The Third Secret of Fatima *Was* Fully Revealed!

[pnewton]

PNewton, I would have to argue that you in fact do not have a clear understanding of Church authority, of Church vs. churchman

That is your opinion of me. It misrepresents what I said. As to your examples, I am not St. Paul. I do not speak for The Sixth General Council. I am not St. Athanasius

Also, this issue is not Arianism, the nature of God, Christ or the universality of salvation.

I said, if you remember, that there is a time to quesiton. This is issue doesn’t even contain the slightest bit of importance compared to the examples you gave, and I am not the chosen vessel to address this, as Paul was before Peter, as is the role of a Church council.

Could you speak to these things before persisting in insisting that anyone who doesn’t stick to the simplistic (but illogical) view is disobedient?

I did. Let me add that I was impressed this week of reading of the role St. Cyril of Jerusalem played during the Arian controversy, yet he is never mentioned by Traditionalists. There is more than one way to respond to authority we question.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

That is your opinion of me. It misrepresents what I said. As to your examples, I am not St. Paul. I do not speak for The Sixth General Council. I am not St. Athanasius

I quite honestly do not think I misrepresented anything you said. And that would be silly of me, since the record is right here for all to read.

See below re: the true responsibilities of the faithful.

Also, this issue is not Arianism, the nature of God, Christ or the universality of salvation.

Because it’s less important it should be buried? No, that is not logical. You are quite right, though - it is much less important than any of those things!

I said, if you remember, that there is a time to question. This is issue doesn’t even contain the slightest bit of importance compared to the examples you gave, and I am not the chosen vessel to address this, as Paul was before Peter, as is the role of a Church council. I did. Let me add that I was impressed this week of reading of the role St. Cyril of Jerusalem played during the Arian controversy, yet he is never mentioned by Traditionalists. There is more than one way to respond to authority we question.

Ah, the old ‘I’m no authority cop-out’. Cop-out is what it is, I am afraid. The Church tells us all faithful are priests (there are two priesthoods, the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of believers) and that ALL of us have the responsibility to perform spiritual works of mercy AND to offer correction - even to Church figures - when they are in error. Church documents stating these things have been posted in these forums in the context of the discussion on reporting liturgical abuses.

I agree with you about one thing: You’re right, this material - the message - has already gotten out. Via Akita and via the quotes from Church officials and Lucy provided here.

Anyway, you sidestepped the whole point of my providing examples of strife within the Church: that the ‘standard’ of obedience you were proposing is not valid or workable in the light of Church history (and teaching). You changed the context of the discussion to what you should do - but nobody’s asking you or anyone else to do anything, except not hold an opinion on this matter that’s not based on the facts, and don’t accuse those who can’t accept the press release completely of disobedience because that doesn’t hold water.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

As to your examples, I am not St. Paul. I do not speak for The Sixth General Council. I am not St. Athanasius.

I feel the need to say a little more about this.

You are not Athanasius and I am not Athanasius. Of course. And yet if you were a parishioner during the crisis who sat through of the myriad of sermons ‘explaining’ the Arian view given by one of the 70-95% of the clergy who had accepted the heresy, and you just sat there and listened, you have committed grave sin (lest you were in ignorance). The bravest, most Christ-like thing any of those people did in that time was to stand up and say “No! You are preaching a heresy of the gravest nature! You are destroying the faith!” Yet we can have no doubt that those who behaved so, in obedience to Christ and his Church and not to these errant Churchmen, were hated by nearly all. They were the ‘nuts’ who just wouldn’t ‘go along with the program’. They craved attention and had to be different - how easy it is to hate & condemn them! As disobedient. As nutty.

[NOTE: This is not an analogy: I am not likening such brave and holy souls to me or any of us other silly people who don’t like the Sodano/Bertone version of the Secret. ]

 

[pnewton]

I find this quote very interesting since I think I and others supporting me here have been both more charitable and more logical than the other side thus far (Lily excepted).

