The Third Secret of Fatima *Was* Fully Revealed!

[VitaminC]

I find your tactics to be disingenuous and your arguments convincing only to those who won’t carefully read what you refer to, look at the evidence, and think.

Nobody has denied that part of the Secret has been revealed. The source you cite simply does not firmly state that all of the Secret has been revealed - it implies it, I’ll certainly acknowledge.

It is laughable for you to offer a statement from Bertone giving us Sr. Lucy’s words when it is Bertone’s credibility is exactly what is called into question by the entire matter!

It seems you are unable to properly distinguish between churchmen and Church - a critical distinction indeed! Among the most critical! I fear to see how you’d fare in an apologetics debate with a learned Protestant for that reason (if you’d engage in one).

Read this carefully: I am not calling the Church a liar.

We are going to nail down the specifics of this matter now to demonstrate that you either do not understand the nature of Catholic authority or you are being disingenuous.

To summarize, because I don’t believe Cardinal Bertone has been forthright in this matter, you tell me that I call ‘The Church’ a liar. Are you really going to go on record as stating that believing that a single churchman has been less than completely forthcoming about something is calling the Church liar?

If you cannot make the necessary differentiation here, I think you would be very surprised indeed at many document events in Church history! I can provide examples.

How is it that infallibility is granted to Bertone’s statement, but not even to a Pope’s except when speaking ‘from the Chair’?

You are aware, I presume that the Magisterium is defined as all of the bishops speaking in unison and is infallible in the area of faith and morals when it makes a statement. Could you explain how that relates to Cardinal Bertone speaking on his own?

Could you speak to these points before daring to accuse me, others here, Mother Angelica, Mr. Socci, and millions of others of ‘calling the Church liar’?

Yeah, well, Sr. Lucia wasn’t the only one who was silenced. Mother Angelica was, too. A couple days after making her remark about “not getting the whole thing” with regard to the Third Secret, she was off the network. And then from that point on with EWTN, we see only biased information with regard to Fatima in support of the Sodano-Bertone release.

The Vatican also lied about the second assassination attempt on the Pope when he was in Fatima. A Spanish priest lunged at him with a knife, injuring JPII and drawing blood. The Vatican originally denied that it happened. Then footage turned up. Later on, very recently, JPII’s personal secretary released the full details.

 

[VitaminC]

Nobody here will actually respond to a single piece of the evidence!

That’s because he/they are engaging in sophistry. If he/they do respond to a piece of evidence, it’s a collateral attack or a twisting of your words and the words of anyone else who disputes the official 2000 release along with specious, subtly deceptive argumentation. Certain individuals do not even believe the arguments they are posting, but rather are posting them to aggravate their opponents, confuse new readers, and to prevent more people from seeing the truth.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Above all, I am not going to take the word of Third Secret conspiracy theorists over that of the Church. To the Church I am bound to the greatest possible extent to give my obedience, not to Fr Gruner, his followers, or even Our Lady of Fatima herself.

You are confusing Church with churchman - simple as that.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I do believe Russia was probably successfully consecrated under JP2.

I believe the end of over 75 years of Communism in Russia (probably the second greatest evil of the 20th century after abortion) - and across the rest of Eastern Europe - within a matter of years from that consecration of JP2 stems from it. I believe THAT in and of itself sounds like a very promising beginning of conversion.

I believe that - to a God who took thousands of years after the Fall to send His own son, and who two millennia after that son came has not yet come again as He promised He would - 25 years is NOTHING, not even a blink of the eye.

And I think the main problem is your own impatience and your insistence that if God has really acted in this matter He would act on YOUR timetable and do the things YOU think He should do!

Above all, I am not going to take the word of Third Secret conspiracy theorists over that of the Church. To the Church I am bound to the greatest possible extent to give my obedience, not to Fr Gruner, his followers, or even Our Lady of Fatima herself.

Lily,

I love your persistance…

First, you will not find where Russia was ever, by name, consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Mary because it has never happened. They have consecrated the world to Her, etc. but never Russia.

The bishops of Portugal consecrated itself to Mary twice. After the fist time the country, in a span of about thirty years, was converted from a Masonic Country to a Catholic country. If you think Russia has changed or is changing their ways your simply not watching.

