Is Our Lady of Fatima Still Relevant?

[MarkThompson]

100%, Mark! But in history it has happened that a pope has been legitimately resisted after making an unlawful command, as e.g. in the case of Bp. Grosseteste. The pope tried to force the bishop to appoint an unworthy favourite to a ‘benefice’ – an ecclesial post with a nice salary. The bishop tried every possible means within the law to prevent this, but the pope persisted and finally backed him completely into a corner. After all ‘normal’ means had been exhausted, Bp G. wrote one last letter on the subject, reviewing the entire case, and then concluding “And therefore, as a loyal son of the Church I contradict, I disobey, I rebel. You cannot take action against me …” The pope, naturally, was beside himself when he received this message – which was nothing if not clear – but his cardinals replied, “My Lord [they didn’t say ‘Your Holiness’ then], he’s right…” The corrupt official was never appointed.

A very extreme case, and thankfully rare, but it illustrates the principle that not every command of a pope, without exception, must be complied with.

When a cleric is ordained, you will notice that he swears “true” obedience to the pope, not “blind, unconditional assent to any command whatsoever”. The Church is wiser than some of her members.

Good to know – I thought for a moment there that you were implying that H.H. was not lawfully the Pope! Glad to hear that is not the case.

My own view of the matter is that the Mary I know would never make a special appearance to demand that something be consecrated to herself in preference to her Son, so I’m not too worried about it. Even if she did, we don’t “consecrate” something by casting a spell from Rome, so the whole issue is basically moot until we are rejoined with the Russian Orthodox. If Mary really did make any such demand, I can’t imagine she thought it could be fulfilled with a two-minute dedicatory prayer said at St. Peter’s.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Good to know – I thought for a moment there that you were implying that H.H. was not lawfully the Pope! Glad to hear that is not the case.

My own view of the matter is that the Mary I know would never make a special appearance to demand that something be consecrated to herself in preference to her Son, so I’m not too worried about it.

That is the whole issue that Protestants misunderstand. Christ alone is the Mediator of Salvation, but any person whose prayers we ask, can be a mediator of intercession. If I ask you to pray for me, I am not putting you ahead of God. In fact He seems to prefer us to pray and intercede for each other. And Our Lady seems to be the particular mediator of intercession in this age.

Even if she did, we don’t “consecrate” something by casting a spell from Rome, so the whole issue is basically moot until we are rejoined with the Russian Orthodox. If Mary really did make any such demand, I can’t imagine she thought it could be fulfilled with a two-minute dedicatory prayer said at St. Peter’s.

Well, the pope does have particular authority and powers from God. If he interdicted a nation for a just cause, the interdiction would be real and effective. The Collegial Consecrtion, as Sr Lucy frequently said, is to be done by the pope and all the bishops, on the same day, and with the specific mention of Russia. This is not magic, which is a word that generally means something extraordinary that happens just by saying the right incantation or making the right gestures. Our Lord sometimes promises to use His Power, but on the condition that we make some preliminary move – as with Namaan the leper, who was cured, but only after he had bathed in the Jordan. It was not that the Jordan had magical powers, but that he signalled his humility and obedience by carrying out the requested action.

At Tuy on June 13, 1929, Our Lady’s actual words were:

“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means”.

And later, Our Lord said to Sr Lucia,

“Make it known to my ministers that, given they did not heed ***My ***requests, like the King of France, they will follow him into misfortune”.

We see from this that Our Lady is in no way acting in opposition or separately from Our Lord. On the contrary, the request is His, not originally Our Lady’s, even though it was she who delivered it.

 

[thomas_jd]