I have said many times, if you find I posted uncharitably, please go back and report it. Yes, you probably do feel you are counselling the ignorant and all are confused who see things differently. More’s the pity

I’m sorry, PNewton, but the phrase ‘you do not understand Church authority’ is not an ‘epithet’ and is not ‘degrading’. You seem to me here to be following the false modern mantra that to correct is evil - that ‘feelings’ are paramount and saying anything to anyone that may ‘hurt their feelings’ is ‘bad’.

Again you are wrong and misread people.

Not documented! Ha! You mean because I didn’t provide the references here? Of course they are documented and, since someone has finally called that into question, I’ll post them!

You really lost me on the ‘classic logical fallacy of false authority’. That would be use of phrases like “many people believe”, “everyone knows”, “it is common knowledge.”

Putting such a phrase on an assumption, (that the Pope* really* meant xyz) doesn’t make an assumption anything but an assumption.

 

[pnewton]

Because it’s less important it should be buried? No, that is not logical. You are quite right, though - it is much less important than any of those things!

I see the logic in it. I work under authority and go to Church under authority. The degree of importance determines whether it should be questioned, challenged or resisted.

] but nobody’s asking you or anyone else to do anything, except not hold an opinion on this matter that’s not based on the facts, and don’t accuse those who can’t accept the press release completely of disobedience because that doesn’t hold water.

You’re right. I do not think I do hold an opinion that is not based on the facts, at least my limited understanding of them. I should not accuse you of doing otherwise. To the extent I have done that, or insinuated this, I apologize.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

You split hairs. No one on this thread has made the case that private or private revelation made public is dogma. But I have made the case that the Holy Mother Church as approved Fatima as worthy of believe. So why do you and your cohorts on this forum get so twisted up because some of us do just what the Church suggested?

I am not splitting hairs. The quote I was commenting on was…

You don’t think Heaven’s instructions should be followed to the letter? That is surprising.

This quote says that we must believe and follow this private message even though this is not what the Church Teaches.

As for the rest, that since the Church has stated that Fatima is worthy of belief, I have nothing against that. What I am against is the apparent need of some of people that not only is Fatima worthy of belief but that we must believe.

The issue I have besides that is the lack of belief when the Church and Seer state that the Third Secret has been fully revealed.

Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong? So what does it mean when the Church approves Marian appirations like Fatima, Akita, Lourdes anyway. Why is it that millions flock to these places annually and so many miracles have been associated with them? I accept you are not obliged to believe but I don’t understand why you so easily dismiss them.

I am not the one here saying that the Church is wrong. Again, when it says that an apparition is worthy of belief, that does not require one to believe in it.

Why is it that you do not believe when the Church says that the Third Secret have been fully revealed?

One meaning of revelation is, “communication, by a divinity or by divine agency, of divine truth or knowledge; specif., God’s manifestation of the divinity or of the divine will to humanity”. So if the Church approves them, if the Church honors them as the Popes regularly do, why do you find it so hard to accept?

I have not stated my beliefs on any of the private revelations/apparitions as it does not really matter in this discussion.

You seem to be taking the stand that if the Church rules that an apparition is worthy of belief then one must believe, which is not what the Church Teaches in this matter.

Finally, why are you so adament about the details. If you don’t believe…don’t believe.

Again, I have not said whether I believe or do not believe. The issue for me is that some seem to deny the fact that no apparition requires belief even when the Church states that it is worthy of belief.

Being a vowed religious I refrain from stating my opinions on private messages/apparitions in public. I do not feel that it is my place to do so. But I do see it as my place to put forward what the Church Teaches and to defend the Church against wacko conspiracy theories.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
ByzCath:

You split hairs. No one on this thread has made the case that private or private revelation made public is dogma. But I have made the case that the Holy Mother Church as approved Fatima as worthy of believe. So why do you and your cohorts on this forum get so twisted up because some of us do just what the Church suggested?

I am not splitting hairs. The quote I was commenting on was…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Folbrecht
You don’t think Heaven’s instructions should be followed to the letter? That is surprising.

This quote says that we must believe and follow this private message even though this is not what the Church Teaches.

