Is Our Lady of Fatima Still Relevant?

[momor]

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.

I am quite content to let the bishops make the determination about apparitions and follow their advice. I don’t think it is any coincidence that most approved apparitions are associated with persons who are or become part of a religious comm. and most of the one’s that are not approved have an associated cult following whereby the seer seems to become the focus rather than the ‘message’. Sometimes the fruits are obvious enough that an investigation is not necessary. I am speaking in general here and not about any particular visions.

 

[Timothysis]

But I don’t see this perfectionism in the popes anywhere in Church teaching.

I neither said nor implied that any pope was “perfect.”

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 did not call into question every pope throughout history. Nor have I questioned their moral integrity or fiber. My statement was about the people on this forum who think that the popes from the time of the first apparition at Fatima to today have all been involved in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the faithful in regards to the message of the Blessed Mother. You are the only one rattling on about the “perfection” of the popes, something I never even mentioned.

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.

You maintain, then, that it is a moderate position to accuse every pope from Benedict XV to Benedict XVI (remember that this includes Pius XII and John XXIII) of being complicit in a conspiracy to, not only mislead the faithful, but to openly work against something that came down from heaven?

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.

And here I thought, after being here a year or two, that all of you “traditionalists” were the ones who haul out every encyclical or writing of a pope throughout history to prove that only Catholics can be saved; yet, I’m the “right wing radical?!?!?”

“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.

Yet, “good” Catholics who accuse the popes of lying, deceiving and undermining the Faith are not “radical, beyond the pale, and indefensible.” Nice.

I don’t want to offend you. I think you are the lunatic fringe in view of 2,000 years iof church history.

I made one post on this thread mentioning the accusations of lying and deceit on the part of the popes on the issue of Fatima and you call me "the lunatic fringe?" I never said anything about papal perfection nor any of the other things which you accuse me of, yet I am “the lunatic fringe?” Please. You aren’t as smart as you think you are. What would you call our friend who claims that Pope Paul VI and Sister Lucia were replaced with “doubles?” He is, however, a self proclaimed “traditionalist” as yourself, so perhaps his position isn’t too fringe for you. Maybe you can even move your ivory tower next to his.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I neither said nor implied that any pope was “perfect.”

I did not call into question every pope throughout history. Nor have I questioned their moral integrity or fiber. My statement was about the people on this forum who think that the popes from the time of the first apparition at Fatima to today have all been involved in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the faithful in regards to the message of the Blessed Mother. You are the only one rattling on about the “perfection” of the popes, something I never even mentioned.

You maintain, then, that it is a moderate position to accuse every pope from Benedict XV to Benedict XVI (remember that this includes Pius XII and John XXIII) of being complicit in a conspiracy to, not only mislead the faithful, but to openly work against something that came down from heaven?

And here I thought, after being here a year or two, that all of you “traditionalists” were the ones who haul out every encyclical or writing of a pope throughout history to prove that only Catholics can be saved; yet, I’m the “right wing radical?!?!?”

Yet, “good” Catholics who accuse the popes of lying, deceiving and undermining the Faith are not “radical, beyond the pale, and indefensible.” Nice.

I made one post on this thread mentioning the accusations of lying and deceit on the part of the popes on the issue of Fatima and you call me "the lunatic fringe?" I never said anything about papal perfection nor any of the other things which you accuse me of, yet I am “the lunatic fringe?” Please. You aren’t as smart as you think you are. What would you call our friend who claims that Pope Paul VI and Sister Lucia were replaced with “doubles?” He is, however, a self proclaimed “traditionalist” as yourself, so perhaps his position isn’t too fringe for you. Maybe you can even move your ivory tower next to his.

1.- The Vatican is the real one involved in the conspiracy theory of Fatima. John XXIII and Paul VI were guilty of not releasing it, and the Vatican released a phony secret about John Paul II in 2000. Popes before Vatican II were not involved in any conspiracy, nor were they to blame for not releasing the Third secret because it wasn’t supposed to be released until 1960. Interestingly, however, to this day the real Third Secret has yet to be released by the Vatican.

2.- Where in his post did he accuse the popes of lying? He’s talking about how John XXIII and Paul VI refused to release the Third Secret.

3.- Who exactly is this “friend” you speak of? Me? If so, you have no place to tell me I’m just a self-proclaimed Traditionalist. And there were two Sister Lucia’s. I don’t remember saying anything about two Paul VI’s, though that is a rumor going around. Then again, there are plenty of rumors regarding him.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Tim,

There is no connection between discerning infallible doctrine and discerning whether popes have been prudent in their interactions with the Message of Our Lady of Fatima.

I thought it might be helpful to you to recall that there is no connection between discerning infallible doctrine and discerning whether popes had been prudent regarding a century of papal residency in Avignon, France.

