W
williamgolle
Guest
Im just curious—the prophecy by Our lady of Fatima that the Pope would be shot—do accept this prophecy??? because it seems obvious that Pope John Paul II would be the guy???-----any thoughts
- Status
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Was that really a prophecy? I have never heard that…but if it was I would be interested to see how Sedes respond.
W
williamgolle
Guest
I believe that is why he gave her the bullet–The Pope went to fatima to present Our lady with the bullet----can anyone provide the printed version of the prophecy?
C
Caesar
Guest
I’m not a sedevacantist, but…
The prophesy was far more then that, and even taken literally it seems that the Pope would be killed by the enemies of the Church, not merely shot by a deranged Turk.
I believe the prophesy, but I do not believe it has been fullfilled.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I have a similar question for them…
I’m not sure if those here are following the events in Italy with respect to the third secret. To make a very long story short, there is more to the third secret than what was released in June of 2000. Pope John XXIII’s secretary, who is still living and one of only two people alive today who is known to have read the third secret, has actually admitted it, and it is on tape. It is a big deal in Italy, and Cardinal Bertone has been attempting to do damage control. He went on a TV show called Porta a Porta to respond to a recent book written on the subject by a famous and very well respected TV personality in Italy. During the TV interview, Cardinal Bertone held up two envelopes that held the third secret. Written on both envelopes by Sister Lucy, was this: “By the express command of the Blessed Virgin, only the Pope or the Bishop of Fatima can open this envelope in 1960”. The entire story can be read at www.fatima.org (the stories are in the top of the website).
Now, obviously the Blessed Mother would have known if there was not going to be a real Pope in 1960. Yet she said that the Pope of 1960 could open the envelope.
I thought that was on small but interestig confirmation that the Sedevacantists, who claims that John XXIII was an antipope, are mistaken.
C
Caesar
Guest
Not all sedevacantists believe that John XXIII was an anti-pope. There are some that say only Paul VI and his successors were invalid.
W
williamgolle
Guest
ok can someone provide the written text for the prophesy about the pope–but also how about st Lucia c’mon was she kidknapped–??? i mean c’mon??? we can all make up theories but eventually we have to say—you guys r friggin nuts!!!
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
It would appear that they maintain that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church in violation of Jesus’ promise.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Very interesting.
That simply exposes the danger of their system, at the end of the day it is subjective and puts the power of determining whether the pope is valid in the hands of the individual…and thus in a sense protestant. :whacky:
S
stmaria
Guest
Third Secret
“After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross **he was killed **by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”
The official line is that this all refers to JP II. There is one problem with that. He was not in a city of ruins, he was in a motorcade and he wasn’t killed and other priests and bishops weren’t even shot. I don’t think any of this refers to JP II.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Two quick comments:
1)Where did you get this quote?
2)How do you know this is to be taken literally rather than a general prophecy of persecution or something? For example it says he was killed by “arrows”, yet I wonder what army uses bow and arrows this day and age. Further, I wonder if after knowing this picture the Pope and Bishops would walk into such a trap. Obviously it would be foolish for the Pope to ever approach a war-torn area and then go up a mountain where there was a big cross knowing about this revelation.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Cardinal Bertone’s book refuting the allegations of Antonio Socci has as its introduction a preface by Pope Benedict XVI. So, it again boils down to the question: who are we to believe?
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=82379
J
JFonseka
Guest
This was the third secret, it was revealed in 2000. It is taken literally, it’s not an allegory or written in a metaphorical sense.
Furthermore this sounds like something to come, not anything recent, when the followers fade away and evil takes over the world. I’m not sure though
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Yes, but… and this is extremely interesting… so does the other book - the one that Cardinal Bertone’s books seeks to refute!
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Could you provide a link to this? I’ve googled and cannot find any reference to a preface by Pope Benedict in Socci’s book.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I just did a search. Actually, I don’t know if the letter that Pope Benedict XVI sent to Socci regarding his book was used as the introduction. This is what I was referring to…
And this
It appears that Pope Benedict wrote both Bertone and Socci a positive letter about their respective books. Bertone used the letter as his introduction, but I’m not sure if Socci did as well… at least not in the first printing.