I don’t read this the same way. I believe that Our Lady of Fatima has given us some Heavenly instructions and warnings, you don’t. Paul nor I have said you are obligated to believe it. What Paul is saying is that if one believes that the revelation is a Heavenly instruction then we should comply with it to the letter. I agree with this line of thought completely.

As for the rest, that since the Church has stated that Fatima is worthy of belief, I have nothing against that. What I am against is the apparent need of some of people that not only is Fatima worthy of belief but that we must believe.

I have repeatedly stated in this thread that you are not obliged to believe so we agree. However, I am reacting to those who don’t believe who then want to misrepresent, pick apart and criticize those of us that do.

The issue I have besides that is the lack of belief when the Church and Seer state that the Third Secret has been fully revealed.

That is the crux of this thread. I believe that a compelling case has been put together by Ferrara in his book, The Secret Still Hidden that it isn’t so. He has put together public quotations from Popes who have commented on this that raise serious questions. In addition he provides eye witness accounts of the ‘single page’ that explains the .etc at the end of Our Lady’s statement, “In Portugal the Faith will always be preserved .etc” He lays out, in minute detail, the inconsistancies in Cardinal Bertone’s denials and thoroughly debunks his case. You owe it to yourself to read the books before taking an ualterable position.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong? So what does it mean when the Church approves Marian appirations like Fatima, Akita, Lourdes anyway. Why is it that millions flock to these places annually and so many miracles have been associated with them? I accept you are not obliged to believe but I don’t understand why you so easily dismiss them.

I am not the one here saying that the Church is wrong. Again, when it says that an apparition is worthy of belief, that does not require one to believe in it.

I never once said you were obligated to believe. What I asked is do you believe the Church was wrong in deeming Fatima worthy of believe? If you don’t think the Church is wrong you should be more respectful of those who hold the revelations are true.

Why is it that you do not believe when the Church says that the Third Secret have been fully revealed?

For more reasons than I can lay down here. Read the books and judge for yourself. Christopher Ferrara is a lawyer and he lays out the case for disbelief in a very compelling lawyerly way.

Quote:
One meaning of revelation is, “communication, by a divinity or by divine agency, of divine truth or knowledge; specif., God’s manifestation of the divinity or of the divine will to humanity”. So if the Church approves them, if the Church honors them as the Popes regularly do, why do you find it so hard to accept?

I have not stated my beliefs on any of the private revelations/apparitions as it does not really matter in this discussion.

What do you mean when you say that it does not really matter. That is the crux of the discussion on this post so of course it does.

You seem to be taking the stand that if the Church rules that an apparition is worthy of belief then one must believe, which is not what the Church Teaches in this matter.

I’m really getting tired of saying this. Private revelation is not dogma an because it is not dogma, Apostolic Tradition or the constant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium of the Church…you are not obliged to believe it. I don’t know how I can be more clear.

Quote:
Finally, why are you so adament about the details. If you don’t believe…don’t believe.

Again, I have not said whether I believe or do not believe. The issue for me is that some seem to deny the fact that no apparition requires belief even when the Church states that it is worthy of belief.

You should get off the fence. Mary’s requests are beautiful and Her warnings are dire.

---

Br. David, O.Carm.

God Bless, it is a pleasure to discuss this with you.

Iowa Mike

 

[VitaminC]

TRUTH! Sorry, I don’t understand your concept of truth at all. You and others on this thread would have us believe that that certain authors etc have more of an inside knowledge of the secrets of Fatima and in particular the third secret then the Vatican. Not to mention that those who dispute the Vatican’s stance on the secret have their own personal ideologies and yes, even in some cases, downright lunacies. Because their theories fit right in with your own convictions, they must be correct. Eh?

I have read a few of the books you mentioned and taken them with a grain of salt. Interesting reads, but nothing more.

If you’ve read even one of the books mentioned on this thread then I’m having much difficulty seeing that based on the content of your posting.

The statements that there were many people privy to the third secret is completely unfounded, especially the one by Vitamen C who said that Malachi Martin read it when it was opened in 1960.

No, that’s not what I said. I said, “He was one of the few allowed to read it in 1960 after it was originally unsealed.” I did not say “when”, I said “after.” Fr. Martin stated publicly that he read it in early February, 1960 along with Cardinal Bea. I also did not say “many”, I said “few.”