This book simply ignores and skirts around each and every one of the perfectly legitimate issues that continue to be raised about the Fatima message. That is a fact that can be ascertained by anybody who reads it. It doesn’t matter who wrote it. Actually, the way this was reported would not stand up for five minutes in any court. Instead of producing the witness, an ‘interested party’ with some power over the witness conducted a private interview and then made a casual statement that the witness happened to agree with him – at the same time, repudiating all she had previously said. She had stated constantly and consistently that the Collegial Consecration has not been done. Houston, we have a problem! On the contrary, each item has been fully documented. Fr Gruner. If you look at the facts, you will see that the suspension was for no reason – except that he was not following ‘the Party Line’, for reasons which he makes quite clear. This suspension has since been quietly dropped. This is an ancient ploy, that has been used often in history: issue a groundless sanction, then denounce the victim, not because he has done anything, but merely because he has been sanctioned. The Mystical Body of Christ needs to operate at higher standards than these. Do you refer to Antonio Socci? He is a very highly respected writer and journalist in Italy. He began his investigation with the express aim of refuting the ‘Fatimists’ once and for all. When he actually began to study the evidence, however, he was forced to the conclusion that they were telling the truth – and he was honest enough to say so. It is precisely because of his standing in Italian society that he was taken so seriously. Very weak, if I may say so. Does this mean that we can brush aside each and every statement made by any attorney since the beginning of the world?
You are, as they say in Australian rules football, “playing the man and not the ball”. This is a classic fallacy, that you would find listed in any elementary ‘Clear Thinking’ textbook.

Continued…

1: I have seen no, I repeat ,no legitimate issues raised. No facts whatsoever! The books published by the World Apostolate are not required to answer irresponsible and baseless charges. It matters a great deal who writes a book.Rome has charged the Apostolate with
the correct teaching of Fatima.
2: Sister Lucia stated privately and very, very, publicaly that the consecration was done correctly. Read her BOOKS !! She was there at Fatima, she was entrusted with the Message. What could you possibly be Thinking?? I agree you have a problem with your postings. Five minutes in court?
3:Fr Gruner’s suspension has not been removed. The next step, after suspension, is Excommunication!!! Quietly dropped. PROVE IT. Ancient ploy? Nonscense!
4:A highly respected writer? He was denounced by the Ecclescial Court of Milan.
Not a ringing endorsement for any writer. Since when are salesman required to tell the truth? He sells magazines as Fr. Gruner does. They answer to no one. Italian society
standings are the mark of a journalist? If you believe that I have a bridge I can sell you.
5: The best for last. Standing up for the Honesty of the Legal Profession. You believe a priest,suspended from the church. You believe a magizine salesman. You believe a lawyer.You do not believe Sr. Lucia, the person chosen by Our Lady , to receive the Message of Fatima.You do not believe the Popes, the Cardinals, the Bishops,Holy priests ,such as Fr. Fox, who have done so much to spread the message. Rethink your position.

 

[thomas_jd]

Continued…

A fourth source you do not seem to have mentioned is Fr Kramer. Note carefully what he says in the introduction to his book ‘The Devil’s Final Battle’:Where does that leave such comments as ?There was a good posting on this many pages back. I had said that 70,000 witnesses lifted it beyond the realm of Private Revelation. The reply (forgive me, but I haven’t traced it down again …) was that this was not the point. It is still not the deposit of Faith. Fair enough. I accept the point. We are all required, as Catholics, to be prepared to die for any one infallibly-defined tenet of the Faith. The appearance at Fatima does not, at first glance, come into this category. But The Faith does contain innumeraable other things that are not in this category, yet are expected to be part and parcel of the life of the Church. One could include the First Friday devotion, the Rosary itself. Now Pope John Paul II said, ‘The time for doubting Fatima is past’ and he included May 13 as a Feast of the Universal Church in honour of the Apparition, just as Feb 11 is Our Lady of Lourdes. I’m not a theological expert on this, but I think that this ranks it as infallible, because priests are now required to say this Mass and Divine Office: just as a canonisation is infallible, because we are duty bound to pray not for but to the canonised saint - and we cannot be formally bound to a falsehood.
Even apart from this, the entire context of the miracle predicted months in advance, to the very hour and minute, and witnessed by a vast throng who had gathered, in appalling weather, for that very purpose, is strictly unprecedented in the history of the World. Even the Hebrews crossing the Red Sea were going on blind faith, not the promise of a miracle at a stated time. This makes the event of unique gravity. The problem I have with calling it a “Private Revelation” is that there can be two meanings that are confused. In engineering, we could use the word “work” in both the everyday sense and in the specialised sense of Applied Science. Thus, we could say, "No work is being done’ if no mass was being moved through a distance: yet many people might have been ‘working’ very hard to make it happen. In the same way, “Private Revelation” is a loaded term that can smuggle in a lot of baggage, particularly that we are free to ignore it at will. I don’t believe we can ignore Fatima, and I believe, as does the worthy Antonio Socci, that we are under an obligation so seek the truth. Because, if Russia really has not been consecrated, then two things are still up ahead: the assassination of the Holy Father with numerous Religious and lay people, and the annihilation of ‘various’ nations. That is not being done. I’m glad you used the word ‘lawful’. You are making the selfsame error as with ‘private revelation’. With your patience, I will make a separate posting on the meaning of ‘schism’. This is not a word to be bandied about at everybody who happens to disagree with a particular statement.