The end of the Soviet Union happened because they when broke. Now that they have a bit of oil they are back at the same old stuff.

I’m impatient…I have a timetable…where ever did I say that? Impatient…how can I be impatient with God…impossible!

On November 11, 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave an interview in Jesus magazine, a publication of the Pauline Sisters. The interview is entitled “Here is Why the Faith is in Crisis,” and was published with the Cardinal’s explicit permission. In this interview, Cardinal Ratzinger revealed that he had read the Third Secret and that the Secret refers to “dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world.”

Could you please explain what then Cardinal Ratizinger meant by this. I’ve seen nothing revealed about the Third Secret that could possibly match his description.

I’ve asked several on this thread if they had read The Secret Still Hidden by Chrisopher Ferrara or The Devil’s Final Battle by Father Paul Kramer. No one bothered to answer that question which is an answer all by itself. How can you possibly condemn those that believe the Third Secret has not been fully revealed when you refuse to read and refute the data they present.

You can call people ‘conspiracy theorists’, you can dismiss their arguments out of hand, you can talk in platitudes…but you need to spend a little time trying to understand the facts.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[VitaminC]

Lily,

I love your persistance…

First, you will not find where Russia was ever, by name, consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Mary because it has never happened. They have consecrated the world to Her, etc. but never Russia.

Russia was mentioned in the consecration made by Pope Pius XII in 1952, but he did not ask the Bishops of the world to join him. It’s true that there has never been a consecration that both mentioned Russia explicitly and was done with the world’s Bishops participating.

 

[LilyM]

Lily,

I love your persistance…

I don’t like your persistent spouting of conspiracy-theory drivel.

First, you will not find where Russia was ever, by name, consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Mary because it has never happened. They have consecrated the world to Her, etc. but never Russia.

And of course a consecration of the world can’t possibly be a consecration of Russia as well - only if Russia isn’t actually part of the world. Last time I checked, it is.

Do you really think God or Our Lady are so mindnumbingly, nitpickingly petty and bureaucratic that they’re going to ignore Russia simply because it wasn’t mentioned specifically by name? I suppose you think since you have all these attributes, they must share them.

By your logic, if you have a cut on your foot and your doctor says ‘I’m giving you antibiotics’ you’d say ‘that can’t possibly be an effective remedy - you didn’t say you were giving them to my foot specifically’

The bishops of Portugal consecrated itself to Mary twice. After the fist time the country, in a span of about thirty years, was converted from a Masonic Country to a Catholic country. If you think Russia has changed or is changing their ways your simply not watching.

Is Portugal honestly Catholic? Any more truly Catholic than most of the rest of ‘Catholic’ Europe? I know a lot of Portuguese people and can see for myself that it ain’t so. And after TWO consecrations, no less!

Mind you, America’s also been consecrated twice … the less said about the results of that particular activity the better

I

'm impatient…I have a timetable…where ever did I say that? Impatient…how can I be impatient with God…impossible!

Russia hasn’t completely converted (by the way, did Mary say that this conversion would include a complete elimination of abortion and pornography, and say that it would happen within 25 years?) within three decades after JP2’s consecration, therefore you’ve decided it wasn’t a real or effective consecration. Of course you have a timetable!

Could you please explain what then Cardinal Ratizinger meant by this. I’ve seen nothing revealed about the Third Secret that could possibly match his description.

I do, very easily. Firstly the attempted assassination of the Pope WAS a threat to the faith - how could trying to kill the Pope not be? Imagine the impact had the assassin succeeded!

Secondly, the assassin was a Communist agent, meaning ultimately the plot was a case of Bulgarian and Russian communism trying to damage the Church.

Now communist plots against Catholics and Christians in general, not just that one in particular, were (and are still - for example in China with it’s ‘official’ communist-sponsored Catholic church) a threat to the faith.

You can be sure that these Chinese officials were inspired and heartened by how nearly their Bulgarian and Russian brothers succeeded in damaging the Church by eliminating the Pope, no?

You can call people ‘conspiracy theorists’, you can dismiss their arguments out of hand, you can talk in platitudes…but you need to spend a little time trying to understand the facts.

I don’t need to stick my head inside a garbage can to ‘nderstand the facts’ that it’s full of trash - the smell is enough. What you’ve offered is a representative enough sample to show me the calibre of the arguments offered by your pet authors. I need see no more.

