Several questions regarding the events at Fatima, Portugal in 1917...

[Sir_Knight]

Well lets see what Fatima is saying?

fatima.org/news/newsviews/frhess.asp

Nope they don’t seem to be in agreement about any of this. So we have what the Pope said, what you believe and what really happened?

I would to very hesitant to not give the Queen of Heaven the utmost respect. Matter of Fact I pray to her daily through the Rosary myself. And allow her to interceed on my behalf through her Son Jesus.

Father Malichi Martin Advisor to Three-Popes, 30-years as a Catholic Priest. Firmly felt this was the biggest mistake of the last three Popes? BTW he also read the Third Secret and openly admitted its not been released in its entire form.

This is a topic that those of the Catholic Faith tread lightly on this forum with respect to it. So to get your true answer. Research it outside this forum. I believe eveyone here has much to much respect for their faith to be perfectly honest here. Thus choose to avoid the issue.

The Pope has already been to Fatima this year. And Fatima has held a Mass at the Vatican. So they are in constant conversation over this.

Akita Japan 1973 is confirmed by the Vatican and is said to be the same basic message as Fatima? So what are we to believe? I do believe the Vatican is under enormous pressure thats for sure. And do to this I believe there stance is very conservative.

So three Popes and Sister Lucia, the Seer of Fatima herself, are wrong but this priest is correct? And we should believe him over them because …

 

[cathdoki]

So three Popes and Sister Lucia, the Seer of Fatima herself, are wrong but this priest is correct? And we should believe him over them because …

Because some reject the Church and put their faith in someone that is not in line with the Church.

 

[cathdoki]

Fr Gruener borders on heresy. Has been disciplined, but refuses to accept the Church authority. I’m not sure, but isn’t that heresy?

 

[VitaminC]

*OK, I took out the color coding and, I know I am not a scholar, but I do not read these to statements as saying the opposite. One just goes into more detail of how even Pope John XXIII started to try and answer Our Lady’s message. I read them to be essentially saying the same thing. Could anyone else please explain the difference between these two statements? *

Why did you take out the color coding? The point of it was to show the contradiction. They’re saying the exact opposite. For example, in the 1984 interview he says the Secret deals with the “importance of the end times.” And in the later interview he says it contains “nothing apocalyptic.”

In the 1984 interview, Cardinal Ratzinger states that the Third Secret is consistent with the subject matter in the Book of Revelation, such as the end times and “dangers threatening the faith and lives of Christians”, but he says the Secret adds nothing ‘beyond’ what’s already in the Book of Revelation.

In the second interview, Cardinal Ratzinger denies that it covers any of this subject matter at all. In other words, in the first interview from 1984 he’s saying that yes, it contains subject matter consistent with what’s in the Book of Revelation, but that the Third Secret adds nothing to it that the laity need to know about. In the second interview, he’s denying that the Third Secret even deals with any of that subject matter at all.

As stated by Fr. Charles Fiore in his taped interview with Brian Doran, “We have two different Cardinal Ratzingers; we have two different messages.”

And it’s not the only case of him doing this. He did the exact same thing with the Message of Akita. He took the extraordinary step as Prefect for the CDF of personally approving this message as worthy of belief rather than just leaving it to the local bishop. The Message warns of Apocalyptic events and Satanic infiltration of the Church.

The Message of Akita includes the following:

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres … churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
…]
“Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead…”

And then some years after personally approving this message worthy of belief, Cardinal Ratzinger made the following statement for EWTN:

“To all those who are curious, I would say that they should be certain that the Virgin does not engage in sensationalism; she does not create fear. She does not present apocalyptic visions, but guides people to her Son.” ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ENDNEAR.TXT

So, in other words, after personally approving the Akita message which presents an apocalyptic vision of Satanic infiltration, mass fear, and fire falling from the sky and wiping out billions of people, he turns right around and says that the Virgin never appears in apparitions to warn against such things.

Do you understand now?

Something happened with Cardinal Ratzinger in the 1990’s.

