Catholic website publishes photos of the authentic third secret of Fatima

[Historian]

It's in a blog on the internet, with a random quote from the Old Testement, so it must be true!  ::)

If you don't believe what Our Lady says, then i suggest  you to move to Rome and be sure to stay there when the ultimatum expires in 68 weeks.

Pedro, I hope you're around in 68 weeks because if you're right, I would like to hear more since the things you subscribe to would have an element of proof to them, if you're wrong I would like you to recant and come to your senses.

But, for my money, I'd live in Rome past 68 weeks.  God doesn't tend to give exact times on things like this, so when exact times are given, I generally disbelieve them completely right from the start.

[Historian]

Don't you find there are more and more of these weird otherworldly messages, prophets, apparitions (like Duke Punta-whatever, this nonsense about Portugal, Medjugorje) etc. that have in common a rejection of some aspect of Catholic hierarchy? Pedro is basically saying the pope doesn't matter anymore. Duke was saying there would be a pope-antichrist, Medju says the Muslims have the truth like you and me, and they ignore the only authority competent to judge the supernatural character of the phenomenon. . . I think the dogmas and structure of the Catholic Church is being attacked on many fronts all at once right now. And I find so many people are gullible in different ways whenit comes to this. Look at the Duke guy. He obviously had heretical ideas, but he made some predictions about war. The sad thing is that he may very well have been right in his predictions and still remain wrong as ever in his heretical ideas. If in 68 weeks Rome gets nuked, all it means is that Rome got nuked. Popes live and die like the rest of us. But a piece of brick mailed to Portugal doth not a conclave make. One of these days, some apparition secret is going to come true, or some prophet is going to get his prophecy right, but it could be by satanic assistance or by fluke. Statistically, one of them has to hit the mark sooner or later! And confused Catholics are going to flock to these people like idiot sheep. Sad. Doctrine, serious knowledge of our faith and especially of the Church itself needs to be imparted to the peopleif they are to have any defence against this nuttery.

False prophets have always been around, and the Church has always had problems with them.  There's always a snake-oil peddler about whether it is Martin Luther or Medjugorje.

There are tons ways more to lose the Faith than to obtain it, that's for sure.

[pedro]

False prophets have always been around, and the Church has always had problems with them.  There's always a snake-oil peddler about whether it is Martin Luther or Medjugorje.

There are tons ways more to lose the Faith than to obtain it, that's for sure.

I guess if Jesus comes to your house you would call him  a false prophet.

[Historian]

False prophets have always been around, and the Church has always had problems with them.  There's always a snake-oil peddler about whether it is Martin Luther or Medjugorje.

There are tons ways more to lose the Faith than to obtain it, that's for sure.

I guess if Jesus comes to your house you would call him  a false prophet.

Probably.  Then He would call me "Doubting Thomas" and tell me to stick my hand in His side, and then I would be convinced.  God isn't offended by holy prudence.  He wants us to discern the true from the false, and He isn't offended by honest attempts to do so.  We have the examples of the Saints on that.

[pedro]

Probably.  Then He would call me "Doubting Thomas" and tell me to stick my hand in His side, and then I would be convinced.  God isn't offended by holy prudence.  He wants us to discern the true from the false, and He isn't offended by honest attempts to do so.  We have the examples of the Saints on that.

You are wrong:


Mathew 24 42-44

Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

[AlanF]

"But although we, or an Angel from heauen, euangelize to you beside that vvhich vve haue euangelized to you, be he anáthema."
Galatians I, 7.

[pedro]

"But although we, or an Angel from heauen, euangelize to you beside that vvhich vve haue euangelized to you, be he anáthema."
Galatians I, 7.

Remember this, there are only 4 Gospels, your quote has no validity compared to the Gospels.

[Historian]

"But although we, or an Angel from heauen, euangelize to you beside that vvhich vve haue euangelized to you, be he anáthema."
Galatians I, 7.

Remember this, there are only 4 Gospels, your quote has no validity compared to the gospels.

It does if you believe what the Gospels say:  that Christ gave the Apostles the power of binding and loosing.  In that sense, the quote above is binding and so is the anathema.  If you don't believe in the authority of binding and loosing, you need to go back to square one on Catholicism.

[pedro]

It does if you believe what the Gospels say:  that Christ gave the Apostles the power of binding and loosing.  In that sense, the quote above is binding and so is the anathema.  If you don't believe in the authority of binding and loosing, you need to go back to square one on Catholicism.

If you say that  the letter to the Galatians has authority over the 4 Gospels you are stupid, sorry but that's true.

Is that what you are saying?

[Historian]

It does if you believe what the Gospels say:  that Christ gave the Apostles the power of binding and loosing.   In that sense, the quote above is binding and so is the anathema.  If you don't believe in the authority of binding and loosing, you need to go back to square one on Catholicism.

If you say that  the letter to the Galatians has authority over the 4 Gospels you are stupid, sorry but that's true.

Is that what you are saying?

No, I am saying it has authority derived from events in the 4 Gospels.  And it does not in any way contradict the 4 Gospels.  That is what I am saying.

You seem to be saying that there is some type of contradiction and the 4 Gospels outweigh it.  Now, sorry back at you, but that's stupid to think Galatians has some type of contradiction with the Gospels.

If that's not what you're saying, then I admit I don't understand your point.