Pope Francis will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary


This is from video sancto and it explains private and public revelation. It's the same priest as Audio Sancto.



This John Salza giving a talk on private and public revelations.  This is taken from one of Fr. Gruner's conventions, and Fr. Gruner assigns the subjects to each speaker.

See if this helps,

tim
Reply
Video Sancto, eh. I'll have to take a look at that!
Reply
Tim, so Fatima IS private revelation, right?
Reply
(08-16-2013, 08:23 PM)christulsa123 Wrote: Tim, so Fatima IS private revelation, right?

No ! It is public revelation and if you listen they will tell you why. There is such a thing as public as well as private revelation. Fatima is public not private. It was meant for the entire world including all peoples. There has been a campaign to say there is Only Private Revelation to minimize Fatima, but watch the videos, they will explain.

tim
Reply
(08-16-2013, 09:34 PM)Tim Wrote:
(08-16-2013, 08:23 PM)christulsa123 Wrote: Tim, so Fatima IS private revelation, right?

No ! It is public revelation and if you listen they will tell you why. There is such a thing as public as well as private revelation. Fatima is public not private. It was meant for the entire world including all peoples. There has been a campaign to say there is Only Private Revelation to minimize Fatima, but watch the videos, they will explain.

tim
This is a common argument by Salza, Ferrara, et al., but I thought public revelation ended at the death of the last apostle…
Reply
Tim, as you well know, I'm usually in agreement with you when Fatima is discussed, but here I have to disagree, no matter what Fr Gruner, Mr Salza, et.al. say. The Church is quite clear that public revelation ended with the closing of the Canon of Scripture and that anything after is private, whether it is worthy of belief or not.

From the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

Dei verbum, Para. 4 Wrote:The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).

While I've heard several of the Documents of V II attacked (and I join in some of those attacks, as you know) I've never seen DV attacked. It is quite orthodox in its teaching on the sources of Revelation.

Further, the Catechism says:

CCC Wrote:67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Again, I've read several works questioning the Catechism, but never attacking its teaching on Revelation.

Anyway, I just wanted to make my stand clear. I still think that if the Pope were to order the Bishops to join him in the Consecration, any that refused would be removed from Office, not because Fatima is 'public revelation' but for the act of disobedience to the Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church on Earth.
Reply
Jovann, you're the right guy for this question. If you have time watch both vids and tell us where it is right and or wrong. I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy so I am not with enough background knowledge to discuss this in depth. You on the other hand are and an officer in Our Lady's very own Regiment  to boot. Perhaps I'm not clear about this, so if you can give it a look.

tim 
Reply
Just my 2 cents, which you can take or leave:  forget about Russian consecration! It wasn't done during the period our Lady requested, nor was it performed in the manner she requested. Our Lady had never assigned JP II and B XVI to do the Russian consecration in the first place. Pope Paul should have done it because John didn't live long enough. Conditions worsened, and Russia spread its errors throughout the world. De-facto Communism came to the free world, and the Satanic agenda is in charge everywhere. The horse is out of the barn already. Pope Francis may as well do a consecration of the universe now, because all nations offend God.
Reply
(08-17-2013, 09:43 AM)lauermar Wrote: Pope Francis may as well do a consecration of the universe now, because all nations offend God.

Yep. There isn't a nation on earth today that doesn't need consecration. With all the horror happening in the Middle East it seems strange to focus on Russia, or any one nation. The whole world needs Mary.
Reply
(08-17-2013, 09:43 AM)lauermar Wrote: Just my 2 cents, which you can take or leave:  forget about Russian consecration! It wasn't done during the period our Lady requested, nor was it performed in the manner she requested. Our Lady had never assigned JP II and B XVI to do the Russian consecration in the first place. Pope Paul should have done it because John didn't live long enough. Conditions worsened, and Russia spread its errors throughout the world. De-facto Communism came to the free world, and the Satanic agenda is in charge everywhere. The horse is out of the barn already. Pope Francis may as well do a consecration of the universe now, because all nations offend God.

Our Lady at Fatima told Sister Lucia:
Quote:I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart...If people attend to My requests, Russia will be converted and the world will have peace

Quote:Our Lady reappeared to Sister Lucy on June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, when in a great and sublime vision representing the Blessed Trinity, She announced that "the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia."

The Pope during this period was Pope Pius XI (Pontificate -- 1922-1939).  He would have known of this request but he did not do the consecration.

Quote:When God sent Our Lady to convey His command that Russia be consecrated, it seems clear that He expected swift obedience from the Pope and bishops. The pastors of the Church, however, chose to delay and, on August 19, 1931, Our Lord Himself appeared to Sister Lucy in Rianjo, Spain and expressed His displeasure, saying "make it known to My ministers that, given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution My command, they will follow him also into misfortune."

Pope Pius Xii did the proper consecration as requested except not all or none the Church's bishops co-joined him.  So it was not done as requested.

How many Popes have there been since 1929?  Seven so far, including Francis.  Now it seems he will join the others by refusing (not the right term) or ignoring (yes!) Heaven's request. 

And now, we wail and lament that things are bad and getting worse.  Who's to blame?  No wonder nobody wants to be pope.  What kind of face to put when the pope faces Jesus in Judgment?  What he can he say?  And the Church wants to canonize and make him a saint when he was in direct disobedience to a request by the Mother of God?  I would hadly blame Popes Pius Xi and XII, even John XXIII.  But there is no excuse for the rest of them.  Disobedience is what caused what humanity is today.

[quote]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)