3rd Fatima Secret - Was Vatican's Explanation Sufficient?
cqabug
Vatican has raised as many questions as it has answered. In fact, it
aroused a lot of controversies.
The Italian daily, La Stampa, had an article headlined on its Tuesday, June
27th issue: "Doubt Spreads Even Among the Bishops."
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - La Repubblica newspaper reports that the Vatican
is being "lambasted" by "doubts and disappointments" because the "text was
not complete as it lacked the parts on the catastrophe within and without
the Church." In an interview with this newspaper, Archbishop Tarcisio
Bertone (who released the document with Cardinal Ratzinger), said that he'd
already received "piles of faxes" questioning the validity of the text and
the explanation.
"Anger At Fatima Betrayal" is the headline of an article on Thursday, June
29th, in the prestigious TIMES of London. Writer Giles Tremlett reported
that the Vatican document cast a shadow over one of Europe's most famous
Roman Catholic sanctuaries and "has provoked angry reactions from the
Portuguese Church."
In Portugal, the newspaper O Publico described the reaction as "dismayed,
cheated and betrayed, that is how many people feel."
On Saturday, July 7th, the Washington Post had an article headlined, "3rd
Secret Spurs More Questions: Fatima Interpretation Departs from Vision."
As one source says, "there now seems increasing evidence that the Pope's
order to release the Secret may have been at least partially blocked by
anti-Fatima forces in the Church bureaucracy."
For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy of
the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre. Toll-Free
Phone 1-800-263-8160.
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
Theodore M. Seeber
> For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy of
> the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre. Toll-Free
> Phone 1-800-263-8160.
This is not a Catholic organization. They were excommunicated.
Ted
--
On this day, the feast of St. Eusebius of Vercelli (Bishop)
http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?section_id=4
Theodore M. Seeber
mailto:see...@aracnet.com
Emergency Address (100 bytes or less) mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
Tired of Dubba Bush and Gore, and you still have several months of
campaigning to get through? Check out the <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
-Unofficial UN motto.
Carlovingian
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>
> > For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy
of
> > the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre.
Toll-Free
> > Phone 1-800-263-8160.
>
> This is not a Catholic organization. They were excommunicated.
> Ted
>
> --
Ted, when did this happen? I've heard that Father Gruner was under attack
from the Vatican Liberal Left; however, I have heard nothing concerning
excommunication. I received a letter from his bishop last year with a book
stating he was in good standing. An update would be appreciated. Thanks!!
Stephanie Rendino
2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
secret and its interpretation should get over it.
cqabug wrote:
> For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy of
> the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre. Toll-Free
> Phone 1-800-263-8160.
Mark Johnson
>The revelation of the 3rd Secret of Fatima on June 26th, 2000 by the
>Vatican has raised as many questions as it has answered. In fact, it
>aroused a lot of controversies.
>For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy of
>the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre. Toll-Free
>Phone 1-800-263-8160.
Or just visit the site:
http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret06.html
And there are those who question even the source doc, which I didn't
when I posted, before, about the inconsistency of Ratzinger's odd
'commentary':
http://www.tldm.org/news/critique.htm
People will try to dismiss this by not considering any evidence.
That's always easy. If there are some contradictions in their
complaints, some inconsistencies, that's one thing. If people won't
consider cause it's not . . the 'official story' - that's not honest.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
cqabug
know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence of
the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
Summer 2000.
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
Carlovingian <fri...@airmail.net> wrote in article
<CDF2098E25268847.6F34F0F9...@lp.airnews.net>...
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
> >
> > > For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a
copy
> of
> > > the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre.
> Toll-Free
> > > Phone 1-800-263-8160.
> >
cqabug
Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
<3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
justify your comments.
> 2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> secret and its interpretation should get over it.
So you're more of an expert than those priests who devoted most of their
time to the research and study of the Message.
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
>
> cqabug wrote:
>
> > The revelation of the 3rd Secret of Fatima on June 26th, 2000 by the
> > Vatican has raised as many questions as it has answered. In fact, it
> > aroused a lot of controversies.
> >
> > For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy
of
> > the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre.
Toll-Free
> > Phone 1-800-263-8160.
cqabug
but did not find that first link.
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com > wrote in article
<e4vhos4chjkb7tl3c...@4ax.com>...
> "cqabug" <cqa...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> >The revelation of the 3rd Secret of Fatima on June 26th, 2000 by the
> >Vatican has raised as many questions as it has answered. In fact, it
> >aroused a lot of controversies.
>
> >For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy
of
> >the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre.
Toll-Free
> >Phone 1-800-263-8160.
>
Stephanie Rendino
cqabug wrote:
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>
> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
> justify your comments.
Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
> > 2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> > secret and its interpretation should get over it.
>
> So you're more of an expert than those priests who devoted most of their
> time to the research and study of the Message.
Got a copy of the Catechism? Have a look at paragraphs 66 and 67, particularly
then end of paragraph 67. For those who don't have it, let me type it out:
"Christian faith cannot accept 'revelations' that claim to surpass or correct
the Revelation of which Christ is fulfillment." If you go to the fatima.org
website, there is an essay there asking why Fatima hasn't been upgraded from
private to public revelation. Revelation (capital R) is already complete in
Jesus Christ.
While I cannot claim for one second that I've spent my whole life studying the
Fatima apparitions, I do have the letters S.T.L. after my name and I wrote a
very nice little thesis on Black Virgins as model of the Church.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>
>> For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy of
>> the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre. Toll-Free
>> Phone 1-800-263-8160.
>
>This is not a Catholic organization. They were excommunicated.
>Ted
>
Who was excommunicated? Father Gruner, I presume, but who else?
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
<bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
>secret and its interpretation should get over it.
Man, I've never heard about any of this. Which heresy is it
teaching?
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
<bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>cqabug wrote:
>
>> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
>> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
>> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>>
>> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
>> justify your comments.
>
>Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
>seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
>would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
>a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
>Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
By the way, the claim that there is no Pope, though at this point in time a
FALSE claim, is not and cannot be a HERETICAL claim. If it is, we are all
heretics, since it is an undenied fact of Church history that there have
been occasions when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be
an anti-pope.
A HERETICAL organization would be one that taught a heresy or heresies.
The conclusion "Organization X is heretical" does not logically follow from
the proposition "Organization X is sedevacantist." Furthermore, what
everyone,
including you, seem to be saying is that the organization in question is
NOT sedevacantist.
>
>> > 2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
>> > secret and its interpretation should get over it.
>>
>> So you're more of an expert than those priests who devoted most of their
>> time to the research and study of the Message.
>
>Got a copy of the Catechism? Have a look at paragraphs 66 and 67, particularly
>then end of paragraph 67. For those who don't have it, let me type it out:
>
>"Christian faith cannot accept 'revelations' that claim to surpass or correct
>the Revelation of which Christ is fulfillment." If you go to the fatima.org
>website, there is an essay there asking why Fatima hasn't been upgraded from
>private to public revelation.
! Well that sounds pretty weird to me. But all you have to do is subscribe
to the National Catholic Reporter and you can get your fill of weird, every
week.
Carlos
>from the Vatican Liberal Left; however, I have heard nothing concerning
>excommunication. I received a letter from his bishop last year with a book
>stating he was in good standing. An update would be appreciated. Thanks!!
>
Pope John Paul to Beatify
Jacinta and Francisco Marto
at Fatima on May 13, 2000
Special to The Fatima Crusader
A November 26 Associated Press report stated that Pope John Paul II is to visit
Portugal’s Fatima shrine on May 13 to beatify Jacinta and Francisco Marto,
two of the three children who witnessed apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary
in 1917.
The visit to Fatima will be one of the few foreign tours undertaken by the
ailing Pope next year, Portugal’s Roman Catholic radio station Renascenca
reported, quoting unnamed sources in the Vatican.
Bishop Serafim da Silva, Bishop of Fatima told reporters, “the Pope will come
as a pilgrim to the Fatima shrine,”.
He said the Pope would arrive at the Monte Real Air Force base near Fatima on
May 12 and leave from there the following day, though he said the Vatican had
not ruled out extending his stay to include a visit to Lisbon.
The Vatican has not yet sent a formal announcement of the Pope’s visit to the
Portuguese authorities, though it was expected to do so before the end of
December, Ferreira da Silva said.
The beatification was initially scheduled for April at the Vatican, but
Portugal’s Roman Catholic community was keen to persuade the Pope to hold the
ceremony at Fatima.
Portuguese bishops traveled to Rome on November 25 to press the Pope to visit
the shrine, which is in a rural area 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Lisbon.
The 79-year-old Pope has visited this small southwest European country twice
during his 22-year papacy.
The Fatima Center will provide continual updates on this upcoming
beatification.
Carlos D. Paniagua
Proverbs 19:21 - There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the
counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
> >
> > > For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy
> of
> > > the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre.
> Toll-Free
> > > Phone 1-800-263-8160.
> >
> > This is not a Catholic organization. They were excommunicated.
> > Ted
>
> Ted, when did this happen? I've heard that Father Gruner was under attack
> from the Vatican Liberal Left; however, I have heard nothing concerning
> excommunication. I received a letter from his bishop last year with a book
> stating he was in good standing. An update would be appreciated. Thanks!!
I heard about 10 years ago that he had been excommunicated, along with his
bishop, but that may be wrong.
At any rate, the Fatima Crusader does not carry either the Nihil Obstat
NOR the Imprimature from any Bishop in communion with Rome.
Plus, the Fatima Crusader's interpretation of the third secret differs
greatly with Sr. Lucia's interpretation of the third secret. Don't you
think we should take the word of the person who recieved the vision over
some ex-priest publishing a newsletter that has been denied by Rome?
Ted
--
On this day, the feast of St. Lydia, seller of Purple.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as you may
> know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence of
> the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
> you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
> Summer 2000.
His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I, to
pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
autoexcommunication.
This is what Fr. Gruner has done. The Vatican does not need to actually
prounounce excommunication; by Canon Law, Fr. Gruner has excommunicated
himself.
The fact that Fr. Gruner cannot follow Canon Law and obey his superiors
ought to be enough proof for anybody.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>
> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
> justify your comments.
First of all, who ever told you the world was fair?
However:
The Fatima Crusader lacks Nihil Obstat or Imrimature. In addition, it
puts forth a private revelation to Sr. Lucia (and the other two, but
Sr. Lucia is the LAST LIVING reciever of the revelation) as public and
interprets it in a way which is contrary to both the Pope and to
Sr. Lucia.
According to Vatican I, this is heretical on the following counts:
1. Puting forth private revelation as public is adding to the Deposit of
Faith illicitly, and carries the punishment of autoexcommunication.
2. Interpreting revelation, public or private, diffrently than the Vicar
of Christ is illicit, and carries the punishment of autoexcommunication.
3. Interpreting private revelation contrary to the person who recieved
the revelation is illicit, but carries no penalty.
The way I see it, Fr. Gruner has achieved two counts of
autoexcommunication. Masses he says are therefore illicit, but not
invalid unless the Vatican pronounces public excommunication.
> > 2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> > secret and its interpretation should get over it.
>
> So you're more of an expert than those priests who devoted most of their
> time to the research and study of the Message.
No, Sr. Lucia is. She's the one who recieved the Revelation, it's up to
HER to interpret it, not up to some priest who thinks he found something
that isn't there.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "cqabug" <cqa...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> >The revelation of the 3rd Secret of Fatima on June 26th, 2000 by the
> >Vatican has raised as many questions as it has answered. In fact, it
> >aroused a lot of controversies.
>
> >For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy of
> >the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre. Toll-Free
> >Phone 1-800-263-8160.
>
> Or just visit the site:
>
> http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret06.html
>
> And there are those who question even the source doc, which I didn't
> when I posted, before, about the inconsistency of Ratzinger's odd
> 'commentary':
>
> http://www.tldm.org/news/critique.htm
>
>
> People will try to dismiss this by not considering any evidence.
> That's always easy. If there are some contradictions in their
> complaints, some inconsistencies, that's one thing. If people won't
> consider cause it's not . . the 'official story' - that's not honest.
I would point out this:
It isn't Ratzinger's interpretation. It isn't even JPII's interpretation
that you hate. It's Sr. Lucia's interpretation. And the fact that you
hate the person who brought you the revelation puts your entire
interpretation of that revelation into question.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
> >
> >> For a better understanding about these controversies, try to get a copy of
> >> the Fatima Crusader, issue Summer 2000, from the Fatima Centre. Toll-Free
> >> Phone 1-800-263-8160.
> >
> >This is not a Catholic organization. They were excommunicated.
> >Ted
>
> Who was excommunicated? Father Gruner, I presume, but who else?
I'm not sure that they were even formally excommunicated any more. My
priest told me the whole Organization had been excommunicated several
years ago. More recently, I've done my own research, and I've found that
the Fatima Crusader has published many articles before 1983 that carried
autoexcommunication as punishment in Vatican I's Canon Law. Many of these
Canons were kept in the 1983 revision, and I am utterly convinced that the
articles that charge the Pope with creating a "false Lucia" carry the
punishment of autoexcommunication for their writers.
I'd stay away from ANY priest who wants to add to the Deposit of Faith,
that's what Protestants do.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> >2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> >secret and its interpretation should get over it.
>
> Man, I've never heard about any of this. Which heresy is it
> teaching?
The main one is that private revelation can add to the Deposit of Faith;
that public revelation which the Apostles Recieved from Jesus Christ.
A secondary one is that some priest is smarter than Sr. Lucia in
interpreting a vision that only Sr. Lucia is the one living person who can
relate to us the vision. Catholic Custom is that Private Revelation is
ONLY for the people named in the vision, and Fr. Gruner has NO BUSINESS AT
ALL to tell Sr. Lucia or the Pope how to interpret a vision given to
Sr. Lucia that includes the Pope.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >cqabug wrote:
> >
> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> >>
> >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
> >> justify your comments.
> >
> >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
> >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
> >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
> >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
> >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
>
> So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
Depends. Do you accept Vatican I?
> By the way, the claim that there is no Pope, though at this point in time a
> FALSE claim, is not and cannot be a HERETICAL claim. If it is, we are all
> heretics, since it is an undenied fact of Church history that there have
> been occasions when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be
> an anti-pope.
Not since Vatican I, when this was defined as a heresy.
> >> > 2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> >> > secret and its interpretation should get over it.
