Pope Francis will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
(08-16-2013, 07:49 AM)thomas7 Wrote:
(08-15-2013, 08:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-15-2013, 07:32 PM)Militaris Christi Wrote: Hi Tim,

    I have been having  problems understanding issues concerning the Catholic faith a long time and this is one of them.  What in the world is stopping the Pope from consecrating the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

      If  the Blessed Mother Mary Immaculate requests the world be consecrated to the her  Immaculate Heart  what could prevent the Pope from doing so? What does the Pope have to fear from doing so?

         Is someone threatening the Pope?

Militaris Christi aka Thomas

I'm not Tim, but in answer to your question, as you stated it, absolutely nothing, which is why Pius XII and John Paul II have already done it and Pope Francis is getting ready to do so.

That's not the problem. OL, at Fatima, did not ask for the consecration of the world, she asked for the Consecration of Russia in union with the world's bishops. During the 1939-45 War, of course, the Soviets were allies of the West and since Pius XII died there has been a great fear of 'offending the Orthodox' if it was done.

The same thing is behind the failure to condemn Communism by the Council. Pope John XXIII was afraid that it would upset the Red Slave Masters and make it harder to reach rapprochement with the Orthodox. Of course,  rapprochement with the Orthodox is a pipe dream, since they hate Catholicism with every bone in their bodies, but that's a topic for another thread.

This!


I'm not Tim either but  it’s been stated  that  Bella Dodd testified about in the early 1950s, she  provided detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs. Dodd said: "In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within." The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. She stated that: "Right now they are in the highest places in the Church" — where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church's effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that "you will not recognise the Catholic Church." Dodd gave testimony on communist infiltration of Church and state before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s. (See  School of Darkness).

If this is true, then there is the  possibility that within the ranks of the church,  exist many bishops who are opposed to Fatima  message,  and unless these bishops are removed, we may never have this true consecration of Russia take place. JPII stated something to the effect that he tried everything to make this consecration work but could not – whatever that would mean.

The more I read, watch, listen the more I think this is the least of our worries.  If it is true that there were priest and bishop infiltrators as early as the 1950's, we have a much bigger issue on our hands, no?
Reply
(08-16-2013, 07:49 AM)thomas7 Wrote: If this is true, then there is the  possibility that within the ranks of the church,  exist many bishops who are opposed to Fatima  message,  and unless these bishops are removed, we may never have this true consecration of Russia take place.

roman catholic teaching is that private revelations, whether or not they have ecclesiastical approval, are not binding on the church or on any individual catholic.  that would certainly include bishops.  what you are urging is contrary to catholic teaching.
Reply
(08-16-2013, 08:45 AM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-16-2013, 07:49 AM)thomas7 Wrote: If this is true, then there is the  possibility that within the ranks of the church,  exist many bishops who are opposed to Fatima  message,  and unless these bishops are removed, we may never have this true consecration of Russia take place.

roman catholic teaching is that private revelations, whether or not they have ecclesiastical approval, are not binding on the church or on any individual catholic.  that would certainly include bishops.  what you are urging is contrary to catholic teaching.
It may still happen whether you agree with it or not.
Reply
(08-16-2013, 09:43 AM)thomas7 Wrote: It may still happen whether you agree with it or not.

what i agree with is not the issue.  do you agree with roman catholic teaching?  that's the issue.
Reply
Believing in Fatima, with all the facts, including that there has been a conspiracy to suppress it, is not denying the Catholic Faith. It was given as a warning, it was approved, and as Our Lady said there the bad and the good both ignore me. Believing in Fatima, which is approved as not against Faith or morals, doesn't  make those few less Catholic. The entire Apostasy started with willfully ignoring the release of the third secret not Vatican II. Pope John XXIII's refusal to do as requested started the beginning of the fall off at Sunday Mass, two years before the Council. Everyone including non-Catholics were waiting for this message. We had just been through the worst war ever, and people were hoping for peace, and had high hopes for the release of the secret. In 1959, one of the TV networks, I believe DuMont has several programs about Fatima and the third secret. To say it was anticipated it an understatement. Both envelopes say 1960 for the release. Never happened. Did it ?

