Who is right, Francis or the Church before Francis? – “It is a very serious error to conclude that the Church’s teaching is only an ‘ideal’.”

From Rorate Caeli

284_christ-the-king

No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other.” (St. Matthew 6: 24)
***

(1) Either John Paul II and all the Popes who came before him are right, by emphasizing the “absoluteness” of the Church’s moral law and by classifying as a “very serious error” that the doctrine of the Church is only an “ideal”…

It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question”.

But what are the “concrete possibilities of man”? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act.

In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values.

John Paul II
Veritatis Splendor
August 6, 1993

***

…or (2) Francis is right, by qualifying as “heretical” a rejection of the “Doctrine of the Ideal” as well as any affirmation of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions (‘or this or nothing’).

“This (is the) healthy realism of the Catholic Church: the Church never teaches us ‘or this or that.’ That is not Catholic. The Church says to us: ‘this and that.’ ‘Strive for perfectionism: reconcile with your brother. Do not insult him. Love him. And if there is a problem, at the very least settle your differences so that war doesn’t break out.’ This (is) the healthy realism of Catholicism. It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical. Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.”

Pope Francis – Homily at Santa Marta
June 9, 2016

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

209 Responses to Who is right, Francis or the Church before Francis? – “It is a very serious error to conclude that the Church’s teaching is only an ‘ideal’.”

  1. kathleen says:

    Modernism is having its heyday! We must pray the end is in sight; (a conversion of Pope Francis perhaps?)
    See also this post from Rorate Caeli, “The Modern World Degrades Everything“.

  2. “This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption,” wrote Pope St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (i.e,, the Splendor of Truth).

    The problem is that too few clerics and prelates believe that. They really do seem to think that all the popes and all the Church teaching before the present pontificate were wrong, and the real “splendor of truth” began when Bergoglio became pope.

    A friend continues to pray every day: “Dear God, bring a speedy end to the chaos and destruction and errors of this pontificate – either through another papal resignation or a papal conversion of heart, as great as the conversion of Dismas on the cross. Amen.”

  3. Robert says:

    Yes sadly you get the leaders whom you deserve!

    Our Lord said pick up your Cross and follow Me. The Cross isn’t pleasant its a scaffold where Self is Killed. Many are called and few are chosen.

    Rorate Caeli is correct today the power and actually ownership of trade , resources etc is in the hand a few global capitalists (only 250 or so Global groups control International Capitalism). The irony is that Socialists and Socialism was always funded by Money. The twin hands of Satan that’s Capitalism and Socialism.

    The Fall of the Iron curtain produce guess what very rich Oligarchs who grabbed the mineral and resources of Russia! In other words the Socialism of Communism was replaced by Capitalism. This is off course materialism and guess what, like Henry VIII and others of His ilke they want to control Religion. Keep the masses happy with platitudes and its money business as usual.

    The wonderful martyrs and glorious saints, doctors , founders fill Our year with glorious examples of Mercy and Charity and the Virtues. The Our Father especially deals with Mercy and Forgiveness.

    The New Testament revelation is of a Selfless Trinity bound with Love. The Trinity isn’t the self centred God (single Deity) seen in Judaism or Islam. By all means Love and do not Judge but Sin is Sin and Mortal Sin is the death of the Soul. You cannot and must not out of Charity and Love of neighbour whitewash over Mortal Sin.

    Love the poor sinner hate Sin.

    I believe we are seeing very clearly the Else of Fatima being played out before Our eyes. This makes me tremble because the worlds Media was present 13th October 1917 Fatima isn’t just Catholic its a Global message. I urge you all to really look at the period and you will find there the roots of so many of the problems and issues which are on Our front pages today.

  4. toadspittle says:

    “The irony is that Socialists and Socialism was always funded by Money. “
    No irony at all. Everything is funded by money. Including churches.
    Particularly churches. Every one of them.

  5. Brother Burrito says:

    Hi Dilbert,

    for the first time in ages I actually understood and enjoyed your comment above, in spite of its typos, misspellings and stylistic failings. I finally feel that you and I are on the same hymnal page, or at least within a few hundred leaves of being so.

    I also for the first time have “liked” an article from Rorate Caeli for it has opened my eyes. Previously, I had always seen RC as an angry dog blog, always baring its canines and growling menacingly. Not my thing, really.

    Today the scales have fallen from my eyes. Today when I look at RC, I see a noble guard dog, not some rabid curmudgeonly mutt. It has its duty and carries it off with fearless abandon. Like any leader of the pack, it has many followers, including some wily wolves and a fair few feverish foxes, but then nothing’s perfect is it.

    However, when I channel my inner “Domini Canis”, I scent RC might be pursuing a false trail.

    I cannot detect at all any true whiff of schism between Pope Francis and his holy predecessors. Of course, I may have a head cold. Amidst all the yapping and barking that assaults my ears, I think there is a basic failure of communication going on. Both sides are emoting, but neither side is listening closely to the other. Gee, isn’t that a common occurrence in human affairs!

    Before this all descends into an unholy dogfight, can I just sound a gong and shout “Chow!!!”.

    “Every Good Baying-dog Deserves Favour”, but if he listens assiduously to “His Master’s Voice”, he will eventually understand what I have been rambling on about.

    PS: If whoever I have offended with this comment should ever succeed in tracking me down, can I timidly request that they don’t bite me too hard. I am a bit of a coward where pain is concerned, and am naturally scared of dogs since being bulldozed to the ground by an over-excited Alsatian as a toddler.

  6. John says:

    I think His Holiness Pope Francis,,as Vicar of Christ on earth, is right and I pray for the conversion of all those who criticize and seek to undermine his teaching.

  7. ginnyfree says:

    Ya, know…….being a master of shadows and shading, it all depends on what he meant by the “this and that.” If you want to fill in those blanks with absolutes, be his guest. But if you prefer to not swallow that kind of bait, then you’ll leave it to his own mind at that time. His fluidity and shadings of understanding will follow him to his particular judgement. That is a “that” that is certain. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    Rorate are so wrong so often that they’re just an embarrassment.

    Principally, a philosophical ideal is an absolute. It isn’t anything changeable or negotiable or mutable — it is the very Nature of that which we strive towards, from our un-ideal imperfections, flaws, and sins.

    And where on EARTH do they get “only” from ??? Who, where, when has ever taught that Catholicism is “only an ideal” ??? Nobody.

    And Pope Francis is BTW completely right in pointing out that “It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical.

    That is indeed the very essence of all Heresy. It’s exactly what Luther, Calvin, Cromwell, and all those other fundamentalist Heretics have taught ; every single Heresy there has ever been or ever will be starts out by saying exactly that.

    The Pope’s “Strive for perfectionism” is exactly synonymous with John Paul II’s “This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being“.

    Rorate are exactly disobeying the moral teachings of both Popes — “what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified” ; “Strive for perfectionism: reconcile with your brother. Do not insult him. Love him“.

    It is only in their own minds, and their inability to see past earthly law into the Divine Law, that these two teachings are soi-disant “incompatible”.

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    They really do seem to think that all the popes and all the Church teaching before the present pontificate were wrong, and the real “splendor of truth” began when Bergoglio became pope.

    Utter rubbish !!

  10. kathleen says:

    Pope Francis: “(Our Lord) frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.”

    Only up to what we may think we are capable? Does anyone know where Our Blessed Lord says that in the Gospel? Would Our Lord really ever say such a thing?
    Of course not. He wants us to become saints! He wants us to ‘be happy with Him forever in Heaven’ (for the larger our ‘cup’ of holiness, the greater its capacity of eternal joy) not to just scrape in by the skin of our teeth after spending light years of suffering in Purgatory!

    “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” – (Matthew 5:48).

    We never will be of course, but that mustn’t put us off trying to be.
    Because Our Saviour asks this of us.

  11. John says:

    In Luke 10.16 Christ gave an express teaching commission to 72 chosen early emissaries with the words ‘He who hears you, hears me’. That authority devolves on Pope Francis, as Vicar of Christ on earth, not on any or every professional or self-appointed amateur theologian, who simply doesn’t like what the Pope teaches.

  12. kathleen says:

    Well now, Mr John Kehoe, fancy seeing you back here again!
    Which Pope would it be that you are talking about? Personally speaking, I can’t ever remember not liking anything that Saint John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI ever said.
    Besides, I don’t think it’s very polite of you to describe the holy cardinals and bishops who have, with charity, criticised certain actions and words of the current Pope as being “self-appointed amateur theologians”, now is it? As the representatives of the Apostles, they are numbered among the 72 (figuratively speaking) that you mention. Therefore they have not only the right to express their concerns, but the duty to do so too. The Pope and Apostles must be the guardians of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

  13. The Raven says:

    Well, John, the infallible teaching of Holy Church in an ecumenical council says this about the role of the pontiff:

    The Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter so that by His revelation they might make new teaching public, but so that, by His assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles; i.e. the Deposit of Faith

    Have I missed something, as I don’t remember that membership of King’s Inn conferred on a chap the ability to promulgate an ecclesiology of his own that trumps that taught by the fathers of the Church!

  14. Robert says:

    John
    When Our Lord sent out the 72 they were disciples not priests and there was at that time no Pope.

    A consecrated Bishop has the Power and Authority as given by Our Lord to the Apostles (through the Apostolic Succession) public Revelation ended with the death of the Last Apostle (and that wasn’t Peter was it?) .

    Instead of defending the Apostolic Succession you are actually denying the Faith.

    Out of the Epistles in the New Testament only two are by Peter.

    Now here is the problem “He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ ”

    This is what Our Lord said “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John14:21)

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    Only up to what we may think we are capable?

    Continual misquoting does not help — the Pope asks “do that up to the point that you are capable” ; that we are capable of, not “what we think” we’re capable of.

    Rorate are ignoring the Catechism, the Pope is faithful to it :

    1970 The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between “the two ways” and to put into practice the words of the Lord.26 It is summed up in the Golden Rule, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets.”

    The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the “new commandment” of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.

    1971 To the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord’s teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. “Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality.” This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church.

    1972 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who “does not know what his master is doing” to that of a friend of Christ – “For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” – or even to the status of son and heir.

    “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” – (Matthew 5:48).

    The word “perfect” as it is understood by the mind of the Church is very frequently misunderstood or misinterpreted by English-speakers.

    Latin perfectus, a, um means something like “fulfilled to one’s/its greatest individual potential”. The notion does NOT include requirements beyond one’s capacities, nor does it in any way constitute a restrictive absolute norm that all in the world are to be subjected to.

    We never will be of course, but that mustn’t put us off trying to be.
    Because Our Saviour asks this of us.

    That is exactly what following the Catholic ideal constitutes.

  16. JabbaPapa says:

    Let’s make a cricket analogy — for a batsman, a perfect innings is not the best innings ever played by anyone anywhere, nor even necessarily your own best innings ever ; it’s one where you play to the very best of your ability, where you’ve enjoyed yourself as much as you can, with best, friendliest, good sportsmanlike behaviour by all, and when the day’s play comes to an end, you’re “not out”.

  17. Tom Fisher says:

    “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” – (Matthew 5:48).

    The word “perfect” as it is understood by the mind of the Church is very frequently misunderstood or misinterpreted by English-speakers.

    Latin perfectus, a, um means something like “fulfilled to one’s/its greatest individual potential”. The notion does NOT include requirements beyond one’s capacities, nor does it in any way constitute a restrictive absolute norm that all in the world are to be subjected to.

    For this reader at least, that is a very fine and helpful summary. Completeness isn’t too bad if we want a single word equivalent. As Jabba says, it’s not a command that we be flawless.

  18. kathleen says:

    Agreed, Tom, Jabba’s explanation of the Latin word perfectus is certainly “helpful”. I’m one of the many who are grateful to him for his frequent clarification of the origins of language. (The Raven is another great ‘teacher’ here.)

    Getting back to us strugglers down here in this ‘valley of tears’, we sadly know only too well, that if we can get away with second best (when this takes far less hard work and hopefully produces the same result, presumably) we will take it! Such is our fallen human nature. We lower the goal post.

    Perhaps for this reason Our Blessed Lord never mitigated His command to us to aim high – way above what we think would be our limit – when He told us to be “perfect”. Our understanding of the word in the three languages I know (no idea how others might understand it) means aim for THE BEST.

  19. toadspittle says:

    Perfect = Possessing no imperfections.
    Flawless.
    Entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings.
    Accurate, exact, or correct in every detail.

    …That’s what it means to me in English.
    What it might have meant in Latin 2,000 years ago, is another thing. But then, there’s always anarchic Humpty, D.:“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    …Same as we all do, in fact.

  20. John says:

    The Raven, No, I am not promoting an ecclesiology of my own – something one or two mavericks on this page are adept at- but rather deferring to the teaching of the Pope, something which I had thought any orthodox Catholic should be glad to do.
    No, again, my membership of The Kings Inns, which you so assiduously discovered, does not confer a competence on me to challenge Papal or Council teaching, nor did I ever claim or suggest that this was so. As you raise this matter of personal qualifications,,however, I am an interested observer of such frequent challenges to Papal teaching being mounted by others on this page whose qualifications, if any, judging by the quality of their contributions are not at all clear
    As it seems of some interest to you, I will leave you to discover what further academic and post grad qualifications I hold.

  21. JabbaPapa says:

    Toad :

    OED 2nd Edition (2009) :

    †1.B.I.1 Thoroughly made, formed, done, performed, carried out, accomplished. Obs. a.B.I.1.a Of a legal act: Duly completed.

    b.B.I.1.b Of offspring: Fully formed.

    2. a.B.I.2.a Fully accomplished; thoroughly versed, trained, skilled, or conversant. Const. in, with, †of a subject. arch.

    c.B.I.2.c Thoroughly learned or acquired, got by heart or by rote, ‘at one’s fingers’ ends’. Also of a person: Having learnt one’s lesson or part thoroughly. (Cf. letter-perfect, word-perfect.)

    3. a.B.I.3.a In the state proper to anything when completed; complete; having all the essential elements, qualities, or characteristics; not deficient in any particular.

    4. a.B.I.4.a In the state of complete excellence; free from any flaw or imperfection of quality; faultless. But often used of a near approach to such a state, and hence capable of comparison, perfecter (= more nearly perfect), perfectest (= nearest to perfection).

    … and so on.

    The full entry is rather lengthy.

  22. JabbaPapa says:

    PS Latin did not die out 2000 years ago.

  23. Robert says:

    Hm!
    “..He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’..”

    The problem is if you do not accept Our Lord, if you for instance you are not Baptised then you remain under Original Sin. Nobody goes to Heaven except through Our Lord. This is the Faith.

    Our Lord told Us to Love Our Enemies! Man/Woman are Created in the Image of God.

    The Faith teaches Us that the Cross we are given is exactly tailored to our capabilities. But there is a difference between the Cross of Christ and that of Satan and this world. Sin always carry’s a price which is Death. This is why for instance we find victim souls. Why in Confession we are given Penance. The Faith has always taught this.

    This Nothing is not really explained here is it? I do not like the word Heresy used here!
    ” It is not Catholic ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical ..”
    Well which Heresy? Is there an existing defined Heresy? or was this an as yet undefined new Heresy?

    “..chains of the laws’ rigidity ..” I suppose it depends upon what you mean by Law. Whose Law? Man’s? God’s? Satan’s? Canon Law? International Law? He can’t mean the Divine Law can He? He can’t mean the Anathema’s of the Church can He?

  24. toadspittle says:

    “PS Latin did not die out 2000 years ago.”
    Whoever suggested it did, Jabba?
    …What a perfectly absurd idea.

  25. toadspittle says:

    You see? As Popper says, perfectly reasonably, “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” That meanings are, in fact, all relative to the utterer.
    This is not a theological matter.
    …Although when anyone talks of “God” there’s no knowing what they might mean.
    Which makes it all rather awkward.

  26. JabbaPapa says:

    That meanings are, in fact, all relative to the utterer

    erm, no, meaning in language is produced by consensus, whether in particular circumstances between interlocutors, or in general by the received meanings, such as those detailed in reliable dictionaries, none of which I can remember seeing on your bookshelves …

    Purely idiolectic definitions certainly exist, but it is utterly false to claim that they are somehow the “basis” of meaning in language, because by very definition they cannot provide meaningful communication, unless and until they might be shared with and accepted by others.