> >>
> >> So you're more of an expert than those priests who devoted most of their
> >> time to the research and study of the Message.
> >
> >Got a copy of the Catechism? Have a look at paragraphs 66 and 67, particularly
> >then end of paragraph 67. For those who don't have it, let me type it out:
> >
> >"Christian faith cannot accept 'revelations' that claim to surpass or correct
> >the Revelation of which Christ is fulfillment." If you go to the fatima.org
> >website, there is an essay there asking why Fatima hasn't been upgraded from
> >private to public revelation.
>
> ! Well that sounds pretty weird to me. But all you have to do is subscribe
> to the National Catholic Reporter and you can get your fill of weird, every
> week.
Another unapproved publicantion is just another unapproved publication.
Stephanie Rendino
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> I heard about 10 years ago that he had been excommunicated, along with his
> bishop, but that may be wrong.
10 years ago he was declared "vagus" which means roughly "AWOL". He's in the
diocese of Niagara Falls, and his bishop called him in to answer A Few
Questions. He declined and eventually took off for India. I don't think he's
ever been formally excommunicated, but that may be a reflection of the Church
wanting to show itself in the 20th century. I don't know.
At any rate, the Fatima Crusader does not carry either the Nihil Obstat
> NOR the Imprimature from any Bishop in communion with Rome.
> Plus, the Fatima Crusader's interpretation of the third secret differs
> greatly with Sr. Lucia's interpretation of the third secret.
Fatima Crusader asked that a photocopy of the Secret be made available. The
Vatican did so. They asked for Lucia's interpretation. The Vatican duly
presented it. It isn't what Gruner and his posse want to hear, but there is no
pleasing these people.
Stephanie Rendino
"Steve P." wrote:
> In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >cqabug wrote:
> >
> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> >>
> >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
> >> justify your comments.
> >
> >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
> >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
> >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
> >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
> >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
>
> So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
Stephanie Rendino
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
>
> > In article <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> > <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> > >2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> > >secret and its interpretation should get over it.
> >
> > Man, I've never heard about any of this. Which heresy is it
> > teaching?
>
> The main one is that private revelation can add to the Deposit of Faith;
> that public revelation which the Apostles Recieved from Jesus Christ.
>
> A secondary one is that some priest is smarter than Sr. Lucia in
> interpreting a vision that only Sr. Lucia is the one living person who can
> relate to us the vision. Catholic Custom is that Private Revelation is
> ONLY for the people named in the vision, and Fr. Gruner has NO BUSINESS AT
> ALL to tell Sr. Lucia or the Pope how to interpret a vision given to
> Sr. Lucia that includes the Pope.
According to the Crusader, the Lucia we see now is a "false" one, the real one
being "silenced". "No one is allowed to visit her!" they complain. Gee, think
it has anything to do with her being CLOISTERED? Nah......
Theodore M. Seeber
Not that these heretics have ever taken the vows of nuns and priests
seriously; including their own vows.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Steve P." wrote:
>
> > In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> > <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >cqabug wrote:
> > >
> > >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> > >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> > >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> > >>
> > >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
> > >> justify your comments.
> > >
> > >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
> > >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
> > >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
> > >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
> > >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
> >
> > So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
>
> They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
> the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
And is in fact, by the Council of Trent and Vatican I, heretical.
Mark Johnson
>> Or just visit the site:
>>
>> http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret06.html
>>
>> And there are those who question even the source doc, which I didn't
>> when I posted, before, about the inconsistency of Ratzinger's odd
>> 'commentary':
>>
>> http://www.tldm.org/news/critique.htm
>It isn't Ratzinger's interpretation.
The 'commentary' was signed by Ratzinger. And it's a document which is
at odds with itself and pretty fraudulent on its face when compared
with the text of the secret which _was_ released.
Deal with reality. Read what he wrote. Read the text that was
released.
Now the second link, there, and even the top article, question the
source doc. I didn't at the time. I just pointed out how insulting to
the reader was the commentary, taken entirely on its own, as written.
>It isn't even JPII's interpretation
>that you hate. It's Sr. Lucia's interpretation.
That Crusader article points out that she has said just the opposite,
that people know about.
>And the fact that you
>hate the person who brought you the revelation
Well, you may hate _me_. But don't project. I don't hate Ratzinger (in
fact I stil respect some of what he's done and said), and I don't hate
the moles that crafted that 'commentary' or who are playing games
similar to you on this whole Fatima thing. I think they're wrong, just
like I think _you've_ been so wrong on so much of what you've posted
here, over the years.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------
It is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all,
and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain.
Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 14, Dr. Seward's Diary, Van Helsing, 26 SEP
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>> Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as you may
>> know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence of
>> the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
>> you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
>> Summer 2000.
>His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I, to
>pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
>autoexcommunication.
Well, your problem, yet again - as always - is with the Popes prior to
say, Paul VI. You're still living with your 'dead Magisteriums' -
they're dead, they don't matter now! They encouraged devotions for all
Catholics, based on Fatima, added optional prayers to the Holy Rosary,
and so on.
Fatima is an approved apparition, and one of the most important of the
many approved apparitions. It refers to the deposit of Faith. It
doesn't contradict. There are no new truths, no new tenets of the
Faith - save for your own, perhaps?
Peace.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"I am satisfied that Lucy's body is not in that coffin,
but that only proves one thing."
"And what is that, friend John?"
"That it is not there."
Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 14, Dr. (John) Seward's Diary, 26 SEP
Mark Johnson
>They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
>the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
Whoever 'they' is, it's an impossibility. What the apparitions,
rather, do is amplify previous Revelation, saying the time is now, and
these are the signs. There is no new Revelation, following the
Apostolic Age, until Our Lord comes again. We have the Law. What we
have here are urgent warnings to repent! convert!, unfortunately in
the hands of those who themselves will not repent! convert!, namely
those in the institutional church playing games with releasing the 3rd
secret - as is clearly going on.
Stephanie Rendino
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
> >the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
>
> Whoever 'they' is, it's an impossibility. What the apparitions,
> rather, do is amplify previous Revelation,
"They" refers to the Fatima Crusader. Check out their web site, and they have an
article entitled "Why Aren't the Apparitions Being Declared Public Revelation" or
something like that.
This is quite outside our usual pre Vatican II/post Vatican II battle.
Carlovingian
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.000803...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>
> > Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as you may
> > know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence
of
> > the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
> > you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
> > Summer 2000.
>
> His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I, to
> pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
> autoexcommunication.
>
> prounounce excommunication; by Canon Law, Fr. Gruner has excommunicated
> himself.
>
> The fact that Fr. Gruner cannot follow Canon Law and obey his superiors
> ought to be enough proof for anybody.
> Ted
I haven't seen the released 3rd secret but I have seen some interpretations
of it. It is my understanding that he has not been excommunicated. I know
his bishop hasn't. His old bishop may have, but I don't think he was
either.
Anyway, anyone that has a copy, I'd like to see it. Also, any links to what
Sister Lucy's interpretation would also be graciously accepted.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> >They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
>> >the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
>> Whoever 'they' is, it's an impossibility. What the apparitions,
>> rather, do is amplify previous Revelation,
>"They" refers to the Fatima Crusader. Check out their web site, and they have an
>article entitled "Why Aren't the Apparitions Being Declared Public Revelation" or
>something like that.
This is the URL - http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html
They don't declare that people have to accept new Revelation. They
simply point out how important Fatima is, how important it was to past
Popes, cardinals, and bishops - if not nec. today - and that the
secrets cannot simply be dismissed by the wave of the hand and the
sleight of - it's only private revelation. The Church never believed
that. And if churchmen, today, are of that opinion - then it only
confirms my opinion, and that of so many others, of _them_.
There's nothing added, here, to the deposit of The Faith. These
messages are timely warnings. They apparently strike such fear into
the heart of 'conciliarists', that they seem willing to lie and
deceive in order to conceal the actual message, for whatever good it
might do to release the true message, at so late a date.
Things are going to get interesting, I would think - soon.
cqabug
Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
>
>
> cqabug wrote:
>
> > Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> > <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> > > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> >
> > You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that
you
> > justify your comments.
>
> Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said
that the
> seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the
consequences
> would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his
complicity in
> a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the
evil
> Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
>
> > > 2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over
the
> > > secret and its interpretation should get over it.
> >
> > So you're more of an expert than those priests who devoted most of
their
> > time to the research and study of the Message.
>
> Got a copy of the Catechism? Have a look at paragraphs 66 and 67,
particularly
> then end of paragraph 67. For those who don't have it, let me type it
out:
>
> "Christian faith cannot accept 'revelations' that claim to surpass or
correct
> the Revelation of which Christ is fulfillment." If you go to the
fatima.org
> website, there is an essay there asking why Fatima hasn't been upgraded
from
> private to public revelation. Revelation (capital R) is already complete
in
> Jesus Christ.
>
Let's limit ourselves to the 'revelation' which is germaine to our subject
matter. Since that time when the 3 children beheld the Marian apparition
and received the 3 secrets from our Lady, the miracle of the Sun with about
70,000 people present happened and the first 2 secrets have been fulfilled.
But our Lady in the apparition also gave a command to our bishops to
consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart so that the evils of communism
will be stopped and that peace prevails which is the wish of Her Son. Now
this part of the 'revelation' is in consonance with paragraph 67 of the
Catechism which "constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints
(Mary?) to the Church. How comes it that our bishops and the Pope are not
heeding this call? We know that the evil (communism) is still out there
wrecking havoc. Could it not be that we're heading into the fulfillment of
the 3rd Secret and that the explanation of Cardinal Ratzinger is a
non-explanation at all? Shall we take lightly the warning of Our Lord
Jesus Christ when He revealed it to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in August, 1931,
saying, "Make it known to my ministers that given they follow the example
of the King of France in delaying the execution of My request, that they
shall follow him into misfortune." We await what comes next, shan't we?
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
> While I cannot claim for one second that I've spent my whole life
Christopher Wiegert
Surf over to www.vatican.va and click on the "What's New" button
(or something like that, was a little while ago that I did this). There should
be a document in there that contains the official interpretation, a copy
of Sister Lucia's original letter, her thoughts on the matter, and various
other things. If those instructions are wrong, surely a Web search would
find it. Perhaps www.fatima.org has it up too.
cqabug
Christopher Wiegert <wie...@sfu.ca> wrote in article
<8mdj6g$f9s$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
Or http://www.ewtn.org/fatima/apparitions/Third_Secret/Fatima.htm.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>
>> Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as you may
>> know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence of
>> the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
>> you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
>> Summer 2000.
>
>His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I, to
>pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
>autoexcommunication.
According to which of the documents of Vatican 1? All of them?
Anyway, the 1983 Code of Canon Law abrogates previous laws. To claim
otherwise, as you have done, brings the sentence of autoexcommunication.
:-P
>
>This is what Fr. Gruner has done.
Don't be silly. Fr. Gruner isn't stupid. If you think he told you that
public revelation did not end with the death of the last apostle, I'll
bet you dollars to donuts you misunderstood him.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
>
>> In article <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
>> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>> >2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
>> >secret and its interpretation should get over it.
>>
>> Man, I've never heard about any of this. Which heresy is it
>> teaching?
>
>The main one is that private revelation can add to the Deposit of Faith;
>that public revelation which the Apostles Recieved from Jesus Christ.
That is too vague an accusation to have real meaning. It is something
that anybody could say about anything he disagreed with. Why don't you
just say "I disagree." You would actually be more impressive if you
didn't appoint yourself pope and go around anathematizing people. I
will bet you dollars to donuts that if you think Fr. Gruner ever told
you that public revelation did not end with the death of the last
apostle, you misunderstood him (perhaps you didn't hear that
all-important word, "not"). Fr. Gruner is at least neither stupid nor
liberal.
>
>A secondary one is that some priest is smarter than Sr. Lucia in
>interpreting a vision that only Sr. Lucia is the one living person who can
>relate to us the vision.
That she hasn't been allowed to relate to us the vision, of course,
is precisely what those who don't believe the recent announcement
are claiming.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
----------
In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.000803...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
>
>> In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
>> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> >cqabug wrote:
>> >
>> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
>> >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
>> >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>> >>
>> >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
>> >> justify your comments.
>> >
>> >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
>> >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
>> >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
>> >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
>> >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
>>
>> So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
>
>Depends. Do you accept Vatican I?
1. She didn't mention Vatican I.
2. You are not Vatican I. If I don't believe you, it does not follow that
I don't believe Vatican I.
>> By the way, the claim that there is no Pope, though at this point in time a
>> FALSE claim, is not and cannot be a HERETICAL claim. If it is, we are all
>> heretics, since it is an undenied fact of Church history that there have
>> been occasions when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be
>> an anti-pope.
>
>Not since Vatican I, when this was defined as a heresy.
What you are saying is absurd. Think about it. There have been times in the
past when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be an
anti-pope.
Every single one of the bishops attending the first Vatican council would
have
agreed that that is true and could have told you about these periods of time
when the Holy See was vacant in some detail. It is a fait accompli and a
fact
of history. Vatican I did not and could not declare history and things that
have occured in the past to be "a heresy." I think you don't understand what
the word "heresy" means.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
<bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>"Steve P." wrote:
>
>> In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
>> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >cqabug wrote:
>> >
>> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
>> >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
>> >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>> >>
>> >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
>> >> justify your comments.
>> >
>> >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
>> >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
>> >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
>> >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
>> >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
>>
>> So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
>
>They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
>the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
I don't believe it. I've seen too many people's opinions misrepresented and
this
looks just like another example to me.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>
> >> Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as you may
> >> know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence of
> >> the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
> >> you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
> >> Summer 2000.
>
> >His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I, to
> >pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
> >autoexcommunication.
>
> Well, your problem, yet again - as always - is with the Popes prior to
> say, Paul VI.
Last I looked, Vatican I was in the 1800s, long before Paul VI was born.
> You're still living with your 'dead Magisteriums' -
> they're dead, they don't matter now! They encouraged devotions for all
> Catholics, based on Fatima, added optional prayers to the Holy Rosary,
> and so on.
But did NOT add Fatima to the Deposit of Faith, and Fr. Gruner has.
> Fatima is an approved apparition, and one of the most important of the
> many approved apparitions. It refers to the deposit of Faith. It
> doesn't contradict. There are no new truths, no new tenets of the
> Faith - save for your own, perhaps?
According to Fr. Gruner, there are new truths in Fatima, and it does
contradict and in fact supercede the Deposit of Faith.