tim
Reply

guacamole,

Why then have popes since Pius xii made halfhearted  attempts at consecrating russia/world based on a so-called private revelation? . It may still happen whether  or not it is a private revelation.  You're correct, the church states private revelation is not binding on the catholic  church but  jpii did make  an obvious point that it imposes an obligation on the church.  Are you saying jpii didn't know it was a private revelation?

What i agree with doesn't matter either .  But as Vincentius pointed out on page 10 " ... if it were stated that such and such apparition is worthy of belief, it would be a foolish and presumptuous thing to question the mind of the Church which made such judgment. "    He goes on to state that the apparition of Our Lord to St. Margaret Mary Alaquoque and the warning of what would happen if the His requests were not met – also a private revelation , which was ignored till it was very late.
One day Sister Lucia asked our Lord who appeared to her as a little boy:  "Why don't you convert Russia Yourself?"  His answer:  "Because I want My mother to be given the credit”.  (End quote)
Very wise posting.
It has been said by some proponents of Fatima that  Our Lady of  Fatima is contained in the book of Apocalypse chapters 8-13.  Sounds like these "private revelations" might trump this legalism you're espousing.
Sr. Lucy did state that the consecration will happen but it will be late.  So eventually a pope will do this consecration  based on a private revelation.
Reply
(08-16-2013, 10:23 AM)Tim Wrote: Believing in Fatima, with all the facts, including that there has been a conspiracy to suppress it, is not denying the Catholic Faith.

that is not what i said.

what i have said is that representing the demands of a private revelation as morally obligatory for the church or for individual catholics, including bishops, is absolutely contrary to catholic teaching.  it is false and it misleads people to say otherwise.

right?
Reply
(08-16-2013, 11:18 AM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-16-2013, 10:23 AM)Tim Wrote: Believing in Fatima, with all the facts, including that there has been a conspiracy to suppress it, is not denying the Catholic Faith.

that is not what i said.

what i have said is that representing the demands of a private revelation as morally obligatory for the church or for individual catholics, including bishops, is absolutely contrary to catholic teaching.  it is false and it misleads people to say otherwise.

right?

No it is not. It is very involved but Fr. Gruner and Fr. Kramer who know tons more than we do say it places an obligation on The Church and the Pope and Bishops.
There are several hour videos there which explain it. In short it is not private revelation it is one up from that.

tim
Reply
(08-16-2013, 01:08 PM)Tim Wrote: In short it is not private revelation it is one up from that.

i'm sorry, but that is simply not true.  it does not surprise me that fr. gruner would teach otherwise, however.
Reply
(08-16-2013, 01:08 PM)Tim Wrote:
(08-16-2013, 11:18 AM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-16-2013, 10:23 AM)Tim Wrote: Believing in Fatima, with all the facts, including that there has been a conspiracy to suppress it, is not denying the Catholic Faith.

that is not what i said.

what i have said is that representing the demands of a private revelation as morally obligatory for the church or for individual catholics, including bishops, is absolutely contrary to catholic teaching.  it is false and it misleads people to say otherwise.

right?

No it is not. It is very involved but Fr. Gruner and Fr. Kramer who know tons more than we do say it places an obligation on The Church and the Pope and Bishops.
There are several hour videos there which explain it. In short it is not private revelation it is one up from that.

tim k

The messages of Fatima revealed to the three children fall under "private revelation." 

But the messages are authentic and worthy of belief. They were intended for the whole world. Their veracity obliges the bishops but not in the strict sense like the obligation to teach the Faith.

Tim, could you explain exactly how Fatima is not private revelation?  something more?  ???

Otherwise, I sympathize with the charge of Fatimism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)