  27. Robert says:

    Modern Man and Modern Bablyon, the seeking of so called new World Order without Christ is some kind of mishmash of Religions. Bablyon the Great (the whole world).
    The Anathema of God on Babel.
    The confusion of tongues.
    My understanding is that Christ restores ALL things including this confusion of tongues.
    We see at Pentecost how at a spiritual level men/man can understand each other irrespective of the language uttered or heard.
    St Pio for instance in the Confession was heard and understood in languages that He the Man didn’t know, We see the same with other Saints including with St Francis talking to animals.
    My understanding of the Triumph of the Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary will be one common language on the Earth , One Faith, One Church.
    How can this come about except through a sifting and mini judgement that separates the sheep from the goats. After two world wars and now worldly anti Christian Laws I am fearful of what this sifting might be!
    If the Church has or is to suffer the Passion (and here wisdom points to the mystical and very real Passion of Our Lady rather than the exterior one of Our Lord) then this elevation of Man/Men to a spiritual level and a new Pentecost will be so very necessary for this One Faith(one language).
    The Blog simply illustrates the problem, what on Earth was this Homily saying? Not I suspect what was intended.

  28. toadspittle says:

    Well of course, we “get by” with language as it is, Jabba.
    If you want a sandwich, you only have to ask for it.
    It’s when we start getting metaphysical that the problems start.
    And the heretics get chucked on the bonfire.
    (Roger can explain it better than I. As he did yesterday, at 23.21.)

    “reliable dictionaries, none of which I can remember seeing on your bookshelves …”
    …That’s because they are currently propping up the wonky leg of the bathroom cabinet.

  29. GC says:

    Jabba (3 above), I’m sure it’s all just a case of you misunderstanding Toad misunderstanding Popper, if you understand me?

  30. toadspittle says:

    I think she’s got it! By God, GC’s got it!

    Bravo!

  31. GC says:

    Dear Toad, I understand, though I may be wrong, that you may have misunderstood me, most excellent (perfect?) Toad.

  32. The Raven says:

    John

    You yourself told us that you were a member of the Irish bar, which means that you were either a member of King’s Inn or had trained overseas.

    As for the rest of your academic record, you’ve told us all about that too.

  33. John says:

    The Raven, My qualifications, whether I have told you about all of them or not, are really not in point. What is in point are the relevant qualifications – canon law, theology for example, if any, of those on this page who criticize the present Papal teaching, setting their views above those of the Vicar of Christ on earth.

  34. toadspittle says:

    “Dear Toad, I understand, though I may be wrong, that you may have misunderstood me, most excellent (perfect?) Toad.”
    Dear GC – I’ve no idea whether I misunderstand you or not. If I knew that, I’d understand you. Maybe.
    Nevertheless I am, as you point out – excellent. But imperfect.

    And my qualifications will bear up under even the Raven’s most searching scrutiny.
    …As they are non-existent

  35. The Raven says:

    Well, John, by your own argument your qualifications are very much in point: you are proclaiming an ecclesiology that contradicts the teaching of the Church (in this case your papal maximalism, which is rejected by Pastor Æternus). By what right or qualification do you do so?

    And in the absence of clear magisterial teaching from the Holy Father, we must interpret his comments in continuity with the teaching of the Church (pace Cardinal Müller), including that a pope may not introduce novelties.

  36. The Raven says:

    I am unlikely to make much scrutiny of your qualifications, Toad, as you make no boast of them! (In spite of having rather more to boast about than you let on).

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    The Raven is the only lawyer I know who does not boast. John Kehoe on the other hand…

    …but at least Keyhole doesn’t call himself “the great JK”, as I do sometimes in respect of JH.

    I’m still trying to solve the name of GC’s father who wrote a gripping, almost Grisham-ish, legal thriller on The Law of Salvage and Shipwrecks on the Malaysian Littoral Before 1909, but she’s so coy…probably in the hope of selling the movie rights to Mel Gibson.

  38. John says:

    johnhenrycn

    Back at your old game again, twisting my name according to your idea of fun. Rude man.

    I don’t boast. We all have an occupation; mine no better than anyone else’s

  39. johnhenrycn says:

    But more seriously, despite what some of my very respected confrères here have to say, I think Rorate Caeli is an absolute gem of Catholicity, which is not the same as comparing its words to the Seven Last Words.

  40. johnhenrycn says:

    Jabba (19:24) says that Latin did not die out 2000 years ago.

    But it was embalmed at least 100 years ago, no? Mind you, earlier today my mother-in-law and I were discussing the sadly decline in the frequency of epitaphs on tombstones, especially on the reverse side, which are really helpful for finding your loved ones in cemeteries. I spend at least 15 minutes searching for my parents’ and my brother’s because their graves lie in a large field and their headstones are non-descript. My grandfather (the only one I ever knew that is) has a swastika on his (in a public Canadian cemetery no less) awarded for military service in 1917, which certainly adds to its recognisability, if not to its ‘curb appeal’.

    Where was I? Right. So I told Mom that I’ve chosen my epitaph: Hodie mihi, cras tibi, which provoked gales of laughter.

  41. kathleen says:

    Mr John Kehoe – you have a nerve, calling our JH a “rude man”! The Moderator removed a VERY RUDE comment you directed towards me at 9:25 am yesterday… and I have just spotted another one he’s quite rightly removed at 8:55 pm today in which you give us your usual spin whilst slamming practically the whole lot of us here. (Does the Sacred Deposit of Faith mean nothing to you? That is what is being defended here above.)

    Really, Mr Kehoe, you are the perfect example of someone who can ‘dish it out, but can’t take it’.

    Although it must be your total lack of a sense of humour that is quite definitely unforgivable.
    (And before you start your querulous pouting, this last bit was meant as a joke!)

  42. johnhenrycn says:

    I was just thinking about how much Robert John Bennett’s friend and Mr Kehoe are so alike.

    Both are Irish. Both have degrees from the LSE. Both are bores. But at least JK is a real person. Sort of.

  43. johnhenrycn says:

    …but no, but yes…I’ve missed you, John Kehoe. The Toadspittle is becoming too tame since his third or fourth wife told him to stop pretending he’s Karl Popper’s love child, although he still drops that name into our discussions with predictable regularity. Yesterday most recently.

    You have promise as our new token liberal progressive, and I give you joy on your promotion.

  44. toadspittle says:

    JH is a very rude man, Kathleen. Ask him. At times, it’s necessary. (Not when referring to Toad, though.)
    Now I shall do a bit of boasting – as it appears to be in vogue.
    I had a friend* of whom it was said, ” He was never unintentionally rude to anyone.” I’d like to think that applies to JH.

    *Francis Bacon. Nor was I his love child. Unsurprisingly.
    (I also knew Freud, though nowhere near as well. That’s enough notorious-name dropping, Toad. Get back in your loathsome adobe hole.

    …Nor is Toad becoming too tame to suit the Moderators. It seems.

  45. John says:

    Kathleen,

    If I have ‘a nerve’, as you say, for protesting at rudeness on this page you are not yourself lacking in that quality also when you call in question the authenticity of Catholic teaching as articulated by Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

    You are not the only one aware of the importance of the deposit of faith, but I would prefer to accept the Pope’s commentary on that rather than the officious meddling of those who have no teaching function in the Catholic Church and no particular competence in theological matters

    I have yet to learn of the specific qualifications of those on this page who challenge the statements of Pope Francis.

    Do you think, Kathleen, that the Pope should first submit to you any statements he proposes to make for your scrutiny and imprimatur before articulating them to ensure that they accord with your notion of the deposit of faith ?

  46. Tom Fisher says:

    If I have ‘a nerve’, as you say, for protesting at rudeness on this page you are not yourself lacking in that quality also when you call in question the authenticity of Catholic teaching as articulated by Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ on earth

    What a remarkable sentence. I’m going steal it and use it on Christmas cards to former friends and distant relations.

  47. John says:

    Tom, Please do just that. It is not copyright. As an outsider, so encouraging for me to have at least one admirer among this strange mutual admiration society.

  48. JabbaPapa says:

    John, please keep calm — I think that you are unwittingly and unjustly, albeit for very good a priori prudential reasons, neglecting the reality of the particular Graces and Charisms that the Father may gift us with.

    They nevertheless have only a very specific scope, as well as definite limitations, and so you should not only be more aware of these in your judgments of sundry complete strangers, but you should also realise that the Pontifical Charism received by Fr. Jorge Bergoglio does NOT extend into every single aspect of the Catholicity itself, for only the Revelation Himself, our Lord the Christ of God, can possibly express the Purity of our Religion and our Faith and our Dogma in a manner that is free of any possibility of Error.

    None of we here when we express personal opinions, any more than the Holy Father when he expresses his, attempt to substitute such personal ideas for the teaching of the Magisterium — but this does not mean that either the Pope, when he expresses his own views, nor we in here when we express ours, are intrinsically worthy of being listened to except insofar and when those Graces and Charisms are being made manifest through our words.

    The Holy Father undoubtedly has been gifted with extraordinary Graces, and we are bound to consider his teachings, homilies, and opinions in the most serious manner — but he is no “fourth person” of the Trinity, no more than even the Holy Virgin Saint Mary might be.

    But you would do well, John, to remember that despite and contrary to any and all flaws that all of we mortals are subjected to, nobody’s thoughts nor mere opinions, not even those of a sitting Pope, can ever possibly be superior to the Graces and Charisms given to us by God through our Lord Jesus Christ for the Desire of our Redemption.

  49. JabbaPapa says:

    It is BTW an extremely serious Error in itself to ask “Who is right, Francis or the Church ?” …

    The question assumes an opposition between the Holy Father and the Holy Church that is obnoxious to the contents of reality.

  50. John says:

    All very true,JabbaPapa, but as between the views on what authentic Catholic doctrine is, as, bizarrely monopolized by some here, and those expressed by the Vicar of Christ on Earth I have no hesitation in choosing the latter, mainly because of the teaching authority of the Pope as chief pastor ; but also because the former have no teaching function within the Church, nor so far have they indicated possessing any formal qualifications in theology, canon law or related disciplines to support their contrary claims.
    P.S. Thank you for your advice to keep calm- I am in fact quite calm- but your concern about my neglecting graces and charisms is, I fear, misplaced. I am a practising Catholic with orthodox views and not highly delusional notions that I know better than the Pope, an affliction weighing heavily, I am afraid, on one or two contributors on this page

  51. ginnyfree says:

    EXACTLY!!!!!! It is called baiting. It is divisive. It causes consternation among those whose aren’t expecting to be asked who they should be loyal to, the Church or the Holy Father! Hello? Gee, who do you feel the need to be loyal to and supportive of? The Pope or the Church? Um, “BOTH/AND!!!” is the correct answer, being supportive of one is the same thing as being supportive of the other.

    And for those who don’t already have the common sense to know it, it is okay to disagree with the Pope. It is okay to have your own opinion about stuff. It is okay to say, “he could’ve expressed that a little better,” after he commits another of his silly verbal gaffs. He is NOT a very eloquent speaker, but he means no harm and those who say he does, intend harm themselves. There ARE those who want you to leave the bosom of the Church for a schismatic group that feels they are superior to all in their misuse of the Latin Mass and its contents. I will not go there, but their propaganda is much the same as the above article. It is they who are divisive and slick. Chose who you will be loyal to them and their crud, or the Church. THAT is the real question. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  52. toadspittle says:

    “It is BTW an extremely serious Error in itself to ask “Who is right, Francis or the Church ?”
    True, Jabba – very poor logic. No reason why they can’t both be wrong.

  53. ginnyfree says:

    Typical Toad. Thanks for sharing.

  54. johnhenrycn says:

    Jabba:

    John Keyhole, I think you’re funnier than you let on. I think you say things to upset us with no other motive than to relieve the bleak reality of your life on Craggy Island:

  55. johnhenrycn says:

    …Tom Fisher said it best @ 12:38 –
    “I’m going steal it and use it on Christmas cards to former friends and distant relations.”

    What I most like about this website is the remarkable humour and also the generosity of people like Robert/Roger/Dilbert, RobertJohnBennet, John Kehoe, Toad and Rabit (RIP) in contributing absolutely inane drivel for the likes of me to laugh at.

  56. johnhenrycn says:

    The Raven and John Kehoe will (I hope) appreciate this true anecdote from 30 years ago when His Honour, Judge Costello, wrote these words about the great johnhenry in the Ontario Reports:

    Plaintiff’s counsel complains of defence counsel’s lengthy examinations and cross-examinations and argues that cl. (e) of the rule be applied. Granted he is inclined to be prolix (: but his prolixity is a matter of style of style, not conduct…The plaintiff shall have party-and-party costs to the date of the advance payment…and the defendant🙂 shall have party-and-party costs from the date of the offer to settle.

    56 O.R. (2d) 175-177

  57. John says:

    Johnhenrycn,
    You might consider raising the bar from the ‘absolutely inane drivel’ which you say I and the others contribute to this website by desisting from your own rubbish and name-calling, and yourself contribute by contrast something more worthy of your scholarly ability which your criticism of us implies and of which we could all be suitably in awe.

  58. kathleen says:

    Mr John Kehoe @ 10:57

    “I have yet to learn of the specific qualifications of those on this page who challenge the statements of Pope Francis.”

    Nobody is “challenging” Pope Francis Mr Kehoe; simply defending the unchanging teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. You have been challenged though, as you sit and scornfully accuse others from your imagined lofty pedestal! Well, be careful – you might topple down from it if those “specific qualifications” you believe don’t exist among your opponents were shown to you. The Raven, GC and JH are all highly qualified academics, but they don’t need to go round bragging about it like some (ahem) people do…

    “Do you think, Kathleen, that the Pope should first submit to you any statements he proposes to make for your scrutiny and imprimatur before articulating them to ensure that they accord with your notion of the deposit of faith ?”

    No, no, Mr Kehoe, I think he should submit them to you! Then if he wanted to get away with murder (so to speak) he would have no problem in doing so, would he? Anything that comes out of the mouth of the Pope, you appear to believe is faultless.
    Yet our Holy Catholic Church has had some very bad Popes, who in their non-infallible utterances and actions have said and done evil things. Are you really unaware of that? They caused terrible scandal to the faithful in their time, but the Sacred Deposit of Faith remained intact. Would you have sided with these traitors simply because they were “Christ’s Vicars on Earth”?

    Just asking….

    P.S. And you just don’t “get” what Jabba was saying to you at 13:22, do you? (Sigh)

    P.P.S. Nor Tom’s very funny comment at 12:38 either! (Another sigh)

  59. johnhenrycn says:

    “…the former have no teaching function within the Church…”

    …is what John Kehoe says (@14:42) by which he means parents, Catholics on the street and others who to his way of *thinking* have no right to question the Pope.

  60. ginnyfree says:

    The music is beautiful!

  61. John says:

    Kathleen @ 20.45

    I don’t occupy any pedestal. I don’t brag, or need to brag, about my qualifications, simple matters of fact, with which I taught at university level. I accept, if you tell me and they so claim, that The Raven, GC and JH are also highly qualified academics. But what about yourself ? Just asking.

    [The Moderator – Enough of this haughty inquisition, John. It is both unchristian and untrue to infer that anyone who does not hold academic qualifications is not up to your standard and cannot opine on Catholuc matters. Give us a break, please. Twenty lines or more of tiresome interrogation has been deleted.]

  62. Robert says:

    Amos 3
    7 For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.

    When Heaven sends Prophet(s) such as the children of Fatima and to whom He has revealed His secrets then Peter has to Obey Heaven. God is higher than His Vicar.

    Pope Pius XII Obeyed Heavens Prophets.

  63. johnhenrycn says:

    JK: Just so there’s no misunderstanding ‘twixt us, I don’t possess any academic qualifications. I’m a mere country lawyer, an okay earthly destination that I’m content with. I do admire your return to university later in life.
    ___
    Completely off topic, but so amazing is this story that I offer it now to my CP&S buddies. I think it’s fiction, which is not the same thing as mere fiction.
    http://fatima.ageofmary.com/hell/letter-from-beyond/

  64. Tom Fisher says:

    It’s no secret that I have some sympathy for the economic concerns of Pope Francis — but reading this thread reminds me to pause and remember how lucky we were to have Benedict XVI. His ‘Introduction to Christianity’ together with his ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ trilogy, form the most lucid and compelling exposition of the basics of the Catholic faith written in our times. However much I may appreciate what Pope Francis is trying to do, I certainly miss the intellectual rigour and clarity of BXVI

  65. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom, thank you so much for your excellent and kind reference to Benedict. One of my bedroom chests of drawers holds the Jesus of Nazareth trilogy you refer to.
    ___
    …oops…no, that chest holds his God is Love, God is Truth, Saved in Hope trilogy of encyclicals. His Jesus trilogy is downstairs, not unadjacent to Anne Rice’s intended trilogy (she only wrote parts 1 and 2 before she lapsed from the Faith for the second time), which I will get to after finishing that homosexual Jew’s book on remembrance. Two weeks ago, my Jewish lesbian sister-in-law asked me what I was reading right now, and – being a completely honest person – I told her I was in the middle of Proust’s Sodom and Gomorrah, but she just offered me some cashew butter to spread on my crackers as if she’s never heard of the Cities of the Plain, and then she took me to the Yiddish Book Centre in western Massachusetts which everyone should put on their Bucket List (a crummy expression, I agree) where I found a book of schmaltz recipes.

