Hermeneutic of Fatima: Let the tail (the SSPX) wag the dog (CDF)
(09-19-2011, 11:10 AM)timoose Wrote: I'm seeing the same things as Kopp. Though I see it culminating in the Consecration, most likely by Pope Benedict XVI. The SSPX will be the ones that push for a return to Tradition and leave Pope Benedict to work the other side of this equation. The conservatives in the Church need to be prepared for this...

On the other hand, I do believe the Pope is still a faithful son of VII, and has one foot in each camp, and is unwilling or unable (due to political wrangling, and the ever-present menace that is the office of the Vatican Secretariat of State) to admit the Consecration still needs to be accomplished.

That's why I think he is trying so hard to make an end run around the conciliar Church. A head on assault would lead to open schism, the concrete reality of which he may fear more than the more ephemeral risks associated with these prophecies, which may or may not materialize and whose timing is known the God alone.

Don't forget the mental gymnastics they used not to release the full Third Secret of Fatima in 2000:

Quote:But there’s more to that: the same Cardinal Bertone, on the TV program Porta a Porta of May 31, 2007, has shown on television the envelopes containing the Third Secret of Fatima, and on 2 (TWO!) of those envelopes there was a sentence written by Sister Lucy, read by the Cardinal himself, in which the date of 1960 was attributed to “an explicit order by Our Lady”!! And he showed it on television!!! But then if Sister Lucy, as Cardinal Bertone says to us on page 92 of his book, told him that the date of 1960 was the Sister’s decision, that Our Lady didn’t tell her anything about it, then why did Sister Lucy write on the envelope that the date of 1960 was coming from an “explicit order by Our Lady”? It would be an evident and blatant lie! If the Vatican version is right, Archbishop Capovilla is a liar and a forger, many priests like Father Alonso and Father Bianchi have also told lies regarding what was said by Sister Lucy. Additionally, the same Sister Lucy would have written a falsehood on the very envelope containing the Third Secret! Thus, according to the official version, even Sister Lucy is a Liar!

Would not this be an extremely grave accusation? This whole story of “I cannot think that they lied because it would be too serious” simply does not go anywhere. Actually, if we’re coherent, it goes to even worse consequences.

I like to think that no one has told a lie, but used mental reservations instead: “We have published everything there is in the Third Secret, everything that is contained in this specific message from Heaven, because what we have not published, we deemed not to be supernaturally authentic, so we have discarded it as a mere fabrication of Sister Lucy”! Moreover, those thoughts were written at the end of the Second Secret.

In fact, during the press conference of June 26, 2000, someone asked Mons. Bertone if the phrase, cut short by the “etc.”, about the orthodoxy in Portugal pertained to the Second or to the Third Secret. Mons. Bertone answered this way “Well, it is hard to say, I think it pertained to the second one.”

If, therefore, they consider that phrase, which we know is the beginning of the words of the Third Secret, to be part of the Second Secret, then they must have considered the other unpublished words as pertaining to the Second Secret too. Therefore, the Third Secret has been entirely published, for them, in as much as what they have not published is not the true Third Secret, coming from Heaven, but just thoughts of Sister Lucy on the Second Secret, and not on the Third!!! We should then ask a question to them: You say you’ve published the Third Secret in its entirety. Then, what about the Second Secret? Did you publish the Second Secret entirely too? Including any attachments or thoughts by Sister Lucy on it? Are there any “reflections” of Sister Lucy, as they have been considered, on the Second or Third Secret which are yet to be published? It is maybe in this sense that, without saying a formal lie, they are able to say “it is all”. It is probably a difficult and narrow mental reservation, a reticence. It is not a lie then, and this would explain a certain nervousness from them.

If he was a party to those mental gymnastics, Pope BXVI must know how wrong it was to acquiesce to the Vatican Secretariat of State at the time in their subterfuge, must have a terribly painful conscience, and is desperate to make it right. According to a talk by Bishop Williamson:

Quote:Now comes Pope Benedict XVI. We know from a quotation of Cardinal Ratzinger, now the Pope, that he had, shortly before becoming Pope, two regrets. He said, we know this from an Austrian bishop, a colleague of Cardinal Ratzinger. [According to] this bishop, Cardinal Ratzinger said, “I regret two things: One is Fatima.” Meaning, what Cardinal Ratzinger did in 2001, regarding Fatima. At that time, in effect, the Cardinal played an important part in attempting to bury Fatima. Let's say in 2003, maybe in 2004, he regretted what he had done...or regretted what he had had to do. The Cardinal said, “My hand was forced,” meaning that the Cardinal had been told to bury Fatima. Have no fear. Fatima will rise from the dead!

But, the second thing that the Cardinal regretted was the failure of his negotiations with the Society in 1988. You may remember that, in 1988, on May 5th, the Cardinal succeeded in making the Archbishop sign a protocol of agreement, but then in the night of May 5th and May 6th, as the proverb, “The night brought counsel.” So, on May 6th, the Archbishop took back his signature. He said to the Cardinal, “The time has not yet come for us to be able to work together.” He said, “You wish to dethrone Christ in society, and we to enthrone Christ in society.” What is called a head on clash! Yet, the Cardinal regretted that he had not been able to bring the Society into the Church, and that is, God knows, that the Cardinal was sincere in his regrets. Very possibly, the Cardinal sees the Society as a valuable element in the Church, an element which needs to be inside the official Church and not outside.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard the Pope tries to make an end run around the conciliar Church, and works in a human fashion, even with the office of Pope behind his work, his efforts ultimately will fail if he is unwilling to do the Consecration as requested (and probably if he is unwilling to fully reveal what was supposed to be revealed in 1960.)

Messages In This Thread
Re: Hermeneutic of Fatima: Let the tail (the SSPX) wag the dog (CDF) - by Kopp - 09-19-2011, 11:51 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)