It was not opened in 1960. After it had been put in the Secret Archives of the Vatican, it was not opened until Pope John XXIII did so in 1959. It was then returned to the archives until Pope Paul VI read it in 1965. John Paul II didn’t even read it until after the assassination attempt in 1981.

If you really had anything beyond a sciolistic level of knowledge here, you would know that a copy was kept in the Papal Apartments in a safe, a picture of it shown in Paris-Match Magazine. Given that this was mentioned numerous times in the books mentioned on this thread and that importance was attached to it, it’s quite interesting how you were not aware of this.

Peter Seewald asked Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996 who could examine the secret. The Cardinal replied that only the Pope himself, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and others only with the personal approval of the Pope. Seewald then asked if the circle of people who had examined the secrets were known and easy to keep track of, The Cardinal replied that it was certainly easy to keep track of because there were probably no more than three or four people.

He quite obviously was referring to persons currently alive, not everyone throughout history. And despite the fact that he was under the impression that this list was comprised of only a few individuals, he apparently wasn’t able to immediately list them all mentally to come up with an exact number. This suggests that he was under the impression that there were only a few and didn’t have direct knowledge of the identity of every single person. Thus his use of the word “probably”, suggesting that he wasn’t absolutely certain.

In the same interview, Seewald asked if the prophecy shook the Cardinal. “No” he answered. “Why not?” asked Seewald. “Because nowhere does it say anything more than what the Christian message already says”, replied Cardinal Ratzinger.

Well, in that case, why didn’t they release it in 1960 like they were supposed to? Mind you, they didn’t suppress the messages of Akita and La Salette warning of satanic infiltration of the Church. What could possibly be worse than that? And if it doesn’t say anything more than what the Christian message already says, please explain where in the Christian message it says that there would be a failed assassination attempt on JPII. I mean, Cardinal Sodano himself stated that that was what the Secret was about, and that was its fulfillment.

All of your arguments are logically flawed.

And no one disputes that the content of the Third Secret is derived from scripture, anyway. Sr. Lucia herself said the Third Secret is contained within the Gospels and particular chapters of the Apocalypse. But the full meaning and application of much of the content of the Book of Apocalypse remains to be elucidated to the faithful at large.

He also said that he was not “overcome by any terrible shocks” in reading it. [Salt of the Earth]. Strange8 that he would repeat more or less the same words when the Third Secret was released four years later.

But evidently it’s not strange to you that he said in 1984, three years after the failed assassination that the Third Secret involved the “importance of the end times” and the dangers threatening the faith and lives of Christians, only to say that it says something completely different in 2000. I like how you deliberately exclude any facts that don’t support your argument rather than addressing them in a fair, objective fashion and attempting to explain them.

The Cardinal himself stated that the third secret had been published in its entirety.

Cardinal Bertone was the one who was most insistent upon this.

That same man is now Pope Benedict XVI. To insist that that part of the secret was held back is to accuse the Pope of being a liar. There isn’t any way to pussyfoot around and pretend otherwise. It is bad enough to be calumnating Cardinal Bertone who was working directly under Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF but the Pope?

Actually, you’re the one who seems to be implying that the Pope lied. The Pope at the time was actually JPII, and he said the message of Fatima was a warning to have nothing to do with the dragon and to beware of its tail, citing Apocalypse 12:3-4.

There’s nothing about this in Sodano release.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

If you’ve read even one of the books mentioned on this thread then I’m having much difficulty seeing that based on the content of your posting.

No, that’s not what I said. I said, “He was one of the few allowed to read it in 1960 after it was originally unsealed.” I did not say “when”, I said “after.” Fr. Martin stated publicly that he read it in early February, 1960 along with Cardinal Bea. I also did not say “many”, I said “few.”

If you really had anything beyond a sciolistic level of knowledge here, you would know that a copy was kept in the Papal Apartments in a safe, a picture of it shown in Paris-Match Magazine. Given that this was mentioned numerous times in the books mentioned on this thread and that importance was attached to it, it’s quite interesting how you were not aware of this.