 

[VitaminC]

And of course a consecration of the world can’t possibly be a consecration of Russia as well - only if Russia isn’t actually part of the world. Last time I checked, it is.

Do you really think God or Our Lady are so mindnumbingly, nitpickingly petty and bureaucratic that they’re going to ignore Russia simply because it wasn’t mentioned specifically by name?

So you just called God and the Blessed Virgin “mindnumbingly, nitpickingly petty and bureaucratic.” Wow.

And Sister Lucia is the one who had conversation with the Blessed Virgin, not you, and Sr. Lucia said in two published interviews after the last consecration attempt that no previous consecration had been fulfilled the requests of Our Lady.

Mind you, America’s also been consecrated twice … the less said about the results of that particular activity the better

Mind you, Holy Mary didn’t ask for or promise anything in return for consecrating “America.”

Russia hasn’t completely converted (by the way, did Mary say that this conversion would include a complete elimination of abortion and pornography, and say that it would happen within 25 years?) within three decades after JP2’s consecration, therefore you’ve decided it wasn’t a real or effective consecration. Of course you have a timetable!

I do, very easily. Firstly the attempted assassination of the Pope WAS a threat to the faith - how could trying to kill the Pope not be? Imagine the impact had the assassin succeeded!

Which assassin might that be? There were after all two assassination attempts. And the Vatican initially lied in an official press release and tried to say that the second assassination attempt which occurred in Fatima, didn’t even happen.

 

[LilyM]

So you just called God and the Blessed Virgin “mindnumbingly, nitpickingly petty and bureaucratic.” Wow.

Not in the slightest. I’m purely applying that label to those who think Russia wasn’t consecrated along with the rest of the world because it wasn’t specifically mentioned by name.

And Sister Lucia is the one who had conversation with the Blessed Virgin, not you, and Sr. Lucia said in two published interviews after the last consecration attempt that no previous consecration had been fulfilled the requests of Our Lady.

And she said in one published letter afterwards that it was - by the way, neither interviews nor letter constitutes hard evidence that it in fact wasn’t consecrated. You know St Catherine of Siena said that Mary told her she wasn’t immaculately conceived? Saints and visionaries get things wrong sometimes.

Mind you, Holy Mary didn’t ask for or promise anything in return for consecrating “America.”

Ah, but your friend Mike here is more than happy to credit her for events in Portugal which happened after ITS consecration (although apparently it needed two goes for some reason - not like THEY fluffed the first one, is it? And apparently no such results are to be seen in the CERTAINLY doubly consecrated country of America)

Moreover, he is happy to impose a double standard and to use an alleged lack of results as proof that Russia hasn’t been consecrated. Funnily enough neither Mary, nor Sr Lucia nor anyone else said exactly what this ‘conversion’ would look like, or when it would occur. All in all, we at worst just don’t know. We certainly cannot positively say that it was unsuccesful or that results aren’t either already there or forthcoming.

Which assassin might that be? There were after all two assassination attempts. And the Vatican initially lied in an official press release and tried to say that the second assassination attempt which occurred in Fatima, didn’t even happen.

Either or both - double the threat to the Pope, hence to the faith, and double the reason for Benedict to say as he did.

 

[VitaminC]

Above all, I am not going to take the word of Third Secret conspiracy theorists over that of the Church. To the Church I am bound to the greatest possible extent to give my obedience, not to Fr Gruner, his followers, or even Our Lady of Fatima herself.

And just who has the final authority in speaking for the Church?

After all, the pope at the time was Pope John Paul II, and he said the Message was a warning to have nothing to do with the dragon, whose tail swept a third of the stars from heaven, quoting Apocalypse 12:3-4, on May 13, 2000. This was very consistent with what Fr. Malachi Martin published about the Third Secret just four years earlier in his book, “Windswept House.” This chapter and verses are referring to clergy members of the Church who come under the influence of Satan, and Martin indicated strongly that Cassaroli and his successor (Sodano) were two such clergy members. And of course, Cardinal Sodano is the one responsible for the 2000 release.