    Are you still with me?

  66. Tom Fisher says:

    Two weeks ago, my Jewish lesbian sister-in-law asked me what I was reading right now, and – being a completely honest person – I told her I was in the middle of Proust’s Sodom and Gomorrah, but she just offered me some cashew butter to spread on my crackers as if she’s never heard of the Cities of the Plain

    And anecdotes like that, ladies and gentlemen, are why we love JH. Even if he is just a country lawyer

    http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/c/cf/Hyper-Chicken.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090822141314

  67. Tom Fisher says:

    JH – since you’re a fellow book collector – you might agree that it is a crying shame that no publisher (Ignatius Press, looking at you) has put out a uniform edition of his Jesus trilogy, and Introduction to Christianity. — Those four works, and possibly another that I haven’t thought of — would make a very fine set. And in combination would form an excellent “Introduction to Catholicism”

  68. johnhenrycn says:

    Much too kind thou art, TF. Here’s an even better (also true) anecdote related to me by said sister-in-law as she passed me the cashew butter:

    Her mother – let’s call her Carroll – a wealthy woman in NYC, has developed a medical condition that will soon force her to sell her chain of restaurants in New York, Washington, Florida, Nevada and the Bahamas. She will build a “Granny” house on her daughter’s land. They put out a tender for the construction which was answered by two competing builders named Bill and Bob (I kid you not!). She did not like either of their designs, which seemed too highfalutin for her tastes…

    …but Bill or Bob (I forget which) wrote to her and said that he absolutely had to build her house, no matter what. She wrote back to ask him why…

    It turns out that Bill (or Bob) had an 11 year old daughter who died some years back from cancer or something. She used to love going to Carroll’s Manhattan restaurant and she wrote a letter to the Children’s “Make-A-Wish” Foundation, asking that she be allowed to visit every one of Carroll’s restaurants before passing away, and her wish was honoured by the Foundation.

    Bill (or Bob) googled Carroll’s name at some point and made the connection, and he told Carroll that it was like his daughter was sending him a message from the Beyond to say that she was okay.

  69. toadspittle says:

    “What I most like about this website is the remarkable humour and also the generosity of people like Robert/Roger/Dilbert, RobertJohnBennet, John Kehoe, Toad and Rabit (RIP) in contributing absolutely inane drivel for the likes of me to laugh at.”

    I cannot, and will not speak for the other usual suspects, JH – by my drivel is not inane. It is very nane drivel.
    As Wittgenstein ( Yes, not Popper) said, “My job is to take the incomprehensible nonsense of philosophy and make it comprehensible nonsense.” ….Like me with CP&S. (it says here.)

    I will now hand over to Robert for the latest breaking news from Fatima.

  70. Robert says:

    Well thank you Toad

    Fatima?
    Simply a decision by the Shepherds to disobey Heaven and not to publish the 3rd secret of Fatima nor to Consecrate Russia in the appropriate format set out by Heaven in 1960.
    40 years later to publish a Vision that is more or less similar to Emmerichs’s. Then to interpret as a human opinion that Fatima was now in the Past.

    Faith was the key issue identified by Lucia and the acknowledged loss of Faith in Europe can be identified with the 1960’s onwards.
    But the responsiblity for the Faith(Light) was given to the Apostles and their Successors (the Shepherds).
    Therefor it follows the loss of Faith (Light) lies with the Shepherds from 1960 onwards.
    If Fatima was in the Past then why are we know seeing Global Laws on Divorce, Abortion, Birth Control and other Beastilities and Christianity in decline?
    The blame lies with those entrusted with the Faith (the Shepherds) not the flock, and certainly not the lambs!

    Going back to this blog.

    The Sacraments deal with the individual and their Soul. In the End we are judged as an individual. This is what happens with the Sacraments sic Confession, Baptism etc…
    Our Lord leaves the flock to seek out the Lost Lamb! The Prodigal Son! The individual!

    However when it comes to the Church (the Flock) the rules have to be absolutes. Sic whatsoever you bind etc..

    So we look at this homily through the eyes of a child witnessing the Kings new clothes.

    “.. The Blog simply illustrates the problem, what on Earth was this Homily saying? Not I suspect what was intended. ”

    This comment about rigidity and the Law (but that’s what papal infallibilty is about isn’t it!) , because he seems to be calling the papal absolutes rigid and therefor heretical.

  71. Robert says:

    Jabba
    “..
    Faith was the key issue identified by Lucia and the acknowledged loss of Faith in Europe can be identified with the 1960’s .. ” and “.. onwards. But the responsiblity for the Faith(Light) was given to the Apostles and their Successors (the Shepherds).
    Therefor it follows the loss of Faith (Light) lies with the Shepherds from 1960 onwards.
    If Fatima was in the Past then why are we now seeing Global Laws on Divorce, Abortion, Birth Control and other Beastilities and Christianity in decline?
    The blame lies with those entrusted with the Faith (the Shepherds) not the flock, and certainly not the lambs!..”

  72. JabbaPapa says:

    Roger, you simply cannot legitimately suggest that your personal disagreement with any personal interpretations might somehow invalidate an official publication by the Holy See.

    Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal interpretations are no more binding than the personal interpretations of some other men, which you appear to claim as somehow justifying the accusation that several Pontiffs have been lying, whereas the publication of the Third Secret itself is non-debatable as regards its contents.

  73. Roger says:

    Jabba
    Please do not impute or imply words or meanings which I never wrote.
    Just to refresh your memory lapse.
    “..
    40 years later to publish a Vision that is more or less similar to Emmerich’s. Then to interpret as a human opinion that Fatima was now in the Past.
    ..”

    It is Cardinal Raztinger who completely agrees with me over the crisis in the Faith!

    Published Testimony: (November 1984)Cardinal Ratzinger

    On November 11, 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave an interview in Jesus magazine, a publication of the Pauline Sisters. The interview is entitled “Here is Why the Faith is in Crisis,” and was published with the Cardinal’s explicit permission. In this interview, Cardinal Ratzinger revealed that he had read the Third Secret and that the Secret refers to “dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world.”

    Cardinal Ratzinger said in the same interview that the Secret also refers to “the importance of the Novissimi [the Last Times / the Last Things]” and that “If it is not made public, at least for the time being, it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational …” The Cardinal further revealed that “the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima …”

    Jabba will explain to Us the meaning of the Vision revealed in 2000 and how this concurs with the above article!! We await His wisdom with baited breath.

    Signed Confused Roger!!

  74. JabbaPapa says:

    “the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima …”

    This makes no sense whatsoever. The third secret refers to the secrets of Fatima ??? Does the Epistle to the Hebrews refer to Hebrews ?

    It is in fact an outright mistranslation of the Cardinal’s words, which were anyway hacked up piecemeal to fit as excitingly as possible into a tiny print article.

    “it [the third secret] adds nothing to that which a Christian should know from Revelation”

    “we need to avoid swapping religious prophecy for sensationalism”

    “the contents of the third secret correspond with the annunciation of Scripture and are coherent with many other Marian apparitions, including the same Fatima events, in their notable contents. Conversion and penitence are the necessary conditions for salvation.”

    I am UTTERLY FED UP with the lies that are continually propagated by the conspiracy theory addict “fatimists”.

  75. JabbaPapa says:

    In this interview, Cardinal Ratzinger revealed that he had read the Third Secret and that the Secret refers to “dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world.”

    As you can see, this is a direct lie.

  76. JabbaPapa says:

    In his interview, he states that the Revelation is “a radical call to conversion, in the absolute seriousness of History, and a warning against the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore the faith and life of the world.”

    The continual lies about the third secret are a work of the Devil IMO, especially in such instances as this where one can see that Cardinal Ratzinger’s words have been warped about and presented as supposedly meaning their almost diametric opposite.

  77. ginnyfree says:

    Bravo Jabba! Job well done.
    What always amazes me is that these “super-faithful” Catholics never see the obvious: they are calling into question the Church’s Christ given Authority to do that which they feel is best for the Church. What the Church says regarding faith and morals in such cases is the bottom line and is NOT to be questioned. There are the very matters upon which God gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them to prevent His children, the body of the Church, you and me, from being lead astray by every puff of wind that blows across the barque of St. Peter. Faithful means exactly what it says: faithful no matter what. I too cannot stand the arrogance of persons who think a Marian Apparition is a legitimate excuse to defy the Church and her Authority to determine if a particular event is worthy of belief. They will stare at you and wonder why you don’t prefer the Queen of Heaven’s words over and above anyone else!!! As if to say that Mary would ever place such a yoke on any of her children. Hello? Thanks for telling the Truth and defending her honor in this matter.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  78. Robert says:

    Jabba

    “it [the third secret] adds nothing to that which a Christian should know from Revelation”
    { that’s the Book of Apocalpyse ? }

    “we need to avoid swapping religious prophecy for sensationalism”
    { absolutely! so this is Prophecy and therefor from God Amos 3,7 }

    “the contents of the third secret correspond with the annunciation of Scripture and are coherent with many other Marian apparitions, including the same Fatima events, in their notable contents. Conversion and penitence are the necessary conditions for salvation.”
    { what other Marian apparitions? What scripture reference? }

    These are my words :-

    “.. a decision by the Shepherds to disobey Heaven and not to publish the 3rd secret of Fatima nor to Consecrate Russia in the appropriate format set out by Heaven in 1960. 40 years later to publish a Vision that is more or less similar to Emmerich’s. Then to interpret as a human opinion that Fatima was now in the Past.. ..”
    “.. the responsiblity for the Faith(Light) was given to the Apostles and their Successors (the Shepherds). Therefor it follows the loss of Faith (Light) lies with the Shepherds from 1960 onwards…”

    Even more Confused Roger.

  79. JabbaPapa says:

    Revelation”
    { that’s the Book of Apocalpyse ? }

    THE Revelation is the Logos, the Verbum Dei.

    {1:1} In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
    {1:2} Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.
    {1:3} Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est,
    {1:4} in ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum:
    {1:5} et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebræ eam non comprehenderunt.

    The Revelation is the Son of God and the Son of Man, He is our Lord the Christ.

    Therefor it follows

    … that you are pursuing a fantasy that you have created for yourself out of misinterpreted private revelations instead of cleaving as solidly as you can to THE Revelation, in that He surpasses all of these things.

  80. Robert says:

    I never use the word revelation ( that word was used by Cardinal Razinger )

    Public revelation is what we have in Scripture and Tradition. It was completed, finished, when the last Apostle died and the New Testament was finished.

    Cardinal Ratzinger separately used the words ” religious prophecy ”
    We have God’s promise of Prophets to the End of Time. Amos 3,7
    Popes Obey God’s Prophecy. Leo XIII and Pius XII that’s not exclusive by the way.

    My words
    “.. a decision by the Shepherds to disobey Heaven and not to publish the 3rd secret of Fatima nor to Consecrate Russia in the appropriate format set out by Heaven in 1960. 40 years later to publish a Vision that is more or less similar to Emmerich’s. Then to interpret as a human opinion that Fatima was now in the Past.. ..”

    Also My words confirming the Authority of the Church and its hierarchy.
    ““.. the responsiblity for the Faith(Light) was given to the Apostles and their Successors (the Shepherds). .”

    These are your words
    ” … that you are pursuing a fantasy that you have created for yourself out of misinterpreted private revelations instead of cleaving as solidly as you can to THE Revelation, in that He surpasses all of these things. ”

    Again totally confused!
    Signed Roger

  81. JabbaPapa says:

    Public revelation is what we have in Scripture and Tradition. It was completed, finished, when the last Apostle died and the New Testament was finished.

    Frankly, that’s Protestant doctrine.

    The living Revelation is the Christ, and He was not “completed, finished, when the last Apostle died and the New Testament was finished”.

    Indeed, the Sainted Apostles themselves are living in the Heaven of God.

    The public revelation is that part of the Revelation that God has chosen to reveal to us publicly — it is most centrally located BTW in the Eucharistic Mass, not in words nor customs ; though these too are in the core of the Catholicity.

    The Eucharist and the Christ are nevertheless quite clearly superior in themselves to the Tradition and even the Scripture, though these are clearly what keep us united as the Holy Catholic Church. The Scripture and the Tradition in public Revelation are Graces that the Lord has provided to us for our conversion and as the means of helping us to participate in the Church of God and with His Love.

    Ultimately, the Revelation is God, and is only completed and finished in the Godhead Itself. Public revelation is that which He has given to us for the purpose of our Faith in and Love for that Truth, our Faith for and Love towards our brethren via the Catholicity and the Orthodoxy of our God-given Religion.

  82. ginnyfree says:

    Robert, your rants do get tedious. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  83. Robert says:

    Jabba
    June 15, 2016 at 21:07

    I am speechless.
    Without the Apostles (the Apostolic Succession there would be No Eucharist, No Mass, No Sacraments, No Popes), Where do you think these came from?

    I just refer you back to my entry June 14, 2016 at 10:02
    And The Popes have recognised and approved of Fatima as an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church
    Catechism #67

    For the benefit of readers
    The Second Vatican Council and the resulting Catechism of the Catholic Church teach very clearly that all which God intended to reveal publically was passed down completely to the apostles. At the close of the Apostolic Age there was nothing more to add. Christ was no mere prophet or teacher, but “the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him [God] has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #65). Public revelation is therefore confined to the teachings, preaching, miracles, and signs of God written down in the scriptures and passed on through sacred Tradition. Together, sacred Tradition and the sacred scriptures comprise the deposit of faith.

    Catechism
    III. CHRIST JESUS — “MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION”25

    God has said everything in his Word

    65 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.”26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

    In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

    There will be no further Revelation

    66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

    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.

    Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

  84. The Raven says:

    Jabba

    The whole interview is given here: http://www.testielettronici.org/Cristianesimo/Monografie/Rapporto%20sulla%20Fede,intervista%20a%20Ratzinger%20di%20Vittorio%20Messori.pdf

    My Italian isn’t fabulous (I far prefer the Spanish dialect of Latin), but it does look as though the excerpt relied on by the fantasists fatimaists is either a radical abridgement or journalistic invention.

    It also appears that they are attributing some of the words of the question to Pope Benedict, when his answers rebut the point made by the questioner.

  85. Robert says:

    Approvals by the Popes
    Papal Approval

    In 1917, as the First World War was being fought across Europe and showing no signs of concluding peacefully, Pope Benedict XV turned in petition to the Blessed Virgin Mary, through Whom all graces are dispensed. The Pope urgently asked all of the Christian people to beg the Virgin Mary to obtain the peace of the world, and to solemnly entrust the task to Her alone.

    He wished the world to “have recourse to the Heart of Jesus, throne of graces, and to this throne to have recourse through the intermediary of Mary”, and he ordered that the invocation ‘Queen of Peace, pray for us’ be permanently added to the Litany of Loreto. Then, confidently placing the peace of the world in Her hands, the Pope made another appeal:

    To Mary, then, who is the Mother of Mercy and omnipotent by grace, let loving and devout appeal go up from every corner of the earth – from noble temples and tiniest chapels, from royal palaces and mansions of the rich as from the poorest hut – from blood-drenched plains and seas. Let it bear to Her the anguished cry of mothers and wives, the wailing of innocent little ones, the sighs of every generous heart: that Her most tender and benign solicitude may be moved and the peace we ask for be obtained for our agitated world.

    The gracious Virgin responded quickly to the urgent pleas of the Pope: only eight days later She appeared at Fatima and gave to the Pope and humanity a plan for peace. However, this plan first required the obedience of the people and especially of Christ’s Vicar on earth, the Pope. God and the Blessed Virgin agreed to give the world peace, but since it was the Pope who asked to be shown the way to peace, his cooperation in the designs of Heaven became requisite.

    Thus, from the beginning the Holy Father has had a specific role in the Message of Fatima: because of his insistence God sent His holy Mother to Fatima; and when the Pope fulfills God’s demands, the Blessed Virgin will bring peace to the world. Therefore, because their role in the Fatima Message is so primary, let us examine how the Popes have approved of and promoted Fatima.

    Firstly, Pope Benedict XV re-established the ancient diocese of Leiria on January 17, 1918, and in an April 29, 1918 letter to the Portuguese bishops, he referred to the occurrences at Fatima as “an extraordinary aid from the Mother of God.” In 1929, at an audience of the Portuguese Seminary in Rome, Pope Benedict’s successor, Pius XI, personally offered each seminarian two pictures of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima. Pope Pius also wished to read all the results of the Canonical Process of Fatima so that he would be personally acquainted with Our Lady’s apparitions.