He quite obviously was referring to persons currently alive, not everyone throughout history. And despite the fact that he was under the impression that this list was comprised of only a few individuals, he apparently wasn’t able to immediately list them all mentally to come up with an exact number. This suggests that he was under the impression that there were only a few and didn’t have direct knowledge of the identity of every single person. Thus his use of the word “probably”, suggesting that he wasn’t absolutely certain.

Well, in that case, why didn’t they release it in 1960 like they were supposed to? Mind you, they didn’t suppress the messages of Akita and La Salette warning of satanic infiltration of the Church. What could possibly be worse than that? And if it doesn’t say anything more than what the Christian message already says, please explain where in the Christian message it says that there would be a failed assassination attempt on JPII. I mean, Cardinal Sodano himself stated that that was what the Secret was about, and that was its fulfillment.

All of your arguments are logically flawed.

And no one disputes that the content of the Third Secret is derived from scripture, anyway. Sr. Lucia herself said the Third Secret is contained within the Gospels and particular chapters of the Apocalypse. But the full meaning and application of much of the content of the Book of Apocalypse remains to be elucidated to the faithful at large.

But evidently it’s not strange to you that he said in 1984, three years after the failed assassination that the Third Secret involved the “importance of the end times” and the dangers threatening the faith and lives of Christians, only to say that it says something completely different in 2000. I like how you deliberately exclude any facts that don’t support your argument rather than addressing them in a fair, objective fashion and attempting to explain them.

Cardinal Bertone was the one who was most insistent upon this.

Actually, you’re the one who seems to be implying that the Pope lied. The Pope at the time was actually JPII, and he said the message of Fatima was a warning to have nothing to do with the dragon and to beware of its tail, citing Apocalypse 12:3-4.

There’s nothing about this in Sodano release.

Man, Vitamin C is goo…oooooo…oood.

Your points are excellent. Then Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview the following:

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.”

Hmmmm

It is interesting to read those so opposed to Fatima that have come to their positions without reading what the other side says.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[VitaminC]

The issue I have besides that is the lack of belief when the Church and Seer state that the Third Secret has been fully revealed.

Sophistry. We don’t disbelieve the seer, and you know this. We disbelieve that the seer made the comments attributed to her in the first place based on substantial evidence to the contrary.

I am not the one here saying that the Church is wrong. Again, when it says that an apparition is worthy of belief, that does not require one to believe in it.

Why is it that you do not believe when the Church says that the Third Secret have been fully revealed?

If you would stop posting bluff and bluster, and do some reading, you’ll find a list of 101 reasons why Cardinal Bertone’s claims should be doubted in the back of Ferrara’s book.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t read this the same way. I believe that Our Lady of Fatima has given us some Heavenly instructions and warnings, you don’t.

Please tell me how you have gained an insight into what I believe when I have said that I will not state what I believe here and while you do not read it that way, not everyone will agree with you on it. I read it to say that I must believe.

So there is no discussing this with you any longer as you have 1) closed your mind to what I am saying and 2) already assume that you know what I believe.

The issue is whether or not the Third Secret has been fully revealed and it also seems that the question of the Consecration of Russia has occurred.

As to the Third Secret, Pope John Paul II, (then) Cardinal Ratizinger, and Sr Lucia have all said that it has been fully revealed. (here I go against my better judgment) I believe this.

The Consecration of Russia. Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia said that this has been done. As has been stated here, unless Russia is not part of the World then it has been Consecrated. I believe this is true.

I can not see how these care be argued against without resorting to conspiracy theories and secret knowledge that the Popes and Sr Lucia either do not have or are conspiring to hide.

Other than that, it does not really matter if the Third Secret has been revealed or if Russia was consecrated as neither of these are required as they are part of a private revelation that the Church does not require belief in even though it has deemed them worthy of belief.

Yes, I will agree with you again, you have said that this is so, that belief is not required, but then you always follow it up with a “but” …

You should get off the fence. Mary’s requests are beautiful and Her warnings are dire.