 

[Sir_Knight]

First , understand , I actually am very proud of your fervor in what you percieve is the defense of the Faith. But I am not the enemy. For example - when St Catherine of Siena wrote to the Pope in Avignon imploring him to return the See to Rome just prior to the Western Schism , she was demanding , critical and for all intents and purposes - she was admonishing him. Could what she wrote be percieved as an attack on the faith or even an insult to the dignity of the office? Or the infamous criticism of St Paul of St Peter often cited by Protestants? Popes can err. They cannot err when Teachings Ex Cathedra. But once again - everything that eminates from their mouth isnt Ex Cathedra.

First off, “Ex Cathedra” refers to infallible teachings made by the Pope in accordance with “whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven”. Popes also can not error when guiding the Church because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome His Church. If a Pope guided the Church down an incorrect path, that would mean that the gates of hell DID overcome the Church.

Second - the purpose for Papal Infallibility is to keep the Faith Orthodox. Jesus spent 3 years giving the Deposit of Faith to the Apostles. The Pope is promised the Holy Ghost not so he can make his own doctrine - but so that he can guard the Doctrine of JESUS CHRIST. The ecumenical Church Council that infallibly defined Papal Infallibility was Vatican I. Yes - St Peter is given the Keys and the Guidance of the Holy Ghost. but he is given those powers so as to guard the Deposit of Faith as handed down. Nothing is added to it and nothing is taken out of it. It is simply applied to the age and more fully explained by the reigning POPE.

Exactly. Now you’re beginning to get it. Papal infallibility does not give a Pope authority over heaven but assures that whatever he declares is already the case in heaven because he was guided to this truth by the Holy Spirit of truth.

Its simply my opinion that many Catholics today dont fully understand the purpose of Papal Infallibility and thus start coming up with their own idea that the POPE is the Holy Ghost incarnate a mouthpiece for GOD 24 / 7. That isnt a Catholic belief.

Pax

Nobody ever said that but OFFICIAL Church teaching as found in the CCC states that the Pope continues to be guided by the Holy Spirit even when he is not speaking “Ex Cathedra”.

Prosit.

 

[VitaminC]

I believe that Sr. Lucia was adamant in stating the consecration was done adequately.

No. She stated in two published interviews that the last consecration had failed. One of these interviews appeared in “Sol de Fatima” Magazine and the other in the Argentinian periodical “Para Ti.” In 1989, Fr. Coelho, a priest associated with her order at the time, reported that a letter had been sent by the Vatican telling everyone to start saying the consecration worked despite her previous previous public announcements that it had failed. Then forged letters started showing up allegedly by her that were typewritten and contained factual errors she wouldn’t have made. And multiple Fatima scholars determined these letters to be forgeries. Independent Fatima scholar Frere Francois, author of books on Fatima, even went to Fatima and confronted Rector Guerra over it, whom he believed was involved in it. Later on after 2000, Cardinal Bertone published comments in articles and in his book saying that Sr. Lucia personally gave him her assurances that the consecration of Russia had been completed after he interviewed her at her convent. His book is full of provable falsehoods and he has zero credibility at this point. Attorney Christopher Ferrara wrote an entire book exposing the falsehoods and contradictions of Cardinal Bertone’s testimony.

 

[VitaminC]

So three Popes and Sister Lucia, the Seer of Fatima herself, are wrong but this priest is correct? And we should believe him over them because …

Why bother with the sophistry? Do you really think the members here are that naive?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Now you are accusing the Pope and the Vatican of misleading the faithful – something Jesus promised would never happen.

 

[simple_soul]

Why did you take out the color coding? The point of it was to show the contradiction.

*I took out the color coding because it made it harder for me read.

This is the post;
*

In 1984, when asked by an interviewer why the Third Secret hasn’t been revealed:
"Because, according to the judgement of the Popes,** it adds nothing to what a Christian must know concerning what derives from Revelation: i.e., a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the end times.** If it is not made public - at least for the time being - it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational. But the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima in what is already known of what its message contains. Conversion and penitence are the essential conditions for ‘salvation’."
In 1996, when asked by an interviewer why the Third Secret hasn’t been revealed:

"I’ve had enough of speaking about that. The message transmitted by Sister Lucy, and not yet revealed, concerns neither the history of the world in general nor individual facts in particular. The Lady does not enter into details about the future. The Secret contains nothing new, it foretells no tragedy for humanity, nothing apocalyptic and nothing essential for the faith. The Lady simply opens a path, and this path leads to conversion and to faith. In a certain sense, the Second Vatican Council was the realization of the Virgin’s message and, in summoning it, Pope John XXIII did the essential in answer to the Virgin’s message

OK, I tried to read your other post trying to explain the differences and I got lost.
So I put in bold what I found similar in the two statements.