    On October 1, 1930 the Sacred Penitentiary under Pius XI granted a partial indulgence to those who individually visited the Shrine and prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, and a plenary indulgence once a month to those who went there in a group. These indulgences granted in Rome came just in time to prepare minds to receive with entire confidence the soon-to-be-announced Episcopal approval, which the Holy See had thus discreetly supported.

    With the knowledge and consent of Pope Pius XI, on October 13, 1930 Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) announced the results of the official inquiry of Fatima in a pastoral letter on the apparitions. This official approval contained these important paragraphs:

    In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby: Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.
    Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.

    Pope Pius XII, whose Episcopal consecration took place on May 13, 1917, the date of Our Lady’s first apparition at Fatima, did many things to help encourage devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. He was known as “the Pope of Fatima”. He said, “The time for doubting Fatima has passed, the time for action is now.” When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: “We can hardly believe our eyes.”

    In 1940, Pope Pius XII spoke of Fatima for the first time in an official Papal text, his encyclical Saeculo exeunte, which was written to encourage the Church in Portugal to further its foreign missionary activity. In the text he stated: “Let the faithful not forget, especially when they recite the Rosary, so recommended by the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, to ask the Virgin Mother of God to obtain missionary vocations, with abundant fruits for the greatest possible number of souls. …”

    He then concluded the encyclical with, “Without any doubt God in His goodness will pour out His abundant blessings on these generous enterprises and on the most noble Portuguese nation. The Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of the Rosary venerated at Fatima, the Holy Mother of God who brought victory at Lepanto, will assist you with Her most powerful assistance. …” Also in 1940, the Holy Father granted the new diocese of Nampula, in Mozambique, Our Lady of Fatima as its Patroness.

    In October of 1942, in response to a message given to him by Sister Lucy in 1940, Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention of Russia. In early 1943, Sister Lucy explained that the Lord told her that He would accept this Act of Consecration to help speed the end of the World War II, but that it will not obtain worldwide peace. As predicted, this act obtained the end of the war, but did not usher in the reign of peace Our Lady promised, as it was not a consecration of specifically Russia, and the world’s bishops did not participate in it.

    On May 4, 1944, the Holy See instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    In 1946 His Eminence Cardinal Masella, acting as the personal Legate of the Holy Father, crowned Our Lady of Fatima, “Queen of the World.” The entire Portuguese episcopate and over 600,000 pilgrims gathered at Fatima for the event.

    In 1950 Pope Pius XII even said to the Master General of the Dominicans: “Tell your religious that the Pope’s thinking is contained in the Message of Fatima.”

    On October 13, 1951 the Pope’s Legate, Cardinal Tedeschini, was sent to Fatima for the closing of the Holy Year. He told the crowd that Pope Pius XII had himself seen, repeated in Rome, the Miracle of the Sun that had occurred at the last Fatima apparition. It is clear that the Holy Father chose Fatima for this major event, to bring attention to the Message of Our Lady of Fatima. The Holy Father had, in fact, been graced to see the Miracle of the Sun on four separate occasions the previous year: October 30 and 31, November 1 (the day Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption), and November 8 (the octave of the same solemnity).

    On July 7,1952 Pope Pius XII, in response to the petitions of the Russian Catholics, consecrated Russia and her people to the Immaculate Heart. Unfortunately, the petitioners were unaware that the Holy Father had to do the Consecration in union with the bishops of the world. Thus, Pius XII did the Consecration in a private ceremony, without inviting the world’s bishops to join him, as Our Lady requested.

    On October 11, 1954 His Holiness issued an encyclical on the Queenship of Mary, and in it he referred to Her miraculous image at Fatima. Two years later the Church that stands on the apparition site at Fatima was elevated to the rank of Basilica.

    In 1964, during the Second Vatican Council, at the solemn closing ceremonies at the end of the third session, before all the Catholic bishops of the world, Pope Paul VI renewed Pius XII’s consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He also announced that a special envoy was to be sent to Fatima. In the Pope’s name the Papal Legate would carry, as a symbolic gift, a Golden Rose to the Fatima Shrine. The inscription on it would say that Pope Paul was entrusting the entire Church to the care of Our Lady of Fatima. Then, in fact, on May 13, 1965, through his Papal Legate, as he had announced at the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul presented the Golden Rose at Fatima, commending the whole Church to Our Lady of Fatima’s care.

    On May 13, 1967, on the fiftieth anniversary of the first Fatima apparition, the Holy Father went on a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. He wrote an encyclical on the occasion of his pilgrimage. While there, he also blessed seventy National Pilgrim Virgin statues, to travel continually so that many nations would remember and practice the Message of Fatima.

    Before his election to the Papacy, Pope John Paul I exhibited a particular devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, and as Cardinal Patriarch of Venice he led a pilgrimage there. It was during this trip that he met with Sister Lucy, and was very struck by the meeting.

    Pope John Paul II has many times exhibited his approval of Fatima. He has visited Fatima three times – in 1982, 1991 and 2000. During his 2000 visit he beatified the two deceased seers, Jacinta and Francisco. He has also made the Feast day of Our Lady of Fatima universal by ordering it to be included in the Roman Missal.

    During his homily at Mass in Fatima on May 13, 1982, Pope John Paul II said, “The appeal of the Lady of the Message of Fatima is so deeply rooted in the Gospel and the whole of Tradition that the Church feels that the Message imposes a commitment on Her.” He also said, “The Message is addressed to every human being. … Because of the continuing increase of sin and the dangers, such as nuclear war, now threatening humanity, the Message of Fatima is more urgent and relevant in our time than it was when Our Lady appeared 65 years ago.”

    He also stated, “Today John Paul II, successor of St. Peter, presents himself before the Mother of the Son of God in Her shrine at Fatima. In what way does he come? He presents himself reading again with trepidation the motherly call to penance, to conversion, the ardent appeal of the Heart of Mary that resounded at Fatima 65 years ago. Yes he reads it again with trepidation in his heart because he sees how many people and societies – how many Christians – have gone in the opposite direction to the one indicated in the Message of Fatima. Sin has thus made itself firmly at home in the world, and denial of God has become widespread in the ideologies, ideas and plans of human beings.”

    Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways.

    Peter has spoken let the rest be silent!

  86. toadspittle says:

    “When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: “We can hardly believe our eyes.””
    Sounds a bit like irony to me. But who knows?

    “Then, in fact, on May 13, 1965, through his Papal Legate, as he had announced at the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul presented the Golden Rose at Fatima, commending the whole Church to Our Lady of Fatima’s care.”
    Somehow it makes it all sound like the Cannes Film Festival.

  87. kathleen says:

    If Our Blessed Lady’s messages to visionaries at apparition sites EVER contradicts anything in the established dogmatic teaching of the Church, this is a clear sign that either the apparition is a total hoax, or it comes from satanical sources and not from Heaven. This is clearly not the case with Fatima where all the Church’s doctrines, including that of Purgatory and the Four Last Things, were reaffirmed by Mary.

    When Our Lady at Fatima spoke of future turmoil in the Church, no names or specific date were mentioned. Yet what She said falls in with startling accuracy with Her messages at Quito (more than four centuries ago), La Salette (19th century), and Akita (in the 20th).

    And those warnings certainly appear to be referring to our present generation!

  88. JabbaPapa says:

    Without the Apostles

    Where dis I ever say we were “without” them ?

    I am speechless

    Obviously not.

  89. JabbaPapa says:

    Thank you Raven for the link to the interview.

    Cardinal Ratzinger :Nessuna apparizione è indispensabile alla fede, la Rivelazione è terminata con Gesù Cristo, Egli stesso è la Rivelazione.

    hmmmmm, isn’t that exactly what I said too ?

    The Cardinal wisely denounces potential “utilizzazioni sensazionaliste del contenuto”.

  90. JabbaPapa says:

    When Our Lady at Fatima spoke of future turmoil in the Church

    No, at Fatima she spoke of wars and of persecutions of the Church IF her warnings were not heeded.

    You really should avoid, kathleen, presenting your own interpretations of the three secrets as if these interpretations were the content of the Virgin’s messages.

  91. JabbaPapa says:

    Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways

    Why on EARTH are you trying to “instruct” people at such great length in that which everyone here is aware of ? Are you trying to suggest that anyone in here is denying the validity of the Apparitions at Fatima ?

  92. Robert says:

    I would like to share with you all something. Especially with these sad and it seems daily increasing murders and massacres and mindless violence.

    http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-169/Star.htm
    One of the glorious titles of Our Lady is Morning Star

    Father Faber’s hymn—”Sweet Star of the Sea.”

    Deep night hath come down on us, Mother, deep night,
    And we need more than ever the guide of Thy light;
    For the darker the night is, the brighter should be
    Thy beautiful shining, sweet Star of the Sea.

    Walsingham that lay as it were desolate and ravaged for centuries.
    At the beginning of the 20th century this Light began to shine again.

    I love this, because Fatima was at the dawn of the 20th century. “the star preceding the sun” !!!

    “.. We read in an old book of the 16th century: “Like as the morning cometh before the sun rising, and divideth the night from the day, so the Virgin Mary rose as the morning before the Sun of Justice, and divided the state of grace from the state of sin, the children of God from the children of darkness. Whereupon the Church singeth to Her praise that Her glorious life gave light to the world and illumined all the Church and congregations of faithful people.” So a Solemn Mass was sung every day at early dawn in Her honor, and the bell for rising was called “Saint Mary’s bell.” St. Bridget of Sweden calls Her “the star preceding the sun.”
    ..”

    My prayers for you all and yours.
    Roger

  93. John says:

    Isn’t it high time we gave all these visionaries and supposed apparitions at Fatima, La Salette et al a rest and concentrate on reality ? None of them are Articles of Faith.

  94. Robert says:

    John
    Actually all of this is in the Public revelation of the Faith.

    Acts Of Apostles 2
    17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.

    It has become almost obligatory to deny God’s omnipresence in this world.
    That somehow God will never intervene.
    That is not and never has been the case.
    There have always been and will always be Gods Prophets.

    Gods does nothing without first telling us through His prophets.

    That word Reality has come to mean materialism, modernism and that naturalism (atheism).
    But Reality is the four last things!!
    Eternity that’s Reality.

  95. John says:

    Robert,
    The Acts of the Apostles, certainly. But the private revelations of holy people, even of caononized saints, do not bind us as matters of faith. We have Knock Shrine here in Ireland where there was supposedly an apparition in 1879. Many people go to pray there. So have I. Pope John Paul 11 went there in 1979 and created the local church a basilica. Like some others, I do not believe there was any apparition. There are very many good believers to be sure. But belief in apparitions,, whether in Fatima, La Salette or elsewhere,, is not an Article of Faith

  96. mmvc says:

    Well said, Robert (@ 10:24), well said!

  97. ginnyfree says:

    Sorry Robert but I gotta butt in: NO CATHOLIC IS EVER REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IN ANYTHING CONTAINED IN A PRIVATE REVELATION EVEN AFTER THE CHURCH AUTHENTICATES THAT A PARTICULAR PERSON OR PERSONS EXPERIENCED THE SUPERNATURAL.

    None of what happened at Fatima is binding on anyone and to claim that the Mother of God placed this anti-doctrinal burden upon the shoulders of the Pope and the rest of the Church is too much for this Catholic gal. The Blessed Virgin Mary is sinless still. She cannot commit any sins STILL. So, to claim that she asked anyone to go contrary to the Church is a stretch too far for me and it should show anyone the actual intent of those misusing the Fatima events for their own purposes.

    NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO BELIEVE ANYTHING ABOUT FATIMA. To say contrary is grave error. AND SO PERSON NOT BEING REQUIRED TO BELIEVE ANYTHING ABOUT FATIMA, THAT ALSO MEANS NOTHING BINDING HAPPENED THERE, ON ANYONE, FROM THE POPE HIMSELF, TO THE LAST LITTLE OLD LADY IN THE BACK PEW AT THE PARISH IN THE FURTHEST REACHES OF THE CHURCH THE WORLD OVER.

    No one is bound by any of it Robert, so when you behave as if we are, you are advocating for a grave error.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  98. John says:

    ginnyfree. Well thank you and Deo Gratias for this intervention. Some here are confusing what is a matter of devotion with what is binding on Catholics as a matter of faith. Private revelations, whether they originate from Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette et al ,remain private revelations.

    I have been to a number of Marian shrines and have always been impressed with the genuine devotion of others while, like some others, still myself remaining a skeptic

  99. Robert says:

    Ginny

    Our Lady of Fatima is on the altar which means that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered to Heaven by the whole church on her Day.

    You completely misunderstand Revelation and Prophecy.

    The Jews made the same mistake with St John The Baptist, As Our lord said to the Jews no sign but that of Jonas. Jonas was a Prophet His Prophecy was to warn and ask for repentance! Reparation.

    We have Our Lord telling you “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” that is part of Public Revelation. The Church is telling you that the New Testament (the Apostolic Age) is in tradition and word Public Revelation. That’s the New Testament including Apoc,

    Do you seriously think that Heaven is going to let this world or a Masonic Curia destroy His Church?
    Perhaps you think Our Lady’s apparitions are on her own whim!
    She is giving the world messages from God.
    She is witnessing the Faith against the modernism and the hatred and the paganism.

    No you don’t have to believe and when you find yourself in front of Our Lord he will say to you BUT MY MOTHER TOLD YOU!!!

    I mean think what Heaven told the Shephards!
    Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart Of Mary in this way and the world will have Peace (Christ Peace) tell the world in 1960 the 3rd secret of Fatima.

    Think! amongst the Apostles was Judas. The Truth is that in ever Age you will find rotten apples in the Church. This sadly includes demonstrably Popes, whom are almost certainly in Hell.

    Yes you can ignore the teaching of the Church and the Popes over Fatima! But Heaven has made this a stipulation to the Shepherds (and if they will not do it then they are accountable to God) over bringing about the Period of Peace!

    Acts Of Apostles 2
    17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams

  100. ginnyfree says:

    John, I love the Blessed Virgin. She is my Mother. I am consecrated to Jesus thru her. All I have, I have received thru her direct intercession on my behalf since the day I completed my consecration. It will remain this way for me until death. I am a child of Mary as much as I am a child of God. I have a hard time when some try to mislead others with her as their source for misinformation. It is insane to claim her as one’ Mother in faith as every Baptised Catholic can do thru Jesus Christ and then DISHONOR her by such actions as are demonstrated pretty well here in this thread. Mary would never, ever demand the things attributed to her here. It is claiming she is not only sinning, but calling others to sin against the Church. This is an outrage to me and why these supposedly uberly devotees of the very same Blessed Virgin don’t see this, is beyond me to explain. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  101. ginnyfree says:

    Robert, you’re wrong and it would be great if you stopped attributing your sinful rantings to an inspiration and spiritual direction of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You dishonor each and every time you do so. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  102. Robert says:

    Ginny
    I haven’t a clue what you are ranting about.

    Pius IX Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
    Pius XII Dogma of the Assumption

    your words
    “..it would be great if you stopped attributing your sinful rantings to an inspiration and spiritual direction of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ”

    my words
    “..
    Perhaps you think Our Lady’s apparitions are on her own whim!
    She is giving the world messages from God.
    ..”
    “..
    Heaven told the Shepherds!
    Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart Of Mary in this way and the world will have Peace (Christ Peace) tell the world in 1960 the 3rd secret of Fatima.
    ..”
    “..
    Yes you can ignore the teaching of the Church and the Popes over Fatima! But Heaven has made this a stipulation to the Shepherds (and if they will not do it then they are accountable to God) over bringing about the Period of Peace!
    ..”

    This is what Our Lord said to Lucy (his Prophet) confirming His Mothers words!
    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.”

    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.”

    (Our Lord’s warning is a grave one indeed, referring as it does to His command, through St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, to the King of France that he consecrate his nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The King chose to ignore the command and thus condemned his dynasty and throne to the horrors of revolution, chaos and the guillotine.)

    Here you have Our Lord expressly confirming HIS command to the Shepherds and reminding of His command to the King Of France!

    As I have told you and I repeat you are confusing Revelation with Prophecy!
    Pius XII however knew the difference!

  103. toadspittle says:

    “You completely misunderstand Revelation and Prophecy.”

    Sums the whole gruesome boiling up, really.
    Maybe Ginny misunderstands, maybe Robert does. Maybe everybody does. Everybody seems to think they don’t. Maybe they are all wrong. We can never know for certain.
    We each think we are the only ones that have Got It Right, don’t we?.
    That’s why there are thousands of religions all over the world all “understanding” The Truth.

    Why do people assume that – if the Pope is wrong, the Church must necessarily be right?
    Maybe they’ve both got it wrong.

  104. Robert says:

    Ginny and John
    Don’t know whether you have ever read Mary of Agreda’s Book The Mystical City Of God?