…saying that if the Church has said they are worthy of belief then you should believe. Saying that is no different than requiring belief, something that the Church does not do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sophistry. We don’t disbelieve the seer, and you know this. We disbelieve that the seer made the comments attributed to her in the first place based on substantial evidence to the contrary.

No, not sophistry. This statement by you is sophistry because I believe that the seer said what is attributed to her based on substantial evidence.

If you would stop posting bluff and bluster, and do some reading, you’ll find a list of 101 reasons why Cardinal Bertone’s claims should be doubted in the back of Ferrara’s book.

I do not need to read any of the conspiracy theories to know that they go against what the Vatican has said. I have looked into this enough to form my opinion an in intelligent manner. I have done enough research to believe as I do.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Please tell me how you have gained an insight into what I believe when I have said that I will not state what I believe here and while you do not read it that way, not everyone will agree with you on it. I read it to say that I must believe.

Your words betray you. That you argue against believe in revelation that has been approved by the Church is a pretty good indication of where you sentiments lie.

So there is no discussing this with you any longer as you have 1) closed your mind to what I am saying and 2) already assume that you know what I believe.

You seem a bit sensitive for someone who repeatedly said that I insisted that revelation must be believed. I think I had to correct you at least 4 times in the last post.

The issue is whether or not the Third Secret has been fully revealed and it also seems that the question of the Consecration of Russia has occurred.

Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s see it.

As to the Third Secret, Pope John Paul II, (then) Cardinal Ratizinger, and Sr Lucia have all said that it has been fully revealed. (here I go against my better judgment) I believe this.

It seems you are another person on this thread that hasn’t acquainted yourself with the compelling data presented in multiple books contrary to your position. These books poke so many holes in Cardinal Bertone’s ever evolving story that it look like Swiss Cheese. It is laid out in a very factual manner with all sorts of supporting citations. But then there are those that don’t with to be confused by the facts.

The Consecration of Russia. Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia said that this has been done. As has been stated here, unless Russia is not part of the World then it has been Consecrated. I believe this is true.

The consecration of Russia has not been done and if you did a little homework about what the conversion of Russia means I think you would agree. Our Lady didn’t ask for the world to be consecrated, she specifically asked for Russia to be consecrated for specific reasons.

I can not see how these care be argued against without resorting to conspiracy theories and secret knowledge that the Popes and Sr Lucia either do not have or are conspiring to hide.

It’s interesting that you suggest my mind is closed yet you’ve labeled those that think the Third Secret has not been completely revealed ‘Consipacy Theorists’. Yet, you haven’t/won’t read the evidence they present to make their case…you reject it out of hand…now who has a closed mind?

Other than that, it does not really matter if the Third Secret has been revealed or if Russia was consecrated as neither of these are required as they are part of a private revelation that the Church does not require belief in even though it has deemed them worthy of belief.

You quite OK to believe that but I believe that the revelations, as supported by so much of what Mary said has thusfar come true, to be a Heavenly communication consisiting of requests and warnings. And the Magesterium as deem these worth of believe. So I guess you can do what you want and I’ll follow what Mary requested.

Yes, I will agree with you again, you have said that this is so, that belief is not required, but then you always follow it up with a “but” …

Now you are stretching my words…Here is what I said earlier

I’m really getting tired of saying this. Private revelation is not dogma an because it is not dogma, Apostolic Tradition or the constant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium of the Church…you are not obliged to believe it. I don’t know how I can be more clear. So exactly where is the ‘but’ in that statement.

 

[pnewton]

Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s see it./quote]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/Fatima1984.htm

Now we may believe that EWTN has been subverted and silenced into going along with powerful Churchmen, but I for the life of me can’t figure a single good reason to do that, apart from the question of if it can be done, or if it was done.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;4968343:

Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s see it.

/quote]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/Fatima1984.htm

Now we may believe that EWTN has been subverted and silenced into going along with powerful Churchmen, but I for the life of me can’t figure a single good reason to do that, apart from the question of if it can be done, or if it was done.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

There is nothing new here. I knew this before you sent the link. Our Lady’s request wasn’t for the world to be consecrated but only Russia. Thanks for the proof its never been done.