But that's Fr. Gruner's interpretation, not the Pope's.
Ted
--
On this day, the feast of St. John Vianney (Priest)
Success in ministry comes with personal sacrifice
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> >> Or just visit the site:
> >>
> >> http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret06.html
> >>
> >> And there are those who question even the source doc, which I didn't
> >> when I posted, before, about the inconsistency of Ratzinger's odd
> >> 'commentary':
> >>
> >> http://www.tldm.org/news/critique.htm
>
> >It isn't Ratzinger's interpretation.
>
> The 'commentary' was signed by Ratzinger. And it's a document which is
> at odds with itself and pretty fraudulent on its face when compared
> with the text of the secret which _was_ released.
So what? Sr. Lucia has the right to determine what the Secret means. Not
you. Not Fr. Gruner.
> Deal with reality. Read what he wrote. Read the text that was
> released.
So what? Means nothing.
> Now the second link, there, and even the top article, question the
> source doc. I didn't at the time. I just pointed out how insulting to
> the reader was the commentary, taken entirely on its own, as written.
So what? As a Catholic, we are faced with many things that are
contradictory. A god who died, yet lives. Bread and wine that look like
bread and wine, but are really the Body and Blood. What makes it so hard
for you to follow the Pope?
> >It isn't even JPII's interpretation
> >that you hate. It's Sr. Lucia's interpretation.
>
> That Crusader article points out that she has said just the opposite,
> that people know about.
Like I take the word of a heretic over that of the Pope. Or for that
matter, over the one person who actually HAD THE VISION.
> >And the fact that you
> >hate the person who brought you the revelation
>
> Well, you may hate _me_. But don't project. I don't hate Ratzinger (in
> fact I stil respect some of what he's done and said), and I don't hate
> the moles that crafted that 'commentary' or who are playing games
> similar to you on this whole Fatima thing. I think they're wrong, just
> like I think _you've_ been so wrong on so much of what you've posted
> here, over the years.
That's not what I said.
I said you hate Sr. Lucia and her interpretation.
The comentary is just that, a comentary.
Your problem is with Sr. Lucia's interpretation of a vision only she is
left alive to tell us about.
Not with the Pope.
Not with Ratzinger.
Leave them out of it.
Deal instead with what Sr. Lucia wrote to the Pope the day after his
assasin shot him.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> > Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
> > >the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
> >
> > Whoever 'they' is, it's an impossibility. What the apparitions,
> > rather, do is amplify previous Revelation,
>
> "They" refers to the Fatima Crusader. Check out their web site, and they have an
> article entitled "Why Aren't the Apparitions Being Declared Public Revelation" or
> something like that.
>
> This is quite outside our usual pre Vatican II/post Vatican II battle.
Especially since it deals ENTIRELY with a subject proclaimed by Vatican I
and UPHELD by Vatican II.
Theodore M. Seeber
> heeding this call? We know that the evil (communism) is still out there
> wrecking havoc.
Uh, did you miss the fact that Russia is now a democratic State, largely
BECAUSE of the concecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart?
Both the Pope, in 1936, and the Partiarch of the Russian Orthodox Church,
in 1985, followed this call. It was used as a part of the campaign
against the communists, and garnered many votes.
"Communism is still out there and wrecking havoc", in a way, in CUBA and
CHINA, and VIETNAM, but even in these places, communism is looked upon as
the materialistic excesses of old men, free trade and democracy is the way
of the young. And when those old men die off (as they should have done
years ago), Atheistic Communism will be dead once and for all.
Where have you been?!?!?!?!?
Stephanie Rendino
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
> >
> > >> Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as you may
> > >> know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence of
> > >> the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
> > >> you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
> > >> Summer 2000.
> >
> > >His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I, to
> > >pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
> > >autoexcommunication.
> >
> > Well, your problem, yet again - as always - is with the Popes prior to
> > say, Paul VI.
>
> Last I looked, Vatican I was in the 1800s, long before Paul VI was born.
>
> > You're still living with your 'dead Magisteriums' -
> > they're dead, they don't matter now! They encouraged devotions for all
> > Catholics, based on Fatima, added optional prayers to the Holy Rosary,
> > and so on.
>
> But did NOT add Fatima to the Deposit of Faith, and Fr. Gruner has.
I looked back at his website and actually, he's careful not to say outright "it's
public revelation" but says, "why are they saying it's ONLY private revelation"?
It's either private or it's public, something can't sit on the fence like that.
It's like being only a little bit pregnant. I think he'd like to add it to the
Deposit of Faith, but knows he'd lose a lot of his support if he said it
outright,.
Theodore M. Seeber
> I haven't seen the released 3rd secret but I have seen some interpretations
> of it. It is my understanding that he has not been excommunicated. I know
> his bishop hasn't. His old bishop may have, but I don't think he was
> either.
>
> Anyway, anyone that has a copy, I'd like to see it. Also, any links to what
> Sister Lucy's interpretation would also be graciously accepted.
http://www.zenit.org keeps record of all the documents and speeches
released by the Vatican. The only one I've seen is Zenit's English
translation of both.
I would agree that in English, Sr. Lucia's interpretation is a bit of a
stretch. I can only hope it's better in (Portugese? Spainish? I'm
pulling a brain fart, just where is Fatima?) whatever language she
originally wrote it in.
But it's also entirely possible that what the 13 year old Lucia
interpreted as arrows and armies, in retrospect to the 83 year old Lucia
has become a single Moslem gunman.
We don't know. We may never know, because Lucia has been cloistered since
the 1920s.
Ted
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.000803...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
> >
> >> Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as you may
> >> know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his defence of
> >> the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with excommunication. If
> >> you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima Crusader,
> >> Summer 2000.
> >
> >His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I, to
> >pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
> >autoexcommunication.
>
> According to which of the documents of Vatican 1? All of them?
The one on the Infalibility of the Pope, which also defines for all time
The Deposit of Faith.
> Anyway, the 1983 Code of Canon Law abrogates previous laws. To claim
> otherwise, as you have done, brings the sentence of autoexcommunication.
True if this had been abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
It wasn't.
> >This is what Fr. Gruner has done.
>
> Don't be silly. Fr. Gruner isn't stupid. If you think he told you that
> public revelation did not end with the death of the last apostle, I'll
> bet you dollars to donuts you misunderstood him.
He said that Fatima, which happpened some 1800 years after the death of
the last apostle, should be added to public revelation.
In addition, many of his statements about Fatima, do indeed contradict the
Deposit of Faith.
So tell me, where's the misunderstanding?
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.000803...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> >> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> >> >2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> >> >secret and its interpretation should get over it.
> >>
> >> Man, I've never heard about any of this. Which heresy is it
> >> teaching?
> >
> >The main one is that private revelation can add to the Deposit of Faith;
> >that public revelation which the Apostles Recieved from Jesus Christ.
>
> That is too vague an accusation to have real meaning.
Oh really? The actual statement, from the Fatima crusader website is that
"The Fatima revelation should be added to public revelation".
Nothing at all vague.
> It is something
> that anybody could say about anything he disagreed with. Why don't you
> just say "I disagree." You would actually be more impressive if you
> didn't appoint yourself pope and go around anathematizing people. I
> will bet you dollars to donuts that if you think Fr. Gruner ever told
> you that public revelation did not end with the death of the last
> apostle, you misunderstood him (perhaps you didn't hear that
> all-important word, "not").
That does not jive with the statements on the Fatima.org website, which
claim that Fatima's revelations should be added to public
revelation. Last I saw, this is about 1800 years to late to be before
"the death of the last apostle".
> Fr. Gruner is at least neither stupid nor
> liberal.
He is one, but not the other, I would agree.
> >A secondary one is that some priest is smarter than Sr. Lucia in
> >interpreting a vision that only Sr. Lucia is the one living person who can
> >relate to us the vision.
>
> That she hasn't been allowed to relate to us the vision, of course,
> is precisely what those who don't believe the recent announcement
> are claiming.
Which is false on it's face.
And rediculous for all Catholics loyal to the Pope.
Of course, Fr. Gruner isn't loyal to the Pope.
Theodore M. Seeber
>
> ----------
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.000803...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
> >
> >> In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> >> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >> >cqabug wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> >> >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> >> >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> >> >>
> >> >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
> >> >> justify your comments.
> >> >
> >> >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
> >> >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
> >> >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
> >> >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
> >> >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
> >>
> >> So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
> >
> >Depends. Do you accept Vatican I?
>
> 1. She didn't mention Vatican I.
If you accept Vatican I, then you accept the idea that public revelation
ended with the death of the last apostle.
Last I saw, Fatima was about 1800 years too late to make this test.
> 2. You are not Vatican I. If I don't believe you, it does not follow that
> I don't believe Vatican I.
Correct.
But if you don't believe that public revelation ended with the death of
the last apostle, then you don't believe Vatican I, which is the REAL
issue here.
> >> By the way, the claim that there is no Pope, though at this point in time a
> >> FALSE claim, is not and cannot be a HERETICAL claim. If it is, we are all
> >> heretics, since it is an undenied fact of Church history that there have
> >> been occasions when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be
> >> an anti-pope.
> >
> >Not since Vatican I, when this was defined as a heresy.
>
> What you are saying is absurd. Think about it. There have been times in the
> past when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be an
> anti-pope.
True, but not since Vatican I.
> Every single one of the bishops attending the first Vatican council would
> have
> agreed that that is true and could have told you about these periods of time
In that period of time, yes.
> when the Holy See was vacant in some detail. It is a fait accompli and a
> fact
> of history. Vatican I did not and could not declare history and things that
> have occured in the past to be "a heresy." I think you don't understand what
>
> the word "heresy" means.
A contradiction with the Pope and the established teaching of the Church.
To say that the unbroken line of Peter's successors is broken, is to say
that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which is what
Protestants do. In doing so, they call Christ a liar. Do you call Christ
a liar?
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <3989C018...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Steve P." wrote:
> >
> >> In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> >> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >cqabug wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> >> >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
> >> >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> >> >>
> >> >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
> >> >> justify your comments.
> >> >
> >> >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said that the
> >> >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
> >> >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his complicity in
> >> >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
> >> >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
> >>
> >> So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
> >
> >They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
> >the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
>
> I don't believe it. I've seen too many people's opinions misrepresented and
> this
> looks just like another example to me.
What part of "The Fatima Revelations should be added to public
revelation" didn't you understand?
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >
> > But did NOT add Fatima to the Deposit of Faith, and Fr. Gruner has.
>
> I looked back at his website and actually, he's careful not to say outright "it's
> public revelation" but says, "why are they saying it's ONLY private revelation"?
Which is the same thing as saying that it is public revelation.
> It's either private or it's public, something can't sit on the fence like that.
> It's like being only a little bit pregnant. I think he'd like to add it to the
> Deposit of Faith, but knows he'd lose a lot of his support if he said it
> outright,.
As far as I'm concerned the statement you quoted (and the statement I saw
elsewhere on the web site), he has said it outright for all who can hear.
Carlovingian
"Christopher Wiegert" <wie...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:8mdj6g$f9s$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> "Carlovingian" <fri...@airmail.net> writes:
>
>
> >I haven't seen the released 3rd secret but I have seen some
interpretations
> >of it. It is my understanding that he has not been excommunicated. I
know
> >his bishop hasn't. His old bishop may have, but I don't think he was
> >either.
>
> >Anyway, anyone that has a copy, I'd like to see it. Also, any links to
what
> >Sister Lucy's interpretation would also be graciously accepted.
>
Carlovingian
Thank you
"cqabug" <cqa...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:01bffde5$1ae64560$e1149ad8@cqabug...
>
>
> Christopher Wiegert <wie...@sfu.ca> wrote in article
> <8mdj6g$f9s$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> > "Carlovingian" <fri...@airmail.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > >I haven't seen the released 3rd secret but I have seen some
> interpretations
> > >of it. It is my understanding that he has not been excommunicated. I
> know
> > >his bishop hasn't. His old bishop may have, but I don't think he was
> > >either.
> >
> > >Anyway, anyone that has a copy, I'd like to see it. Also, any links to
> what
> > >Sister Lucy's interpretation would also be graciously accepted.
> >
> > Surf over to www.vatican.va and click on the "What's New" button
> > (or something like that, was a little while ago that I did this). There
> should
> > be a document in there that contains the official interpretation, a copy
> > of Sister Lucia's original letter, her thoughts on the matter, and
> various
> > other things. If those instructions are wrong, surely a Web search would
> > find it. Perhaps www.fatima.org has it up too.
> >
> >
cqabug
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com>...
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>
> > heeding this call? We know that the evil (communism) is still out
there
> > wrecking havoc.
>
> Uh, did you miss the fact that Russia is now a democratic State, largely
> BECAUSE of the concecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart?
>
Cite the specific date and the consecration prayer. Remember, the
consecration is to be done by the Pope with the participation of all the
bishops throughout the world. Now the consecration is of Russia alone.
Maybe you are just naive. Russia looks democratic but the Duma has lots of
communists lurking in the background. Maybe you haven't heard of the
Soviet tactic of disinformation. The West is being sucked into helping a
system that later on will bite the hand that feeds it.
> Both the Pope, in 1936, and the Partiarch of the Russian Orthodox Church,
> in 1985, followed this call. It was used as a part of the campaign
> against the communists, and garnered many votes.
>
This statement just shows that you are not familiar with the instructions
of Our Lady on how the consecration is to be done. She did not mention
about Orthodox participation.
"Communism is still out there and wrecking havoc", in a way, in CUBA and
> CHINA, and VIETNAM, but even in these places, communism is looked upon as
> the materialistic excesses of old men, free trade and democracy is the
way
> of the young. And when those old men die off (as they should have done
> years ago), Atheistic Communism will be dead once and for all.
>
I guess the future will tell, eh?
> Where have you been?!?!?!?!?
Again, you can't be that naive.
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
>
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>So what? As a Catholic, we are faced with many things that are
>contradictory. A god who died, yet lives. Bread and wine that look like
>bread and wine, but are really the Body and Blood. What makes it so hard
>for you to follow the Pope?
I swear to you that we Catholics are not faced with a single
contradictory thing. If you think there are contradictions, you
have certainly misunderstood something. Honest.