But, rather than listen to Pope JPII, you’d rather listen to his then subordinates, who defied him. There is absolutely nothing about Apocalypse 12:3-4 in the Sodano-Bertone orchestrated release of 2000, nor is there anything about a great apostasy as Cardinal Ciappi said, nor is there anything about the “importance of the end times” as Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1984, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

[LilyM]

And just who has the final authority in speaking for the Church?

After all, the pope at the time was Pope John Paul II, and he said the Message was a warning to have nothing to do with the dragon, whose tail swept a third of the stars from heaven, quoting Apocalypse 12:3-4, on May 13, 2000. This was very consistent with what Fr. Malachi Martin published about the Third Secret just four years earlier in his book, “Windswept House.” This chapter and verses are referring to clergy members of the Church who come under the influence of Satan, and Martin indicated strongly that Cassaroli and his successor (Sodano) were two such clergy members. And of course, Cardinal Sodano is the one responsible for the 2000 release.

But, rather than listen to Pope JPII, you’d rather listen to his then subordinates, who defied him. There is absolutely nothing about Apocalypse 12:3-4 in the Sodano-Bertone orchestrated release of 2000, nor is there anything about a great apostasy as Cardinal Ciappi said, nor is there anything about the “importance of the end times” as Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1984, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Where’s your proof that they defied him on this matter? We know from the example of Archbishop Lefebvre that disobedience in one matter doesn’t mean disobedience in all.

And where’s any statement from JP2 AFTER the 2000 release to indicate that Sodano and Bertone weren’t telling the truth about the Third Secret?

Whence comes Fr Martin’s preknowledge of the Third Secret before its release?

 

[VitaminC]

Not in the slightest. I’m purely applying that label to those who think Russia wasn’t consecrated along with the rest of the world because it wasn’t specifically mentioned by name.

That’s not what you said at all.

And she said in one published letter afterwards that it was-

No, she didn’t. That letter has been exposed as a very bad forgery. And its date also predates the two interviews where she said the consecration had not been accomplished.

by the way, neither interviews nor letter constitutes hard evidence that it in fact wasn’t consecrated.

Oh, I see. I mean, she’s just the one who had the vision to begin with and had ongoing visits from the Blessed Virgin but her words aren’t hard evidence, according to you.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Russia hasn’t completely converted (by the way, did Mary say that this conversion would include a complete elimination of abortion and pornography, and say that it would happen within 25 years?) within three decades after JP2’s consecration, therefore you’ve decided it wasn’t a real or effective consecration. Of course you have a timetable!

The Orthodox Church is doing very well in Russia these days.

But then again, most of these types of conspiracy nuts do not consider the Orthodox Church valid in this matter.

I think it may be time to ignore these repeated threads attacking the Church and its Teaching authority.

 

[VitaminC]

And where’s any statement from JP2 AFTER the 2000 release to indicate that Sodano and Bertone weren’t telling the truth about the Third Secret?

Strange logic.
Where’s any official statement from 1960 to 1999, when the secret was supposed to have been released in 1960? Where was any statement from JPII after the Vatican issued its lying press release stating that there was no second assassination attempt in Fatima after the Spanish priest lunged at him with a knife and drew blood?

Whence comes Fr Martin’s preknowledge of the Third Secret before its release?

He was one of the few allowed to read it in 1960 after it was originally unsealed. And what he said about it in his book is very consistent with what Pope JPII said on May 13, 2000, and also consistent with published remarks by Sr. Lucia. And he also made it clear that there was more to it than Apocalypse 12:3-4, that there was more to it than what was in Akita… he was under oath not to reveal this “other part.” He did confirm that part of the Third Secret involves a future pope coming under the influence of satan, something that is consistent with the message to Melanie in La Salette.

 

[LilyM]

That’s not what you said at all.

Excuse me - I know precisely what I said and what I meant:

I suppose you think since you have all these attributes, they must share them.

I in no way said that THEY (God and Our Lady) share these attributes - quite the contrary.

No, she didn’t. That letter has been exposed as a very bad forgery. And its date also predates the two interviews where she said the consecration had not been accomplished.

So the letter can be a forgery but the reported interviews can’t.

People with vested interests on either side would be quite capable of making things up - be it interviews or letters.

I’ve dealt with the press - and so many times they don’t even get names, ages, dates - FACTS - correct. And they do not just make up quotes but sometimes state that entire interviews happened which never took place.

