The Secret Warned Against Vatican II and the New Mass
#21
Quote: As for the Vatican II almost all the bishops of the world including Cardinal Ottaviani and Bishop Lefevbre signed the documents. The documents are not infallible, but Catholics are bind by it. 
Ah, the irony.  You even use the word "Bind".  We both know that the Council specifically said the Church was NOT binded by anything in the Council.  If you want to disregard this teaching of Vatican II, be my guest. 
Reply
#22
It's weird agreeing with you James02.

What he said.
Reply
#23
(07-27-2009, 01:07 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Do they still preach that the pope, in unison (all together and at the same time) with every bishop in the entire world must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
Have they ever preached otherwise?  Furthermore, isn't this exactly what Our Lady requested?  And Pope JPII admits the consecration was never done.  There is no dispute here.  The consecration has never been done, and no Pope has ever said it was.  In fact, JPII said it wasn't done.

May I suggest you read Ferrera's book, The Secret Still Hidden.  Also, "The Fourth Secret" is now available in English.

Well of course they preached otherwise. Back when the revolution was in it's early stages, Fr. G used to have a weekly TV show called Heaven's Peace Plan iirc.  For a long time, initially he preached that the consecration needed to be re-done because the first time it was done improperly. How a pope can consecrate something improperly seemed a bit "out there"  - at least that was the general consensus - but like I said, back then, confusion was the rule of the day everywhere and there was no shortage of people coming out of the woodwork offering solutions to the crisis at hand within the church.

Anyway, Fr. G then started preaching exactly how the consecration needed to be done, right down to the direction the pope needed to be facing when he did the consecration.

Then rumors surfaced that the pope had finally done the consecration, thanks in part to Fr. G. (keep in mind there was no internet back then) and for weeks, Fr. G also thought it was actually done and was quite satisfied.

Well, when nothing changed after a few months, it was because the consecration was still not done properly because now,  it needed to be done in unison with all the bishops of the whole world at the exact same time.

This all happened in the span of just a  year or two back in the mid to maybe late 70s and I've not kept up much with him since then.

Originally, there was one secret in three parts, but now they found a fourth secret?   
Reply
#24
So basically what you are telling us is some 30 year old private judgement on Fathers Gruner and Kramer.  You "haven't really kept up with it for the last 30 years".

Why did you chose the forum name Stubborn? 

The fact remains that they are the only two priests who have publicly taken the stand they have on Fatima's message.  History has proved them right.  There is no era of peace, Russia has not been converted.  One must either conclude that the consecration has not been done, or Our Lady's promises are not worth a damn.
Reply
#25
(07-27-2009, 06:47 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-27-2009, 01:07 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Do they still preach that the pope, in unison (all together and at the same time) with every bishop in the entire world must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
Have they ever preached otherwise?  Furthermore, isn't this exactly what Our Lady requested?  And Pope JPII admits the consecration was never done.  There is no dispute here.  The consecration has never been done, and no Pope has ever said it was.  In fact, JPII said it wasn't done.

May I suggest you read Ferrera's book, The Secret Still Hidden.  Also, "The Fourth Secret" is now available in English.

Well of course they preached otherwise. Back when the revolution was in it's early stages, Fr. G used to have a weekly TV show called Heaven's Peace Plan iirc.  For a long time, initially he preached that the consecration needed to be re-done because the first time it was done improperly. How a pope can consecrate something improperly seemed a bit "out there"  - at least that was the general consensus - but like I said, back then, confusion was the rule of the day everywhere and there was no shortage of people coming out of the woodwork offering solutions to the crisis at hand within the church.

Anyway, Fr. G then started preaching exactly how the consecration needed to be done, right down to the direction the pope needed to be facing when he did the consecration.

Then rumors surfaced that the pope had finally done the consecration, thanks in part to Fr. G. (keep in mind there was no internet back then) and for weeks, Fr. G also thought it was actually done and was quite satisfied.

Well, when nothing changed after a few months, it was because the consecration was still not done properly because now,  it needed to be done in unison with all the bishops of the whole world at the exact same time.

This all happened in the span of just a  year or two back in the mid to maybe late 70s and I've not kept up much with him since then.

Originally, there was one secret in three parts, but now they found a fourth secret?     

There are actually 5 secrets, one yet to be discovered but likely will be when someone needs to sell another book.