Do you understand now?

Something happened with Cardinal Ratzinger in the 1990’s.

I do not know. The only thing I speculate happened is Cardinal Ratzinger tried to explain the same thing he said the first time, but in simpler terms while at the same time giving more details. But like I stated before I am not a scholar so I very well could be reading this incorrectly.

 

[ORD_NASILA]

One thing this soul has learned is that God always answers prayers.
They may not be answered the way we expect them to be answered but, He does answer them the way He wants them to be answered.

Amen to that “simple soul”. I think problem stem from deciding difference between, What we WANT, and what we NEED. Although sometimes we recieve what we WANT (but don’t need) through the Permissive Will of God as opposed to the Divine Will of God, do you agree? Regard, O.N.

 

[simple_soul]

Amen to that “simple soul”. I think problem stem from deciding difference between, What we WANT, and what we NEED. Although sometimes we recieve what we WANT (but don’t need) through the Permissive Will of God as opposed to the Divine Will of God, do you agree? Regard, O.N.

*I believe so but I do not know if I fully understand what the Permissive Will God is. To me the Permissive Will of God is that He will not interfere with our free will. But at the same time I believe it is His Divine Will that He will not interfere with our free will.
To me this almost sounds like a paradox…what do you think? Can you explain it better?

 

[JustaServant]

Now you are accusing the Pope and the Vatican of misleading the faithful – something Jesus promised would never happen.

Whoa, stop right there.
Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.
The key word there is prevail.
If you are going to claim popes down through the ages have all been as pure as the driven snow, you need to read more history. Popes are human beings, not divine. The Church does not teach every word the Pope says is infallible.
These are the kind of statements that feed the fuel of anti-Catholics.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Now you are accusing the Pope and the Vatican of misleading the faithful – something Jesus promised would never happen.

This is why nobody wants to openly discuss this on this forum. “EASY”, its a discussion. Lets do this openly and correctly and maybe we could find the TRUTH?

You pretent to know whats in the hearts and minds of others. Nobody here thats truly of the Catholic Faith has anything but a serious, honest, heartfelt “concern” for this faith.

We know the Third Secret has not been released in it entire content in 2000.

Its a known fact the actual words of the Blessed Mother start with “The Dogma of the Faith will Always be Preserved in Portugal”

Have you read the approved message of Akita. Supposedly it confirms Fatima. This is an aproved message by the Vatican? Listen to these here…

youtube.com/user/littlepebble2

youtube.com/user/MrDanteDeo

Its said to be the same basic message of Fatima by our Pope Benedict XVI.

Nobody questions our Holy Fathers faith in God or his position. Matter of fact I Pray for him daily just as the Blessed Mother said. The concern comes from a heartfelt belief that maybe, just maybe for some unknown reason, he is unable to give the Faithfull this message?

All that Malichi Martin has said is that he advised all the Popes, and Prays for this one to release the message. And place our Faith in Gods hands. He felt that through world politics, he is bound, and is affraid to release the message. And felt that was the situation with the last three Popes? He mentions Fatima and is agreement with there situation.

Listen we are hearing all this from the Blessed Mother. You see above what our Pope is saying about the Blessed Mother in 09. He has so much faith in her he wants her to be more fully understood by the World?

Theres a real CONCERN here not any disbelief. Thousands of followers don’t stay glued to Fatima because they are not of this Faith. They have a deep love and respect for the Blessed Mother and are concerned. And that not just Fr Grunner. Look at Fatima. He actually has little to say because of this exact situation placed on him. Yet many, many others pick up his belief and carry it foward? Why? If what is said on this post about Fr Grunner is the “only” reason and truth? Why doesn’t everyone else see this exactly as this simple?

You know I read another post and thread here about the actual idea of “Would you be willing to die for your belief”? Did you ever think that thats exactly what might happen if our Holy Father went ahead and followed through with the 3rd secret and the consecration of Russia? Maybe, there a little more concern by the Pope than just simply releasing this message? I’m sure he’s Prayed and is following Gods advice.

