Pope Francis will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
(08-14-2013, 11:07 AM)2Vermont Wrote: My personal opinion is that,although we are not required to believe in Fatima, given the crisis in the Church it wouldn't be prudent to ignore it (as well as some other private revelations approved by the Church such as La Salette).

That is a good point to consider.  While not ignoring it, I think it is important to keep in mind that the miracle of the sun caused fear in those who observed it.  Not respectful fear of a God with power over nature, but pure terror.  This should be a red flag to anyone investigating it.
Reply
(08-14-2013, 11:23 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-14-2013, 11:07 AM)2Vermont Wrote: My personal opinion is that,although we are not required to believe in Fatima, given the crisis in the Church it wouldn't be prudent to ignore it (as well as some other private revelations approved by the Church such as La Salette).

That is a good point to consider.  While not ignoring it, I think it is important to keep in mind that the miracle of the sun caused fear in those who observed it.  Not respectful fear of a God with power over nature, but pure terror.  This should be a red flag to anyone investigating it.

I don't know.  I'm not someone who follows all apparitions, etc., but I'm pretty sure that there were glimpses into Hell which caused pure terror by the seers. I'll take observing the miracle of the sun over a glimpse into Hell any day, TYVM. 

And if the Church approved of Faitma, there is no need to investigate it.
Reply
The thing I find most interesting is that some of the fishies here want to excommunicate bishops based on something that no one is required to believe.  Any person in the Catholic Church can go out and state that Fatima is “straight from hell” and it would  have zero, zilcho, nada effect on their salvation and their standing in the Church.  I’ve had serious doubts regarding Fatima, at least some of the whacky theories and some of the “revelations” 20 years later,  and I am under no obligation to repent of this

If the pope excommunicated bishops based on a private revelation, it would be an extreme novelty.  You guys deplore novelties, so I’m not sure why you want novelty in this circumstance.
Reply
I agree with you Melkite.  I also find it to be a red flag that a lot of Catholics like to use Fatima to …
i. Prove that the Vatican and the Church today is evil / corrupt
ii. Theorize various ways to “fulfill” the message that are un-canonical or should be considered unethical
iii. Use it to justify extreme disobedience (aka Fr Gruner)
iv. Fantasize about a future paradise (if fulfilled) / fret about a doomsday scenario
Reply
(08-14-2013, 12:11 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Any person in the Catholic Church can go out and state that Fatima is “straight from hell” and it would  have zero, zilcho, nada effect on their salvation and their standing in the Church. 

I'm not sure if this is quite true.  Pope Benedict XIV wrote some rules for the ones approved by the Church and said they receive "human faith" which means we should believe them subject to prudence.  It can be imprudent to reject them.  Similarly, if you have doubts for reasons that are not rash, "it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior." [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

Going around telling others a revelation approved by the Church is "straight from hell" does not seem to fulfill the requirement of disagreeing with "proper modesty.'

Reply
(08-14-2013, 12:11 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: The thing I find most interesting is that some of the fishies here want to excommunicate bishops based on something that no one is required to believe.  Any person in the Catholic Church can go out and state that Fatima is “straight from hell” and it would  have zero, zilcho, nada effect on their salvation and their standing in the Church.   I’ve had serious doubts regarding Fatima, at least some of the whacky theories and some of the “revelations” 20 years later,  and I am under no obligation to repent of this

If the pope excommunicated bishops based on a private revelation, it would be an extreme novelty.  You guys deplore novelties, so I’m not sure why you want novelty in this circumstance.

No.... The pope would only excommunicate bishops of they disobeyed a direct request for consecration made of them by the pope;  on the grounds that it may 'offend' a geopolitical power. Obedience is an obligation for all.  Lets keep things in context, argue it on its merit, not on spin.
Reply
The Pope any Pope if ordering the Bishops to do x, y, or zed, is then speaking in the Name of Jesus. So any Bishop that refuses is no longer obeying Jesus, and the Pope doesn't need to formally excommunicate them, they left the Church. In short He's got the keys and the Bishops get the breeze.

tim
Reply
(08-13-2013, 03:14 PM)Whitey Wrote: I stay out of these fatima discussions because most "facts" presented may in fact not be.  Perhaps that is why I only learned of this today. Seems Pius XII did it in '52.

Sacro Vergente
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacro_Vergente

Fr, John Hardon is someone I admire and trust, and I have just finished reading this article..