Just like Medjugorje, where the gravy train ends when the apparitions end so the apparitions will never end, so here with the Fatima conspiracists.  If the Consecration is ever performed "correctly" the money stops coming in, so it will likely never be done to their satisfaction.  How convenient. 
Reply
#26
You could say that about Traditional Catholics.

When the Church is restored we will just be Catholics and disgruntled as a result.

Not me.  I am fed up of the 1hr+ drives to mass.

I know Fr. Kramer personally and I can tell you he is pretty hard up financially.  If there is a gravy train, he is certainly not getting much gravy.

Ferrara now gives his book away in PDF format on the internet.  I doubt he made a profit.
Reply
#27
(07-27-2009, 06:47 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-27-2009, 01:07 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Do they still preach that the pope, in unison (all together and at the same time) with every bishop in the entire world must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
Have they ever preached otherwise?  Furthermore, isn't this exactly what Our Lady requested?  And Pope JPII admits the consecration was never done.  There is no dispute here.  The consecration has never been done, and no Pope has ever said it was.  In fact, JPII said it wasn't done.

May I suggest you read Ferrera's book, The Secret Still Hidden.  Also, "The Fourth Secret" is now available in English.

Well of course they preached otherwise. Back when the revolution was in it's early stages, Fr. G used to have a weekly TV show called Heaven's Peace Plan iirc.  For a long time, initially he preached that the consecration needed to be re-done because the first time it was done improperly. How a pope can consecrate something improperly seemed a bit "out there"  - at least that was the general consensus - but like I said, back then, confusion was the rule of the day everywhere and there was no shortage of people coming out of the woodwork offering solutions to the crisis at hand within the church.

Anyway, Fr. G then started preaching exactly how the consecration needed to be done, right down to the direction the pope needed to be facing when he did the consecration.

Then rumors surfaced that the pope had finally done the consecration, thanks in part to Fr. G. (keep in mind there was no internet back then) and for weeks, Fr. G also thought it was actually done and was quite satisfied.

Well, when nothing changed after a few months, it was because the consecration was still not done properly because now,  it needed to be done in unison with all the bishops of the whole world at the exact same time.

This all happened in the span of just a  year or two back in the mid to maybe late 70s and I've not kept up much with him since then.

Originally, there was one secret in three parts, but now they found a fourth secret?     

That's merely the title of the book.  There is only one secret, in three parts, as the book makes clear.
Reply
#28
As he states, he has not kept up with it.  The title of the book makes his "case" for him.

We need more uninformed opinions like his on this forum.

Then we would have lots more fiction to discuss.  It can get very boring sticking to the facts.
Reply
#29
Yes, the title "Quarto Segreto" is too ambiguous since it seems to claim there is a fourth secret yet to be revealed, and his adversaries much played of it to denigrate Socci's book.
Socci would have been better inspired in titling his book "The hidden part of the Third Secret".
Socci clearly demonstrates that:
1/ There are two different documents relating to the Third Secret
2/ They have been read separately by John XXIII and Paul VI at two different dates
3/ They are kept in two different places in the Vatican
4/ Their length in number of lines and sheets is different
5/ They are placed in two different envelopes, each one bearing different mentions.
5/ Some witnesses who read one of these two documents spoke of the "words of the Virgin" while the disclosed part in 2000 contains no such words but only a description of the vision the children were given to see.
6/ The two previous secrets were composed of a set in two parts "vision / explanation by the Virgin" . In the third one (according to the version given in 2000) there is only one part that is a vision. No explanation is given while getting one would be much helpful. That given by the Vatican, the assassination attempt against JPII, is not at all convincing.
7/ But if anyway the Vatican's explanation of the 3rd Secret is right, why didn't they disclosed it immediately in 1982 to stop the controversy instead of waiting for 18 long years fueling and inflating it?
The reason is evident: They have disclosed only the acceptable part. They are considering the hidden part  as the fruit of the fertile imagination of Sr Lucy since it doesn't match at all the concept they have of the Church of the post VatII era.
Reply
#30
In that case it cannot have a prophetic element to it, since if what it predicted had come to pass, (and one would assume it had since it was supposed to be revealed in 1960) then there is no possibility that it could have been a product of a Portugues peasant woman's imagination.  If it has a prophecy that has come true, nobody in good faith and with a sincere will could deny it, given the pedigree of the other elements of the vision and the Miracle of the Sun to back them up.

Occam's razor suggests that we are basically dealing with faithless, bad willed men not confused good willed men.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)