Third Secret of Fatima can no longer contain any message regarding Vatican II
#31
People don't like time on the bleachers nowadays.  It it beneath their dignity.

Everyone is an armchair expert today.  They don't even bother reading books on both sides of an argument before having strong opinions.  Nobody here for example can argue Ferrara's and Socci's case point by point and create a counter argument.  They just rant and rave about "valid councils" and how they find the idea of the Pope lying impossible to believe.

The "mush mind" is everywhere and emotion governs most decisions.

Reply
#32
ggreg Wrote:People don't like time on the bleachers nowadays.  It it beneath their dignity.

Everyone is an armchair expert today.  They don't even bother reading books on both sides of an argument before having strong opinions.  Nobody here for example can argue Ferrara's and Socci's case point by point and create a counter argument.  They just rant and rave about "valid councils" and how they find the idea of the Pope lying impossible to believe.

The "mush mind" is everywhere and emotion governs most decisions.


I'm some what confused on the above statement of yours:They just rant and rave about "valid councils"
 
So I give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you did not read the article: Note from the Vatican Secretary of State On the Lifting of SSPX Excommunications,  Vatican II, and the Williamson “Affair”  by Christopher A. Ferrara.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-ferrara-note_from_the_vatican_secretary.htm

"Well, unless the SSPX claims that Vatican II was not a valid Council of the Church and that we have not had a Magisterium since the election of John XXIII—which it certainly does not claim—there should be no difficulty accepting the Magisterium of the past forty-five years, especially since the Secretary of State confirms that there will be opportunities for “exploration with the interested parties of the questions still open, so as to be able to reach a full and satisfactory solution to the problems which have given rise to this painful fracture.” Practically all the questions concerning Vatican II and the post-conciliar “reforms” are open, whereas the Council’s repetition of prior teaching in its non-problematical texts has never been in dispute.  And who would deny a valid and binding exercise of the Magisterium in a papal encyclical like Evangelium Vitae or John Paul’s infallible pronouncement against women priests in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Not to mention Paul VI in Humanae Vitae or John XXIII in Veterum Sapientia, mandating retention of the Church’s Latin liturgical tradition.  Only a sedevacantist would reject the conciliar and post-conciliar Magisterium."

 
According to Christopher A. Ferrara & the SSPX, Vatican II is a valid council.
 

Reply
#33
Bonifacio Wrote:
Dauphin Wrote:All this batshit foolishness about the third secret of Fatima only serves to discredit the traditionalist movement.

Hmm, I see. So you do believe in the 2000's "unveiling" of the Third Secret of Fatima by H.E. Cardinal Bertone and H.E. Cardinal Ratzinger?

There were in effect two publications of the supposed Third Secret in 2000.  The other was by Pope JPII himself in the beatification ceremony of Jacinta and Francisco at Fatima on May 13, 2000, where he cited to Apocalypse 12:3-4, and warned the faithful to "beware of the tail of the dragon."

As Father Kramer and Gruner point out,  Apocalypse 12:4 speaks of the " the tail of the dragon sweeping one-third of the stars from heaven, which is commonly understood to mean one-third of the Catholic Clergy."  This 1/3 of the Catholic clergy will take millions of Catholic laypersons along with them.

This is part of the real third secret.  The vision of the bishop in white and the accompanying commentary is not. 
Reply
#34
Dauphin, you are full of it. And, the last pope as well as Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, both stated that the approved apparitional message of Akita, Japan, was the same as that of Fatima.  Akita's message was that bishop would fight bishop, and there would be apostacy in the Church, as well as fire from Heaven as chastisement for sins.[Image: fish.gif]
Reply
#35
Apostasy, yes certainly, since two cardinals Oddi and Ciappi that were known to have read the full secret witnessed it spoke about apostasy in the Church (and precisely beginning AT THE TOP). But no timing was given, that led the Pope to conclude "it is not for our times".
An evil council, I don't think so, because otherwise John XXIII would have stopped calling VatII and delayed it sine die when it was still time, even if he believed the Secret was Sr Lucy's wild imaginings: The pressure from his advisors would have been too strong and inevitable rumors would have leaked that we never had.
The only strong clue we got is given by Akita: Nowhere Akita's messages mentionned an evil council, but only apostatsy.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)