To deal with some of things you mentioned, If Church claimed that
Christ had not been resurrected, and yet had been, that would be
a contradiction. But the Church makes no such claim. The Church
CONSISTENTLY says that Christ was resurrected. Similarly, though
the Church admits that the Sacramental species LOOK LIKE
bread and wine, it does not say that they ARE bread and wine. It
does not say that they both are and are not bread and wine, for
example. If it did say that, that would indeed be a contradiction,
but it does not say that. It consistently says they ARE NOT bread
and wine, that they have become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Any implication they they remain bread and wine is nothing but a
figure of speech.
Nor does the Pope ask us to prove we are really following him
by denying the logical principle of non-contradiction. Indeed,
in his recent _Fides et ratio_, the Holy Father strongly
affirms logic and reason, and derogates the mindless fideism
you seem to be advocating.
>
>> >It isn't even JPII's interpretation
>> >that you hate. It's Sr. Lucia's interpretation.
>>
>> That Crusader article points out that she has said just the opposite,
>> that people know about.
>
>Like I take the word of a heretic over that of the Pope. Or for that
>matter, over the one person who actually HAD THE VISION.
It remains to be demonstrated that Nicolas Gruner is a heretic. YOU
claim he is but in the process you have made several claims that
I know to be false, some of which, such as your claim that Catholic
doctrines contradict each other, are themselves heresies.
Note that I am not saying YOU are a heretic--indeed, such
mindless and crude label-slinging and anathematizing is
precisely what does not belong on this NG. It is solemn and
perilous when expert theologians make that accusation. You
and I are mere laymen. Unless Fr. Gruner officially renounces
Catholicism and embraces Protestantism or some heresy, or
very clearly and unambiguously denies certain Catholic
doctrine, you have no business calling him a heretic. Even
the inquisition refrained from calling priests heretics
without giving them a trial and a chance to defend themselves.
I have little doubt that you have misunderstood and
misrepresented Fr. Gruner's statements. You have proven
yourself, in this very thread, to be quite capable of
misrepresenting and misunderstanding things.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
>
>> That she hasn't been allowed to relate to us the vision, of course,
>> is precisely what those who don't believe the recent announcement
>> are claiming.
>
>Which is false on it's face.
Of course it is not, if I understand what you mean by "on it's face."
I will not deny that you believe it to be false, and that you
may be right (about that).
>And rediculous for all Catholics loyal to the Pope.
Saying that anyone who disagrees with you is disloyal to the Pope
does not add to your credibility. In fact it does the precise
opposite. It makes you look foolish.
>Of course, Fr. Gruner isn't loyal to the Pope.
I don't know the man, but from what little I have read in the Fatima
Crusader and from the few times I have seen him on TV, I can only
conclude that he seems to be quite loyal to the Pope. Of course I
could take your word for it that he is not. But I am afraid that
would make ME look foolish. You have said things that are not
true in this very thread. There is no reason for me to think that
this isn't another one of your mistakes
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
>
>> heeding this call? We know that the evil (communism) is still out there
>> wrecking havoc.
>
>Uh, did you miss the fact that Russia is now a democratic State, largely
>BECAUSE of the concecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart?
No one misses the fact that Mary must have had something to do with
the liberation of Eastern Europe and the breaking up of communism's
monopoly of the Russian govt. Nevertheless, communism is still not only
out there but is still the greatest persecuter of Christians and the
greatest (political) danger to mankind and to world peace. And Russia
has still not been converted. In no sense has the prophecy been fulfilled.
>
>Both the Pope, in 1936, and the Partiarch of the Russian Orthodox Church,
>in 1985, followed this call. It was used as a part of the campaign
>against the communists, and garnered many votes.
>"Communism is still out there and wrecking havoc", in a way, in CUBA and
>CHINA, and VIETNAM, but even in these places, communism is looked upon as
>the materialistic excesses of old men, free trade and democracy is the way
>of the young. And when those old men die off (as they should have done
>years ago), Atheistic Communism will be dead once and for all.
>
Atheistic communism shows no sign of being close to death or of ceasing
to be the greatest political threat to world peace. Thank God it has
been dealt a great blow by the liberation of Eastern Europe and the
break-up of the Soviet Union, but that is a long way from saying it
is dying. And Russia still has not been converted.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
>
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.000803...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <39897749...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
>> >> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> >> >cqabug wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
>> >> >> <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>...
>> >> >> > 1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You owe us an explanation why it is heretical. Fairness demands that you
>> >> >> justify your comments.
>> >> >
>> >> >Some of the things they've written about the Pope? They haven't said
>that the
>> >> >seat is empty--yet. They seem to have enough grasp of what the consequences
>> >> >would be if they did. However there's been enough talk about his
>complicity in
>> >> >a conspiracy to make a "false Lucia" to answer questions in the way the evil
>> >> >Vatican wants them to to make the magazine more than worrisome.
>> >>
>> >> So what you are saying is that it isn't heretical after all.
>> >
>> >Depends. Do you accept Vatican I?
>>
>> 1. She didn't mention Vatican I.
>
>If you accept Vatican I, then you accept the idea that public revelation
>ended with the death of the last apostle.
>Last I saw, Fatima was about 1800 years too late to make this test.
>
>> 2. You are not Vatican I. If I don't believe you, it does not follow that
>> I don't believe Vatican I.
>
>Correct.
>But if you don't believe that public revelation ended with the death of
>the last apostle, then you don't believe Vatican I, which is the REAL
>issue here.
Nobody but you has suggested that I don't believe public revelation
ended with the death of the last apostle. Actually, the phrase "public
revelation" is ambiguous. I think you mean to say "General Revelation,"
that Nicolas Gruner has claimed that General Revelation did not end
with the death of the last apostle. It is that claim that I find to
be serious and not to be made lightly. It is that claim that I refuse
to take your word for.
>
>> >> By the way, the claim that there is no Pope, though at this point in time a
>> >> FALSE claim, is not and cannot be a HERETICAL claim. If it is, we are all
>> >> heretics, since it is an undenied fact of Church history that there have
>> >> been occasions when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be
>> >> an anti-pope.
>> >
>> >Not since Vatican I, when this was defined as a heresy.
>>
>> What you are saying is absurd. Think about it. There have been times in the
>> past when there was no pope and the alleged pope turned out to be an
>> anti-pope.
>
>True, but not since Vatican I.
If what you are saying is that it has ever been defined as Catholic dogma
that:
"it WAS possible for the Holy See to be vacant and for there to be at the
same
time an antipope BEFORE the 19th century AD but it will NOT be possible for
the
Holy see to be vacant and for there to be at the same time an antipope AFTER
the 19th century AD"
you trivialize Catholic Dogma itself and in fact misunderstand what the
word "dogma" means.
It is in fact logically true, historically true, and conforming with
Catholic
doctrine to say that if it has occurred in the past that the Holy See was
vacant and there was simultaneously an antipope who was widely believed to
be the true pope, it conceivably could happen again.
>
>> Every single one of the bishops attending the first Vatican council would
>> have
>> agreed that that is true and could have told you about these periods of time
>
>In that period of time, yes.
>
>> when the Holy See was vacant in some detail. It is a fait accompli and a
>> fact
>> of history. Vatican I did not and could not declare history and things that
>> have occured in the past to be "a heresy." I think you don't understand what
>>
>> the word "heresy" means.
>
>A contradiction with the Pope and the established teaching of the Church.
>To say that the unbroken line of Peter's successors is broken, is to say
>that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church,
There have been times in history when the Holy See was vacant and there
was an antipope widely believed to be the true Pope. What you seem to be
saying is that eiter at those times in history, the gates of hell prevailed
against the Church (temporarily, thank God), or that the only way you
can agree with Christ that the gates of hell have never prevailed
against the Church is to deny undeniable historical fact.
You are also implicitly accusing Catholic historians and theologians, and
most probably the Holy Father himself, of calling Christ a liar. Because
the Holy Father is well informed about Church history, and it is practically
certain that would say that there have been times in the history of the
Church when the Holy See was vacant and an antipope was widely believed
to be the true Pope.
>which is what
>Protestants do.
No. your mistake is in saying that when we say that there have been times
when the Holy See was vacant and there was simultaneously an antipope
widely believed to be the true pope we are saying "the gates of hell
prevailed." In fact, we are saying that the gates of hell DID NOT prevail,
that in every case where that happened, the situation was rectified, and
that if it happens again, the situation will again be rectified. and that
if it is happening now (which of course I don't think is the case) it will
sooner or later be rectified.
>In doing so, they call Christ a liar. Do you call Christ
>a liar?
No, I call you "confused." You are essentiall calling Christ a fool. You
are saying that when Christ said "the gates of hell will not prevail" what
he meant was: "the gates of hell WILL prevail temporarily a few times
during the middle ages, but AFTER the first Vatican council 1800 years
from now, for sure the gates of hell won't prevail any more--at THAT point
I will put my foot down and stop the prevailing, I promise."
In fact, it is far more likely that Our Lord is not a fool and that
you misunderstood what He meant by "the gates of hell will not prevail."
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>What part of "The Fatima Revelations should be added to public
>revelation" didn't you understand?
>Ted
I understand that you have said things that are false, illogical,
and even heretical in this very thread. It would not make sense
for me to understand that and to take your word for it that this
man is a heretic.
cqabug
Gruner and the Fatima Crusader have been trying all along is to (1) have
the Pope and all the bishops of the world to consecrate Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary, (2) have the Vatican release the 3rd secret, and
(3) to have the process of beatification of Francisco and Jacinta be put
into motion. No. 3 has been done on May 13th to coincide with the
anniversary of Our Lady's first apparition in 1917. No. 2 was accomplished
this June 26th which the Catholic world had been waiting for since 1960
when it should have been done. As our subject header suggests, is the
explanation of the 3rd secret sufficient and implying that it has been
fulfilled and things now are in the past? No. 1 has not been done.
Are all these expectations and requests heretical? I never heard of Fr.
Gruner wishing to add anything to the Deposit of Faith. In fact he is just
strengthening it.
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
Steve P. <Zerchi @worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<HCNi5.22083$RG6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>
Stephanie Rendino
"Steve P." wrote:
> Atheistic communism shows no sign of being close to death or of ceasing
> to be the greatest political threat to world peace. Thank God it has
> been dealt a great blow by the liberation of Eastern Europe and the
> break-up of the Soviet Union, but that is a long way from saying it
> is dying. And Russia still has not been converted.
Depends on what you mean by "converted". That term is pretty vague. Did it
mean from communisim to Christianity, or Orthodoxy to Catholicism? Who knows.
As far as communism being close to death or a threat to world peace, sorry, the
main threat there is fundamentalist Islam in my opinion. They're scarier
because they don't have the lure of money to make them change their system.
They're doing it for God. Communism in Russia went under because of finance,
which is why it's going to stay under.
As for Cuba, it's more of a monarchy than anything else, and life on Cuba is a
lot better now than it was under U.S. backed dictators. (Think there was
freedom of speech THEN?) Vietnam and China are another story, but again, I ask
people to have a look at what life was like before Communism. It's never
pretty over there, never has been.
Stephanie Rendino
cqabug wrote:
> Ted still has to prove a heretical act that Fr. Gruner did. What Fr.
> Gruner and the Fatima Crusader have been trying all along is to (1) have
> the Pope and all the bishops of the world to consecrate Russia to the
> Immaculate Heart of Mary, (2) have the Vatican release the 3rd secret, and
> (3) to have the process of beatification of Francisco and Jacinta be put
> into motion. No. 3 has been done on May 13th to coincide with the
> anniversary of Our Lady's first apparition in 1917. No. 2 was accomplished
> this June 26th which the Catholic world had been waiting for since 1960
> when it should have been done. As our subject header suggests, is the
> explanation of the 3rd secret sufficient and implying that it has been
> fulfilled and things now are in the past? No. 1 has not been done.
Lucia has said that the blessing carried out by JP2 was sufficient. It's only
Gruner and other credible groups like the Baysiders who say it was not.
(I will interject that I find the necessity of consecrating the world to the
Immaculate Heart by every last bishop in order to bring about peace very
theologically dubious, but that's just me.)
Furthermore, he does dance on the edge of heresy when he questions why the
Secrets are "merely" private revelation. If they're not private, they're
public, and public revelation is complete, that's why.
Carlovingian
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00080...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Carlovingian wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen the released 3rd secret but I have seen some
interpretations
> > of it. It is my understanding that he has not been excommunicated. I
know
> > his bishop hasn't. His old bishop may have, but I don't think he was
> > either.
> >
> > Anyway, anyone that has a copy, I'd like to see it. Also, any links to
what
> > Sister Lucy's interpretation would also be graciously accepted.
>
> released by the Vatican. The only one I've seen is Zenit's English
> translation of both.
>
> I would agree that in English, Sr. Lucia's interpretation is a bit of a
> stretch. I can only hope it's better in (Portugese? Spainish? I'm
> pulling a brain fart, just where is Fatima?) whatever language she
> originally wrote it in.
> But it's also entirely possible that what the 13 year old Lucia
> interpreted as arrows and armies, in retrospect to the 83 year old Lucia
> has become a single Moslem gunman.
> We don't know. We may never know, because Lucia has been cloistered since
> the 1920s.
> Ted
>
Fatima is in Portugal - beautiful country, you and your wife should go see
it. Garbandal is in Spain - I want to go to Spain and hope to go on the
blessed Thursday.
I read the secret and I've seen it before. I'm looking through my texts to
locate it. There were a few changes from the one I read; however, it is the
same message. I'm going to state what I think based on what I know at this
point.
Pope John Paul II told someone a meeting that I know that he would be
assassinated which we are also told in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter
12. We know the lady clothed with the sun is the Virgin due to the
prophecies of Father Gobbi. We know the male child is a Pope as the Greek
text is written in future tense. The vulgate attempted to show that;
however, it does not have force of the Greek. The Book was written after
Christ's birth, death and resurrection; therefore, it can not be Him.
It seems to me the Pope is trying to keep the battle with Satan in the
Church as long as he can. Note, the "stars that are cast down to earth".
In scriptural language, the stars are clergy. Daniel, xii. 3, viii. 10 and
xi. 32. In Genesis, we are told they are the patriarchs. Once Satan is
expelled from the Church, he will go after us. I believe we may see the
expellion on 08 October 2000. This why I've always said to follow the
teachings of the Holy Father as he is steering the Church to holiness. St.
John Bosco tells us that there is an endtime Pope that will steer the Church
in dangerous waters when heresies and ungodly principles are the norm. BTW,
there is a four volume book set by the Holy Father concerning a Catechesis
on the Creed.
