Q. What is the actual Church Law (Canon Law) regarding apparition sites?

A. Ecclesiastical permission is not required for publication of revelations, visions, miracles or for the frequenting of non-recognized places of apparitions.

A decree of the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith " was published in the “Official Acts of the Holy See” (A.A.S.) 58/16, dated December 29, 1966.

Articles 1399 and 2318 of Canon Law are abrogated by this decree.

This decree of abrogation was approved October 14, 1966 by His Holiness the Sovereign Pontiff Paul Vl, who ordered at the same time its publication.

This approval by the Holy Father took place during an audience accorded to His Eminence Cardinal Ottaviani, Pro-Prefect for the “Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith.”

The decree was made in Rome, November 15, 1966. It bears the signatures of:

A. Cardinal Ottaviani, Pro-Prefect

P. Parente, Secretary

The decree took effect three months after its publication, hence on March 29, 1967.

Canon 1399

The Canon 1399 forbade by right the publication of certain books such as those that deal with revelations, visions, prophecies and miracles.

This Canon has been repealed. This means that as far as these publications are concerned, the prohibition is lifted as to their being bound by ecclesiastical law.

This means that henceforth: Catholics are permitted without need of Imprimatur, or of Nihil Obstat, or any other permission, to publish accounts of revelations, visions, prophecies and miracles. Of course these publications must not put in danger the Faith or the Morals: this is the general rule which every Catholic must follow in all his actions, even journalists, especially journalists.

There is hence no longer any prohibition concerning the narrative of seers, be they recognized or not by Ecclesiastical Authority.

All the more reason is it permitted for Catholics to frequent places of Apparitions, even those not recognized by the Ordinaries of the diocese or by the Holy Father: Granted that the Catholic visitors who frequent these places must respect the Faith and the Morals. However, they are not subject to any ecclesiastical discipline, not even for their public prayers.

Permission is required only for the celebration of Holy Mass or any other religious service.

Canon 2318

Canon 2318 carried penalties against those who violated the laws of censure and prohibition.

This Canon is abrogated since 1966. None can incur ecclesiastical censure for frequenting places of Apparitions even those not recognized by the Ordinaries of dioceses or by the Holy Father.

Also, “those who would have incurred the censures treated in Canon 2318 will be like absolved by the very fact of the abrogation of this Canon.” (Cardinal Ottaviani)

 

[Monica4316]

I think that the Fatima message is still relevant; Our Lady told us to pray the Rosary, pray for sinners, wear the Scapular, etc, - those things are still relevant.

 

[Timothysis]

I find it utterly amazing that so many “good” Catholics here accuse both pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II popes of being liars and deceivers about the “secrets” of Fatima. If we cannot trust the Vicar of Christ about Fatima, how can we trust him with any other part of the Catholic faith?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi Timothysis,

I am sorry that we seem to have such opposing views of the nature of the Catholic Church. I don’t question your love of Christ, the Church, or of anyone. But I don’t see this perfectionism in the popes anywhere in Church teaching. I’ll try to explain.

You said the following: “I find it utterly amazing that so many “good” Catholics here accuse both pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II popes of being liars and deceivers about the “secrets” of Fatima. If we cannot trust the Vicar of Christ about Fatima, how can we trust him with any other part of the Catholic faith?”

Your view of the papacy as expressed elsewhere and by your rhetorical question cannot be defended historically. You can question who is a “good” Catholic, just as all Catholics have legitimately asked questions about who are the good and lesser popes. Taken to its logical conclusion, your presumption about the perfection of the popes of our lifetimes is inconsistent with the undoubted necessary presumptions about popes through history. They have been weak. They have been sinful and the saints have recognized this even while they lived. Do you raise the same objection to those “good” Catholics (virtually every Catholic) who teach that there a few bad popes before Hildebrand (Pope St. Gregory) ascended the Throne or that a pope or two of Luther’s day were debauched?

I guess you would have complained to St. Catherine of Siena, “If we can’t trust the pope about having his residence removed to Avignon, how can we trust him with any other part of the Catholic faith?” The traditionalists are the moderates here. We are in the tradition of what saints and doctors of the Church have always said about the papacy. We don’t have to accept as defined infallible dogma every policy, statement, or teaching of every pope, much less Vatican bureaucrats appointed by the popes in the instance of the secrets of Fatima. You are the right wing radical who seems to want to justify every act of every pope (or his secretary of state) in the history of the Church. It is the death of the papacy to try it. And it is not what the Church teaches or has ever taught. Vatican I, which broached the subject of infallibility made it clear that very infrequently, the pope speaks infallibly.

“Good” Catholics don’t honor the succesor of St. Peter by behaving as though he is impeccable in private and infallible in every public utterance. Your position is radical, beyond the pale, and indefensible. I doubt your bishop or your parish priest believes what you seem to believe. I know the doctors of the Church don’t. There is a clearly defined line between how we discern the infallible from the fallible in doctrine. And there is no guarantee at all that popes will not sin or cause scandal in their actions. They have in the past, inasmuch as they are subject to the same frailties as are we. Our own popes of our own lifetimes are no exception to the universal rule.

Others I think have been harsher in tone. I don’t want to offend you. I think you are the lunatic fringe in view of 2,000 years iof church history. Please consider how anyone could apply the rules you want to apply to Fatima consistently through the ages. I have seen others speak to you about St. Athanasius in the 4th Century, or even St. Peter needing rebuked in the book of Galatians to no effect at all. Why do these instructive and insightful historcial references seem meaningless to you? You spoke of what you can’t imagine. How is it that these certain, and even inspired examples of papal weakness don’t instruct you and others who share your radical notions. They speak with certainty to the principles of the faithful Catholic relative to the papacy, do they not? That is what I cannot imagine. Tim, I know you mean well. I mean well, too. God knows it. I solicit your prayers, I offer mine for you.

God bless you,

Rory