Our Ladies reasons for requesting Russia are made clear in revelations and in the books to which I referred you.

It’s Friday and I’m off to the Stations of The Cross.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Your words betray you. That you argue against believe in revelation that has been approved by the Church is a pretty good indication of where you sentiments lie.

No, your bias betrays you.

I have never said that I do not believe, just as I have never said that I do believe. So you are making a judgment as to what is in my heart which you should not be doing.

All I am putting forward is what the Church Teaches, which is the belief is not required even though the Church has deemed an apparition as “worthy of belief”.

You seem a bit sensitive for someone who repeatedly said that I insisted that revelation must be believed. I think I had to correct you at least 4 times in the last post.

While you have corrected me, which I agree with, you still seem to push that 1) I do not believe when I have never said such a thing, and 2) that since the Church says it is worthy of belief you push that we should believe.

Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s see it.

This reads to me that you believe that I must believe while this is not what the Church Teaches.

Yes, I think if the Church says it’s worthy of belief you should get all the facts, study them, pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment and decide. That is what I did. You should try this. I think you, as Antonio Socci did, will change your mind.

Finally your conclusion that my suggestion that you believe it because the Church does is the same as requiring belief is rediculous on the face of it.

When I read the what you have said, it is exactly what you are saying, that I must believe because the Church says it is worthy of belief and the only reason you think I do not believe (which I have never said I do not believe you just assume that) is that I am not educated enough (lets call that ignorance) and because I am not allowing the Spirit to help me discern this matter.

Now that is ridiculous.

We are arguing in a circle now and neither of us will budge. All I ask is that you admit that you have assumed something of me to which you have no knowledge of, that is of my belief in or not in of the apparition in question.

I would think that it would be very strange for someone to be a vowed member of a Marian religious order who does not believe in some apparition.

But for this discussion what I believe is immaterial as the issue in question is whether or not the Third Secret has been fully revealed, which from my investigation I believe it has been.

Just so you know, no further response to you on this issue will be forth coming. Except for an acknowledgement when you admit that you have wrongly assumed what I believe when I have not stated any such thing.

 

[pnewton]

There is nothing new here. I knew this before you sent the link. Our Lady’s request wasn’t for the world to be consecrated but only Russia. Thanks for the proof its never been done.

So why did you ask?

Reasserting your opinion as if it was fact does not change your opinion to fact. If you consider this link proof, then I am glad I posted it so that all can see how you think and weigh other things you say in light of the fact you consider this as proof.

 

[VitaminC]

Iowa Mike;4968343:

Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s see it.

/quote]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/Fatima1984.htm

Now we may believe that EWTN has been subverted and silenced into going along with powerful Churchmen, but I for the life of me can’t figure a single good reason to do that, apart from the question of if it can be done, or if it was done.

Father Coelho in July of 1989 confirmed that an order came from the Vatican, (probably Cardinal Cassaroli), ordering that Sr. Lucia and others begin stating that the consecration had been completed despite the fact that she had done two interviews a few years earlier making it clear that it had not been done.

It was at this point that these computer-generated letters supposedly from Sr. Lucia began appearing, directly contradicting what she said in interviews a few years earlier. One letter in particular is a proven fraud.

Oh, and while we’re talking about computer-generated letters, then we have Cardinal Bertone stating that Sr. Lucia never even used a computer in his nasty book, only later in the same book to turn right around and say “Sr. Lucia even used a computer.” I guess it’s whatever suits Bertone at the particular moment. He can’t even keep his own lies straight. It’s a good thing he’s not Pinocchio, because if he were his nose would have grown so far that it would have traveled all the way around the world and poked him in the butt by now.

Then we have the interview by Carlos Evaristo. He published a pamphlet claiming that Sr. Lucia gave assurances as to the consecration. A Portuguese-speaking priest present at the interview gave a formal declaration that his nasty little booklet was full of lies.

Yes, there have been forgeries. They’ve been orchestrated by certain persons within the Vatican.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

No, your bias betrays you.

I have never said that I do not believe, just as I have never said that I do believe. So you are making a judgment as to what is in my heart which you should not be doing.