Sister Lucia told us that the 3rd secret dealt with chapters 8 - 13 of the
Book of the Apocalypse and the great Gospel (St. Matthew, 24). I do not see
where this does not show that as the secret only dealt with faith.
Pax Christi
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
<bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>"Steve P." wrote:
>
>> Atheistic communism shows no sign of being close to death or of ceasing
>> to be the greatest political threat to world peace. Thank God it has
>> been dealt a great blow by the liberation of Eastern Europe and the
>> break-up of the Soviet Union, but that is a long way from saying it
>> is dying. And Russia still has not been converted.
>
>Depends on what you mean by "converted". That term is pretty vague. Did it
>mean from communisim to Christianity, or Orthodoxy to Catholicism? Who knows.
Converted means converted. There is nothing vague about it from the
standpoint of heaven. If you are suggesting that when the Blessed Virgin
Mary, the Mother of our Lord, said "Russia will be converted" she meant
that it would be converted from atheistic materialistic communism to
atheistic consumerist-materialist Mafia rule you owe our Lady an apology.
Tom A.
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >> >They want the Fatima apparitions to be declared public revelation, i.e., added to
> >> >the deposit of faith. That's pretty bad!
>
> >> Whoever 'they' is, it's an impossibility. What the apparitions,
> >> rather, do is amplify previous Revelation,
>
> >"They" refers to the Fatima Crusader. Check out their web site, and they have an
> >article entitled "Why Aren't the Apparitions Being Declared Public Revelation" or
> >something like that.
>
> This is the URL - http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html
>
> They don't declare that people have to accept new Revelation. They
> simply point out how important Fatima is, how important it was to past
> Popes, cardinals, and bishops - if not nec. today - and that the
> secrets cannot simply be dismissed by the wave of the hand and the
> sleight of - it's only private revelation. The Church never believed
> that. And if churchmen, today, are of that opinion - then it only
> confirms my opinion, and that of so many others, of _them_.
The CCC says that public relelation ended with the last Apostle. But it
looks like _you_ ("and that of so many others") are saying is that
because I am spending my time reading the Bible and receiving the
sacraments that I am going against what the Church believes? Because I
am not studying Fatima's secrets I prove some opinion of _yours_?
Why should I care?
> There's nothing added, here, to the deposit of The Faith. These
> messages are timely warnings. They apparently strike such fear into
> the heart of 'conciliarists', that they seem willing to lie and
> deceive in order to conceal the actual message, for whatever good it
> might do to release the true message, at so late a date.
AH! You can see into people's hearts and see that they fear. Why
didn't you say you had god like power.
> Things are going to get interesting, I would think - soon.
Things are always interesting.
--
Tom A.
Who began formatting a 700K document of John Silvertongue's
"Six" - John, 5 year old lawyer
Tom A.
Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
> > > <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >1. The Fatima Crusader is heretical.
> > > >2. Fatima's a PRIVATE REVELATION. Anybody who is in kinnipshins over the
> > > >secret and its interpretation should get over it.
> > >
> > > Man, I've never heard about any of this. Which heresy is it
> > > teaching?
> >
> > The main one is that private revelation can add to the Deposit of Faith;
> > that public revelation which the Apostles Recieved from Jesus Christ.
> >
> > A secondary one is that some priest is smarter than Sr. Lucia in
> > interpreting a vision that only Sr. Lucia is the one living person who can
> > relate to us the vision. Catholic Custom is that Private Revelation is
> > ONLY for the people named in the vision, and Fr. Gruner has NO BUSINESS AT
> > ALL to tell Sr. Lucia or the Pope how to interpret a vision given to
> > Sr. Lucia that includes the Pope.
>
> According to the Crusader, the Lucia we see now is a "false" one, the real one
> being "silenced". "No one is allowed to visit her!" they complain. Gee, think
> it has anything to do with her being CLOISTERED? Nah......
It's the conspiracy mentality.
"If it was a conspiracy, they'd act exactly like they're doing! So it
must be a conspiracy. QED."
You just can't convice people who think like that.
Everyone who knows, knows that the Illuminati don't work that way. :-)
--
Tom A.
Doctor:"What will you be when you're older?"
Stephanie Rendino
Carlovingian wrote:
How can you have read it before it was released to the public a couple of months
ago?
Stephanie Rendino
"Tom A." wrote:
Oh good, someone else is saying it.
I follow marian prophecy and millenarianism because mariology is my specialty, and because
I find it worrisome in the extreme. Matter of fact, I'll go out on a limb and say
something that will shock many people....
I believe that Mary appeared at Fatima, but that's the extent of it. I find it beyond
suspect that Lucia revealed that Mary predicted WW2---after it had started. Most people
think that the "prophecy" was made to the general public at the time of the initial
apparitions or shortly after. That isn't the case. The "Memoirs" are often referred to as
"Fatima II" in mariology, while the apparitions themselves which were witnessed by all
three children is called "Fatima I".
I find that most marian apparitional literature falls under the category "novelty". People
who obsess on them need to keep up the good stuff which they learned (daily rosaries and
mass) but turn more to the Scriptures rather to what some visionary is saying.
Stephanie Rendino
"Steve P." wrote:
> In article <398C2513...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
Um, what the heck are you talking about? From communism to Christianity in
general, or from Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism? I didn't say anything about
atheistic consumerist Mafia rule, whatever THAT is.
Carlovingian
"Stephanie Rendino" <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:398C6E88...@videotron.ca...
I read something similar by another seer is what I'm saying.
Carlovingian
>
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, cqabug wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Ted is misinformed. The anti-Fatima forces have some effect, as
you may
> > > >> know. Fr. Gruner is fighting for his priestly life due to his
defence of
> > > >> the message of Fatima. He is being threatened with
excommunication. If
> > > >> you want to know his rebuttal, it's in the issue of the Fatima
Crusader,
> > > >> Summer 2000.
> > >
> > > >His rebuttal means nothing. According to the documents of Vatican I,
to
> > > >pronounce private revelation as public brings the sentence of
> > > >autoexcommunication.
> > >
> > > say, Paul VI.
> >
> > Last I looked, Vatican I was in the 1800s, long before Paul VI was born.
> >
> > > You're still living with your 'dead Magisteriums' -
> > > they're dead, they don't matter now! They encouraged devotions for all
> > > Catholics, based on Fatima, added optional prayers to the Holy Rosary,
> > > and so on.
> >
> > But did NOT add Fatima to the Deposit of Faith, and Fr. Gruner has.
>
> I looked back at his website and actually, he's careful not to say
outright "it's
> public revelation" but says, "why are they saying it's ONLY private
revelation"?
that.
> It's like being only a little bit pregnant. I think he'd like to add it
to the
> Deposit of Faith, but knows he'd lose a lot of his support if he said it
> outright,.
I don't know. I've met a few of his support in person and learned it was
best to keep my mouth shut around them. Many are in the Pius XIII group.
It is a Latin Mass or nothing. I do not have a problem with either. I've
been to both and enjoy both.
Mark Johnson
>"Tom A." wrote:
>> Mark Johnson wrote:
>> > Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> > >Mark Johnson wrote:
>> > >> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> > >"They" refers to the Fatima Crusader. Check out their web site, and they have an
>> > >article entitled "Why Aren't the Apparitions Being Declared Public Revelation" or
>> > >something like that.
>> > This is the URL - http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html
>> > They don't declare that people have to accept new Revelation. They
>> > simply point out how important Fatima is, how important it was to past
>> > Popes, cardinals, and bishops - if not nec. today - and that the
>> > secrets cannot simply be dismissed by the wave of the hand and the
>> > sleight of - it's only private revelation. The Church never believed
>> > that. And if churchmen, today, are of that opinion - then it only
>> > confirms my opinion, and that of so many others, of _them_.
>> The CCC says that public relelation ended with the last Apostle.
Revelation referring to dogma - Catholic teaching. Warnings about this
or that, new devotions to be encouraged, and so on - have been the
very stuff of apparitions over the centuries.
You can't have it both ways - at least not, honestly. We do not have
to believe Fatima as an article of the Faith. But then no article of
the Faith was received at Fatima - rather prophecies of the near
future, and warnings about what to do if they were to be avoided,
which churchmen chose not to do.
>> Why should I care?
>Oh good, someone else is saying it.
And I am most profoundly shocked at your revelation. We all know you
don't care, Steph. You wouldn't write 90% of what you do on UseNet . .
. if ya did.
>I believe that Mary appeared at Fatima, but that's the extent of it. I find it beyond
>suspect that Lucia revealed that Mary predicted WW2---after it had started. Most people
>think that the "prophecy" was made to the general public at the time of the initial
>apparitions or shortly after. That isn't the case. The "Memoirs" are often referred to as
>"Fatima II" in mariology, while the apparitions themselves which were witnessed by all
>three children is called "Fatima I".
So the three secrets were revealed by . . . fraud . . . sometime after
1939 or 1940?
This is your 'Fatima II'?
>I find that most marian apparitional literature falls under the category "novelty". People
>who obsess on them need to keep up the good stuff which they learned (daily rosaries and
>mass) but turn more to the Scriptures rather to what some visionary is saying.
Or what some 'super-Catholic' would have them believe about prophecies
long 'after' the fact?
That's some complaint, Steph. Just more rumors? You have anything to
back it up?
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------
It is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all,
and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain.
Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 14, Dr. Seward's Diary, Van Helsing, 26 SEP
Mark Johnson
>Lucia has said that the blessing carried out by JP2 was sufficient.
It seems she would contradict herself by saying such.
>It's only
>Gruner and other credible groups like the Baysiders who say it was not.
Actually, they say - she - said it was not. I _gave_ you that URL.
Just read it.
>I will interject that I find the necessity of consecrating the world to the
>Immaculate Heart by every last bishop in order to bring about peace very
>theologically dubious, but that's just me.
How is that "theologically dubious"? Why is it wrong?
>Furthermore, he does dance on the edge of heresy when he questions why the
>Secrets are "merely" private revelation. If they're not private, they're
>public, and public revelation is complete, that's why.
No, public revelation is not complete, but has been the stuff of
apparitions over the centuries. What is complete is the Deposit of
Faith - what Catholics believe. Doctrine ceased with the end of the
Apostolic Age. All the various things we've been encouraged to do, or
to avoid, have self-evidently been part of the historical record via
apparitions - over the centuries. And there have been many.
Surely an 'expert' like yourself would confess the simple historical
record.
Peace.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
His power ceases, as does that of all evil things,
at the coming of the day.
Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 18,
(Willhel)Mina's Diary, van Helsing, 30 SEP
Mark Johnson
>Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Steve P. wrote:
>> > > In article <3988BD88...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
>> > > <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> According to the Crusader, the Lucia we see now is a "false" one, the real one
>> being "silenced". "No one is allowed to visit her!" they complain. Gee, think
>> it has anything to do with her being CLOISTERED? Nah......
>It's the conspiracy mentality.
No - it's just reading what they write. I didn't even question the
source doc on this, and still pointed out the absurd inconsistencies
in the Ratzinger 'commentary'.
Just read. Just use the sense God gave you.
>"If it was a conspiracy, they'd act exactly like they're doing! So it
>must be a conspiracy. QED."
Exactly. That's how public interest groups and DAs sometimes get onto
the case, at the beginning. Cause it _looks_ like collusion. And maybe
it'll prove to be.
>Everyone who knows, knows that the Illuminati don't work that way.
Cause . . . there ain't no conspiracies - and that whole body of
statute and case law - well . . . . it don't exist.
On the other hand . . .
Peace.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"I am satisfied that Lucy's body is not in that coffin,
but that only proves one thing."
"And what is that, friend John?"
"That it is not there."
Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 14, Dr. (John) Seward's Diary, 26 SEP
Mark Johnson
>"Steve P." wrote:
What in the world is your real problem, Steph? Can't you read?
Clearly, the previous poster was saying that the conversion of Russia
promised - cause you're the 'expert', and you know all about Fatima,
right? - could never have referred to the present state of Russia.
Even the western establishment press has complained loudly of the aid
dollars, the unsecured loans, etc. pouring not into the hands of the
people, but former Soviet establishment goons - the so-called,
'entreprenuers'.
I would only disagree insofar as pointing out that atheistic Communism
is, by definition, gangsterism, and like Mafia rule. That hasn't
changed. And no conversion is evident. If the proper consecration had
been performed, the result itself would be evident. Catholics would
not be persecuted. But then, again, which consecration does one pick
at random? - there have been more than one (which as the
self-described 'expert' - you know).
Stephanie Rendino
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Steve P." wrote:
>
> >> Converted means converted. There is nothing vague about it from the
> >> standpoint of heaven. If you are suggesting that when the Blessed Virgin
> >> Mary, the Mother of our Lord, said "Russia will be converted" she meant
> >> that it would be converted from atheistic materialistic communism to
> >> atheistic consumerist-materialist Mafia rule you owe our Lady an apology.
>
> >Um, what the heck are you talking about? From communism to Christianity in
> >general, or from Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism? I didn't say anything about
> >atheistic consumerist Mafia rule, whatever THAT is.
>
> What in the world is your real problem, Steph? Can't you read?
No. I *specifically* asked about Orthodoxy, and the previous writer started ranting
about something else.
James R. Black
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >Furthermore, he does dance on the edge of heresy when he questions why the
> >Secrets are "merely" private revelation. If they're not private, they're
> >public, and public revelation is complete, that's why.
>
> No, public revelation is not complete, but has been the stuff of
> apparitions over the centuries. What is complete is the Deposit of
> Faith - what Catholics believe. Doctrine ceased with the end of the
> Apostolic Age. All the various things we've been encouraged to do, or
> to avoid, have self-evidently been part of the historical record via
> apparitions - over the centuries. And there have been many.
Stephanie's statement is correct. The two categories of revelation are
(1) the revelation received from the Apostles and contained in the Deposit
of Faith, variously termed "universal" or "general" or "public" revelation,
and (2) revelation subsequently received from other sources and therefore
not contained in the Deposit of Faith, variously termed "particular" or
"special" or "private" revelation. There is no third category. If it is
"public", then by definition it was received from the Apostles, is part of
the Deposit of Faith, and is therefore dogma. If it was not received from
the Apostles then it is not part of the Deposit of Faith, is not dogma, and
is therefore "private" by definition.
