Give me a break, so you are saying this picture is NOT valid. Kindly submit your evidence that this picture is not authentic and without a google similar picture search please guide me to another source that has the same photo.
Are you saying this photo is not authentic?? I guess if we are to use bandwidth to please you, so will do.
You will note, I mentioned nothing at all about the contents of that website, I don’t think anything on that specific webpage is against Vatican teaching as well. Give me a break, I see that the website referenced the Consecration of Russia. I didn’t know beyond holding opinion the website said not to trust Vatican teaching.
I believe someone only referenced this picture not readily found anywhere else and perhaps being in India or perhaps they are in the old Portuguese colonized part of India, they have some artifacts of the Fatima event we do not.
I note, you reference a webpage that I did not cite. Give me a break, no one expects someone to go hunting down a webpage. Even if I had just posted the photo for discussion, it could still be tracked down to that website and one could say the same things.
If your reason is that we can not use to photo not shown anywhere else because a webpage that one did not cite even is being used to be critical of something that has nothing to do with the photo, so be it. This does not seem reasonable.
I’m not even sure your statement that is saying these people are telling us not to trust the Vatican is correct. It seems you are saying that one can’t even post some counter-opinion in a website. Give me a break, I use a webpage to merely show a picture, you pick some webpage that I’m not using and then seem to speak of them saying they do not trust the Vatican on the basis of posting some handwriting analysis. This does not seem fair.
Greetings Path_Finder,
My complaint was not against you or your picture.
Actually, i enjoyed looking at the picture. My complaint is against the webmaster.
It is reasonable to assume the Vatican website posts material consistent with the views of the Holy Father.
Sister Lucia took an oath of obedience to the Church, and by extension to the Pope.
Not everyone had access to her as she was a cloistered nun.
However, it is certain that the Pope did have the resources to communicate with her.
The same cannot be said for others who claim to have evidence that
she said that the consecration of 1984 did not fulfill Mary’s wishes.
Pope Benedict XVI, previous to being the Pope,
revealed the Third Secret as it is published as it is here
defendingthebride.com/ss/day/cont.html
Since, my making of that web page the Vatican published their own web page here
doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
So, I updated my page with appropriate links.
It is not reasonable to assume that the Pope, or by extension the Vatican Website publisher :
A. Did not have the resources to contact Sister Lucia while she was alive. or
B. That they did not correctly understand her position. or
C. That they Misrepresent her position, or
D. That they intentionally are deceiving others on both what the
Third Secret consisted of and what
Sister Lucia said about affirming the the consecration of March 25, 1984 as
fulfilling Mary’s request at Fatima
Yet, does not a person have to hold one of these above assumptions to believe the claims of the website i objected to ?
I don’t consider this just to be a matter of opinion on which good Catholics can differ.
Sorry, i was not more clear on my previous post. Again, Path Finder,
my objection is not against you or your picture or your post, just against that website.
.