You have to weigh all the info and make up your own mind. Could the Pope actually be under so much pressure he is bound? I don’t think so. But I keep my mind open to it. Our Blessed Mothers message is very dire, and she specifically states, “Pray that the Pope never leaves Rome”.

Lots of info out here now. And at the same time time we need to be very carefull to not follow false information. So I remain skeptical yet I follow whats being said. Much contradiction for sure. But we will know the Truth. Because it always survives.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is why nobody wants to openly discuss this on this forum. “EASY”, its a discussion. Lets do this openly and correctly and maybe we could find the TRUTH?

You pretent to know whats in the hearts and minds of others. Nobody here thats truly of the Catholic Faith has anything but a serious, honest, heartfelt “concern” for this faith.

We know the Third Secret has not been released in it entire content in 2000.

Its a known fact the actual words of the Blessed Mother start with “The Dogma of the Faith will Always be Preserved in Portugal”

Have you read the approved message of Akita. Supposedly it confirms Fatima. This is an aproved message by the Vatican? Listen to these here…

youtube.com/user/littlepebble2

youtube.com/user/MrDanteDeo

Its said to be the same basic message of Fatima by our Pope Benedict XVI.

Nobody questions our Holy Fathers faith in God or his position. Matter of fact I Pray for him daily just as the Blessed Mother said. The concern comes from a heartfelt belief that maybe, just maybe for some unknown reason, he is unable to give the Faithfull this message?

All that Malichi Martin has said is that he advised all the Popes, and Prays for this one to release the message. And place our Faith in Gods hands. He felt that through world politics, he is bound, and is affraid to release the message. And felt that was the situation with the last three Popes? He mentions Fatima and is agreement with there situation.

Listen we are hearing all this from the Blessed Mother. You see above what our Pope is saying about the Blessed Mother in 09. He has so much faith in her he wants her to be more fully understood by the World?

Theres a real CONCERN here not any disbelief. Thousands of followers don’t stay glued to Fatima because they are not of this Faith. They have a deep love and respect for the Blessed Mother and are concerned. And that not just Fr Grunner. Look at Fatima. He actually has little to say because of this exact situation placed on him. Yet many, many others pick up his belief and carry it foward? Why? If what is said on this post about Fr Grunner is the “only” reason and truth? Why doesn’t everyone else see this exactly as this simple?

You know I read another post and thread here about the actual idea of “Would you be willing to die for your belief”? Did you ever think that thats exactly what might happen if our Holy Father went ahead and followed through with the 3rd secret and the consecration of Russia? Maybe, there a little more concern by the Pope than just simply releasing this message? I’m sure he’s Prayed and is following Gods advice.

You have to weigh all the info and make up your own mind. Could the Pope actually be under so much pressure he is bound? I don’t think so. But I keep my mind open to it. Our Blessed Mothers message is very dire, and she specifically states, “Pray that the Pope never leaves Rome”.

Lots of info out here now. And at the same time time we need to be very carefull to not follow false information. So I remain skeptical yet I follow whats being said. Much contradiction for sure. But we will know the Truth. Because it always survives.

Whoa, stop right there.
Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.
The key word there is prevail.
If you are going to claim popes down through the ages have all been as pure as the driven snow, you need to read more history. Popes are human beings, not divine. The Church does not teach every word the Pope says is infallible.
These are the kind of statements that feed the fuel of anti-Catholics.

It isn’t about a Pope’s personal holiness or lack there of. It is about how he leads the church in matters of faith. If a Pope guides the faithful down the wrong path into believing something that is not true, has not falsehood entered the Church?

 

[JustaServant]

It isn’t about a Pope’s personal holiness or lack there of. It is about how he leads the church in matters of faith. If a Pope guides the faithful down the wrong path into believing something that is not true, has not falsehood entered the Church?