If you think the faithful cannot speculate about Fatima or the Avignon papacy without losing their bearings regarding two natures in Christ you have a grave misunderstanding about the role, charisms, and frailties of St. Peter and his successors.

You asked how we can trust the pope in “any other part of the Catholic faith” if we don’t trust him about Fatima. The answer is that we use the principles learned from Scripture, Tradition, and history to distinguish between prudential acts which are subject to error, and infallible definitions which are not. But you don’t act as though you care about how Sts. Paul, Athanasius, and Catherine behaved toward popes who were a disappointment. Catholics have never equated prudential acts with papal teachings as you do with your rhetorical question. That is how I know you are far outside of the moderate, Traditional Catholic view of the papacy. The Church enjoins upon the faithful to believe that weak and frail popes can live disappointing lives, without being a threat to the doctrine of the faith.

The Catholic Church strenuously rejects any connection between the obedience, wisdom, and prudence of of the Vicar of Christ, with the creeds and teachings that he is providentially protected from perverting. The faithful have always been taught the difference between individual perfection and infallible proclamation. It is the former that is being questioned here on this thread. No one except you has imagined that to think a pope has failed in regard to Fatima, is to lose the ability to know what Catholics believe. Your belief isn’t Traditional, it isn’t conservative, and it isn’t liberal. You believe what misinformed Protestants think about the papacy. They have to be disabused of the error before we can hope to convert them.

 

[numealinesimpet]

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…

Yes, it is a fact that, for some incomprehensible reason, the Church lifted the previous (very sensible) ban on publication of alleged apparitions until they had been reviewed by the Local Ordinary (ie the bishop) yet, the one living witness to Fatima – which culminated in the Miracle of the sun before 70,000 witnesses – was not allowed to comment, or even to meet other people without permission direct from Rome (not the Mother superior, but Rome).
Back to Bayside.

catholic.com/thisrock/qui…ord/apparition

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.

Is that accurate, or not? Did Veronica Leuken say these things, or not?
If she did, remember that Catholic teaching is that if just one thing in an alleged private revelation is against the Faith, then the entire revelation (or series of them) must be rejected whole and entire.
I’m not sure where that leaves definite “prophecies” of dated events that do not come to pass, but if the claim made above is a genuine report, then it surely invalidates the alleged revelation. I don’t see why the bishop would even need to interview an alleged seer after that.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Meanwhile…

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31154

The General House of the Society of Saint Pius X [SSPX], in Menzigen, has lately been receiving from all over the world the results of the Rosary Crusade launched by its General Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay. This crusade lasted from May 1, 2009, to March 25, 2010; its goal was to ask for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Supreme Pontiff and all the bishops of the Catholic world, in accordance with the message of Fatima in which Our Lady herself announced the final triumph of her Immaculate Heart.

To date we have only a provisional count, as all the results have not yet been tallied. However, DICI is delighted to announce to its readers, in this exclusive news report, that the goal of 12 million rosaries, which were to form a crown of 12 stars for Mary, Queen of Heaven, has been surpassed by far, since more than 18 million rosaries have already been reported. Among the districts that sent in their results, we should note the generosity of the United States (5,351,500), Africa (2,815,350), Asia (2,538,200), and France (2,529,670). Next come Canada (717,000), Germany (680,000), South America (536,480), Switzerland (411,000), Australia (402,000), Mexico (332,800), Italy (215,000), Ireland (136,190)….

Once a definitive count is obtained, this crown of rosaries recited around the world, over the course of nearly a year, will be presented to the Holy Father by Bishop Fellay. Profound thanks to all the Rosary crusaders for their admirable Marian fervor!

Father Alain Lorans

 

[Lamafacaja]

What’s been overlooked here is the resurgence of Islam. The following link to Bishop Fulton Sheen’s article on Fatima, “Mary and the Moslems”, follows -

thefreelibrary.com/Mary+and+the+Muslims-a0154756251

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. But we have to recognise that God will not override His own decision to give us free will. Russians, including ex-Communists, are still free to reject Christ.

They’ve had three generations of formal atheism in their experience, and the generation which saw the wall come down found itself confronted by a West which hardly believes in God itself.

** I think it will take another major crisis before we see the full reality of that consecration.**

What do you mean by this? Could you explain your thoughts regarding the bolded sentence?

I believe that Russia would have received the graces to dispose themselves to conversion if the consecration was done correctly, and in the manner that was specified by the BVM.

I fear the the fall of communism in Russia was actually the sign that it’s now to late. Russia may now appear not to be a threat, but now that she’s become a “free” society, her errors can and have and will continue to spread very easily.

 

[KathleenGee]

If we keep praying, Russia can be of great help because she is in the middle of the west and Muslim world, and neighbor to China.