Beware of formal schism! One person , over time, can enter into formal schism by repeatedly questioning papal authority. Beware of formal schism! This is not a word to be bandied about, it should be taken very seriously. Caution at all times.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mary is working…

Go to non Catholic forum, and check out Muslims and the Annunciation, Lebanon.

 

[antunesaa]

Other posters have already provided quotes of Cdl Ratzinger showing that, at the very least, he has changed his mind 180 degrees on some of the Fatima message. In particular, Cdl Ratzinger’s “theological interpretation” of Cdl Sodano’s “proposed interpretation” of the vision effectively abandoned the meaning of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and endorsed the attempt to identify the vision with the failed assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, despite the existence of clear statements by both JPII and Sr Lucy that proved this to be impossible.

Also, Fr Ratzinger of the 1960s was one of the first senior clerics to abandon clerical garb. Now he is re-instating it throughout the Church.

We all need, at different times of our lives, to be allowed to re-think – and to be given credit for it when it is due. The statements and actions of Pope Benedict regarding Fatima are definitely different from what he said and did as Cdl Ratzinger. All these details can be found, fully documented. We would do the Holy Father more of a service by praying that he will obey all of Our Lady’s requests, including the ones he can be seen to have once helped conceal, than in simply denying it because it is unpalatable.

The truth is that tomorrow I’ll be by the Tagus river, in Lisbon, at the Holy Mass celebrated by our beloved pope Benedict XVI, with my mother, brothers, children and friends. And on wednesday I’ll be in Fátima with my wife for the Procession of the Candles, presided by Benedict XVI, and on the 13th May I’ll be at the Holy Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI.

 

[antunesaa]

I would think it very inept of Our Lady to came down from Heaven and then deliver her message to people who were incapable of delivering it properly. The same argument is, to my mind, conclusive for the reliability of the gospels, against those who claim the evangelists distorted the Gospel Story…

Remember that Our Lady isn’t the Lord; moreover, perhaps we have four gospels exactly because the Lord didn’t want to rely on a single frail human mind and will — which He truly respects.

 

[antunesaa]

Mary is working…

Go to non Catholic forum, and check out Muslims and the Annunciation, Lebanon.

What’s happening in the Muslim world regarding Mary? A couple of Muslim friends once told me that Muslims are interested in the Fátima apparitions because that is the Portuguese name of Prophet Muhammad’s daughter. They sense that the link has to have a meaning. Honestly I don’t know what to think about it but I too think there’s a meaning.

 

[numealinesimpet]

What’s happening in the Muslim world regarding Mary? A couple of Muslim friends once told me that Muslims are interested in the Fátima apparitions because that is the Portuguese name of Prophet Muhammad’s daughter. They sense that the link has to have a meaning. Honestly I don’t know what to think about it but I too think there’s a meaning.

I agree. I think Our Lady has something up her sleeve concerning the Moslems. Fatima was Mohammed’s favourite daughter. In the mid 20th century Our Lady appeared in Cairo, on the top of the spire of a church, and I think the church is on the road that the Holy Family must have taken into Egypt (because there has only ever been one). The man who saw her cried “Look!” And pointed with his bandaged index finger that was due to be amputated. As he pointed, the finger was instantaneously cured.
The conversion of the Moslems seems even less likely than the conversion of the Russian people to Rome, but I think Our Lady has a plan to achieve it.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Remember that Our Lady isn’t the Lord; moreover, perhaps we have four gospels exactly because the Lord didn’t want to rely on a single frail human mind and will — which He truly respects.