That is a different issue, but that’s not what you said, which is why I highlight the above.
The error of “papism” is the notion that the Pope can never do anything wrong ever. A lot of Catholics who are confused about the Doctrine of Infallibility fall into this error.
When the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” (literally, “from the chair”) he is making an infallible declaration. That is an extremely rare occurrence. . In fact, the last time a Pope spoke ex cathedra was in 1950.
In answer to what you said previously, the Vatican is not infallible, the Pope, speaking from Peter’s Chair. is. I honestly never heard of ‘Vatican infallibility’.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I would like to know which Pope said that the Consecration of Russia was done and if there is a link to substantiate it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It isn’t about a Pope’s personal holiness or lack there of. It is about how he leads the church in matters of faith. If a Pope guides the faithful down the wrong path into believing something that is not true, has not falsehood entered the Church?

I don’t presume to know whats going on in Rome. And I cannot judge this man, You have a “man” regardless of his status. He’s a man, not God , not the Blessed Mother. An Apostle is “exactly” what he is, he sits in Peters chair. I’m positive you have read the bible. Tell me my brother, is this not possible?

Yet we can’t look at Pope Benedict and speak in any way but justly of this man. He earned that respect and certainly deserves it.

At he end of the day, Rome “is” the way of the faithful. All roads lead to Rome. Theres no question about that. I just believe theres real issues to clear up. And I believe it has to be done by Rome.

I haven’t followed Fatima “real” close. The third secret I researched intimately, and I did read that the Vatican appointed 4 Bishops to oversee Fatima. Sounds like Fatima is having a problem with this. Not positive? Information isn’t abundantly clear.

God Bless, GT

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would like to know which Pope said that the Consecration of Russia was done and if there is a link to substantiate it.

Read this and you’ll find you answer.

This has happened several times. The World has been consecrated. What hasn’t been done is “EXACTLY” what Mary told us to do. And thats for the Pope to get all the Bishops together and consecrate Russia, hasn’t happened, And no-where on this earth will you find the words of Sr Lucy which state this happened. On the contrary what Sr Lucy said, This has not happened the way the Blessed Mother wished.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Canadianguy…don’t misunderstand me, I know you made no mention of Sr Lucy, but someone above wrongly made this statement which I just added into this post. I mean no offense by it. Or to anyone for that matter. And if I’m shown to be wrong? I will publicly admit it. I have no problem with that.

 

[cathdoki]

No. She stated in two published interviews that the last consecration had failed. One of these interviews appeared in “Sol de Fatima” Magazine and the other in the Argentinian periodical “Para Ti.” In 1989, Fr. Coelho, a priest associated with her order at the time, reported that a letter had been sent by the Vatican telling everyone to start saying the consecration worked despite her previous previous public announcements that it had failed. Then forged letters started showing up allegedly by her that were typewritten and contained factual errors she wouldn’t have made. And multiple Fatima scholars determined these letters to be forgeries. Independent Fatima scholar Frere Francois, author of books on Fatima, even went to Fatima and confronted Rector Guerra over it, whom he believed was involved in it. Later on after 2000, Cardinal Bertone published comments in articles and in his book saying that Sr. Lucia personally gave him her assurances that the consecration of Russia had been completed after he interviewed her at her convent. His book is full of provable falsehoods and he has zero credibility at this point. Attorney Christopher Ferrara wrote an entire book exposing the falsehoods and contradictions of Cardinal Bertone’s testimony.

This thread will go in circles for ever. I respect your position based on what you believe Sr. Lucia said. Other documents state that she acknowledged the consecration took place. Some statements indicate that the Vatican has lied to the people. If the Pope is misleading us regarding the truth, then maybe we should reconsider being Catholic? That is clearly the implication.

 

[cathdoki]

Read this and you’ll find you answer.

This has happened several times. The World has been consecrated. What hasn’t been done is “EXACTLY” what Mary told us to do. And thats for the Pope to get all the Bishops together and consecrate Russia, hasn’t happened, And no-where on this earth will you find the words of Sr Lucy which state this happened. On the contrary what Sr Lucy said, This has not happened the way the Blessed Mother wished.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Canadianguy…don’t misunderstand me, I know you made no mention of Sr Lucy, but someone above wrongly made this statement which I just added into this post. I mean no offense by it. Or to anyone for that matter. And if I’m shown to be wrong? I will publicly admit it. I have no problem with that.

Who do we put our faith in? Jesus or Mary. I love Mary as my spiritual mother and pray to her. Pray the Rosary. But this is ALL private revelation anyway. There is nothing binding.

I trust the Church in matters of faith. Why shouldn’t we just consecrate the world to JESUS?