I wonder if I registered with the Pravda and told them about this, if they would even bother to listen.

 

[numealinesimpet]

N.B. it is not possible to talk of Fatima as a “Private Revelation”, not only because of the Miracle of the Sun, but because Pope John Paul II added the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima to the Universal Calendar, set for May 13th. Do remember the implications of this. Priests and religious of the Roman Rite (Ordinary Form) are bound to keep that Feast Day, to read the prescribed prayers and offer the prescribed Mass of the Day. That means that Fatima is part of the Public Liturgy of the Church. The word “Liturgy” itself – leiturgia – means the “Opus Dei” (not the religious congregation!) – = ‘the Work of God’ –*the Mystical Body of Christ doing the work for the Father. It is an official part of the Catholic Faith.

 

[irishcolleen45]

I thought JPII said that the assassination attempt on him was the third secret. I had found that odd because I had been told (as a child in the '50’s) that Pope Pius XII had read the third secret and wept. I would think that to know a pope was to be martyred would not have caused Pope Pius XII to weep. I think there was more to it than that. What I’m reading here make more sense.
On another note, Pope Leo XIII had a vision in which he heard Jesus and Satan talking. Satan supposedly said “Give me 100 years and I will destroy your Church”. Jesus agreed to let Satan try. Since this vision happened around 1890, I had wondered when the 100 year period began. Someone told me that the time frame began in 1917 when Our Lady appeared at Fatima. Is this true?

To start off, the REAL Third Secret of Fatima was about the Vatican II Council. It was also about the great chestizement, and how Russia must be converted. No, JPII did not do it right. All bishops must be present, and Russia must be the one that is converted.

Also, the so-called secret released in 2000 about the assassination attempt against JPII is really a false secret. Clearly the Vatican realized at the time that if they released the real Third Secret the Novus Ordo and everything else that occured at Vatican II would be destroyed because the people would basically be told it was wrong. So they made up a secret of their own. It left so many people scratching their heads. Their secret did not even have Our Lady say anything! How could Our Lady have remained silent on the Third Secret, the biggest Secret of them all? So yes, you are right when you say the assassination attempt against JPII does not correspond to what Sister Lucia describes.

 

[Timothysis]

I thought JPII said that the assassination attempt on him was the third secret. I had found that odd because I had been told (as a child in the '50’s) that Pope Pius XII had read the third secret and wept. I would think that to know a pope was to be martyred would not have caused Pope Pius XII to weep. I think there was more to it than that. What I’m reading here make more sense.
On another note, Pope Leo XIII had a vision in which he heard Jesus and Satan talking. Satan supposedly said “Give me 100 years and I will destroy your Church”. Jesus agreed to let Satan try. Since this vision happened around 1890, I had wondered when the 100 year period began. Someone told me that the time frame began in 1917 when Our Lady appeared at Fatima. Is this true?

Here is the third “secret” of Fatima:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

Also, the tale of Pope Leo XIII is nothing more than a pious Catholic urban legend and the story of Pope Pius XII nothing more than a fable. It wasn’t until 1957 that the “secret” was transported to Rome for safety. It wasn’t until 1965 that Pope Paul VI read the secret, the first pope to do so.

Read the article and the commentary; it is very enlightening.

 

[irishcolleen45]

Thanks for the link but it didn’t work for me.

I had not heard of that tale of Pope Leo XIII until recently. A deacon in my parish told it to me.

Here is the third “secret” of Fatima:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

Also, the tale of Pope Leo XIII is nothing more than a pious Catholic urban legend and the story of Pope Pius XII nothing more than a fable. It wasn’t until 1957 that the “secret” was transported to Rome for safety. It wasn’t until 1965 that Pope Paul VI read the secret, the first pope to do so.

Read the article and the commentary; it is very enlightening.

 

[doanli]

Hindu priests at the shrine performing their worship ceremonies ??? I can’t stay and write more, but I am appalled.

As am I!

But “traddies” are trod upon???

 

[sparkletina]

"Russia still needs to be converted. Pope JPII converted the world to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, but that’s not what the Blessed Mother asked for. She asked specifically that Russia be consecrated. "

How do you know this? Do you know more than the Fatima visionary, Sr. Lucia? She was asked if this consecration had been done and done properly, and she responded yes. I do not understand. Why is her answer not enough for most people? That is because we want things on our terms, our timing, not God’s.

For what it’s worth: I traveled to Russia 1.5 years ago. I was shocked to see so many Russians wearing little tiny gold crosses around their necks. Our guide had one also. In St. Petersburg, before the sarcophagi of the Czar Nicolas & his family, Russians (young and old) were coming up & making the sign of the cross. I asked about this, and our guide said they (meaning the Russian people) consider them saints & martyrs! Hard to believe, because we are talking about several generations who were brought up under communism as atheists. I saw people there openly expressing their faith.