Yes, that opens a whole new region of thought which would, however, need to be on a different thread. The Scriptures are nothing so simple as a stenographic dictation from Heaven. One of the earliest translations of the Gospels was into Syriac (the late form of Aramaic) and the author combined the 4 accounts into one. It is known as the Diatessaron (“four lined up against each other” - not ‘against’ meaning opposition, but as a ladder leans ‘against’ the wall - sorry to be long-winded, but the English word ‘against’ can have two opposite meanings). You can find a word-for-word English translation of the Diatessaron online at the New Advent website. The Syrian Church (in communion with Rome) used this version for a while in its liturgy, but the Mind of the Church was to preserve the Four Gospels intact. There are four different viewpoints, four human personalities, and even minor contradictions (one angel in Luke, two in Matthew etc). There is much room for thought here.

As for Fatima, remember what Our Lord told Margaret Mary: “I have chosen you because you are the dumbest person I can find. If I had found someone dumber, I would have chosen them instead”. And Bernadette was believed when she told the priest, "The Lady said, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’, " precisely because she didn’t even know what those words meant. Likewise, the three children of Fatima were illiterate, yet of heroic virtue. It is easy to smile at their naivety in really believing they would be boiled in oil, but it takes an effort of the mind to realise they really did believe this, and were willing to go through with it. Would my own children have done this - or would I as a child?

The children went through all of this to protect the integrity of Our Lady’s “Secrets”.

A very strong case has been made that, as Sr Angelica said, “We didn’t get the whole thing”

Now actually, at this point, I am not convinced that the release of the letter in “the Capovilla envelope” would necessarily be the best way forward. But I think the evidence is conclusive that Heaven is still awaiting the Collegial Consecration. Before she was ordered to silence, and before the “Party Line” was laid down that we all had to pretend it had already been done – the dates, times and persons have been given already on this thread – Sr Lucy was extremely clear on what had to be done and why.

*A collegial consecration because it is an Act of Reparation of the whole Church. We were slack in the 18th & 19th centuries, and allowed Protestantism, then Marxism, to grow. Then we failed to head off the First World War. (“If my requests are heeded, the war will end and there will be peace. If not, another and worse war will break out in the reign of Pius XI…”)

*the public act in every diocese will leave the Church open to being the laughing stock of the world. This is our punishment for our timidity that has allowed the world to reach this state.

*Russia by name, because the satanic Bolshevik Revolution began from there.

*The Russian people, as a reward for their steadfastness, are to be lifted out of their errors by a particular action of God’s Providence, through Our Lady.

*The entire nation of Russia will convert integrally to Rome, and the whole world will see that it was precisely through the Act of Consecration.

Meanwhile, Sr Lucy has testified that the partial Consecrations already carried out did have effect in mitigating the power of evil. Remember that the Soviet nuclear arsenal in Siberia blew up on the anniversary of Fatima – May 13 1984 (If I’ve got that date right). I was not, in those days, nearly as committed to the Fatima message as now, but even I, when I read the bland account in the newspaper, thought, “That date! We are being told something!”.

I don’t think the Holy Father could possibly order it on just 3 days’ notice, so I don’t expect it on the 13th May this year, but I believe that the Rosary campaigns – not just the 18 million this year, but the combined Rosaries of the past ninety years, will ultimately have their effect.

 

[numealinesimpet]

1: I have seen no, I repeat ,no legitimate issues raised. No facts whatsoever!

They are there in black and white, fully documented, for anybody to read.

The books published by the World Apostolate are not required to answer irresponsible and baseless charges.

They can slander them as baseless, but their own self-contradictions will never go away that way. As Fr Kramer said, & I quoted yesterday, drop the insults and just show me where we are wrong.

It matters a great deal who writes a book. Rome has charged the Apostolate with the correct teaching of Fatima.

You mean, “with propagating the Party Line”. As the Romans said, ‘Against a fact there is no argument’. Even the Vatican cannot get away with denying plain facts. Socci writes that he is embarrassed to see the great mess Cdl Bertone is now getting himself into. I have already given a selection of Bertone’s contradictory statements, that destroy his own credibility. Yet just because he is Cdl Secretary of State, we are supposed to switch off our minds.

2: Sister Lucia stated privately and very, very, publicaly that the consecration was done correctly. Read her BOOKS !!

Could you give us the references, please?

3:Fr Gruner’s suspension has not been removed.

I didn’t say that. I said they have quietly dropped pursuing that one. Look again at what actually happened. The Vatican requested all bishops of the world to withhold faculties from Fr Gruner, then suspended him for not having faculties! And even that was futile, because he did have faculties from a bishop.