    This book was written by Mary of Agreda in 1655. She was shown interiorly and exteriorly the Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
    Most are aware of Emmerich but few of Agreda. The Life of this Great mystic isn’t really known but she was greatly favoured by God! Her Bilocution’s to America only came to light years later when missionaries arrived and meet the natives who has seen Agreda!

  105. John says:

    Robert,
    No, I have not read ‘The Mystical City of God’, no doubt interesting. However, I dare say I could mention a number of books which you probably have not read. Where would that take us ?

    My intervention on this blog is, however, concerned only with a basic principle which is that the private revelations of the saints or of other holy people, however much well received and regarded by Catholics generally, are not matters of belief of the same binding nature as an Article of Faith. Belief in Fatima or in Lourdes, for example, is not compulsory or of the essence of the Catholic faith whereas belief in resurrection of the body or in the other Articles of faith in the Apostles Creed is.

  106. Robert says:

    John

    I only mentioned Mystical City Of God because of the deep insights into Our Lady.
    More than happy to listen to recommendations.

    The altars are filled with Feasts , religious orders, great saints, Doctors of the Church, Popes, seculars many of whom a the direct consequence of private visions.
    Look at St Francis (our Lord told Him to rebuild the Church).
    Look at St Teresa of Avila.
    The Sacred Heart of Jesus.
    Look at St Paul and St Stephen.
    I was told years ago, and its true that the really Great things of God were all private! This is especially true of the Old Testament by the way.
    Think of the Annuciation and Incarnation. Think of the St Peter receiving the Papacy. The Visitation, Presentation, Nativity, Assumption, Resurrection. These were all actually private.

    Lets look at spiritual direction and Obedience. The spiritual direction is to safeguard the seer against error NOT to change, edit or otherwise tamper with God’s work.

    The Church knows all of this.

    As for Heaven and Popes look at Catherine of Siena and Pope Gregory XI.

    Heaven puts down the proud and might , exults the humble!
    The were Apostles chosen by Our Lord?
    Well what happened to those Wise and Prudent Jewish High priests and that Sanhedrin?
    Only two of the Sanhedrin (Nicodemus and Joseph) were chosen but placed under the Apostles.

    Pius XII only decision was whether the message was from Heaven! True apparition or Not? that’s the only decision. Once he was certain it was Our Lord HE OBEYED.

    The Sun Danced At Fatima and yet you have those Wise and Proud saying Yes its God’s work, but we don’t have to Obey! That’s exactly what the Jewish Priests did, they knew the miracles, the knew the Child and His parents. But they didn’t want to be blamed for the killing the Messiah so they pushed that onto the Romans (but insisted that the Christ was killed)!

    Well then you know whom to blame the Shepherds!

    So please do not come back with nonsense that places the servants above the Lord.

  107. ginnyfree says:

    Yes, Robert, I’ve actually read selections from her work, but not the whole thing. Have you read the whole thing? Probably not. It is a large work. The work itself was condemned by the way and it required some editing. She has not moved beyond the stage of canonization called Venerable and she probably never will. There have been NO MIRACLES attributed to her yet. Um, that is telling. But that little discussion is for another day.

    Here is some information about her book you’d like to use as a credible source for your own inventions of doctrinal adherence, etc. It is found at the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia and easily access by all. “It had already been condemned in Rome, 4 August, 1681, by the Congregation of the Inquisition, and Innocent XI had forbidden the reading of it, but, at the instance of Charles II, suspended execution of the decree for Spain. But Croset’s translation transgressed the order, and caused it to be referred to the Sorbonne, 2 May, 1696. According to Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., 1892, V, vi, p. 418), it was studied from the 2d to the 14th of July, and thirty-two sessions were held during which 132 doctors spoke. It was condemned 17 July, 102 out of 152 members of the commission voting against the book. It was found that it gave more weight to the revelations alleged to have been received than to the mystery of the Incarnation; that it adduced new revelations which the Apostles themselves could not have supported; that it applied the term ‘adoration’ to Mary; that it referred all her graces to the Immaculate Conception; that it attributed to her the government of the Church; that it designated her in every respect the Mother of Mercy and the Mediatrix of Grace, and pretended that St. Ann had not contracted sin in her birth, besides a number of other imaginary and scandalous assertions. This censure was confirmed on the 1st of October. The Spanish Cardinal Aguirre, although a friend of Bossuet who fully approved the censure, strove to have it annulled, and expressed his opinion that the Sorbonne could easily do so, as their judgment was based on a bad translation. Bossuet denounced it as “an impious impertinence, and a trick of the devil.” The rest can be read here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01229a.htm

    As for her canonization, if God wanted to vindicate His servant, He would have accompanied her post mortem journey with miracles of healing that would have proven that her mystical knowledge can be trusted and relied upon as a means of living an authentic Catholic spirituality that is a sure guide to Heaven. The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a Kempis comes to mind as a much more useful guide for the faithful wishing to grow in the image and likeness of God which is the only path we all should be on and the one sure way to Heaven.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  108. ginnyfree says:

    One other thing Robert. Why do you continue to completely ignore those of us who’ve pointed out the FACTS that you distort regarding all private revelations being non-binding on the faithful?

    You continue to ignore this most relevant of Church teachings.

    NO ONE can be bound by private revelation. No one.

    Yet you refuse to even acknowledge that this has been shown to you by several persons here and elsewhere. Not only do you continue to ignore those of us who have said this here and elsewhere, but you also behave as if this is NOT a binding teaching of the Church, but an option. Well, guess what Robert? This IS a binding declaration by the Church regarding private revelation and anyone who defies the Church in this regard and remains obstinate in his or her refusal to turn back from an error, well such a one would be promoting a heretical view, that is that the Church can be defied and that private revelations can be binding and must be believed, etc.

    Here are two very ominous comments you’ve made that will show a point to those who have eyes to see: “Do you seriously think that Heaven is going to let this world or a Masonic Curia destroy His Church?” A comment brimming with hatred and condemnation for a Church Congregation. Yeah. Okie dokie. They shall know us by our love? Mean anything yet? How about this little Robertian Gem: “The Sun Danced At Fatima and yet you have those Wise and Proud saying Yes its God’s work, but we don’t have to Obey! That’s exactly what the Jewish Priests did, they knew the miracles, the knew the Child and His parents. But they didn’t want to be blamed for the killing the Messiah so they pushed that onto the Romans (but insisted that the Christ was killed)!” Okay? Robert The Great has spoken! Let all tongues rest silent. This is golden Robert. Really.

    Alrightie then. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  109. Robert says:

    Ginny
    I refer you to my entry June 16, 2016 at 16:53

    When was the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception declared?
    When was the Dogma of the Assumption declared?

    Why do you not think that I started with these Dogmas?

    These DOGMAS were NOT known in 17th century! You will not find either Dogma’s in the New Testament by the way.

    “..The Church’s teaching office — her Magisterium — guided by the Holy Spirit, continues to “plumb the depths” and “uncover the riches” of divine Revelation as generations and centuries pass. This truth is manifestly made evident as the Church, from time to time, solemnly defines dogmas of the faith, truths that must be accepted by the faithful as part of divine Revelation and necessary for salvation.
    One need only consider such Marian dogmas as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption to see how Church doctrine providentially develops over time. Although not solemnly defined until 1854 and 1950, respectively, these teachings of the universal Church are examples of truths of the faith that are implicitly contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which, “under the successive influence of theological study, devotional impulse, and even theological disagreement, come to be explicitly understood, universally believed, and, in the end, solemnly defined by the Church
    ..”

    [ But Ginny they were private revelations to Mary of Agreda were they NOT? ]

    St Ann and St Joachim flesh both of Adam and subject to Original Sin!
    So perhaps you or the Doctors of 17th century can explain how Ann’s and Joachim’s flesh could result in a flesh that was NOT subject to Original Sin!

    Queen of Heaven is a title given to the Virgin Mary by Christians mainly of the Roman Catholic Church, and also, to some extent, in Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. The title is a consequence of the First Council of Ephesus in the fifth century, in which the Virgin Mary was proclaimed “theotokos”, a title rendered in Latin as Mater Dei, in English “Mother of God”.

    Now the Church is the mystical Body of Christ.
    That is in Heaven, Suffering in Purgatory, and the Church Militant (here on Earth).

    Our Lady is the Mother of Christ.
    The Commandment is honour they Father and Mother.
    Whom Ginny do you think is the Mother of the mystical Body of Christ? The Church?

    Our Lady is Queen of the Heaven
    And has Soveriegn authority above the angels and the saints and all other creatures. (that’s what Queen means doesn’t it?)

    The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception means BORN WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN!

    On 12 September 2015, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments through the Archdiocese of Lipa in the Philippines formally declared the 1948 Marian apparition under the title Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces to be authentic and worthy of pious belief.

    I think you will find that the two Dogmas resolves ALL of the issues raised by the 17th Century Doctors!

    Now that scurrilous term ‘adoration’ rubbish God only is adored.

    Holy Mother Church teaches us God only ‘adoration’ To Our Lady ‘supreme veneration’ to St Joseph veneration before all others and the Saints and Angels veneration.

    St Joan D’Arc was burned as a heretic Now she is on the altars.

  110. ginnyfree says:

    Robert, these next few quotes of yours prove to me without a shadow of a doubt how Protestant you actually are.

    “When was the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception declared? When was the Dogma of the Assumption declared? Why do you not think that I started with these Dogmas? These DOGMAS were NOT known in 17th century! You will not find either Dogma’s in the New Testament by the way.” I’ve talked with more than one Protestant who says the exact same thing: If it ain’t in their Bible, then it is made up! You go here: if you can find it in some mystic’s text, then the Bible be damned as well as the sensus fidei of the rest of us merely catholic Catholics.

    How about this? – “So perhaps you or the Doctors of 17th century can explain how Ann’s and Joachim’s flesh could result in a flesh that was NOT subject to Original Sin!” I’ve had this very same question asked of me by quite a few Protestants Robert. Perhaps you have an answer that is uniquely yours?

    And then this: “The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception means BORN WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN!” Um, Robert, here’s a newsflash – THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS ABOUT CONCEPTION NOT WHAT HAPPENS AT BIRTH. Unless, of course you don’t believe she was conceived without Original Sin and that it was somehow removed from her soul prior to her birth as some others have said. Tell us, Robert, what you really want us to believe with your unique spiritual guidance or perhaps you can cherry pick from Agreda’s work and tell us what we all should believe amended by this mystic of the 1600’s? Oh dear. I can hardly wait.

    Then there’s this: “St Joan D’Arc was burned as a heretic Now she is on the altars.” Guess what Robert? You don’t have to worry much. We’ve pretty much stopped burning our heretics.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  111. The Raven says:

    Roger, if you care to peruse the Wikipedia pages for both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, you’ll find plants of references to both of them in the works of the Church Fathers: they long predate the seventeenth century. In both cases, the Holy Father was only setting out what the Church already believed.

    And St Joan wasn’t burned for heresy, the charge that she was burned for was transvestism (she had been wearing make clothing on campaign and afterwards in prison, in part to protect herself from rape). The heresy charges were very widely disputed at the time, including by some of those who took part in her trial.

  112. JabbaPapa says:

    It was condemned 17 July

    Well done ginny, God Bless.

  113. JabbaPapa says:

    NO ONE can be bound by private revelation. No one.

    erm, actually a genuine private revelation can sometimes be binding on the person receiving it, though it cannot be considered as binding on any other person at all — and of course, the necessity that it be “genuine” for this condition is precisely that it will lead to a conversion towards the Catholicity of the Faith and to no understanding and certainly no claims that are contradictory of the Deposit of Faith.

    A genuine private revelation is subject to the public Revelation, never the other way ’round.

    The private revelations that one individual may need for his Faith are NOT universally appropriate for the entirety of the world, and only certain very exceptional private revelations, such as those at Fatima or Lourdes, can ever be granted an official publication by the Catholic Church as being worthy lessons for the Church as a whole. No private revelation, even these most exalted ones, can ever possibly be considered as superior in any imaginable manner to the Revelation — and to claim any such thing is contrary to the Catholicity, and is tendentious at the very least towards formal heresies.

  114. Robert says:

    Yes I know Raven! Thank you for your correction over St Joan!
    The following is very relevant for this Blog
    “..
    In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”Pope John XXIII once remarked: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.” A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. A well-known example of a personal opinion on a matter of faith and morals that was taught by a pope but rejected by the Church is the view that Pope John XXII expressed on when the dead can reach the beatific vision
    ..”
    Just to give some back ground here and especially to Prophecy’s and private revelations.
    Mary of Agreda is a very good example of private revelations (Emmerich is another for instance). It caused in its Day huge contra reactions!

    However Pius IX Defined the Dogma Of The Immaculate Conception.
    When a Pope does this (and its very rare) it is Christ speaking! Christ Authority! As you well know this matter of our Lady’s Conception was a cause of fierce controversy over centuries. Christ was silent until Pius IX.

    The Dogma of the Assumption
    This is Pius XII express statement Dogma Of Assumption
    “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

    Agreda’s private revelation’s proved to be ahead of their time!

    Fatima? The confusion over the ‘secrets’ lies with the post 1960 Shepherds. For whatever reason their Silence and in action simple added fuel to the fire of speculation. What was required was a letter of statement from John Paul II but that is not what happened.

    “..
    On June 26 of A.D. 2000, the Vatican released the text of the third part of the secret of Fatima. Along with the text, the Vatican included an interpretation of the third part of the secret written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). According to the Catholic Free Press (June 30, 2000): “At a Vatican press conference, Cardinal Ratzinger said, ‘There does not exist an official definition or official interpretation of this vision on the part of the church.’ ” Cardinal Ratzinger’s interpretation is therefore unofficial.
    ..”
    These were the words I used
    “..
    40 years later to publish a Vision that is more or less similar to Emmerich’s. Then to interpret as a human opinion that Fatima was now in the Past.
    ..”

    Pius XII dealt expressly and as a Pope obeyed Heavens order to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart!

    Actually John Paul II Obeyed Heaven 24 years after 1960.

    The following two are part of Cardinal Ratzingers personal interpretation!
    “..
    According to Sister Lucia (the visionary of Fatima) and Cardinal Ratzinger, this act of consecration occurred on March 25, 1984. Not long afterwards, the U.S.S.R. was disbanded
    ..”
    “..
    the third part of the secret refers mainly to the future, not the past. The third part of the secret of Fatima describes a Great Martyrdom, which will include the martyrdom of the Pope as well as of many other Bishops, priests, religious, and laypersons. This Great Martyrdom is yet to occur.

    The book of Revelation predicts a time of many martyrs in the Church (Rev 6:9-11). In that passage, the past martyrs of the Church ask how much longer until God judges the earth.
    ..”

    My words
    “..
    Faith was the key issue identified by Lucia and the acknowledged loss of Faith in Europe can be identified with the 1960’s onwards.
    But the responsiblity for the Faith(Light) was given to the Apostles and their Successors (the Shepherds).
    Therefor it follows the loss of Faith (Light) lies with the Shepherds from 1960 onwards.
    If Fatima was in the Past then why are we know seeing Global Laws on Divorce, Abortion, Birth Control and other Beastilities and Christianity in decline?
    The blame lies with those entrusted with the Faith (the Shepherds) not the flock, and certainly not the lambs!
    ..”

    As for Ginny. My entry was simply to show the difference between private revelations that are later proven to be Dogmas of the Church.
    There is a difference between Prophesy and Revelation.
    The Sun danced at Fatima and was witnessed by global media (by the way). A very public miracle!
    The secrets (prophecies since they confirmed Public Revelation). That Heaven orders and is obeyed in approved apparitions is demonstrated again and again by the Church. Churchs/Cathedrals are built. Masses are said and prayers approved and encouraged.

    In Public Revelation Our Lord expressly refered to future Prophesies and Visionaries. It is not as if there is anything new here.

  115. Robert says:

    Jabba

    We have the promise of the Holy Ghost to reveal over time the deposit of the Faith.

    Our Lord Public Revelation
    Acts Of Apostles 2
    17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams

    Notice Our Lord says HIS SPIRIT. “..and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions ..”
    The Church confirms!
    The Popes confirm and you deny!!

  116. JabbaPapa says:

    The Popes confirm and you deny

    I only deny uncatholic teachings contrary to the Catholicity of our Faith and our Religion.

    I certainly do not deny any positions that may be validly be held by individual Catholics on matters that are not definitively established in the public Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, and/or Catholic doctrine ; although I might sometimes express personal disagreements with certain interpretations.

    You however seem to carry on about with denials of this or that quite frequently, often with no solid dogmatic nor theological basis, regardless of the apparently non-stop effluvium of your cut’n’paste.