In short, the notion of revelation which is "public" but not part of the
Deposit of Faith is a contradiction in terms.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which
are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition
transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the
Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private
revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see
CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she
declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good
morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit;
no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.
Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved
in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St.
Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not
obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic
faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of
prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pious
belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II). [Catholic Encyclopedia,
"Revelations, Private", http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm]
And again:
It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or "deposit of
faith" from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of
importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His
servants in every age, and still continues thus to favour chosen souls,
she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation
which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all
her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its
entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last
of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church
calls it, a deposit -- "the faith once delivered to the saints"
(Jude, 2) -- for which the Church was to "contend" but to which she
could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining
a doctrine, whether at Nicća, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole
point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scrip-
ture or in Apostolic tradition. ... ALL SUBSEQUENT REVELATIONS
CONFERRED BY GOD ARE KNOWN AS PRIVATE REVELATIONS, for the reason that
they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of
individual members alone. They may indeed be a legitimate object for
our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular
case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message.
It is true that in certain cases she has given her approbation to
certain private revelations. This, however, only signifies: [a] that
there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the
moral law, and, [b] that there are sufficient indications of their
truth to justify the faithful in attaching credence to them without
being guilty of superstition or of imprudence. [Catholic Encyclo-
pedia, "Revelation", http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm]
From Vatican II:
The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive
covenant, will never pass away, and WE NOW AWAIT NO FURTHER NEW
PUBLIC REVELATION before the glorious manifestation of our Lord
Jesus Christ. [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, ch. 1]
> Surely an 'expert' like yourself would confess the simple historical
> record.
Well, *somebody* here hasn't done their homework, but I don't think it
was Ms. Rendino.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Roger Black jrb...@students.wisc.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Johnson
>I *specifically* asked about Orthodoxy, and the previous writer started ranting
>about something else.
You rant. He was explaining. He was drawing the difference between a
Russia truly converted, and what the reality is - today - that he saw
it not merely atheistic, Communistic, but now thuggish, like the
Mafia, to boot. I pointed out - it always was, and that even the
establishment media has been lamenting that 'capitalism' in Russia
never was, and was merely a wealth transfer from American taxpayers to
corrupt Commie bureacrats/petty crime bosses (pays to be a Commie
bureacrat, iow, some might say).
Peace.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
<bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>"Steve P." wrote:
>
>> In article <398C2513...@videotron.ca>, Stephanie Rendino
>> <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Steve P." wrote:
>> >
>> >> Atheistic communism shows no sign of being close to death or of ceasing
>> >> to be the greatest political threat to world peace. Thank God it has
>> >> been dealt a great blow by the liberation of Eastern Europe and the
>> >> break-up of the Soviet Union, but that is a long way from saying it
>> >> is dying. And Russia still has not been converted.
>> >
>> >Depends on what you mean by "converted". That term is pretty vague. Did it
>> >mean from communisim to Christianity, or Orthodoxy to Catholicism? Who knows.
>>
>> Converted means converted. There is nothing vague about it from the
>> standpoint of heaven. If you are suggesting that when the Blessed Virgin
>> Mary, the Mother of our Lord, said "Russia will be converted" she meant
>> that it would be converted from atheistic materialistic communism to
>> atheistic consumerist-materialist Mafia rule you owe our Lady an apology.
>
>Um, what the heck are you talking about? From communism to Christianity in
>general, or from Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism? I didn't say anything about
>atheistic consumerist Mafia rule, whatever THAT is.
That is the morale and regnant philosophy of the Russian people and the
present Russian form of government and economy. It is what has replaced
atheistic communism. It is how what IS is different than what WAS. I am
responding to your suggestion that the prophecy of the conversion of Russia
has already been fulfilled and that fulfillment is not what we would
normally
think of as "conversion," but rather merely the end of communism in that
country. The Russian people certainly have not converted. The form of
government and the economic system has "converted," to use the word in a
metaphorical way, but that cannot be what Our Lady meant. Either she meant
that the Russian people would convert, and that would lead somehow to a more
general worldwide conversion and a period of peace, or the prophecy is
inauthentic.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
term "public revelation," as opposed to more explicit and specific
language such as "the deposit of the Faith," is vague. A particular
or "private" revelation, if it is a genuine revelation and is public,
that is, it has been publicized and approved by the Church, is public,
according to the ordinary meaning of the word "public," even though
it is not an addition to the Deposit of Faith.
----------
In article <jrblack-0508...@ras-c5800-1-50-117.dialup.wisc.edu>,
> a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole
cqabug
Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
<398C2651...@videotron.ca>...
>
>
> cqabug wrote:
>
> > Ted still has to prove a heretical act that Fr. Gruner did. What Fr.
> > Gruner and the Fatima Crusader have been trying all along is to (1)
have
> > the Pope and all the bishops of the world to consecrate Russia to the
> > Immaculate Heart of Mary, (2) have the Vatican release the 3rd secret,
and
> > (3) to have the process of beatification of Francisco and Jacinta be
put
> > into motion. No. 3 has been done on May 13th to coincide with the
> > anniversary of Our Lady's first apparition in 1917. No. 2 was
accomplished
> > this June 26th which the Catholic world had been waiting for since 1960
> > when it should have been done. As our subject header suggests, is the
> > explanation of the 3rd secret sufficient and implying that it has been
> > fulfilled and things now are in the past? No. 1 has not been done.
>
> Lucia has said that the blessing carried out by JP2 was sufficient. It's
only
> Gruner and other credible groups like the Baysiders who say it was not.
>
> (I will interject that I find the necessity of consecrating the world to
the
> Immaculate Heart by every last bishop in order to bring about peace very
> theologically dubious, but that's just me.)
>
You're still confusing the consecration of the world with the consecration
of Russia. The former has been done, and the latter, not. The latter is
the one specifically requested by Our Lady in order to achieve peace. And
we have no peace yet.
As regards being "theologically dubious", sometimes God uses unschooled
fishermen and innocent children to confound the wise and the schooled,
including those who have S.T.L. after their name.
>
>
Stephanie Rendino
cqabug wrote:
The education of the visionaries is not what I'm talking about. I find the
idea of salvation through dedication to Mary dubious, no matter what form it
takes. "The Madonna is not pleased when she is placed above her Son."
Stephanie Rendino
Carlovingian wrote:
> I don't know. I've met a few of his support in person and learned it was
> best to keep my mouth shut around them. Many are in the Pius XIII group.
> It is a Latin Mass or nothing. I do not have a problem with either. I've
> been to both and enjoy both.
The Pius XIII gang are about more than just the Tridentine mass. There are
legitimate Tridentine masses, and JP2 has authorized the teaching of more
priests how to conduct it. The Pius XIII bunch don't believe that there has
been a pope since the death of Pius XII, and that's very serious. If they are
attracted to Gruner's movement, it's a good sign to me that it should be
avoided.
Carlovingian
"Stephanie Rendino" <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:398D66F8...@videotron.ca...
I understand the JP2 has authorized the teaching of priest to celebrate the
Tridentine mass. I had a run in with a Pius XIII groupie that was attracted
to Father Gruner. I do not know if he supports them or knows they are
attracted to him.
James R. Black
> There was no need for you to go to all that trouble. The point is, the
> term "public revelation," as opposed to more explicit and specific
> language such as "the deposit of the Faith," is vague. A particular
> or "private" revelation, if it is a genuine revelation and is public,
> that is, it has been publicized and approved by the Church, is public,
> according to the ordinary meaning of the word "public," even though
> it is not an addition to the Deposit of Faith.
"Public revelation" is a technical term in Catholic theology, and it
is used as such in, for example, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution
on Divine Revelation. In theological discussions (which this most
definitely is) technical terms should be used in their technical sense.
Dragging "the ordinary meaning of the word" into the discussion just
muddies the waters.
The context of this discussion is Father Gruner's dispute with
Cardinal Ratzinger over the authority of the Fatima revelations,
as described at "http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html". It should
be noted that this page is entitled, "Apparitions at Fatima cannot
be dismissed as 'private revelations.'" That pretty much tells the
tale all by itself.
Cardinal Ratzinger has stated: ³Of course, one can not believe in
apparitions. I repeat we are not talking about dogmas of faith.²
As shown by the excerpts I have already quoted from the Catholic
Encyclopedia, there is nothing new about Ratzinger's position; it
is simply a restatement of standard Catholic teaching on the subject.
But Father Gruner declares himself "perplexed" by this, and he
approvingly quotes statements by others to the effect that:
One must make "a careful distinction" between "personal revelations"
and revelations which are "declared to be for mankind at large."
The fact that the pope has declared the Fatima revelations to be
genuine means that they cannot be "dismissed at the whim of an
individual."
Hence the entire Church is morally obligated to believe the Fatima
message and to obey what it commands.
Fr. Gruner concludes: "We have the moral certitude that Heaven has
indeed spoken. We are not dealing with simply a Œprivate revelation¹
that one is free to disregard."
Compare this with the statement of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that
there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they
may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is
thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.
And:
All subsequent revelations conferred by God [after the death of the
last Apostle] are known as private revelations, for the reason that
they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of
individual members alone. They may indeed be a legitimate object
for our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular
case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message.
And the statement of Pope Benedict XIV:
It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of
Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the
dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and
worthy of pious belief.
In this context, the point is that some people, including Fr. Gruner
and company, are trying to have their cake and eat it to. Clearly
Fatima cannot be part of the original deposit of faith received from
the Apostles; but neither are they willing to accept that it is only
"private revelation" which Catholics are free to accept or reject
according to the dictates of individual conscience. In essence they
are trying to create a third category of revelation which the Church
has never recognized--i.e., things which are not part of the original
deposit of faith but must still be accepted and obeyed as if they were.
And that, as Stephanie Rendino accurately stated, is "dancing on the
edge of heresy."
cqabug
Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
<398D663C...@videotron.ca>...
This is a cute statement. I also wonder why God would use a mortal form
such as Mary to achieve our salvation when He could have done it just
like..."Pffffffttt"...which is another form.
Even if you don't believe in the Message of Fatima, this account may help
in your understanding of why Mary's Son, Jesus, wants us to have devotion
to Her Immaculate Heart. When Sr. Lucy was an 18-year-old Postulant in
Pontevedra, Our Lady with the Child Jesus appeared to her on the 10th of
December, 1925. Jesus said to Lucy, "Have compassion on the Heart of your
Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it
at every moment, and there is no one to make an Act of Reparation to remove
them." Later, when Jesus appeared to Lucy at Tuy on May 29, 1930, she
asked Him what the reason is regarding the Five First Saturday devotions.
He said, "My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of
offences and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
1) Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception; 2) Blasphemies against
Her Perpetual Virginity; 3) Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in
refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of Men; 4) The
blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children
indifference or scorn or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother; 5) The
offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her Holy Images." These are
private revelations. But they don't seem to contradict any doctrine
either. Again, you may question as "theologically dubious" why Jesus would
call it "Blasphemy." Would you ask Him why?
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"Catholics do not feel superior to Protestants as one feels superior to an
animal or to a child, but we feel superior as one feels superior to his own
hair or nail clippings. Not only are they completely insufficient in
themselves but they would not even exist if it were not for us." -- G.K.
Chesterton
>
Stephanie Rendino
cqabug wrote:
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> <398D663C...@videotron.ca>...
>
> > The education of the visionaries is not what I'm talking about. I find
> the
> > idea of salvation through dedication to Mary dubious, no matter what form
> it
> > takes. "The Madonna is not pleased when she is placed above her Son."
> >
> This is a cute statement.
Glad you like it. It's not mine--it's John XXIII's.
> I also wonder why God would use a mortal form
> such as Mary to achieve our salvation when He could have done it just
> like..."Pffffffttt"...which is another form.
God had to use a mortal form, the form of a human which could enjoy, suffer,
feel happiness, pain, and would be "like us in all ways but sin". The
Redemption required God-Made-Man on many, many, many levels. We can start with
the perfect paschal sacrifice. So of *course* a human mother was required.
Since sin is inherent in our bodies (Augustine said that it was transmitted in
the father's sperm during conception, but for Aristotelian reasons this isn't
really accepted much anymore) the body of his mother had to be pure and sinless
since he was only going to take flesh from her. Ergo, the Immaculate
Conception. Hope this clears things up.
<snip>
> Again, you may question as "theologically dubious" why Jesus would
> call it "Blasphemy." Would you ask Him why?
Your reasoning is circular. I don't believe in the apparitions after Fatima
itself, pure and simple. You say that I should believe in the content of
apparitions that take place after Fatima because in those visions, Jesus told
Lucia something. But....I don't believe in the apparitions that take place
after Fatima....
Mark Johnson
>Stephanie's statement is correct. The two categories of revelation are
>(1) the revelation received from the Apostles and contained in the Deposit
>of Faith, variously termed "universal" or "general" or "public" revelation,
>and (2) revelation subsequently received from other sources and therefore
>not contained in the Deposit of Faith, variously termed "particular" or
>"special" or "private" revelation. There is no third category.
What you don't understand, here, is that Revelation is one thing, and
ended with the Apostolic Age. Warnings, calls to holiness and
particular devotions, indulgences, and so on, have been believed and
promulgated by Pope after Pope in response to various apparitions.
You quote very, very selectively from that on-line CE article. You
ought to read a little further on. It's a very different thing. It's
not obligatory, yes - in the sense that de fide doctrine is
obligatory. This is a different matter, a different thing. There are
message/warnings from the Divine. Maybe the account of the lives of
the Saints, of The Holy Family, such as those of St. Bridget say,
might be a touch allegorical, and not precisely, historically
accurate. That can happen. But the warnings of Fatima are a different
thing entirely. And the previous secrets have been proved true. You
read further in that article and you'll see why that's important.
>> Surely an 'expert' like yourself would confess the simple historical
>> record.
>Well, *somebody* here hasn't done their homework, but I don't think it
>was Ms. Rendino.
Others to judge. At least when _I_ read an article, I read it through.
Mark Johnson
>The context of this discussion is Father Gruner's dispute with
>Cardinal Ratzinger over the authority of the Fatima revelations,
>as described at "http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html". It should
>be noted that this page is entitled, "Apparitions at Fatima cannot
>be dismissed as 'private revelations.'" That pretty much tells the
>tale all by itself.
He's absolutely right. Read that article from the on-line CE you
quoted just barely in part. Read the whole thing. The previous secrets
have been proved true. This is something to be believed. It doesn't go
to a tenet of the Faith. But it is/was a warning, based on the Faith.