Might I add that this is the same bureaucracy that has hounded the ‘Fatimists’ and Trads for decades on end, while allowing the homosexuality and abuse of parishoners to go on, not only unchecked, but protecting the guilty, for decades. The Trads & ‘Fatimists’ have been pointing this out for decades. Now it is all coming out. We need to pray for our church, but we have to recognise the reality.

The next step, after suspension, is Excommunication!!!

If I’m driving down the road 10 mph below the speed limit, I don’t expect to be fined or my licence removed because ‘the next step’ would be to drive 10mph above the limit.

Quietly dropped. PROVE IT.

They are not taking any further action. I have already posted here about the Canonical Appeals he has made, which have not been heard, even though he has a legal right in Canon Law to such appeal. Rather than deal with it (and because he has already seriously embarrassed those who moved illegally against him) they are just ignoring him.

Ancient ploy? Nonscense!

I am sorry for you that you know so little of world and political history.

4:A highly respected writer? He was denounced by the Ecclescial Court of Milan.
Not a ringing endorsement for any writer.

Readers of this thread are invited to read Socci’s book and judge for themselves. He scrupulously avoids making moral judgements – in fact he bends over backwards to be charitable to Bertone and the others – but the facts are there in black and white.

Since when are salesman required to tell the truth? He sells magazines as Fr. Gruner does. They answer to no one. Italian society
standings are the mark of a journalist? If you believe that I have a bridge I can sell you.
5: The best for last. Standing up for the Honesty of the Legal Profession. You believe a priest,suspended from the church. You believe a magizine salesman. You believe a lawyer.You do not believe Sr. Lucia, the person chosen by Our Lady , to receive the Message of Fatima.You do not believe the Popes, the Cardinals, the Bishops,Holy priests ,such as Fr. Fox, who have done so much to spread the message. Rethink your position.

In other words, you obstinately insist on continuing to rely on personal smears – playing the man and not the ball – and refusing to come to grips with the actual facts of the case. I too once believed everything that emanated from the Vatican. It doesn’t correspond with the reality of the present age. We help the Church by praying and revealing the truth.

 

[pnewton]

They are there in black and white, fully documented, for anybody to read. They can slander them as baseless, but their own self-contradictions will never go away that way. As Fr Kramer said, & I quoted yesterday, drop the insults and just show me where we are wrong.

Some things never can be proven wrong. Any and all evidence, hearings and rulings are deemed to be part of the “party line” and part of the vaaaaassst conspiracy. That is the problem with conspiracy theories.

Might I add that this is the same bureaucracy that has hounded the ‘Fatimists’ and Trads for decades on end, while allowing the homosexuality and abuse of parishoners to go on, not only unchecked, but protecting the guilty, for decades.

And if all else fails, trot out the same anticatholic propaganda that the media has been peddling to muddy the waters. Anticatholics too use the misdeeds of some to paint a broadbrush over the whole Catholic Church. I wasn’t going to post on this thread until I saw this statement. I am saddened to see any Catholic take such a cheap and unfair shot. Then you actually end with:

In other words, you obstinately insist on continuing to rely on personal smears – playing the man and not the ball – and refusing to come to grips with the actual facts of the case.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Remember that Sr Lucy had said that the Third Secret was to be opened by the Bishop of Leiria at Sr Lucy’s death, or in 1960 at the latest. When asked why, she said, “Because Our Lady wishes it” and “Because it will become clearer then”. But in 1958 the letter and the notebooks were ordered to be sent to the Vatican.
In 1960 an anonymous ‘communiqué’ from the Vatican announced that it would probably never be opened. See previous postings.

So what happened from 1960?

The following is lightly edited from ‘The Devil’s Final battle’. You will also find this episode quoted, with references, in “Fatima – The Great Sign”.