  117. toadspittle says:

    “Isn’t it high time we gave all these visionaries and supposed apparitions at Fatima, La Salette et al a rest and concentrate on reality ? None of them are Articles of Faith.”
    “Give them a rest,” John? Where’s the fun in that?
    Anyway, it keeps the commentators occupied.
    …Or God knows what they’d get up to.

  118. Roger says:

    Jabba

    I only deny uncatholic teachings contrary to the Catholicity of our Faith and our Religion.

    I certainly do not deny any positions that may be validly be held by individual Catholics on matters that are not definitively established in the public Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, and/or Catholic doctrine ; although I might sometimes express personal disagreements with certain interpretations.

    Thank you for your honesty. Its taken quite a while to get you to say this!

    Well you will be pleased to know that the Church says that there is nothing contrary to the Faith in the Fatima message!

    But the confusion is of course that Our Lady showed the Children Visions and followed by Her comments on those vision’s.
    In 2000 We were shown a hand written Vision (not in doubt) and a personal opinion from Cardinal Ratzinger. Would have been better if the Pope had written the opinion wouldn’t it?

    Trouble is some 100 people apparently are known to have seen the secret, and were immediately sworn to secrecy. Most by now have died off of course. None mentioned a Vision neither did Cardinal Ratzinger prior.

    I mean its simply fuel for the fire isn’t it.

    The blame of course we can agree lies squarely on the Shepherds.

  119. ginnyfree says:

    The devil can come as an angel of light to dazzle the eyes, etc. What better light to disguise one’s diabolic machinations with than that of the Queen of Heaven herself? Look at what happened at Medjugorje. They were behaving in merely preternatural ways. Preternatural phenomena that claims to be supernatural in origin is a huge clue to the actual source of said preternatural events for those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear what God has revealed to the nations, etc. The Church is the Guardian of all that Jesus Christ has left to us for the salvation of our souls for all generations unto the end of time. To claim that the Queen of Heaven specifically commanded persons to defy the Church is really stupid. But some will believe such things, even with the presentation of common sense arguments why not. There is a huge amount of wisdom in a simple quip: You can’t take a man to someplace he isn’t willing to go. If you want an excuse to defy the Church, what better one than the Queen of Heaven herself? The devil will help that nasty mistake and will blind with his own dazzling light those who choose to follow false prophets and their false prophecies. Oh great. Now I’ve given Robert an excuse to point to all the truths contained in the messages of Fatima as if they are proof that the rest of the hijack job done on our Lady is also as authentic as the original stuff. Go for Robert. I may or may not bite. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  120. toadspittle says:

    “In 2000 We were shown a hand written Vision…”
    What is a hand-written vision?

  121. toadspittle says:

    “Well you will be pleased to know that the Church says that there is nothing contrary to the Faith in the Fatima message!”
    …Or in The Theory of Relativity. Or in that of Natural Selection.
    Because “..there is nothing contrary to the Faith,” in a message, is not a sufficiently strong reason to believe it.

  122. Robert says:

    In the Age of Miracles and Faith the Great Shrines of Christendom were havens of Graces and Blessings. The Actually Blessings were of course different between the Shrines. Not that they were better! Oh No Our Lady is the Queen of ALL her Apparitions.
    We are so lucky that in times of woes and uncertainties Heaven sends Us prophets, visionaries, penitents, confessors, holy martyrs thus fulfilling Our Lords promises.
    We had the Great St Pio, mystic, charismatic and the first priest with the visible stigmata.
    There have always been the doom mongers giving Satan more credit than he desires.
    Protestantism and its puritanical fanaticism chasing illusory shadows, lacking Peace in themselves they seek to take it from their brethren.
    The things of God provoke outrage , doubts, seem sensational, a rocky rough narrow path but the always end in Christs Peace (which is not of this world).
    Satan you have the broad gentle road lined with Roses and the crowds! what a delight but it leaves that empty taste in the soul. Wealth, Fame, Riches and Acclaim and this is so especially with the charismatic personalities. But as that road goes on it begins to become steeper as it descends downwards. No matter we can Run!! this easy path!! Then to late the Gates close.
    Christ was persecuted from infancy, thousands came and went and in the end there was left just a remnant!
    Horror abandoned by all He was rejected reviled called a blasphemer and was killed on a scaffold. Those thousands never saw the Resurrection, just that small remnant, just a small remnant that saw Him ascend into a cloud!
    Lets go with the Children on that 13 October 1917

    Lucy: “What do you want of me?”
    Our Lady : “I want a chapel built here in my honor. I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. The war will end soon, and the soldiers will return to their homes.”
    Children: “Yes. Yes.”
    Children: “Will you tell me your name?”
    Our Lady : “I am the Lady of the Rosary. ”
    Children : “I have many petitions from many people. Will you grant them?”
    Our Lady : “Some I shall grant, and others I must deny. People must amend their lives and ask pardon for their sins. They must not offend our Lord any more, for He is already too much offended! ”
    Children: “And is that all you have to ask?”
    Our Lady : “There is nothing more”

    There are many testimonies but here is one to enjoy”

    I was only nine years old at this time, and I went to the local village school. At about midday we were surprised by the shouts and cries of some men and women who were passing in the street in front of the school. The teacher, a good, pious woman, though nervous and impressionable, was the first to run into the road, with the children after her.

    Outside, the people were shouting and weeping and pointing to the sun, ignoring the agitated questions of the schoolmistress. It was the great Miracle, which one could see quite distinctly from the top of the hill where my village was situated—the Miracle of the sun, accompanied by all its extraordinary phenomena.

    I feel incapable of describing what I saw and felt. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt the eyes. Looking like a ball of snow revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment.

    Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to our Lady.

    Meanwhile the people continued to cry out and to weep, asking God to pardon their sins. We all ran to the two chapels in the village, which were soon filled to overflowing. During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all the colors of the rainbow. We saw ourselves blue, yellow, red, etc. All these strange phenomena increased the fears of the people. After about ten minutes the sun, now dull and pallid, returned to its place. When the people realized that the danger was over, there was an explosion of joy, and everyone joined in thanksgiving and praise to our Lady.

    — Fr. Ignacio Lorenco (Alburitel, 11 miles away )

    Now Ginny tells Us that Satan can do this???
    Well I never knew that thank you!

  123. toadspittle says:

    “There have always been the doom mongers giving Satan more credit than he desires.”
    Yes, he’s a modest sort of chap.

    “Now Ginny tells Us that Satan can do this???”
    No, that’s far too difficult for him. Jabba says he’s pathetic. I wouldn’t know.
    …But if he can’t manage a decent firework display, he’s clearly not up to much.

  124. ginnyfree says:

    Robert, thank you for putting words in my mouth that aren’t really there. “Now Ginny tells Us that Satan can do this?? Well I never knew that thank you!”
    You still haven’t cohesively responded to the request by myself and others for a reasonable explanation as to why you feel called to be a champion of false belief? No one has to believe anything about any Marian apparition, even the authenticated ones. You push past that and demand not only belief but a blind obedience to those who’ve hijacked the real message of Fatima for their own ends. Simonists plying their trade as per usual in such ways as has happened in the past. There are many other problems with your particular spin and each time these get presented to you, you behave like an octopus, squirting ink into the sea to hide your descent further into the depths. You simply avoid defending your mistakes by ranting on and on and on, the ink filling the comment box, in tiring amounts till those who may be inclined to help you leave your errors behind and be reconciled to God and His Church tire of your tirades and accusations and simply lose interest.

    So, when are you going to meet us where we’ve stood on these issues instead of hiding like the octopus behind a huge spill of useless ink and actually respond? I’ve pointed to several of your mistakes. Why can’t you give an honest reply? I can answer that, but……………….you won’t like it much.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  125. Robert says:

    Ginny
    You tell me with Authority that Satan can appear as Our Lady of The Rosary. I can’t really answer that can I?

    Your words

    “..
    You still haven’t cohesively responded to the request by myself and others for a reasonable explanation as to why you feel called to be a champion of false belief? No one has to believe anything about any Marian apparition, even the authenticated ones. You push past that and demand not only belief but a blind obedience to those who’ve hijacked the real message of Fatima for their own ends. Simonists plying their trade as per usual in such ways as has happened in the past. There are many other problems with your particular spin and each time these get presented to you, you behave like an octopus, squirting ink into the sea to hide your descent further into the depths.
    ..”
    Our Lady

    Lucy: “What do you want of me?”
    Our Lady : “I want a chapel built here in my honor. I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. The war will end soon, and the soldiers will return to their homes.”
    Children: “Yes. Yes.”
    Children: “Will you tell me your name?”
    Our Lady : “I am the Lady of the Rosary. ”
    Children : “I have many petitions from many people. Will you grant them?”
    Our Lady : “Some I shall grant, and others I must deny. People must amend their lives and ask pardon for their sins. They must not offend our Lord any more, for He is already too much offended! ”
    Children: “And is that all you have to ask?”
    Our Lady : “There is nothing more”

  126. JabbaPapa says:

    Well you will be pleased to know that the Church says that there is nothing contrary to the Faith in the Fatima message

    good GRIEF roger, you keep on erecting this sort of complete strawman

    NOBODY has claimed that the messages of Fatima are invalid — but people do get extremely annoyed with your continual elevation of the importance of those messages to a degree that goes well beyond what is Catholic.

    I mean its simply fuel for the fire isn’t it

    No it jolly well isn’t — it’s the result of people inventing stuff out of their own heads that does not belong to the Messages of Fatima, pure and simple.

  127. toadspittle says:

    “You still haven’t cohesively responded to the request by myself and others for a reasonable explanation as to why you feel called to be a champion of false belief? “
    Don’t be so daft, Gin-Free*.
    Robert no more considers himself “..called to be a champion of false belief,” than you (or I) do. Nobody does. And stop trying to bully him. He’s very sensitive. You can bully me, if you like.

    (*Are you sure you’re not back on it? You know what the doctor said.)

  128. ginnyfree says:

    Forget it Froggie; you’re no fun anymore. You’ll only be fun AFTER you’ve made a good Confession of ALL your mortal sins and have done your Penance. I wish you a thick fly stew and a few beers with some crusty bread. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  129. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Robert. Me again. Can you get this right: ” We have the promise of the Holy Ghost to reveal over time the deposit of the Faith.” No. Wrong. The fullness of the Revelation was given to the Church and that was given just before the death of St. John on the Isle of Patmos. Nothing new has been given us nor will anything new be as you wish, “reveal [ed] over time” to enhance the Depositum Fidei. Many have veered of the sure and certain path in such wise Robert as have you. But all is not lost. Just go and Confess your sins against the Faith and have a good cry. You’ll feel better about yourself and argue less. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  130. JabbaPapa says:

    Indeed ginny — and for very good reason the Church has declared infallibly that there are no new Prophets since the birth of the last of them, John the Baptist.

  131. mmvc says:

    “Just go and Confess your sins against the Faith and have a good cry. You’ll feel better about yourself and argue less. God bless. Ginnyfree.”

    Watch it Ginny! Any more condescension and you might find yourself tumbling through the floor! ;o)

  132. Robert says:

    Thank you Toad and MMVC.

    Pope Paul VI, who, in his apostolic letter Signum magnum, delivered at Fatima on May 13, 1967, declared:
    The great sign which the Apostle John saw in Heaven, “a woman clothed with the sun,” is interpreted by the sacred Liturgy, not without foundation, as referring to the Most Blessed Mary, the mother of all men by the grace of Christ the Redeemer. … On the occasion of the religious ceremonies which are taking place at this time in honor of the Virgin Mother of God in Fatima, Portugal, where She is venerated by countless numbers of the faithful for Her motherly and compassionate heart, we wish to call the attention of all sons of the Church once more to the indissoluble link between the spiritual motherhood of Mary … and the duties of redeemed
    men toward Her, the Mother of the Church.

    On May 13, 2000, John Paul II went to Fatima to beatify Jacinta and Francisco. The Pope delivered a sermon after the beatifications.

    According to the divine plan, “a Woman clothed with the sun” (Apoc. 12:1) came down from Heaven to this earth to visit the privileged children of the Father. She speaks to them with a mother’s voice and heart: She asks them to offer themselves as victims of reparation, saying that She was ready to lead them safely to God. Later Francisco, one of the three privileged children, exclaimed: “We were burning in that light which is God and we were not consumed. What is God like? It is impossible to say. In fact we will never be able to tell people”. God: a light that burns without consuming. Moses had the same experience when he saw God in the burning bush. …
    “Another portent appeared in Heaven; behold, a great red dragon” (Apoc. 12:3). These words from the first reading of the Mass make us think of the great struggle between good and evil, showing how, when man puts God aside, he cannot achieve happiness, but ends up destroying himself. The Message of Fatima is a call to conversion, alerting humanity to have nothing to do with the “dragon” whose “tail swept down a third of the stars of Heaven, and cast them to the earth” (Apoc. 12:4). Man’s final goal is Heaven, his true home, where the Heavenly Father awaits everyone with His merciful love. God does not want anyone to be lost; that is why 2,000 years ago He sent His Son to earth, “to seek and to save the lost” (Lk. 19:10). In Her motherly concern, the Blessed Virgin came here to Fatima to ask men and women “to stop offending God, Our Lord, who is already too much offended”. It is a mother’s sorrow that compels Her to speak; the destiny of Her children is at stake. For this reason She asks the little shepherds: “Pray, pray much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them”.

    John Paul II reference to Apoc 12:4 is explained independently here.
    No Dragon is mentioned in the text of the vision published on June 26, 2000

    Father Krammer “Book Of Destiny” imprimatur dated 1956
    Apoc 12:4 notes: “This is one-third of the clergy” and that “‘one-third’ of the stars shall follow the dragon”—meaning one-third of the clergy, who are the “stars”, the consecrated souls in the Church. That is, one-third of the Catholic clergy will be in the service of the devil, working to destroy the Church from within. Father Herman Kramer’s commentary points out that the red dragon—a sign of the devil which could also symbolize Communism because red is Communism’s emblematic color—brings the Church into great distress by undermining it from within.
    The commentary goes on to say that, by means of these apostate clergy, the devil will probably enforce upon the Church “the acceptance of unchristian morals, false doctrines, compromise with error, or obedience to the civil rulers in violation of conscience.”

    1/ The role of the Holy Ghost in teaching and revealing Public Revelation over the Life of the Church
    John 14
    26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you

    2/ That Our Lord and Prophesy in the Christian Era.
    Acts Of Apostles 2
    17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams

  133. toadspittle says:

    “Forget it Froggie; you’re no fun anymore. You’ll only be fun AFTER you’ve made a good Confession of ALL your mortal sins and have done your Penance. I wish you a thick fly stew and a few beers with some crusty bread. God bless. Ginnyfree.”
    This is one person’s idea of lucid, coherent, debate.
    Judgemental and bigoted Hypocrisy – washed down with a cocktail of Venom and Vitriol.
    Has it struck anyone else how woefully ironic the title of “Catholicism, Pure, & Simple” has become these days?

  134. mmvc says:

    Toad @ 05.58. Sadly I have to agree with you about this and as one of the CP&S team I apologise both to you and Robert for having been at the receiving end of some hurtful unpleasantness here.

    Perhaps if contributors spent a few moments in prayer and reflection before writing and submitting their comments we might be able to avoid this in future.

  135. Roger says:

    MMVC and Toad
    There is no need to apologise!
    We can see the motives are Love and Passion and Defence for the Faith.
    Far prefer this than the indifference of the world.
    St Paul in His zeal executed St Stephen, St Paul’s motives were perhaps not unlike the zealous fanaticism of ISIS. I am sure we can understand this.
    Nothing but Love and Prayers
    Thank you because my poor soul needs knocking into shape!

  136. toadspittle says:

    In fact Mmvc (I thought the “c” was an “e” for ages, too -dodgy old minces.) I came on here to get that comment of mine moderated out as uncharitable. Oh, well. Roger’s got it right, above.

  137. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 9:48 on 16th June

    “You really should avoid, kathleen, presenting your own interpretations of the three secrets as if these interpretations were the content of the Virgin’s messages.”

    ????

    What on earth are you talking about, Jabba? “My own interpretations”? I don’t have any, nor have I said anything that could have provoked that extraordinary statement from you. Everything I know about “the three secrets of Fatima” is what the Catholic Church has revealed about them.

    When Our Blessed Lady mentioned that “wars and persecutions of the Church” would come about IF her messages were not heeded…. well, they were not, were they? And that is what has allowed evil and godlessness to reign in the world, leading to the horrific genocide of Christians these last 99 years – e.g., under atheistic Communism in Russia and its allies (plus other countries, China, Vietnam, the Congo, etc.), the worst war mankind has ever known, WW2, plus the persecution of Catholics in the Spanish Civil War, etc., etc., with PERHAPS much more to come. This is not “my interpretation” – it’s common knowledge – and Our Lady warned us about it.
    Was it my calling it “future turmoil” that bothered you?