If I can find any more information I’ll pass it along.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Are we then to assume that Cardinal Bertone published his book with the Pope’s letter without running it by the Pope? And has Pope Benedict changed his mind or stance since publishing this:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
Cardinal Ratzinger’s contribution is down at the bottom.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Pope Benedict wrote the letter to Socci first.
I wouldn’t say he has changed his mind. Instead, I would point to what the Pope is reported to have said several times: That Fatima is one of the biggest regrets of his life. What exactly is it that he regrets so much?
If you have been following the current situation in Italy over the not-yet-released portion of the Third Secret, you are familiar with Solideo Paolini. He is the person who interviewed Archbishop Capovilla who was the secretary for John XXIII, and who has read the Third Secret - all of it. In one of the meetings, the Archbishop admitted that there is an “attachment” to the Third Secret (another part of the Secret) that has yet to be revealed. That is the portion of the Third Secret that discusses the great apostasy that we are now living through.
Solideo Paolini interviewed the Archbishop several times, and was provided with a large stack of documentation on the Third Secret. In addition, he has a recording of the Archbishop admitting to the second portion of the Third Secret. Just as the first and second secrets had two parts, so too did the Third Secret. The second part of the Third Secret was so frightning that the Vatican questions its turthfulness. Some in Rome thought that Sister Lucy made it up, which is the excuse they are using for not releasing it. If you read what those have said who read the portion of the Third Secret not yet released (John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Ciappi, etc.), you get enough information to know, in general, what it discusses, but not the exact details.
To answer your question about whether Cardinal Ratzinger has “changes his mind”, I will quote what Solidao Paolini said in a recent talk on this subject:
Solideo Paolini:
In my opinion, that is what happened. Cardinal Ratzinger was, in a sense, forced to go along with something that he now regrets. Fortunately, the truth is now coming out and hopefully his regret will be over with soon.
Remember several months ago, after the Motu Proprio came out admitting that the old Mass was never abrogated? Remember when I asked why it was that only the Traditionalists knew the truth? Do you remember what your reply to me was? I do. You said: Those who thought the old Mass had been abrogated “were going on the best information available to them”.
And do you remember my reply? I said that the truth was available the entire time, but they refuse to read it since it came from “Traditionalist” pulications.
Well, the same is true with respect to the Third Secret. IT IS EXTREMELY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TWO PARTS OF THE THIRD SECRET, but you will only see the truth if you are willing to look at the evidence… and not dismiss it without even reading it.
The evidence can be found on the website of a saintly priest who has been persecuted for years for one crime: For promoting the message of Fatima and requesting that Rome release the Third Secret.
If you want to know the truth now, and not have to wait for a few more months, or years, before the truth is admitted by Rome, read the articles at the top of this website - www.fatima.org
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
So, Pope Benedict has regrets about this, but will permit his Secretary of State to continue to dissemble and mislead and will even allow his letter to be used in a preface to a book that will further the dissemblance and misleading?
And let’s be clear: I said the proper term was derrogated. I’ve never heard ANYONE use the term “abrogated” in discussing the Tridentine, except traditionalists who felt the need to cry that “it was never abrogated.” I never argued about that and I feel it’s a little hollow to claim that “traditionalists were right” when I’ve never heard anyone use the term “abrogate” except for them.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Does that surprise you? Remember, as Cardinal Ratzinger he went along with John Paul II who issued a dissembling and misleading “Indult” for a Mass that had never been forbidden, thereby confirming the dissembling and misleading impression that arose under the Pontificate of Paul VI with respect to the Old Mass. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II knew full well that the old Mass had never been forbidden, yet the dissembling and misleading “Indult” was issued anyway.
Isn’t the formal issing of an Indult for a Mass that was never forbidden more misleading than allowing an ambiguous letter to be used as an introduction to a book that you personally don’t agree with?
After all, one is a formal act of the Papal office, while the other is simply a personal letter being included as the intro to a book.
In your opinion, which is worse?
- Status