The “Errors of Russia” Infiltrate the Church
*******First, just before the Council’s commencement, there would be … a sign of many unprecedented things to come. In the spring of 1962, in Metz, France, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant had a meeting with none other than Metropolitan Nikodim of the Russian Orthodox Church—a KGB operative, as were the other Orthodox prelates. At this meeting Tisserant and Nikodim negotiated what came to be known as the Metz Pact, or more popularly, the Vatican-Moscow Agreement.6 The existence of the Vatican-Moscow Agreement is an irrefutable historical fact attested to in all of its details by Monsignor Roche, who was Cardinal Tisserant’s personal secretary.
*******In substance, the agreement was as follows: Pope John, according to his fond wish, would be “favored” by the attendance of two Russian Orthodox observers at the Council. In return, the Catholic Church would agree that the Second Vatican Council would refrain from any condemnation of Soviet Communism or Soviet Russia. In essence, the Council would compromise the moral liberty of the Catholic Church by pretending that the most systematized form of human evil in human history did not exist—even though, at the very moment the Council opened, the Soviets were persecuting, imprisoning and murdering millions of Catholics.
*******Her liberty thus constrained in a bargain with Communists, the Council failed even to mention Communism. By this failure the Council departed from the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, Blessed Pius IX, Saint Pius X and also Pope Pius XI, who reminded the Church that we could not refrain from condemning this incomparable evil. As he said in Divini Redemptoris,

---

This all too imminent danger, venerable brethren, as you have already surmised is Bolshevistic and atheistic Communism which aims at upsetting the social order and undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization. In the face of such a threat the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent. This Apostolic See above all has not refrained from raising its voice for it knows that its proper and special mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks.

*******And yet the Council would say not one word about Soviet Communism, but would instead begin a “dialogue” with the very forces the Church once opposed.
*******Why did this happen? It was surely no “coincidence” that the Council’s silence about Communism synchronized perfectly with the Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church which, as we showed in a previous chapter, had been revealed just before Vatican II by key witnesses with no motive to lie (Dodd, Hyde, Golitsyn, Mitrokhin and others). Even without such testimonies, our common sense should tell us that the forces of Communism (working alongside those of Freemasonry) would inevitably attempt to destroy the Catholic Church from within. Satan is intelligent enough to know that the Catholic Church is the one citadel he must storm in his effort to conquer the whole world for the kingdom of darkness.
*******This, then, was the state of affairs in the Church at the very moment that the Second Vatican Council was wrongly constrained to observe its shameful silence on the evil of Communism. And, needless to say, under the Vatican-Moscow Agreement, the Consecration of Soviet Russia to the Immaculate Heart by the Council Fathers, in order to bring about its conversion, would be absolutely out of the question. This early shift toward a new orientation of the Church, which the Council would accelerate in a most dramatic fashion, was already in conflict with the Message of Fatima.
*******And so it has been ever since the meeting in Metz, which marked the beginning of the conciliar and post-conciliar pursuit of Ostpolitik, the policy implemented by the Vatican Secretary of State under which the Church has ceased all condemnation and opposition to Communist regimes in favor of “dialogue” and “quiet diplomacy”—a policy which to this day has silenced the Vatican concerning the vicious persecution of the Church in Red China [and elsewhere].

*******Thus on October 12, 1962, two representative priests of the Orthodox church debarked from a plane at Fiumicino Airport and attended the Second Vatican Council. The Council began with Orthodox observers watching its proceedings, making sure that the Vatican-Moscow Agreement was observed. The written intervention of 450 Council Fathers against Communism was mysteriously “lost” after being delivered to the Secretariat of the Council, and Council Fathers who stood up to denounce Communism were politely told to sit down and be quiet.

For the record, this attempt by the 450 Council Fathers was led by Mgr Marcel Lefebvre – one of the experts who had originally been given two years to draft the preparatory ‘schemas’ for the Council, which were all abandoned in the first week, as the result of an illegal intervention on the council chamber. This also is recorded history.

 

[antunesaa]

I don’t think the 3rd secret is really that big a mystery. Common sense would surely tell us that it’s all the apostasy that’s occured in the Church since the 1960’s.

Today, on his way to Portugal, the Holy Father said that the highest danger to the Church is from the inside, not from the outside. Hence the need for penance, forgiveness and justice. He said that forgiveness does not eliminate the need for justice. And, most important of all, he linked that need for penance to the message of Our Lady of Fátima. Experts and veteran journalists are commenting this a lot and some of them are linking these courageous statements to part of the 3rd secret.

 

[thomas_jd]

Today, on his way to Portugal, the Holy Father said that the highest danger to the Church is from the inside, not from the outside. Hence the need for penance, forgiveness and justice. He said that forgiveness does not eliminate the need for justice. And, most important of all, he linked that need for penance to the message of Our Lady of Fátima. Experts and veteran journalists are commenting this a lot and some of them are linking these courageous statements to part of the 3rd secret.