    Why have you become such an irascible old nitpicker of late?😉

    Is there more to the Third Secret of Fatima than that released by the Vatican under the then Cardinal Ratzinger?
    Quite possibly. Because if there were not more to it, then it hardly makes sense that this “secret”“forms part of a whole” together with the first two parts as Sr. Lucia revealed it does, soon after the apparitions at Fatima concluded.
    However, for the present this is only speculation, nothing more, that many experts on Fatima hold in the Church.
    ——-

    @ 19:43 yesterday

    Jabba, you may well not have “claimed that the messages of Fatima are invalid” and it’s clear you believe in their authenticity, but ^ up there ^ there are sceptics that are doing just that – or at least giving to understand that they, personally, don’t believe in them. Can’t you see that?
    This is what has led to Roger/Robert’s valid defence of the Church’s favourable opinion on Fatima, that you say “goes well beyond what is Catholic”.

    And to Roger and our mmvc – chapeau!🙂
    ——-

    Toad – don’t blame the Team on CP&S for the insults aimed at you from one of our visitors!!

  138. JabbaPapa says:

    Is there more to the Third Secret of Fatima than that released by the Vatican under the then Cardinal Ratzinger?

    No.

    ““wars and persecutions of the Church” ” is not the same thing as “future turmoil in the Church”

    That is ,not mere pedantry, the two phrases are very different in focus and meaning

    Why have you become such an irascible old nitpicker of late?

    Don’t think so, but on the topic of private revelations, divine interventions, and visions of Saint Mary I lack patience with those who claim to understand these things without ever having experienced them, and I have.

    The Catholicity of the Faith is the purpose of these events, not these or those extraordinary claims purporting to reinterpret any of it.

  139. toadspittle says:

    “Toad – don’t blame the Team on CP&S for the insults aimed at you from one of our visitors!!”
    You interpret me wrongly, Kathleen. I did no such thing. Read it again. Whereabouts do I blame “the team”?
    Everything is interpretation, anyway. As you demonstrate clearly above.
    We all have interpretations of Fatima. And that’s all they are – interpretations.

    “When Our Blessed Lady mentioned that “wars and persecutions of the Church” would come about IF her messages were not heeded…”
    If I went on CP&S tomorrow, and said, “If you don’t heed my warnings, there will be more death and horror in the near future..” Would you cry, “Don’t talk nonsense, Toad! why on earth should there be?” Probably not. But then, on CP&S one never know – do one?.

    “Our Blessed Lady mentioned that “wars and persecutions of the Church” would come IF…”
    etc., etc. In view of the fact that there have always been wars and religious persecutions – starting from day one of “Homo Sapiens” existence on this sordid and homicidal planet – you must excuse me for not being over-impressed with this prophecy.

  140. kathleen says:

    OK, Jabba, Our Lady certainly spoke of “future turmoil in the Church” at Her apparitions at Quito, Akita and La Salette, but not (as far as we know to date) at Fatima. If this was indeed part of the ‘Third Secret’ of Fatima, that many believe has not been fully revealed, it would fall in with Our Lady’s warnings given to visionaries at these other sites that the Church has deemed “worthy of belief”.
    All the same, “wars and persecution” OF the Church (that we have, and are, already seeing) is made easier when the Church is made weaker by inner fighting, great apostasy and confusion (that we are definitely seeing right now).

    “but on the topic of private revelations, divine interventions, and visions of Saint Mary I lack patience with those who claim to understand these things without ever having experienced them, and I have.”

    You have been greatly blessed. And of course, I believe you. So please be more patient with us who have not.

    But there are a lot of others who go to great lengths to write off any Divine intervention whatsoever, either private or more public ones (like the miracle of the sun at Fatima, and the vision given to the villagers of Knock) that these are the ones who you should be dealing with. They are fundamentalists of the opposite sort – doubting that Heaven can (and does) still visit special chosen souls.

    “The Catholicity of the Faith is the purpose of these events”

    Agreed 100%.

  141. Robert says:

    Jabba

    There are Popes in Hell and there are also Visionaries and yes Prophets in Hell.

    Having visions is not of itself evidence of virtue or grace. St Bernadette understood that she was a voicebox not the author of Heavens messages. Neither was she the expert judge on the State of her own or another’s soul.

    “I lack patience with those who claim to understand these things without ever having experienced them, and I have.”

    You start with Self and end with Self (I).
    Patience is a virtue and you by your own admission lack patience.
    Your judgment of others, and your presumption of their ignorance.
    Can you not see that you are being self centred with a perception of a superiority in understanding and knowledge. Matthew 5 : [3 to 5]

    Turmoils in the Church? It started with the Acts of the Apostles didn’t it? The History of the Church is full of turmoils inside the Church. Schisms, Anti Popes, Heretical beliefs.
    Wars and Persecutions of the Church the worst of which have started within the Church!!

    “The Catholicity of the Faith is the purpose of these events, not these or those extraordinary claims purporting to reinterpret any of it.”

    What events? What claims? What purpose? What interpretation? What Faith?

    Fatima? I have shown you the Popes and laterly John Paul II sermon at Fatima which was one month before the release of the Vision (in Lucy’s handwriting) and Cardinal Ratzingers personal interpretation of that vision.
    John Paul sermon expressly used the language of Apoc 12 He mentioned the Woman clothed in the Sun and significantly the Dragon.
    The text of the Vision is of martyrdom and doesn’t relate to Apoc 12.
    Confused?

    The sudden retirement of Benedict apparently in good Health raises even more questions.
    There are more questions than answers.

    I repeat what I have said before the Shepherds are to blame for this confusion not the flock and certainly not the lambs and definitely not Heaven. The world knew of Fatima and also that the year 1960 was named by Heaven for the publishing of the 3rd secret.

    By 1960 the world had suffered 2 dreadful wars, the Spainish Civil War, the terrible Spainish Flu, the hardships of stateless refugees, the holocaust. Atheist Russia and The BOMB.
    The World Wars and Heavens requests to Rome to end them were common knowledge! So in the climate of the cold war and Atomic arms Race the 3 rd secret and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to obtain Peace was a matter of Global concern!

    DO NOT TELL ME THAT A PUBLIC MIRACLE PERFORMED BY GOD WAS a private matter!
    Public Miracle fortold months in advance and witnessed by thousands.

    THE SUN DANCED AT FATIMA read the testimonies of those who thought they were going to died!

  142. ginnyfree says:

    Robert, I’m only going to take you to task on one small thing you’ve said in response to Jabba: “Jabba, There are Popes in Hell and there are also Visionaries and yes Prophets in Hell.”

    That would be a very special thing for you to know. Are you certain of this? If so, you are falling out with the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and may be making another error. It is, in fact, pretty much impossible for you to know such things:

    “3. Pope John Paul II, in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, provides:

    Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement…” (pg. 185)

    Though not a magisterial document, this does give us some insight into the mind of our former Pope. The unresolved question for John Paul was not whether folks are in hell or not, but who they will be individually. That is what the Church has not defined or taught officially. In other words, there is no “anticanonization” process where someone is declared to be in hell infallibly.

    Thus, it seems the Church’s Magisterium has, in fact, taught that there are souls in hell now, and that there will be for all eternity. “Which human beings” we do not know without special divine revelation.” There rest of this little lesson on Hell and who is there and why we don’t ANTI-canonize folks can be found here: http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-there-souls-in-hell-right-now

    I hope you take the time to read it.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  143. JabbaPapa says:

    (Kathleen)

    Our Lady certainly spoke of “future turmoil in the Church” at Her apparitions at Quito, Akita and La Salette, but not (as far as we know to date) at Fatima

    Certainly, and the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich enter into some quite explicit detail seemingly about what we can now witness all around us in present times — but this does not mean that such contents must necessarily also be a part of Fatima, because private revelations, and especially warnings, are given first and foremost for the needs of those that receive them.

    The message of Fatima is a particular case, because the three parts of the secret were explicitly given for the purpose of a dissemination to the world.

    OTOH our Lady said many other things to Jacinta and Lucia that were for their ears alone, and will never be published, and especially to Lucia, for the Virgin continued to appear and speak to her throughout her life, but none of these extra contents need concern us, with the one exception that the consecration of the world by Pope Saint John Paul II in communion with all the Bishops to the Sacred Heart of Mary, including his quiet consecration of Russia in particular, is known to us through Lucia to have been accepted by the Virgin as a fulfillment of her request.

    The book of Lucia’s memoirs, titled Fatima in Lucia’s own words really is the best antidote to all this fairly empty speculation. It is also very helpful as a biographical portrait of Lucia as a seer, including with all her flaws and imperfections, and sometimes even faulty memory. And you can also see there her own personal rejection of the conspiracy theories that had already arisen within her own lifetime, and of course she was aware of them, as well as the fact that the 1960 date was never from the Virgin in the first place, but was one of Lucia’s own interpretations, and Lucia herself was patiently submissive to the Roman Pontiff whose decision regarding the date of publication of the third secret was in fact his alone to make.

  144. JabbaPapa says:

    (Roger/Robert)

    Having visions is not of itself evidence of virtue or grace. St Bernadette understood that she was a voicebox not the author of Heavens messages. Neither was she the expert judge on the State of her own or another’s soul.

    No, and nor am I.

    But then the Virgin appeared to her in the flesh and spoke with her, which is not my case.

    Whatever Charisms I have been given are also non-identical to those given to Saint Bernadette Soubirous, whose personal thoughts about the difficulties and burdens that one receives at the same time as such visions are extremely clear-minded, and in particular that such Graces most certainly do not provide automatic perfection in thought, word, and deed.

    You start with Self and end with Self (I)

    So what ?

    Your judgment of others, and your presumption of their ignorance

    There is no “judgment”, you’re just making that up, and as for ignorance, it is simply a state of lack of knowledge or experience, which concerning this or that is a state that we all of us belong to, but it is still not a solid foundation for making declarations about this or that.

    What events? What claims? What purpose? What interpretation? What Faith?

    You continue to seek the most worldly literalist interpretations of private revelations that were not intended for you personally. You shouldn’t — you should open your heart instead to those Graces and Charisms that have been provided to you personally.

  145. JabbaPapa says:

    (Ginnyfree)

    That would be a very special thing for you to know. Are you certain of this? If so, you are falling out with the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and may be making another error. It is, in fact, pretty much impossible for you to know such things

    Nail on the head.

  146. toadspittle says:

    Try again. Bad coding, confusing.

    “There are Popes in Hell and there are also Visionaries and yes Prophets in Hell.”
    Ginny’s right. Nobody can say that with certainty.

    “Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment.”

    However, also in Matthew’s Gospel, we have this:
    “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (27:24–25)”
    Is that “unequivocal.” as well? How can we be confident the Jews shouted that? If they did – why did they? What was their point? How many Jews have those nine little words killed?

    Christ is reported to have made that comment about “eternal punishment.” Is there any independent back up? Any second-source verification?* If not, how can we be confident he actually said it, and not that someone put words into his mouth for their own devious purpose?
    In other words, “How do we know anything about Hell?” Because it’s written in an old book that someone said there is such a place.
    (Cracked record Toad. Daft old twit.)

    *Yes, I’ve tried looking for myself on the web. No luck.

  147. toadspittle says:

    “You start with Self and end with Self “
    …So does everyone else. No choice. We are all “trapped” (for want of a better word) in our bodies, and only receive exterior information through our sense data. Which we then interpret according to internal filters. (concepts, if you like.)
    In order to avoid starting with “self,” we’d have to somehow get outside “self.”
    Which is not possible. Obviously.

  148. Brother Burrito says:

    Toad,

    “You start with Self and end with Self “ Doh!

    You make me think of someone who has been gifted a top of the line television set, but who hasn’t bothered to read and digest the manual.

    If you don’t connect the aerial, you won’t get the picture!

  149. Tom Fisher says:

    However, also in Matthew’s Gospel, we have this:
    “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (27:24–25)”
    Is that “unequivocal.” as well? How can we be confident the Jews shouted that? If they did – why did they? What was their point? How many Jews have those nine little words killed?

    How many Jews have those nine little words killed?

    Too many, is all we can say. Those words were written in anger, during the last decades of the first century, and in the midst of the acrimonious split between Christianity and Judaism. Their influence spread through sermons, commentaries, and polemics for many centuries, and it doesn’t bear thinking about just how much violence resulted. Nostra Aetate was an important milestone on our road to redemption.

    I have literally no clue as to what the ‘television set’ analogy is in aid of.

  150. Tom Fisher says:

    In the second volume of his superb Jesus of Nazareth Pope Benedict XVI both acknowledged the results of that scene, and provided some theological commentary on how it should be interpreted. — However from an historical perspective what matters most is how that verse was interpreted.

  151. Tom Fisher says:

    I have literally no clue as to what the ‘television set’ analogy is in aid of.

    Now it makes sense, I found the comment it was actually in response to!

  152. JabbaPapa says:

    However, also in Matthew’s Gospel, we have this:
    “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (27:24–25)”

    It’s actually a reference to the Ancient Jewish animal sacrifices, where those offering the sacrifice were sprayed with the blood of the animal, and so blessed and cleansed by the sacrificial act, so that the line is actually characterising the Crucifixion as the perfect Sacrifice for all time, and the Jews in that verse are actually praising the Lord for the Blessing received.

    This meaning was of course lost on most Western Europeans, since Antiquity and even, quite clearly, to this very day.

    It was not written as a spur towards hatred of the Jew, but hatred of the Jew has caused many verses of Scripture and many other sources to be re-interpreted in such a manner as if “justifying” such hatred.

  153. Brother Burrito says:

    Tom Fisher,

    Assume the TV set is your soul. You can tune it to just receive “terrestrial” channels, and errh that’s all you’ll get.

    With some work and know-how, you can receive broadcasts from “above”. The programming from up there is much better for you.

    Holy Scripture is an example of a download from “above”. It can be read by anybody, but only many fewer can grasp its meaning, its spirit.

    I posit that Scripture is only really comprehensible to those who regularly subscribe to the Heavenly channel.

    Anyway, analogies are always weak and only work for a few, and I’m supposed to be on holiday. Good day to you!

  154. Tom Fisher says:

    Jabba,

    This meaning was of course lost on most Western Europeans, since Antiquity

    That’s true, and also incomplete. Adversus Judeaus is a deeply unpleasant work, and I don’t recommend it. But Chrysostom’s hate filled bile, including his use of the text in question, should clear up any misconception that the directly anti-Semitic interpretation is a ‘Western European’ phenomenon

  155. Tom Fisher says:

    Thanks BB, It’s an interesting way of putting it. I was initially trying to read you remark as a direct answer to Toads last question, that’s why I was briefly bemused. Enjoy your holiday!

  156. toadspittle says:

    Well, it’s very gratifying that you are all paying attention, at least.
    I don’t understand the TV reference myself. But then I’m thick. Kathleen can verify that.
    But nobody is tackling how we can be even remotely confident the Gospels, are – well, Gospel. Is it a “..take ’em – or leave ’em” situation? Down to work, chaps!

    “You make me think of someone who has been gifted a top of the line television set,”
    I haven’t owned a TV set of any sort for 15 years now, Burroissimo, not even a top-of-the-line one. Load of time-wasting crap (IMAO)
    And if anyone did gift me one I’d sell it, and spend the money on strong drink.

  157. JabbaPapa says:

    yes you’re right, the “Western” adjective is unnecessary.

  158. Tom Fisher says:

    It’s actually a reference to the Ancient Jewish animal sacrifices, where those offering the sacrifice were sprayed with the blood of the animal, and so blessed and cleansed by the sacrificial act, so that the line is actually characterising the Crucifixion as the perfect Sacrifice for all time, and the Jews in that verse are actually praising the Lord for the Blessing received.

    It is that, Jabba, yes, but it’s not just that. It is presented as a response to Pilate, and his abrogation of responsibility. It’s a sophisticated text, and it is, as you say — placing the execution of Jesus in the context of Jewish sacrifice — but it is also raising the issue of responsibility, and although it cannot bear the responsibility for its subsequent use, the seeds of later interpretations are undoubtedly there.

  159. Tom Fisher says:

    But nobody is tackling how we can be even remotely confident the Gospels, are – well, Gospel. Is it a “..take ’em – or leave ’em” situation? Down to work, chaps!

    There was a work of “liberal” scholarship published in the 60s which began by saying in the 20th century we can no longer regard the gospel stories as newspaper reports — And I’m sure we can all smile at the implicit faith the author had in newspapers.