Oh, I see. I mean, she’s just the one who had the vision to begin with and had ongoing visits from the Blessed Virgin but her words aren’t hard evidence, according to you.

Like I said in my last post, St Catherine was a visionary too. She reported Our Lady as saying that she wasn’t immaculately conceived. Visionaries DO get things wrong.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I don’t like your persistent spouting of conspiracy-theory drivel.

And of course a consecration of the world can’t possibly be a consecration of Russia as well - only if Russia isn’t actually part of the world. Last time I checked, it is.

Do you really think God or Our Lady are so mindnumbingly, nitpickingly petty and bureaucratic that they’re going to ignore Russia simply because it wasn’t mentioned specifically by name? I suppose you think since you have all these attributes, they must share them.

By your logic, if you have a cut on your foot and your doctor says ‘I’m giving you antibiotics’ you’d say ‘that can’t possibly be an effective remedy - you didn’t say you were giving them to my foot specifically’

Is Portugal honestly Catholic? Any more truly Catholic than most of the rest of ‘Catholic’ Europe? I know a lot of Portuguese people and can see for myself that it ain’t so. And after TWO consecrations, no less!

Mind you, America’s also been consecrated twice … the less said about the results of that particular activity the better

Russia hasn’t completely converted (by the way, did Mary say that this conversion would include a complete elimination of abortion and pornography, and say that it would happen within 25 years?) within three decades after JP2’s consecration, therefore you’ve decided it wasn’t a real or effective consecration. Of course you have a timetable!

I do, very easily. Firstly the attempted assassination of the Pope WAS a threat to the faith - how could trying to kill the Pope not be? Imagine the impact had the assassin succeeded!

Secondly, the assassin was a Communist agent, meaning ultimately the plot was a case of Bulgarian and Russian communism trying to damage the Church.

Now communist plots against Catholics and Christians in general, not just that one in particular, were (and are still - for example in China with it’s ‘official’ communist-sponsored Catholic church) a threat to the faith.

You can be sure that these Chinese officials were inspired and heartened by how nearly their Bulgarian and Russian brothers succeeded in damaging the Church by eliminating the Pope, no?

I don’t need to stick my head inside a garbage can to ‘nderstand the facts’ that it’s full of trash - the smell is enough. What you’ve offered is a representative enough sample to show me the calibre of the arguments offered by your pet authors. I need see no more.

I love your sarcasm, but sarcasm doesn’t win arguments, facts do.

Mary didn’t ask for consecration of the world…she specifically asked for the consecration of Russia…by name. That is a fact. So if you have a bone to pick, pick it with Our Lady…do you think if she wanted the Pope and all the bishops of the world to consecrate the world to her that she would have said only Russia?

You medical analolgy works both ways. If you have a gangrenous foot and you has the doctor to remove it to save your life…and he cuts your arm off instead, will that work?

I don’t know where you get your information about Portugal but 97% of the population consider themsleves Catholic. So were exactly do you get your information that it ain’t so?

Russia hasn’t completely converted (by the way, did Mary say that this conversion would include a complete elimination of abortion and pornography, and say that it would happen within 25 years?) within three decades after JP2’s consecration, therefore you’ve decided it wasn’t a real or effective consecration. Of course you have a timetable!

Look we are having a discussion, don’t get emotional. Since Russia hasn’t been consecrated in accordance with Our Lady’s request it has not shown it any improvement what-so-ever. The Church is being persecuted, there are 140,000,000 citizens in Russia and 500,000 Catholics, I rest my case.

Mind you, America’s also been consecrated twice … the less said about the results of that particular activity the better

Where and when were these consecrations done, I’d be interested in checking into that.

I don’t need to stick my head inside a garbage can to ‘nderstand the facts’ that it’s full of trash - the smell is enough. What you’ve offered is a representative enough sample to show me the calibre of the arguments offered by your pet authors. I need see no more.

Really nice analogy. Maybe you should let a little light in by reviewing all the facts rather than only those you like. The calibre of the people I am citing are renoun Catholics all including Antonio Socci and Christoper Ferrara and actual eye witness Cardinals. Too bad your not willing to consider more than one point of view.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

That’s not what you said at all.

No, she didn’t. That letter has been exposed as a very bad forgery. And its date also predates the two interviews where she said the consecration had not been accomplished.