All one needs for clarification to the Popes statement, “highest danger to the church is from the inside,” is to follow this post from its inception.Outright attacks on the Pope, the Vatican, Sr. Lucia etc. all under the disclaimer that private revelation belief is not required.
It has been said that the first two messages of Fatima are Penance and Penance!!
It warmed my heart to watch the Beautiful Liturgy from Lisbon last night.This evening the Pope will visit Fatima for his first time. Tomorrow is the 93rd anniversity of the first appearance by Our Lady. This Pope visit, in itself, answers the question " Is Our Lady of Fatima still Relevant?"

 

[KathleenGee]

numlealinesimset

That is an interesting addition about Pope John and the Orthodox…I did hear of their clergy being a part of the KGB…

The infiltration of the spirit of man has hit so many parish administrations across our country…the standard of Christ, of who is telling the truth, of what is the Christian good for the parish is displaced by personality, power, and pride. I was told there were many great injustices of parish administration towards Christian lay ministers across the country. Many had to leave. Some lost their faith completely.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Consecrations of 1982 & 1984
There was some real heroism involved in (from memory) the 1984 consecration: the authorised Bishop of all Russia and Siberia sneaked into the Kremlin – which is actually a church, or series of churches – with a copy of the Russian newspaper pravda into which had been pasted the words of the Consecration issued by Pope John Paul II, and the Order of Mass. He read the Consecration and then appeared to the security guards to be fiddling with his camera – but the lens cases contained a Host and a thimbleful of wine. The Pope was overjoyed when he heard that this had all been done
Nonetheless, this consecration was not what Our Lady had requested, with her promise “to save [Russia] by this means”. Only a few of the bishops participated in the ceremony.
In 1982, when one of the British bishops was asked would he be making the Consecration, he replied, “Consecration? what’s that? I don’t know what that means”.

In the November 2000 issue of Inside the Vatican, a leading Cardinal, identified only as “one of the Pope’s closest advisors,” is quoted to the effect that “Rome fears the Russian Orthodox might regard it as an ‘offense’ if Rome were to make specific mention of Russia in such a prayer, as if Russia especially is in need of help when the whole world, including the post-Christian West, faces profound problems …” The same Cardinal-advisor added: “Let us beware of becoming too literal-minded.”
*******In other words, “Rome”—meaning a few members of the Vatican apparatus who advise the Pope—has decided not to honor the specific request of Our Lady of Fatima for fear of giving offense to the Russian Orthodox. “Rome” does not wish to give the impression that Russia should be converted to the Catholic Faith through its consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for this would be quite contrary to the new “ecumenical dialogue” launched by Vatican II. The consecration and conversion of Russia called for by the Mother of God would also be contrary to the Vatican’s diplomatic agreement (in the 1993 Balamand Declaration) that the return of the Orthodox to Rome is “outdated ecclesiology”—a claim that, as we have shown, flatly contradicts the infallibly defined Catholic dogma that heretics and schismatics cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church. In keeping with this blatant departure from Catholic teaching, the Vatican’s own apostolic administrator for Russia, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, stated publicly in January of 1998 that "The Second Vatican Council has declared that the Orthodox Church is our Sister Church and has the same means for salvation. So there is no reason to have a policy of proselytism."3
*******Given this de facto abandonment of the Church’s constant teaching that heretics, schismatics, Jews and pagans must be added to the Catholic flock if they are to be saved, a consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart to bring about the conversion of Russia would, of course, be out of the question—at least so far as those who promote the new orientation of the Church are concerned.
*******Thus, on May 13, 1982 and again on March 25, 1984, the Pope had consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart, but with no mention of Russia. In neither case had the bishops of the world participated. Thus, neither of the two requirements attested to by Sister Lucy throughout her life had been met. Clearly recognizing this, the Pope himself had made telltale remarks during and after the 1984 ceremony. During the ceremony, before 250,000 people in Saint Peter’s Square, he spontaneously added to the prepared text the following: "Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding."4 Hours after the ceremony, as reported in the Italian Catholic bishops’ newspaper Avvenire, the Holy Father prayed inside St. Peter’s, before 10,000 witnesses, asking Our Lady to bless "those peoples for whom You Yourself are awaiting our act of consecration and entrusting."5 Russia has not been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, and the Pope knows it. Evidently persuaded by his advisers, the Pope had told Bishop Cordes, head of the Pontifical Council of the Laity, that he had omitted any mention of Russia because "it would be interpreted as a provocation by the Soviet leaders."6

From devilsfinalbattle.com/ch8.htm

The link gives full citations for each of these statements.

