Third Secret of Fatima can no longer contain any message regarding Vatican II
#21
Belloc Wrote:
Dauphin Wrote:All this batshit foolishness about the third secret of Fatima only serves to discredit the traditionalist movement.


Saying that the modernist churches' cover-up and disorient against our Lady's wishes, from Christ..that they refuse to obey is not "batshit"...it has been provable.....

What would "credit" traditionalist movement? Doing what most "conservative" Catholics due, ignore and blame Protestants? "liberal" Cattholics?

In other words, stick head in sand and read Shea/Keating's fluff???

Let's suppose that there really is some conspiracy in the Vatican to cover up the third secret of Fatima. Maybe they even have Sister Lucia chained up in the Vatican dungeons to stop her from spilling the beans.
 
What good does complaining about it on a forum do? It just makes traditionalists easier to dismiss as a bunch of crazies!
Reply
#22
Dauphin Wrote: 
What good does complaining about it on a forum do? It just makes traditionalists easier to dismiss as a bunch of crazies!

Pursuit of Truth. This is a forum where one can debate. Cicero said that only reasonable men debate. those who refuse to debate lack the use of reason.

So what is wrong with debate?


Reply
#23
warning Wrote:
Dauphin Wrote: 
What good does complaining about it on a forum do? It just makes traditionalists easier to dismiss as a bunch of crazies!

Pursuit of Truth. This is a forum where one can debate. Cicero said that only reasonable men debate. those who refuse to debate lack the use of reason.

So what is wrong with debate?

As I explained, the deranged references to Freemasons and Jews and the screwball conspiracy theories only make tradition easier to dismiss.
Reply
#24
Don't forget the aliens, Dauphin!
Reply
#25
DrBombay Wrote::safe

It is an absolute mathematical impossibility to have too many 3rd Secret of Fatima threads. I never tired of reading the arguments, vehement Grunerites vs. zoned out twirps.

And Fisheaters now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here.

Is that buttered? Somehow I think that with the lifting of the excommunication and the formal acceptance of Vatican II by SSPX this will now create more and more threads on theThird Secret and what is contained therein. Allot a backpedaling will be done by some Trad publications and more speculation on the contents of the Secret, Afterall if it does not contain anything on Vatican II then what? It will be interesting times..  Remember you heard it here first on FE.
Reply
#26
Dauphin Wrote:
warning Wrote:
Dauphin Wrote: 
What good does complaining about it on a forum do? It just makes traditionalists easier to dismiss as a bunch of crazies!

Pursuit of Truth. This is a forum where one can debate. Cicero said that only reasonable men debate. those who refuse to debate lack the use of reason.

So what is wrong with debate?

As I explained, the deranged references to Freemasons and Jews and the screwball conspiracy theories only make tradition easier to dismiss.
Dismiss Roman Catholic Tradition? Or doo you mean traditionalists in general?
Reply
#27
warning Wrote:
Dauphin Wrote:
warning Wrote:
Dauphin Wrote: 
What good does complaining about it on a forum do? It just makes traditionalists easier to dismiss as a bunch of crazies!

Pursuit of Truth. This is a forum where one can debate. Cicero said that only reasonable men debate. those who refuse to debate lack the use of reason.

So what is wrong with debate?

As I explained, the deranged references to Freemasons and Jews and the screwball conspiracy theories only make tradition easier to dismiss.
Dismiss Roman Catholic Tradition? Or doo you mean traditionalists in general?

Both.
Reply
#28
Dauphin Wrote:
warning Wrote:
Dauphin Wrote: 
What good does complaining about it on a forum do? It just makes traditionalists easier to dismiss as a bunch of crazies!

Pursuit of Truth. This is a forum where one can debate. Cicero said that only reasonable men debate. those who refuse to debate lack the use of reason.

So what is wrong with debate?

As I explained, the deranged references to Freemasons and Jews and the screwball conspiracy theories only make tradition easier to dismiss.


Those who wish to dismiss it manage to dismiss the Miracle of the Sun, the Turin Shroud and the entire legal, moral, literature, social and musical basis of Western civilization.

A few extra "screwball" theories aren't going to make much difference to their rejection of the truth.
I doubt there is a single potential convert anywhere in the world who has been put off looking at Traditional Catholicism because I've called the Pope a liar.  And wherever I have called the Pope a liar I've given two published references.  One by a Traditionalist (Chris Ferrara) and one by a concilliar Catholic Journalist (Antonio Socci) who set out to show that the Vatican HAD released the entire thing but then had his mind changed by the weight of evidence and the refusal of several sources to even discuss the topic with him, plus his barring from various conferences and press events.

i.e. Something stinks in the Kingdom of Denmark.
If a leading Italian journalist thinks there is conspiracy, and is ready to risk his career over it.  If a well balance Catholic Lawyer who has studied the Fatima message for years, thinks there is a cover-up and writes a book laid out like a legal case.  Then I would think you a puffed-up little Turk (who has a lot of growing up to do) for rashly judging it a screwball theory without providing any justification as to why.

Have you even read their books?
Reply
#29
ggreg Wrote:
miss_fluffy Wrote:I really don't think the council itself was evil. All the crazy innovations that happened later are evil, and it goes along with the prophecy at La Salette.

Let's say, hypothetically, that the second Vatican council never occurred. Don't you think the modernists would have infected the Church all the same? They'd just call it something different than "the spirit of Vatican ii".

So a good tree produced bad fruits? Interesting concept.
A valid tree. According to recent articles found on the Remnant web page the Second Vatican Council is termed a valid Council:

..We oppose this extortionate interference in the Church’s internal affairs, and we condemn the disloyalty of those Catholics who, in seizing upon this scandal and using it against Your Holiness, reveal that their attachment to the Vicar of Christ is contingent on the Pope’s willingness to adhere to their peculiar "progressive vision" of the Faith. It appears that the forces now arrayed against Your Holiness within and without the Church are all agreed on a rejection of what you have taught in calling for a "hermeneutic of continuity": that Vatican II was not "a rupture" or "an end of Tradition, a new start from zero" (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Address to the Bishops of Chile, 13 July 1988) but only one of the valid ecumenical Councils of the Church, ....
Second International Declaration in Support of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
February 03, 2009

So we have two terms describing Vatican II. Evil or Valid. Some call it an evil council, attributed to Our Lady of Fatima and Her Third Secret. And the SSPX term it a valid council. According to some the Third Secret was to be released by 1960 therfore stopping the "evil" council. Not cliaming it would be a valid council mis-used by evil men. But an evil council. This current Trad speculation on what the Third Secret contains must be rejected in light of recent events. It apparently is not an evil council but a valid one.
Reply
#30
The courageous Fr. Gruner talks about Fr. Martin and the Third Secret:



It seems a lot of these newbies to the traditional movement have yet to shed their Neo-Catholic thinking. They could use some time on the bleachers learning about the last forty years of the movement by hitting the books and learning  from  prior Trad warriors who are here with us or have passed on already.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)