All I am putting forward is what the Church Teaches, which is the belief is not required even though the Church has deemed an apparition as “worthy of belief”.

Look, you can do the dance of the seven veils if you want. If you don’t want to believe don’t, If you want to believe please do you have free will. I simply don’t understand why you hide your beliefs. COLOR]

While you have corrected me, which I agree with, you still seem to push that 1) I do not believe when I have never said such a thing, and 2) that since the Church says it is worthy of belief you push that we should believe.

1. What the world do you believe then? 2. What’s wrong with that?

The World was consecrated, is Russia a part of the World? I believe others have addressed this well enough.

Maybe not, why not read those that argue it has not been consecrated? I’ve read both sides of the issue, why haven’t you?

This sort of argument is tiresome. That because we disagree with you, you assume that we have not read the right books. I have looked into this and I am satisfied with what the Church has said and do not buy into the conspiracy theories put forward by the books you choose to allow to influence you.

Did you read The Secret Still Hidden and The Devil’s Final Battle or not, be honest. I already know the answer but I’d like to hear you say it.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am not educated on the matter, it just means that I have come to a different conclusion than you have.

I’ve never said anything about you education level. People with all kinds of degrees are in disagreement.

Russia is no longer communist and the Orthodox Church seems to be thriving there.

You dream, Russia has not been converted and has shown no movement towards converstion. They are the #1 perveyor of child porn on the planet and are up to their old communist ways…closing the newspapers, arresting dissidents… Just because the Soviet Union financially collapsed doesn’t mean they were converted or changed their form of government. All these facts can be found on the internet and at the major news outlets.

Again, I have looked into this and do not find any credible evidence to lead me away from what the Church has said in this matter.

Tell me how you looked at the other side of the issue? Quite honestly, from your remarks I see no evidence that you have.

his reads to me that you believe that I must believe while this is not what the Church Teaches.

Say what?

When I read the what you have said, it is exactly what you are saying, that I must believe because the Church says it is worthy of belief and the only reason you think I do not believe (which I have never said I do not believe you just assume that) is that I am not educated enough (lets call that ignorance) and because I am not allowing the Spirit to help me discern this matter.

Now that is ridiculous.

I’ve not said any of those things. I’ve not said anything about your education, I’ve not called you ignorant or anything else.

We are arguing in a circle now and neither of us will budge. All I ask is that you admit that you have assumed something of me to which you have no knowledge of, that is of my belief in or not in of the apparition in question.

Look, I really don’t care what you believe. But I have to say for a person that is on the fence you sure make a load of arguments against belief. That’s your right, I simply disagree.

I would think that it would be very strange for someone to be a vowed member of a Marian religious order who does not believe in some apparition.

I know a few Cardinals and Priests that are outright heretics. I don’t know what your beliefs are. I respect all clergy but I don’t assume what they believe. If you want people to know where you stand, then state where you stand.

But for this discussion what I believe is immaterial as the issue in question is whether or not the Third Secret has been fully revealed, which from my investigation I believe it has been.

From my investigation I believe it most definately has not been revealed.
Just so you know, no further response to you on this issue will be forth coming. Except for an acknowledgement when you admit that you have wrongly assumed what I believe when I have not stated any such thing.

OK. But one final word. When you keep you beliefs hidden then you will be judged by what you say.

God Bless you Brother and I wish you the very best. You will be in my prayers and I hope you will include me in yours.

God Bless,

Iowa MIke

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1. What the world do you believe then?

Its really none of your business what I believe and has no bearing on the discussion as to whether or not the Church has fully revealed the Third Secret.

OK. But one final word. When you keep you beliefs hidden then you will be judged by what you say.

This is nonsense. We are called not to judge. You may do so if you wish but you will most likely be in error. Especially when you are judging something that really has no bearing on the discussion.

This is a private belief in a private revelation. Something that is not required for salvation. If you want to talk about those things that are required for salvation I will gladly tell you my beliefs but as a vowed religious I refrain from giving my opinion publicly in matters dealing with private messages/revaltions as some people may be swayed by the fact that I am a member of the Church and a vowed religious.