 

[thomas_jd]

The Consecrations of 1982 & 1984
There was some real heroism involved in (from memory) the 1984 consecration: the authorised Bishop of all Russia and Siberia sneaked into the Kremlin – which is actually a church, or series of churches – with a copy of the Russian newspaper pravda into which had been pasted the words of the Consecration issued by Pope John Paul II, and the Order of Mass. He read the Consecration and then appeared to the security guards to be fiddling with his camera – but the lens cases contained a Host and a thimbleful of wine. The Pope was overjoyed when he heard that this had all been done
Nonetheless, this consecration was not what Our Lady had requested, with her promise “to save [Russia] by this means”. Only a few of the bishops participated in the ceremony.
In 1982, when one of the British bishops was asked would he be making the Consecration, he replied, “Consecration? what’s that? I don’t know what that means”.

The link gives full citations for each of these statements.

Yet another link attacking the Pope and praising a priest that is under Suspension since 1996. The Pope is at Fatima ,try joining him in prayer instead of baseless attacks.
Beware of Formal Schism! Remember Penance and Reparition!

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yet another link attacking the Pope and praising a priest that is under Suspension since 1996. The Pope is at Fatima ,try joining him in prayer instead of baseless attacks.
Beware of Formal Schism! Remember Penance and Reparition!

Hello again, thomas jd. I know you are acting out of loyalty to the Catholic Church and the Pope – this is the irony of the “disorientation” that Sr Lucy has stated is upon the Church – but you are getting it wrong. It is not attacking the pope to report what has happened. Not only are the sources reliable, but those of us who lived through these things can remember them. I have already given the evidence why the “suspension” of Fr Gruner is null and void. I have already given the definition of schism from Canon Law itself and the Catholic Encyclopaedia, showing why it is not applicable to what we are discussing. And I have asked you to stop “playing the man” and start “playing the ball” – please do not be blinded to the issue by the fact that the Cdl Secretary of State is the author of some of these documents … and yes, I hope all our thoughts and prayers are with the Holy Father today.

I will continue to pass on the pertinent facts of this case.

Frère François recounts: “[In 1988 A]n order came from the Vatican addressed to the authorities of Fatima, to Sister Lucy, to diverse ecclesiastics, including Father Messias Coelho, and a French priest [evidently Father Pierre Caillon] very much devoted to Our Lady, ordering everyone to cease pestering the Holy Father with the Consecration of Russia.” Fatima devotee Father Caillon confirmed the issuance of this order: "An order came from Rome, obliging everyone to say and think: ‘The Consecration is done. The Pope having done all that he can, Heaven has deigned to agree to this gesture.’"18 It was around this time, 1988-1989, that many Fatima Apostolates who had maintained that the consecration of Russia had not been done suddenly reversed themselves and declared that the 1984 consecration fulfilled the desires of Heaven. Sadly, even Father Caillon soon afterwards changed his testimony and began to say that the 1984 Consecration had fulfilled the Virgin’s requests.
******* It was also at this time that typewritten and computer-generated letters, purportedly from Sister Lucy, began to circulate. Typical of the manifestly incredible letters was the one dated November 8, 1989, to a Mr. Noelker, which contains the statement by “Sister Lucy” that Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart during his brief visit to Fatima in 1967—a consecration that never happened, as Sister Lucy certainly knew because she witnessed the entire visit.19

Footnotes:
18. Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 189-190.
19. For a good treatment of the falsehood of the Noelker letter, see Mark Fellows, “This Present Darkness” Part II, Catholic Family News, Sept. 2000.

From 'The Devil’s final Battle" Ch8.

Let the objective reader make his or her own judgment.

 

[KathleenGee]

Looking at this world, I think the best thing to do is simply pray the rosary and for Russia, and do everything out of love and sacrifice for our Lord…the morning offering and penance.

What people were yesterday are not the same today…or tomorrow. Can’t judge. Hold everyone in good faith.