Oh, I see. I mean, she’s just the one who had the vision to begin with and had ongoing visits from the Blessed Virgin but her words aren’t hard evidence, according to you.

Gimme summor of that Vitamin C.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

The Orthodox Church is doing very well in Russia these days.

But then again, most of these types of conspiracy nuts do not consider the Orthodox Church valid in this matter.

I think it may be time to ignore these repeated threads attacking the Church and its Teaching authority.

Conspiracy nuts. Wow. Live in the shadow of your obstinance if you want, but I’ll bet anything you have not looked at the case presented by your so called ‘conspiracy nuts’.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[LilyM]

I love your sarcasm, but sarcasm doesn’t win arguments, facts do.

Mary didn’t ask for consecration of the world…she specifically asked for the consecration of Russia…by name. That is a fact. So if you have a bone to pick, pick it with Our Lady…do you think if she wanted the Pope and all the bishops of the world to consecrate the world to her that she would have said only Russia?

I should think Our Lady would be absolutely THRILLED to have the whole world - including Russia but also all its other countries - consecrated to her and wouldn’t look askance at it at all. Hey, if I asked you for a flower and you brought me instead a huge bouquet, that included the flower I asked for, I wouldn’t complain by any means …

You medical analolgy works both ways. If you have a gangrenous foot and you has the doctor to remove it to save your life…and he cuts your arm off instead, will that work?

NOT a valid extension of the analogy. The doctor did not by any means fail to treat the diseased foot, nor did he concentrate exclusively on some other limb. He just treated the rest of the body AS WELL AS the foot. Maybe cured other infections along the way by doing so - who’s going to have a problem with that? Perhaps other countries needed consecration too, so the Holy Spirit inspired JP2 to do it that way?

I don’t know where you get your information about Portugal but 97% of the population consider themsleves Catholic. So were exactly do you get your information that it ain’t so?

Uh huh. And that 97% don’t abort, don’t contracept, dont’ have premarital sex, don’t remarry without annulment from the Church, go to Mass every Sunday … didn’t think so. It’s called being Catholic in name only.

Look we are having a discussion, don’t get emotional. Since Russia hasn’t been consecrated in accordance with Our Lady’s request it has not shown it any improvement what-so-ever. The Church is being persecuted, there are 140,000,000 citizens in Russia and 500,000 Catholics, I rest my case.

Says who there is no improvement whatsoever? Tell me how many Catholics were there in Russia in 1980. (I mean Russia proper as opposed to former Soviet Union as a whole).

Did she tell us exactly what this improvement would look like and when it would occur? Is the fall of godless Communism, great among the evils Our Lady was thinking of in Russia, which was on the verge of its Communist revolution in 1917, no improvement?

Where and when were these consecrations done, I’d be interested in checking into that.

My apologies, the US has twice been consecrated to the Mary Immaculate and not the Immaculate Heart. I know how desperately important such details are to you.

First time was by the US Bishops, November 20 1959, last occasion, also by the US Bishops, was November 11 2006.

Really nice analogy. Maybe you should let a little light in by reviewing all the facts rather than only those you like. The calibre of the people I am citing are renoun Catholics all including Antonio Socci and Christoper Ferrara and actual eye witness Cardinals. Too bad your not willing to consider more than one point of view.

And Sodano and Bertone aren’t eye witness Cardinals too? Aren’t renown Catholics too?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The Orthodox Church is doing very well in Russia these days.

But then again, most of these types of conspiracy nuts do not consider the Orthodox Church valid in this matter.

I think it may be time to ignore these repeated threads attacking the Church and its Teaching authority.

You are being completely dishonest in repeatedly accusing those you disagree with on ‘attacking the Church and its Teaching authority’. What a preposterous argument - sophistry is indeed the word. Insulting sophistry, designed to intimidate, I’d say. Or else made out of innocent ignorance.

Am I mistaken or was it you that posted some months ago in another forum that Anglican bishops are valid bishops? This was in the context of the subject of Rowan (who denies that homosexual behavior is sinful, incidentally) giving a sermon at a Mass. If that was not you, I apologize. Someone who would make such a comment - that a bishop who has no connection to the Apostles through apostolic succession - is a ‘bishop’ - clearly has no understanding of the authority structure of the Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter.