It's a message from God. THAT can be believed - and that's just what
that article said.
> The fact that the pope has declared the Fatima revelations to be
> genuine means that they cannot be "dismissed at the whim of an
> individual."
> Hence the entire Church is morally obligated to believe the Fatima
> message and to obey what it commands.
>Fr. Gruner concludes: "We have the moral certitude that Heaven has
>indeed spoken. We are not dealing with simply a Śprivate revelationą
>that one is free to disregard."
>Compare this with the statement of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
> When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that
> there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they
> may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is
> thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.
Quote the whole thing, which is relevant - not the whole article. Read
the whole article first. You'll see what I'm talking about. You just
have to scroll down in your browser - that's the down arrow key.
>And the statement of Pope Benedict XIV:
> It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of
> Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the
> dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and
> worthy of pious belief.
He was referring to visionaries, and the somewhat metaphorical things
they saw, sometimes contradicting those scenes from other visionaries.
Fatima is a different sort of apparition. It IS a message from God.
>Fatima cannot be part of the original deposit of faith received from
>the Apostles; but neither are they willing to accept that it is only
>"private revelation" which Catholics are free to accept or reject
>according to the dictates of individual conscience.
Just read that on-line CE article, that _you_ first quoted. Read it
through.
Mark Johnson
>The education of the visionaries is not what I'm talking about. I find the
>idea of salvation through dedication to Mary dubious, no matter what form it
>takes. "The Madonna is not pleased when she is placed above her Son."
Spoken like a true Prot, at best. Mary does nothing without the
inspiration of her Son - God. If Mary appears, and it's a genuine
apparition, it's because God wants her to appear - to whatever
specific purpose. She does not work against God. She could never be
placed 'above'.
Genuine devotion to Our Blessed Mother is a sign that soul desires to
be saved. Your ignorance of the Faith is astounding. That you even
CALL yourself Catholic is offensive, I think, to Catholics on these
ngs.
We've seen notions like this put forward on these ngs over the years
by Silverthorne, and CBs of this world, and so on. Some company.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Mark Johnson
>cqabug wrote:
>> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
>> <398D663C...@videotron.ca>...
>> > "The Madonna is not pleased when she is placed above her Son."
>> This is a cute statement.
>Glad you like it. It's not mine--it's John XXIII's.
Yes - I understand he's up for beatification. Guess Paul VI is next.
Wonder how the case goes for Anne Emmerich? I mean, with all the
hundreds being beatified by JP II, you'd think . . .
>Since sin is inherent in our bodies (Augustine said that it was transmitted in
>the father's sperm during conception, but for Aristotelian reasons this isn't
>really accepted much anymore) the body of his mother had to be pure and sinless
>since he was only going to take flesh from her. Ergo, the Immaculate
>Conception. Hope this clears things up.
The Immaculate Conception had not so much to do with sin "inherent in
our bodies" - but sin inherited in BOTH body and soul, passed on to
Adam's descendants. Our Blessed Mother was subject to this, but was
miraculously preserved from the stain of sin, so that God would be
born without even the taint of Adam's sin. She was sinless, in her
life. Surely no one but a Catholic could ever believe _that_.
>Your reasoning is circular. I don't believe in the apparitions after Fatima
>itself, pure and simple. You say that I should believe in the content of
>apparitions that take place after Fatima because in those visions, Jesus told
>Lucia something. But....I don't believe in the apparitions that take place
>after Fatima.
What apparitions after Fatima? If she was asked to write something
down - not use a typewriter, cause apparently she can't - why does it
mean that she was just making it up on the spot? Couldn't it have been
something she remembered from the time?
James R. Black
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> What you don't understand, here, is that Revelation is one thing, and
> ended with the Apostolic Age. Warnings, calls to holiness and
> particular devotions, indulgences, and so on, have been believed and
> promulgated by Pope after Pope in response to various apparitions.
Indeed they have, but they are *not* obligatory--that's the point that
*you* don't seem to understand. Again from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Note the prudence of the Church in regard to certain feasts or
devotions which she has instituted in consequence of private
revelations. The revelation was only the occasion of the measure
taken. The Church declares that such a devotion is reasonable but
she does not guarantee the revelation that suggested it. [Catholic
Enc., "Contemplation", http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04324b.htm]
> You quote very, very selectively from that on-line CE article.
It's a long article. I suppose I could have quoted the whole thing,
but in the past you have complained when I quoted too much material.
I quoted enough to accurately represent what it said on the subject,
and I provided the URL so anyone who is interested can read it all.
If you want to make a different point from the same article, then
you are free to do so. Don't expect me to do your work for you.
> You ought to read a little further on.
In fact, I did. You presume too much. You often do.
> It's a very different thing. It's
> not obligatory, yes - in the sense that de fide doctrine is
> obligatory. This is a different matter, a different thing. There are
> message/warnings from the Divine. Maybe the account of the lives of
> the Saints, of The Holy Family, such as those of St. Bridget say,
> might be a touch allegorical, and not precisely, historically
> accurate. That can happen.
It's much more than that, as the article cited above makes clear:
Revelations and visions are subject to many illusions which shall
be briefly set forth. First, like Jonas at Ninive, the seer may
regard as absolute a prediction that was only conditional, or
commit some other error in interpreting it. Second, when the
vision represents a scene from the life or Passion of Christ,
historic accuracy is often only approximate; otherwise God would
lower Himself to the rank of a professor of history and archeology.
He wishes to sanctify the soul, not to satisfy our curiosity. The
seer, however, may believe that the reproduction is exact; hence
the want of agreement between revelations concerning the life of
Jesus Christ. Third, during the vision personal activity may be
so mingled with the Divine action that answers in the sense desired
seemed to be received. In fact, during prayer vivid imaginations
may go so far as to produce revelations and visions out of whole
cloth without any evil intent. Fourth, sometimes, in his desire
to explain it, the seer afterwards unconsciously alters a genuine
revelation. Fifth, amanuenses and editors take deplorable liberties
in revising, so that the text is not always authentic. Some reve-
lations are even absolutely false because: first, in describing
their prayer, certain persons lie most audaciously; second, amongst
those afflicted with neuropathy there are inventors who, in perfectly
good faith, imagine to be real facts things that have never occurred;
third, the devil may to a certain degree, counterfeit Divine visions;
fourth, amongst writers there are genuine forgers who are responsible
for political prophecies, hence the profusion of absurd predictions.
Illusions in the matter of revelations often have a serious consequence,
as they usually instigate to exterior acts, such as teaching a doctrine,
propagating a new devotion, prophesying, launching into an enterprise
that entails expense. There would be no evil to fear if these impulses
came from God, but it is entirely otherwise when they do not come from
God, which is much more frequently the case and is difficult of discern-
ment.
> But the warnings of Fatima are a different
> thing entirely. And the previous secrets have been proved true. You
> read further in that article and you'll see why that's important.
Again, don't expect me to do your work for you. If you have a point
to make, then make it and we'll go from there.
James R. Black
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >I don't believe in the apparitions after Fatima
> >itself, pure and simple. You say that I should believe in the content of
> >apparitions that take place after Fatima because in those visions, Jesus told
> >Lucia something. But....I don't believe in the apparitions that take place
> >after Fatima.
> What apparitions after Fatima? If she was asked to write something
> down - not use a typewriter, cause apparently she can't - why does it
> mean that she was just making it up on the spot? Couldn't it have been
> something she remembered from the time?
The "apparitions after Fatima" include the appearance to Sr. Lucia on
10 December 1925, at which she received specific instructions on the
First Saturday "communions of reparation"; an appearance on 14 February
1926 about spreading devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; and the
vision of 10 December 1929 in which she received a revelation about the
mystery of the Trinity, and the instruction that "the Holy Father, in
union with all the bishops of the world" should consecrate Russia to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [Joseph Pelletier, _The Sun Danced at
Fatima_ (1983), pp. 155-158.]
There were other visions and messages in subsequent years; one of
particular interest is a message of 22 October 1940 which promised
the shortening of the "tribulation" if the Pope would consecrate
"the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special
mention of Russia." [Ibid., p. 167.]
These were not things that Sr. Lucia "remembered from the time" of the
1917 apparitions. By her own account, these subsequent revelations
contained significant new material.
James R. Black
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >The context of this discussion is Father Gruner's dispute with
> >Cardinal Ratzinger over the authority of the Fatima revelations,
> >as described at "http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html". It should
> >be noted that this page is entitled, "Apparitions at Fatima cannot
> >be dismissed as 'private revelations.'" That pretty much tells the
> >tale all by itself.
>
> He's absolutely right.
He's absolutely wrong, if he's trying to force Catholics to accept
and obey a revelation which is not part of the deposit of faith
received from the Apostles. And that's what he seems to be trying
to do.
It's really very simple. There is public revelation and there is
private revelation. Public revelation is the deposit of faith, and
hence dogma, and hence obligatory upon all. Private revelation is
anything that comes after the death of the last Apostle, hence not
dogma, and hence not obligatory upon all. If Fr. Gruner is not
willing to call Fatima "private revelation" then he is either calling
it "public revelation"--which is heresy--or else he is trying to
create a third category of "not dogma but still obligatory"--which
is unrecognized by the Church.
> Read that article from the on-line CE you
> quoted just barely in part. Read the whole thing. The previous secrets
> have been proved true.
Possibly. In part. Your mileage may vary. I've been studying Fatima
for more than a decade, and it's not as simple a story as its proponents
make it out to be. I don't reject the *possibility* that Fatima is
authentic, but I'm not convinced, either--and neither are a lot of other
people who are just as orthodox as you and Fr. Gruner (if not more so).
> This is something to be believed. It doesn't go
> to a tenet of the Faith.
In which case I don't have to believe it.
> But it is/was a warning, based on the Faith.
> It's a message from God. THAT can be believed - and that's just what
> that article said.
Insofar as the warning is truly "based on the Faith"--e.g., that sin
will send you to hell and that we all ought to do penance and make
sacrifices for others--I'm all for it. But then I already know those
things anyway, so I don't need to accept Fatima in order to arrive at
those salutary conclusions. On the other hand, insofar as Fatima urges
things which are *not* part of the deposit of faith--e.g., consecrating
Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary--I am under no
obligation as a Catholic to undertake any of that, because if it is
not contained in the deposit of faith then it is private revelation,
and private revelation is *not* obligatory.
> Quote the whole thing, which is relevant - not the whole article. Read
> the whole article first. You'll see what I'm talking about. You just
> have to scroll down in your browser - that's the down arrow key.
Thank you for that staggering piece of practical wisdom.
> Fatima is a different sort of apparition. It IS a message from God.
So you say. So the pope believes. But he has said so in his capacity
as a private theologian, not ex cathedra; and the official position of
the Church remains that of Ratzinger and the CDF: We don't have any
reason to think that the Fatima revelations are false, but neither is
anyone obligated as a matter of faith to believe that they are true.
Mark Johnson
>In article <h14sosskmparsb82p...@4ax.com>,
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> What you don't understand, here, is that Revelation is one thing, and
>> ended with the Apostolic Age. Warnings, calls to holiness and
>> particular devotions, indulgences, and so on, have been believed and
>> promulgated by Pope after Pope in response to various apparitions.
>Indeed they have, but they are *not* obligatory--that's the point that
>*you* don't seem to understand. Again from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Don't quote it to me. I can read it for myself. And _I'm_ saying, you
didn't read much of that article. Read it again.
>It's a long article. I suppose I could have quoted the whole thing,
>but in the past you have complained when I quoted too much material.
There's no point. It's on-line. Just give a URL. If it's from a book,
or something not on-line, that you typed in yourself - as I used to do
in the past - then by all means. But that's not the case, here.
>I quoted enough to accurately represent what it said on the subject,
No - you did not. You misrepresented. You quoted selectively.
>> But the warnings of Fatima are a different
>> thing entirely. And the previous secrets have been proved true. You
>> read further in that article and you'll see why that's important.
>Again, don't expect me to do your work for you. If you have a point
>to make, then make it and we'll go from there.
Just continue to read that article. What's being discussed? What's
being defended, and what's not? It's not what you seem to believe.
Don't quote it to me. Read it. Understand it. Put it in your own
words, if you like, to show your comprehension if nothing else. But
your comprehension of that article is what's at issue.
Mark Johnson
>In article <d75soskk098k88un6...@4ax.com>,
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> What apparitions after Fatima? If she was asked to write something
>> down - not use a typewriter, cause apparently she can't - why does it
>> mean that she was just making it up on the spot? Couldn't it have been
>> something she remembered from the time?
>The "apparitions after Fatima" include the appearance to Sr. Lucia on
>10 December 1925, at which she received specific instructions on the
>First Saturday "communions of reparation"; an appearance on 14 February
>1926 about spreading devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; and the
>vision of 10 December 1929 in which she received a revelation about the
>mystery of the Trinity, and the instruction that "the Holy Father, in
>union with all the bishops of the world" should consecrate Russia to
>the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [Joseph Pelletier, _The Sun Danced at
>Fatima_ (1983), pp. 155-158.]
And this bothers you? Wasn't Sr. Lucy, now Sr. Lucy, held apart from
the other two seers - and didn't she report this? She lives to old
age. They died young. Right? She fretted about living out her life,
alone, and such?
>There were other visions and messages in subsequent years; one of
>particular interest is a message of 22 October 1940 which promised
>the shortening of the "tribulation" if the Pope would consecrate
>"the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special
>mention of Russia." [Ibid., p. 167.]
Actually, it's in the early 40s that she first wrote down the secrets,
the 3rd of which is now so much an issue. This warning to the Pope was
not consistent with Fatima, and the secrets? What did the Popes think?
>These were not things that Sr. Lucia "remembered from the time" of the
>1917 apparitions. By her own account, these subsequent revelations
>contained significant new material.
Well, again, these were the original secrets. She just didn't write
them down until much later. As for the further warnings, I too, might
be otherwise suspicious, even though completely consistent with
Fatima, coming so long after the events. But the test might well be -
what did the Pope say? And would that suffice?
I mean, honestly - how MANY attempts at consecrating Russia have been
made - not whether one was faithful to the request, but whether all
were, or not, and to what degree? It seems the Popes have answered.
Or do you still dispute?