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/...gy_014.htm

"    Dear people of Russian, health and peace in the Lord!

   While the Holy Year was happily drawing to a conclusion, after it had been given to us by a divine disposition to solemnly define the dogma of the Assumption into Heaven, body and soul, of the Holy Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, we received numerous expressions of the most lively exultation from people all over the world; many of them sent us letters in thanksgiving, in which they also earnestly begged us to consecrate the whole Russian people, which is experiencing such suffering at this moment, to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary.

These supplications were particularly pleasing to us, for if our paternal affection embraces all people, it is addressed in a particular manner to those who, although separated for the most part from the Apostolic See by the vicissitudes of history, nevertheless still retain the name of Christian, but find themselves in such a situation that it is very difficult for them to hear our voice and to know the teachings of Catholic doctrine, and that they are even pushed by deceitful and pernicious contrivances to reject faith in and even the very idea of God.

When it is a question of defending the cause of religion, the truth, and justice and Christian civilization, we certainly cannot keep quiet….Doubtless we have condemned and rejected - as the duty of our office demands - the errors which the instigators of atheistic Communism teach, or which they do their utmost to propagate, for the greatest wrong and the detriment of the citizens; but, far from rejecting the wayward, we desire their return to the straight path of the truth. Even more: we have unmasked these falsehoods, which are often adorned with a semblance of the truth, because we love you with the heart of a father and we seek your well-being.

We know that many of you preserve the Christian faith in the secret sanctuary of your own conscience….We know furthermore, and that is for us a great hope and a great consolation, that you love and honor with ardent affection the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and that you venerate her images. We know that in the city of Moscow itself there is a temple - alas, withdrawn from divine worship - which is dedicated to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven; and this is very clear testimony to the love which your ancestors and you yourselves bear to the Most Holy Mother of God.

So that our fervent prayers and yours should more easily be answered, and to give you a special sign of our particular benevolence, just as some years ago we consecrated the whole human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today we consecrate and we dedicate in a very special manner all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart…and we implore this most clement Mother to obtain from her Divine Son heavenly light for your minds, and for your souls the supernatural strength and courage by which you will be able to avert and surmount all errors and godlessness.

O Mary, while acknowledging Jesus Christ as the one true Savior, we entrust the whole human race to your Immaculate Heart. Deliver mankind from the scourges deserved for its sins, grant peace to all the world; a peace founded on truth, on justice, on freedom and on love."


Fr Hardon also mentioned the JPII '84 Consecration and he believed it was an act of decisiveness which left no doubt whether the Consecration of Russia had been done. The Berlin Wall "came down" in 1989.

I'm now convinced the consecration has been done.

Anyone ?
Reply
All prophecies are conditional. Bl. Pope John Paul gave a weak and inadequate response to the request of Our Lady, therefore we received limited graces as the wall came down. I do not know God's mind but He is justice and if the Consecration of the world has been accepted by God Almighty, in justice we will have to work through this without His Grace. I remember the buzz when he did it and all the NO'ers were rumoring Gorbacev converted until he said unequivocally he was still a commie atheist. Decades later he visited Assissi and the rumors flew again he was a secret Catholic until again he said he was a hegelian atheist.
Not yet, or Nyet !

tim
Reply
(08-13-2013, 03:14 PM)Whitey Wrote: Fr Hardon also mentioned the JPII '84 Consecration and he believed it was an act of decisiveness which left no doubt whether the Consecration of Russia had been done. The Berlin Wall "came down" in 1989.

I'm now convinced the consecration has been done.

Whitey, in all seriousness, how could the Consecration of Russia have been done when the word 'Russia" was not even mentioned in the Act of Consecration? Pope John Paul II asked that the Act be read in all Churches on the day he was doing it. I was present in my parish church when it was read. There was not only no mention of Russia in the Act, there was nothing that could be construed as even alluding to Russia in the official Act as read. It is true that His Holiness ad libbed a line in which he mentioned 'those people who await Our consecration to you'. Not, 'who have been waiting' as if he was actually doing it, but 'await' as in for an act in the future. Even if he had adlibbed, 'and specifically the people of Russia', it would not have been in union with the bishops because they didn't read the ad lib.

I, too, greatly admire and respect Fr Hardon, but on this point, I'm afraid logic prevents me from accepting his opinion.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)