I’m going to repeat what I posted earlier since you chose to ignore it completely and instead descend further into personal attack. (Name calling now - nice. Against forum rules, by the way):

I find your tactics to be disingenuous and your arguments convincing only to those who won’t carefully read what you refer to, look at the evidence, and think.

Nobody has denied that part of the Secret has been revealed. The source you cite simply does not firmly state that all of the Secret has been revealed - it implies it, I’ll certainly acknowledge.

It is laughable for you to offer a statement from Bertone giving us Sr. Lucy’s words when it is Bertone’s credibility is exactly what is called into question by the entire matter!

It seems you are unable to properly distinguish between churchmen and Church - a critical distinction indeed! Among the most critical! I fear to see how you’d fare in an apologetics debate with a learned Protestant for that reason (if you’d engage in one).

Read this carefully: I am not calling the Church a liar.

We are going to nail down the specifics of this matter now to demonstrate that you either do not understand the nature of Catholic authority or you are being disingenuous.

To summarize, because I don’t believe Cardinal Bertone has been forthright in this matter, you tell me that I call ‘The Church’ a liar. Are you really going to go on record as stating that believing that a single churchman has been less than completely forthcoming about something is calling the Church liar?

If you cannot make the necessary differentiation here, I think you would be very surprised indeed at many document events in Church history! I can provide examples.

How is it that infallibility is granted to Bertone’s statement, but not even to a Pope’s except when speaking ‘from the Chair’?

You are aware, I presume that the Magisterium is defined as all of the bishops speaking in unison and is infallible in the area of faith and morals when it makes a statement. Could you explain how that relates to Cardinal Bertone speaking on his own?

Could you speak to these points before daring to accuse me, others here, Mother Angelica, Mr. Socci, and millions of others of ‘calling the Church liar’?

Could you explain why the Pope himself has thanked Mr. Socci for his work after he publicly accused Bertone of lying?

Could you explain why the Pope has not settled this matter in Bertone’s favor as he certainly would if it were as clear as you proclaim?

And could you perhaps consider making some attempt to speak to the actual evidence instead of completely ignoring?

Nobody here will actually respond to a single piece of the evidence! If you wanted to make an actual argument - if you were able to - you’d simply go through the points one by one and refute them. You’d go through all the quotes from all these different popes, priests, cardinals, and the seer and explain how either (1) they’re false or (2) they’re in harmony with the revealed part of the Secret.

The fact that none of you will even attempt this is not at all surprising, but telling.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

FYI, if I had my druthers, I’d prefer to leave Malachi Martin out of this. While there’s no doubt he had much inside knowledge of Vatican doings, it’s true that was he has written is largely unsubstantiated.

His testimony (and Gruner’s, for that matter) - is unnecessary - clearly, Socci’s book, and Bertone’s own self-incriminating testimony, together with the well-documented quotes of Church officials, are quite enough to understand the situation.

This ‘debate’ here is - interesting. Such a discussion is a very small part of who I am as a Catholic. Today, I finished Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper for the 2nd time - it had been 5+ years since I’d read it and I’m glad I read it again. Not to ‘brag’, but I did say three Mysteries of the rosary, which is usual lately, and attended daily (Novus Ordo) Mass (on the wonderful Feast of St. Joseph).

Again, as I have said, I am understanding of those who have a difficult time believing that anybody in the Vatican could behave as is alleged. But, those who believe that such would constitute a violation of Christ’s promise to protect the Church from error are not in understanding of what the Church teaches about Herself in that regard! There are many other examples in Church history that are much worse than this, believe me! And one must know and understand them, and have a proper understanding of Church authority and inerrancy of docrine and dogma, to be a good apologist, for one thing - and to keep one’s head calm when reading about examples of those in the hierarchy behaving less than admirably!

One poster in particular here has sagged to the level of personal insult and attack almost immediately, never even making a single attempt to address the material! Or explain his ‘understanding’ of Church authority! This is a sad spectacle indeed, considering his title.

FYI, participating in such a thing as thing is very, very stressful for me. I posted this thread knowing I’d be attacked - it is not pleasant. Why, then, do it? Because TRUTH IS TRUTH! Truth needs to be revealed even when it is not comfortable to all!