I think the West needs conversion just as much (if not more) than Russia! We cannot compare this with Guadalupe, where millions converted in a short time. Two different events. But I see hope for the Russian people. The consecration was done, and now we leave the rest to God…because He knows what He is doing.

 

[Victorious]

N.B. it is not possible to talk of Fatima as a “Private Revelation”, not only because of the Miracle of the Sun, but because Pope John Paul II added the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima to the Universal Calendar, set for May 13th. Do remember the implications of this. Priests and religious of the Roman Rite (Ordinary Form) are bound to keep that Feast Day, to read the prescribed prayers and offer the prescribed Mass of the Day. That means that Fatima is part of the Public Liturgy of the Church. The word “Liturgy” itself – leiturgia – means the “Opus Dei” (not the religious congregation!) – = ‘the Work of God’ –*the Mystical Body of Christ doing the work for the Father. It is an official part of the Catholic Faith.

It is still private revelation. Public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle.

 

[JeffGuidry]

Thanks for the link but it didn’t work for me.

Try this…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

 

[irishcolleen45]

Try this…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

Thank you. This link works.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It wasn’t until 1965 that Pope Paul VI read the secret, the first pope to do so.

On the contrary, Cdl Capovilla (who is still alive) confirmed that both John XXIII and Paul VI read the 25-line letter that is kept in the papal bedchamber, in the desk “Barbarigo” –*not to mention the 4-page account of the vision that was released in 2000. There is no doubt that there are two different documents, and that only one has been released.
You will find full documentation, with dates, in ‘the Devil’s Final Battle’ and ‘the Fourth Secret’ (see previous link).

 

[numealinesimpet]

I thought JPII said that the assassination attempt on him was the third secret.

No, what he said was that Our Lady’s hand had guided the bullet to spare his life. But he never said that this was the fulfilment of the Third Secret. It is Cdls Sodano & Bertone who insinuate this, without however actually saying so.

I had found that odd because I had been told (as a child in the '50’s) that Pope Pius XII had read the third secret and wept. I would think that to know a pope was to be martyred would not have caused Pope Pius XII to weep. I think there was more to it than that. What I’m reading here make more sense.

Remember this:

Pius XII, when he was still Monsignor Pacelli, made an astonishing prophesy about the current state of the Church, which he tied to the Message of Fatima:

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, in Her theology and Her soul … A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God … In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’”

(see pages 52-53 in the book Pie XII Devant l’Histoire,
in English the title is Pope Pius XII Before the Bar
of History
quoted in fatimaperspectives.com/ef/perspective146.asp
& many other places.

"Pope Pius XII’s biographer, Msgr. Roche, noted that at this moment in the conversation, according to a Count Galeazzi, “the gaze of the Pope, seen through the lenses of his glasses, became supernatural, and there emanated from his tall and slender body an irresistible mystical force.”

“ The Devil’s Final Battle:” Ch5 Fr P. Kramer

Notice that none of this is in the published Secrets of Fatima. the Pope must have got it from the unpublished parts of the Third Secret, or from other undisclosed messages via Sr Lucia.

On another note, Pope Leo XIII had a vision in which he heard Jesus and Satan talking. Satan supposedly said “Give me 100 years and I will destroy your Church”. Jesus agreed to let Satan try. Since this vision happened around 1890, I had wondered when the 100 year period began. Someone told me that the time frame began in 1917 when Our Lady appeared at Fatima. Is this true?

I first heard about this in the early 1980s but could never trace the original source, although i asked many people i would have expected to be knowledgeable. I think it must be apocryphal.

 

[Hereswith]

I’m sorry, but this whole imposter discussion is so silly. When you (that’s a generic “you”, not pointing fingers!) get so wrapped up in details about what each message means or doesn’t mean, and whether Sr. Lucia lived to be 89 or 93 - you are missing the point. Which is that three illiterate rural children conversed with an apparition which they and many others believed to be the Virgin, and spoke about world issues they had no way of knowing about. Period. The miracle is that Mary was and is still with us!

I wanted to respond to this which someone posted (sorry not to give credit, it’s a long thread!):

**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…
**

First, you should look up an article Nat. Geographic did in the 1980s about nuns and how they age. They profiled a convent in Minnesota, and quite the big deal was made about how young the women looked for their ages.

Also, regarding Sr. Lucia - she was a cloistered nun in a very traditional society. As I understand it, she herself did not WANT to be seen. She wanted to be left alone to be a contemplative and devote her life to prayer. Everytime anyone saw her, permission had to be asked, and go through several channels, not because something sinister was going on, but because she was being protected from all the craziness by her own request! Many nuns of her generation, depending upon the order and house, spent their entire lifetimes of 60-80 years NEVER seeing anyone outside the convent!