Mark Johnson
>In article <3j4sos8o7c4v22p3t...@4ax.com>,
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> >The context of this discussion is Father Gruner's dispute with
>> >Cardinal Ratzinger over the authority of the Fatima revelations,
>> >as described at "http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html". It should
>> >be noted that this page is entitled, "Apparitions at Fatima cannot
>> >be dismissed as 'private revelations.'" That pretty much tells the
>> >tale all by itself.
>> He's absolutely right.
>He's absolutely wrong, if he's trying to force Catholics to accept
>and obey a revelation which is not part of the deposit of faith
We're not talking a tenet of The Faith. We're not talking . .
Revelation. That's not what Fatima is. That's not why Popes have been
knocking themselves out to get the consecration formula right - and
still haven't (obv., based on how Russia is, today - in reality).
>It's really very simple. There is public revelation and there is
>private revelation. Public revelation is the deposit of faith, and
>hence dogma, and hence obligatory upon all.
Dogma is obligatory on all orthodox Catholics. Nothing new has been
added to the Deposit of Faith since the end of the Apostolic Age.
Fatima was Our Blessed Mother warning the world of chastisements, and
calling for the consecration of Russia.
>Private revelation is
>anything that comes after the death of the last Apostle
Private revelation can just be a Saint having a vision of how Our Lord
suffered on The Cross. It may not be historically accurate, and may
contradict other visionaries. But there may be spiritual profit in
considering the vision.
Fatima is not that sort of revelation. This is God, through Our
Blessed Mother - warning us. You as much say, that Fatima cannot be
believed, that when Our Blessed Mother comes calling, we shut the door
on her.
>dogma, and hence not obligatory upon all. If Fr. Gruner is not
>willing to call Fatima "private revelation" then he is either calling
>it "public revelation"--which is heresy--or else he is trying to
>create a third category of "not dogma but still obligatory"--which
>is unrecognized by the Church.
No he's not. He's saying that Our Blessed Mother has asked for the
consecration of Russia - and the Popes have tried, and tried, and
tried again, and still not obeyed her in this, as Our Lord would like,
and she requested.
>> Read that article from the on-line CE you
>> quoted just barely in part. Read the whole thing. The previous secrets
>> have been proved true.
>Possibly. In part. Your mileage may vary. I've been studying Fatima
>for more than a decade, and it's not as simple a story as its proponents
>make it out to be. I don't reject the *possibility* that Fatima is
>authentic, but I'm not convinced, either--and neither are a lot of other
>people who are just as orthodox as you and Fr. Gruner (if not more so).
I see that 'Madonna no like' quote, supposedly from John 23rd, on the
web. But it's not orthodox sites, or at least not orthodox Catholic
sites, that are using that little soundbite. I think it's important to
respect orthodoxy, and the view it gives.
As for authentic, I think your quarrel is with every Pope since. I
don't quarrel with them in this, particularly as a few predated Paul
VI - with whom I have real problems on the 'new order', some say the
greatest mistake of his entire papacy.
What of the Popes and Fatima? How do you answer that?
>> This is something to be believed. It doesn't go
>> to a tenet of the Faith.
>In which case I don't have to believe it.
What about the Popes? This isn't dogma. But this is a message from God
perfectly in keeping with dogma. That's what you prefer not to believe
of course. And I think the same is true for Ratzinger and others,
today - who issued that awfully lame 'commentary' - which I take it
you didn't buy into.
>Insofar as the warning is truly "based on the Faith"--e.g., that sin
>will send you to hell and that we all ought to do penance and make
>sacrifices for others--I'm all for it. But then I already know those
>things anyway,
I see. So anything specific about the end times, that - you consider
to be Revelation - not the Apocalypse? We have the Apocalypse. Fatima
doesn't add to that. It goes to that.
>so I don't need to accept Fatima in order to arrive at
>those salutary conclusions. On the other hand, insofar as Fatima urges
>things which are *not* part of the deposit of faith--e.g., consecrating
>Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary--I am under no
>obligation as a Catholic to undertake any of that,
Why not? You want to argue against First Saturdays, too? Is that the
argument of the orthodox and faithful Catholic?
>not contained in the deposit of faith then it is private revelation,
>and private revelation is *not* obligatory.
This is where you continue to be confused, and WOULDN'T be if you
honestly, and carefully, read that on-line CE article through.
>> Fatima is a different sort of apparition. It IS a message from God.
>So you say. So the pope believes.
He's not the only Pope, or bishop, or Saint. In fact, the Pope
recently started proceedings on the two children who died young. Their
whole resume for Sainthood centered around . . . Fatima - in which . .
. you don't believe?
>But he has said so in his capacity
>as a private theologian, not ex cathedra; and the official position of
>the Church remains that of Ratzinger and the CDF: We don't have any
>reason to think that the Fatima revelations are false, but neither is
>anyone obligated as a matter of faith to believe that they are true.
They are true. But it's not a tenet of the Faith. It's a message from
God, in keeping with tenets of the Faith - what Catholics believe.
You know I've read all the stuff about 'private revelation' laid out
in the Ratzinger doc - and there was a lot. Some of it misses the
point. Some is really talking about something else. But much remains
consistent with what I've been telling _you_, that we're not talking
new Revelation, but something based on that for our benefit: "An
assent of Catholic faith is not due to revelations approved in this
way; it is not even possible. These revelations seek rather an assent
of human faith in keeping with the requirements of prudence, which
puts them before us as probable and credible to piety."
cqabug
Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
>
>
> cqabug wrote:
>
> > Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in article
> > <398D663C...@videotron.ca>...
> >
> > > The education of the visionaries is not what I'm talking about. I
find
> > the
> > > idea of salvation through dedication to Mary dubious, no matter what
form
> > it
> > > takes. "The Madonna is not pleased when she is placed above her
Son."
> > >
>
> > This is a cute statement.
>
> Glad you like it. It's not mine--it's John XXIII's.
>
Ooophs, I didn't mean the "quoted" statement. I meant the statement before
that.
>
> > I also wonder why God would use a mortal form
> > such as Mary to achieve our salvation when He could have done it just
> > like..."Pffffffttt"...which is another form.
>
The *teaser* statement above somehow did not get the intended effect.
Nonetheless, your answer below is good for catechetics.
> God had to use a mortal form, the form of a human which could enjoy,
suffer,
> feel happiness, pain, and would be "like us in all ways but sin". The
> Redemption required God-Made-Man on many, many, many levels. We can
start with
> the perfect paschal sacrifice. So of *course* a human mother was
required.
> Since sin is inherent in our bodies (Augustine said that it was
transmitted in
> the father's sperm during conception, but for Aristotelian reasons this
isn't
> really accepted much anymore) the body of his mother had to be pure and
sinless
> since he was only going to take flesh from her. Ergo, the Immaculate
> Conception. Hope this clears things up.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Again, you may question as "theologically dubious" why Jesus would
> > call it "Blasphemy." Would you ask Him why?
>
> Your reasoning is circular. I don't believe in the apparitions after
Fatima
> itself, pure and simple. You say that I should believe in the content of
> apparitions that take place after Fatima because in those visions, Jesus
told
> Lucia something. But....I don't believe in the apparitions that take
place
> after Fatima....
>
OK, OK. I respect your unbelief.
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
jrb...@students.wisc.edu (James R. Black) wrote:
>In article <XH6j5.13650$ZL5.8...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>"Steve P." <Zerchi @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> There was no need for you to go to all that trouble. The point is, the
>> term "public revelation," as opposed to more explicit and specific
>> language such as "the deposit of the Faith," is vague. A particular
>> or "private" revelation, if it is a genuine revelation and is public,
>> that is, it has been publicized and approved by the Church, is public,
>> according to the ordinary meaning of the word "public," even though
>> it is not an addition to the Deposit of Faith.
>
>"Public revelation" is a technical term in Catholic theology,
You are thinking of "general revelation" (as opposed to "particular
revelation"), I think.
Furthermore, and perhaps more to the point, Fatima was NOT a revelation,
general or particular, public or private, in the sense that scripture
and tradition are. There were no novel teachings or beliefs imposed
on the visionaries, no new dogma of faith was proposed, so the issue
of whether it is a public or private revelation in that sense doesn't
come up. It isn't a revelation at all in that sense.
>and it
>is used as such in, for example, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution
>on Divine Revelation. In theological discussions (which this most
>definitely is) technical terms should be used in their technical sense.
>Dragging "the ordinary meaning of the word" into the discussion just
>muddies the waters.
>
>The context of this discussion is Father Gruner's dispute with
>Cardinal Ratzinger over the authority of the Fatima revelations,
>as described at "http://fatima.org/thirdsecret04.html". It should
>be noted that this page is entitled, "Apparitions at Fatima cannot
>be dismissed as 'private revelations.'" That pretty much tells the
>tale all by itself.
>
>Cardinal Ratzinger has stated: ³Of course, one can not believe in
>apparitions. I repeat we are not talking about dogmas of faith.²
I would not argue with Cardinal Ratzinger, except that if he
intended to say that the first sentence logically followed from the
second it appears to be a non-sequitur to me. I agree that the
apparitions did not propose dogmas of faith--that is precisely
the point. If dogmas of faith had been proposed, they would
be particular Revelations, not General Revelations.
>As shown by the excerpts I have already quoted from the Catholic
>Encyclopedia, there is nothing new about Ratzinger's position; it
>is simply a restatement of standard Catholic teaching on the subject.
>
>But Father Gruner declares himself "perplexed" by this, and he
>approvingly quotes statements by others to the effect that:
>
> One must make "a careful distinction" between "personal revelations"
> and revelations which are "declared to be for mankind at large."
>
> The fact that the pope has declared the Fatima revelations to be
> genuine means that they cannot be "dismissed at the whim of an
> individual."
I can't argue with that. If the pope has declared Fatima to be
genuine it certainly cannot be dismissed at the whim of an
individual.
>
> Hence the entire Church is morally obligated to believe the Fatima
> message and to obey what it commands.
As long as 'the entire Church' is not used in its most strictly
literal sense, I think you could argue that is true. In any event,
unless you are the kind of fatuous ass who anathematizes anyone who
disagrees with you it doesn't justify calling him a "heretic" for
pete's sake.
>
>Fr. Gruner concludes: "We have the moral certitude that Heaven has
>indeed spoken. We are not dealing with simply a Œprivate revelation¹
>that one is free to disregard."
>
>Compare this with the statement of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
>
> When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that
> there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they
> may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is
> thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.
>
>And:
>
> All subsequent revelations conferred by God [after the death of the
> last Apostle] are known as private revelations, for the reason that
> they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of
> individual members alone. They may indeed be a legitimate object
> for our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular
> case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message.
>
>And the statement of Pope Benedict XIV:
>
> It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of
> Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the
> dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and
> worthy of pious belief.
If the Holy Father says it IS probable and worthy of pious belief, who
do you think you are to argue with him? I certainly am in no position
to do so, and if the large majority of the faithful have even as
little humility as I do, it is something that is _practically_ morally
certain and not something Catholics as a whole are free to disregard
in good conscience.
>
>In this context, the point is that some people, including Fr. Gruner
>and company, are trying to have their cake and eat it to. Clearly
>Fatima cannot be part of the original deposit of faith received from
>the Apostles; but neither are they willing to accept that it is only
>"private revelation" which Catholics are free to accept or reject
>according to the dictates of individual conscience. In essence they
>are trying to create a third category of revelation which the Church
>has never recognized--i.e., things which are not part of the original
>deposit of faith but must still be accepted and obeyed as if they were.
>
>And that, as Stephanie Rendino accurately stated, is "dancing on the
>edge of heresy."
"Be not afraid."
Especially since most priests do more than dance on the edge of it
and nobody complains about it. If more Catholic priests were like
Gruner and others who actually believe in the CATHOLIC Church and not
some kind of liberal High-Church Protestantism, we'd be a lot better
off.
Alan W. Craft
>
>
>Carlovingian wrote:
>
>> I don't know. I've met a few of his support in person and learned it was
>> best to keep my mouth shut around them. Many are in the Pius XIII group.
>> It is a Latin Mass or nothing. I do not have a problem with either. I've
>> been to both and enjoy both.
>
>The Pius XIII gang are about more than just the Tridentine mass. There are
>legitimate Tridentine masses, and JP2 has authorized the teaching of more
What are the chances of my experiencing it, here, in Mississippi, actually
only a county away from Memphis, TN?
>priests how to conduct it. The Pius XIII bunch don't believe that there has
>been a pope since the death of Pius XII, and that's very serious. If they are
>attracted to Gruner's movement, it's a good sign to me that it should be
>avoided.
Alan
@worldnet.att.net Steve P.
<1023...@compuserve.com > wrote:
>jrb...@students.wisc.edu (James R. Black) wrote:
>
>>In article <h14sosskmparsb82p...@4ax.com>,
I for one am anxious to hear how YOU think he is supposed to
comprehend it. You obviously have an opinion on the subject and
you are beating about the bush in an way that is a little annoying.
Mark Johnson
>I for one am anxious to hear how YOU think he is supposed to
>comprehend it. You obviously have an opinion on the subject and
>you are beating about the bush in an way that is a little annoying.
Just for ex., right from the text he didn't quote:
"There are cases in which we can be certain that a revelation is
Divine. (1) God can give this certainty to the person who receives the
revelation (at least during it), by granting an insight and an
evidence so compelling as to exclude all possibility of doubt. We can
find an analogy in the natural order: our senses are subject to many
illusions, and yet we frequently perceive clearly that we have not
been deceived. (2) At times others can be equally certain of the
revelation thus vouchsafed. For instance, the Prophets of the Old
Testament gave indubitable signs of their mission; otherwise they
would not have been believed. There were always false prophets, who
deceived some of the people but, inasmuch as the faithful were
counselled by Holy Writ to distinguish the false from the true, it was
possible so to distinguish. One incontrovertible proof is the working
of a miracle, if it be wrought for this purpose and circumstances show
this to be so. A prophecy realized is equally convincing, when it is
precise and cannot be the result of chance or of a conjecture of the
evil spirit. "
The miracle of the sun. The first two prophecies. The faith of the
Popes in this vision. And so on. We can be certain.
One could argue that a Catholic is not obliged to confess Fatima as a
tenet of the Faith. But however you argue it, that's not to say a
Catholic cannot SIN by refusing Fatima, or particularly by trying to
publicly argue against its authenticity. If a tree falls in the forest
- then it fell. No use arguing to the contrary. Fatima is a fact.
(btw, like the word, indubitable, there? First time I've seen it used,
in a long while)