    I’d just note one thing, Toad. Christianity was content to preserve and disseminate multiple accounts of its founding events — accounts which sometimes clash with each other –. Well, we remember how Winston Smith earned his living. If the early Church was like the ‘Party’, it wouldn’t be that way. The messiness of early Christian witness seems like a point in its favour to me. — That’s not a conclusive argument of course! Just a thought

  160. Tom Fisher says:

    And if anyone did gift me one I’d sell it, and spend the money on strong drink

    For what it’s worth Toad, my wife and I had the pleasure of doing exactly that about 18 months ago. We have no regrets.

  161. Brother Burrito says:

    I tried to convince the missus that as we watch TV online ex post facto we didn’t need to pay for our TV licence and so could save £150 pa.

    Alas, she wants to watch “Midsomer Murders”, which is only available by broadcast.

    A high maintenance woman is my wife!

  162. Tom Fisher says:

    BB, I should have said earlier – thanks for the piece that we’re nominally commenting on. It made me smile. As with a lot of what you write, the moral component is so implicit in the story that the reader hardly notices that he’s being evangelised.

    Alas, she wants to watch Midsomer Murders

    As a colonial, I’ve never quite understood the English fascination with upper-middle class people committing killing each other. If we were to believe Morse etc. The midlands are about as dangerous as the US ? Mexican border🙂

  163. John says:

    On the subject of Fatima and visionaries I remember my late Aunt Margaret, a pious single lady, and daily communicant, being sick to death with apprehension about the secrets of Fatima and about what was going to happen in 1960, the end of the world widely prophesied in the religious press etc at that time.
    Summoning up her courage she told me that she decided to consult at her weekly confession with her most trusted Franciscan confessor as to what he thought about the Fatima secrets. His world weary response,probably having been asked the same question for the umpteenth time, was : Don’t you know women have to have their little secrets ?

    My Aunt Margaret died on 1st December 1959 RIP having escaped the expected disaster which never came. Nothing daunted, other newer prophets then started to take over

  164. johnhenrycn says:

    That’s quite a sweet story from Mr Cockles and Mussels.

  165. Robert says:

    Ginny
    Been rather hectic. I typed s blog pressed button and it vanished into the ether (bad internet connection)

    Ok. and quickly
    I repeat Our Lord came to fulfil the Law completing the Old Covenant and replacing this with the New. He revealed the Trinity. Knowledge of God, Hades/Hell the so called Natural Law has always been known to Man. Even Dawkins admits the so called religious gene!

    SELF Is your enemy (All this Self awareness, Self realisation etc.. doesn’t come from Christ) Adam and Eve after the Fall became Self aware of their nakedness.

    Genesis 3
    7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

    2 Peter 2
    10 And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.

    Matthew 16
    24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    Christ Crucifixion
    1 Peter 2
    24 Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed.

    PROPHECY AND PROPHETS.
    Prophets and Prophecy didn’t end with St John Baptist! What did End was the Old Covenant!!
    Our Lord didn’t redefine what was already known and understood about Prophecy and Prophets. REVEALING HIS SECRET TO HIS SERVANTS THE PROPHETS,
    Secrets? La Salette, Fatima.

    Amos 3
    7 For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.

    Acts Of Apostles 2
    17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams

    Popes in Hell? DANTE
    There key is canonisation, There was no formal process for something like a 1000 years. Prior to the year 1234, the Church did not have a formal process as such. Later the process became embedded in Canon Law etc..

    Dante puts one pope, Pope Nicholas III, in hell and announces the arrival of two others, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Celestine (who resigned)
    Dantes work was hugely influential with theologians.
    His work heavily Influenced by: Virgil, Aristotle, Homer, Thomas Aquinas, Ovid

    Fatima?
    The earlier generations I am well aware of the Horrors experienced by themselves and their parents generation.
    (40 years is a generation hence Vatican waiting from 1960 to 2000)
    How convenient and cynical to let a generation died out and with them those known to have read the 3rd secret.

    As for implying that Lucy was what Senile? Dementia? Fact God writes His message on the the seers soul. The soul isn’t the material body.
    Who had sole Authority over access to Lucy? Who covered up the child abuse and sexual perversities that scourged the Church? We know of the serpents vipers nest (Masonry) embedded in the Curia and never denied.

    The seer is just a voicebox any merit or miracle isn’t attributable to the vessel used its Heavens work, St Bernadette didn’t become a saint because she was a seer but because of her Life of Sanctity and Holiness as a religious.
    Same with a Pope (Infallibility is CHRIST voice) he is just a voicebox BUT has to earn His Salvation just like the rest of Us. The Higher you are the Greater you can Fall.

    What I look for is less Self and Pride and more humility, a lowliness not worldy Pride.
    The traps and tricks set to catch out and trip Up!!

    Its Our Lord’s Church and He will cleanse His Bride.

  166. JabbaPapa says:

    Prophets … didn’t end with St John Baptist

    That is an outright denial of infallible Catholic dogma.

    As for implying that Lucy was what Senile? Dementia?

    Oh give it a rest, you’re demonstrating time and again an extraordinary ability for misinterpretation and overinterpretation …

    How convenient and cynical to let a generation died out and with them those known to have read the 3rd secret

    … and paranoid conspiracy theories.

  167. ginnyfree says:

    Any octopus worth its salt always has more ink to spill in which it hides it descent back into the depths from which is came.

    Gotta hand it to you Robert, a straight answer is not what you’ll ever offer anyone. Consistency in all things, sense in nothing.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  168. John says:

    Can anyone in three short sentences tell me what the so-called three ‘secrets of Fatima were ?
    I never heard what they were I promise not to tell anybody.

  169. Robert says:

    For Jabba and Ginny

    “… On this point, it should be kept in mind that prophecy in the biblical sense does not mean to predict the future but to explain the will of God for the present, and therefore show the right path to take for the future. …”
    Cardinal Raztinger

    Jabba June 19, 2016 at 06:10 Lucy “..and sometimes even faulty memory..”

    The book you have clearly never read!
    “The book of Lucia’s memoirs, titled Fatima in Lucia’s own words ”

    Pages quoted are English edition

    page 222 – 225

    “..Because the single Revelation of God addressed to all peoples comes to completion with Christ and the witness borne to him in the books of the New Testament, the Church is tied to this unique
    event of sacred history and to the word of the Bible, which guarantees and interprets it. But this does not mean that the Church can now look only to the past and that she is condemned to sterile repetition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in this regard:
    “…even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made fully explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries” (No. 66). The way in which the Church is bound to both the uniqueness of the event and progress in understanding it is very well illustrated in the farewell discourse of the Lord when, taking leave of his disciples, he says: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority… He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (Jn 16:12-14). On
    the one hand, the Spirit acts as a guide who discloses a knowledge previously unreachable because the premise was missing—this is the boundless breadth and depth of Christian faith. On the other hand, to be guided by the Spirit is also “to draw from” the riches of Jesus Christ himself, the inexhaustible depths of which appear in the way the Spirit leads. In this regard, the Catechism cites profound words of Pope Gregory the Great: “The sacred Scriptures grow with the one who reads them” (No. 94; Gregory the Great,Homilia in Ezechielem I, 7, 8). The Second Vatican Council notes three essential ways in which the Spirit guides in the Church, and therefore three ways in which “the word grows”: through the meditation and study of the faithful, through the deep understanding which comes from spiritual experience, and through the preaching of “those who,
    in the succession of the episcopate, have received the sure charism of truth” (Dei Verbum, 8).
    In this context, it now becomes possible to understand rightly the concept of “private revelation”, which refers to all the visions and revelations which have taken place since the completion of
    the New Testament. This is the category to which we must assign the message of Fatima. In this respect, let us listen once again to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church… It is not their role to complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history” (No. 67). This clarifies two things:
    1. The authority of private revelations is essentially different from that of the definitive public Revelation. The latter demands faith; in it in fact God himself speaks to us through human words
    and the mediation of the living community of the Church. Faith in God and in his word is different from any other human faith, trust or opinion. The certainty that it is God who is speaking gives me the assurance that I am in touch with truth itself. It gives me a certitude which is beyond verification by any human way of knowing. It is the certitude upon which I build my life and to which I entrust myself in dying.
    2. Private revelation is a help to this faith, and shows its credibility precisely by leading me back to the definitive public Revelation. In this regard, Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope
    Benedict XIV, says in his classic treatise, which later became normative for beatifications and canonizations: “An assent of Catholic faith is not due to revelations approved in this way; it is not even possible. These revelations seek rather an assent of human faith in keeping with the requirements of prudence, which puts them before us as probable and credible to piety”. The Flemish theologian E. Dhanis, an eminent scholar in this field, states succinctly that ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with
    prudence (E. Dhanis,Sguardo su Fatima e bilancio di una discussione, in La Civiltà Cattolica 104 [1953], II, 392-406, in particular 397). Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding
    the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use.
    The criterion for the truth and value of a private revelation is therefore its orientation to Christ himself. When it leads us away from him, when it becomes independent of him or even presents
    itself as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the Gospel, then it certainly does not come from the Holy Spirit, who guides us more deeply into the Gospel and not away from it.
    This does not mean that a private revelation will not offer new emphases or give rise to new devotional forms, or deepen and spread older forms. But in all of this there must be a nurturing of
    faith, hope and love, which are the unchanging path to salvation for everyone. We might add that private revelations often spring from popular piety and leave their stamp on it, giving it a new impulse and opening the way for new forms of it. Nor does this exclude that they will have an effect even on the liturgy, as we see for instance in the feasts of Corpus Christi and of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
    From one point of view, the relationship between Revelation and private revelations appears in the relationship between the liturgy and popular piety: the liturgy is the criterion, it is the living form of the Church as a whole, fed directly by the Gospel. Popular piety is a sign that the faith is spreading its roots into the heart of a people in such a way that it reaches into daily life. Popular religiosity is the first and fundamental mode of “inculturation” of the faith. While it must always take its lead and direction from the liturgy, it in turn enriches the faith by involving the heart.

    We have thus moved from the somewhat negative clarifications, initially needed, to a positive definition of private revelations. How can they be classified correctly in relation to Scripture? To
    which theological category do they belong? The oldest letter of Saint Paul which has been preserved, perhaps the oldest of the New Testament texts, the First Letter to the Thessalonians, seems to me to point the way. The Apostle says: “Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything, holding fast to what is good” (5:19-21). In every age the Church has received the charism of prophecy, which must be scrutinized but not scorned. On this point, it should be kept in mind that prophecy in the biblical sense does not mean to predict the future but to explain the will of God for the present, and therefore show the right path to take for the future. A person who foretells what is going to happen responds to the curiosity of the mind, which wants to draw back the veil on the future. The prophet speaks to the blindness of will and of reason, and declares the will of God as an indication and demand for the present time. In this case, prediction of the future is of secondary importance. What is essential is the actualization of the definitive
    Revelation, which concerns me at the deepest level. The prophetic word is a warning or a consolation, or both together. In this sense there is a link between the charism of prophecy and the category of “the signs of the times”, which Vatican II brought to light anew: “You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky; why then do you not know how to interpret the present time?” (Lk 12:56). In this saying of Jesus, the “signs of the times” must be understood as the path he was taking, indeed it must be understood as Jesus himself. To interpret the signs of the times in the light of faith means to recognize the presence of Christ in every age. In the private revelations approved by the Church—and therefore also in Fatima—this is the point: they help us to understand the signs of the times and to respond to them rightly in faith…”

    Also extracted from page 226
    “..“Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything, holding fast to
    what is good” (5:19-21). In every age the Church has received the charism of prophecy, which must be scrutinized but not scorned. On this point, it should be kept in mind that prophecy in the biblical sense does not mean to predict the future but to explain the will of God for the present, and therefore show the right path to take for the future. ..”

    SIGNED
    Joseph Card. Ratzinger
    Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

    The Year 1960 (the following in years prior to 1960 and their testimony’s).
    The testimony of Bishop of Fatima.
    Cardinal Ottaviani
    Canon Barthas
    Cardinal Cerejeira
    Cardinal Tisserant
    AND OF COURSE PIUS XII.

    Sister Lucy had made the Bishop of Fatima-Leiria promise that the Secret would be read to the world at her death, but in no event later than 1960, “because Our Lady wishes it so.” As Sister Lucy would later explain to Cardinal Ottaviani and Canon Barthas (a renowned Fatima expert), Our Lady told her that the Secret must be disclosed by 1960 “because it will be clearer.”
    In 1946 Cardinal Cerejeira, the Patriarch of Portugal, publicly promised that the Secret “will be opened in 1960.” Rome voiced no objection. On the contrary, Cardinals Ottaviani and Tisserant publicly echoed the promise of Cardinal Cerejeira, as did numerous other Church authorities over the years. There was even an American television show entitled “Zero 1960”, which took its theme from the universally expected disclosure of the Secret. Produced by the once-militant Blue Army, the show was so popular it received a “star” rating in The New York Times.

    And so, as 1959 drew to a close, Catholics around the world waited eagerly for the imminent completion of the Message of Fatima. The Marian devotion which had flourished during the reign of Pius XII reached new heights in anticipation. But it was not to be. On February 8, 1960, the faithful received the devastating news: Acting through the double blind of a Portuguese press agency, anonymous “Vatican sources” let it be known that the Third Secret would not be disclosed that year and “would probably remain, forever, under absolute seal.”

  170. Robert says:

    I have repeated this extract from Cardinal Ratzinger appendix as already supplied.

    The reason is because the Church has taught through a succession of Popes that Fatima is Authentic and is for Our Time.

    “.. In every age the Church has received the charism of prophecy, which must be scrutinized but NOT scorned. On this point, it should be kept in mind that prophecy in the biblical sense does not mean to predict the future but TO EXPLAIN THE WILL OF GOD FOR THE PRESENT, AND THEREFOR SHOW THE RIGHT PATH TO TAKE IN THE FUTURE.
    A person who foretells what is going to happen responds to the curiosity of the mind, which wants to draw back the veil on the future. THE PROPHET SPEAKS TO THE BLINDNESS OF WILL AND OF REASON, AND DECLARES THE WILL OF GOD AS AN INDICATION AND DEMAND FOR THE PRESENT TIME..”

  171. Brother Burrito says:

    Dear Toad,

    “Has it struck anyone else how woefully ironic the title of “Catholicism, Pure, & Simple” has become these days?”

    Irony is just mighty for me. Nobody is pure and simple, let alone Catholics. Readers are attracted here by the title, but then they meet people like you, and Robert, and Ginnyfree, and all the rest.

    This place is a only a forum. It is not the fount of ultimate Truth, though it tries to direct souls that way.

    BTW, are you aware that iron is the most stable element of all? When the universe eventually dies, it will be full of iron.

    That reminds me, I have a heap of ironing to do. LOL.

  172. JabbaPapa says:

    The book you have clearly never read

    More make-believe from Roger in reaction to people not going along with his “exciting” claims.

    “… On this point, it should be kept in mind that prophecy in the biblical sense does not mean to predict the future but to explain the will of God for the present, and therefore show the right path to take for the future. …”

    I can’t help it if you erroneously confuse prophecy with Prophets.

    bla-bla-bla and Roger posts another flow of pointless cut’n’paste, in seeming ignorance of the fact that nearly everyone here is a Faithful Catholic not needing to be instructed in essentials of ordinary Catechesis.

    There was even an American television show entitled “Zero 1960”, which took its theme from the universally expected disclosure of the Secret

    I can’t help it if people are excited by baseless sensationalism instead of remaining modest and humble towards the Catholicity of the Faith and obedient to the duties of Religion. The Lord Himself reproached people for doing so.

    Fatima in Lucy’s own words, p. 218 : “Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the “secret” to the then Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sister Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria. Archbishop Bertone therefore asked: “Why only after 1960? Was it Our Lady who fixed that date?” Sister Lucia replied: “It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood. Now it can be better understood. I wrote down what I saw; however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope.

    Note : AFTER 1960, not “before”.

    Far from “never having read it” BTW, contrary to this latest of your false allegations, it is in PDF form on my desktop.

  173. toadspittle says:

    @Burro yesterday at 4 mins to Midnight: Right again, Buronillo!
    “Readers are attracted here by the title, but then they meet people like you, and Robert, and Ginnyfree, and all the rest.”
    Heavens yes, what a Zoo, eh!
    Still, as long as we happy band of brothers and sisters can introduce a little sunshine into the sordid lives of the less fortunate, our labours are will not prove utterly in vain, nor our reward will be on this earth – Yea, God truly works in blah, blah, etc., etc. (…take in AP.)
    (Pompous Old Foxer, Toad.)

  174. Robert says:

    I apologise and regret being impatient.

    Lucy comes across as a humble holy simply and trusting soul. To honest and trusting of the Vipers nest embedded in the Curia.

    “..“It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood. Now it can be better understood. ”

    Understand that word (I had the intuition) means illumination (this is Our Lady’s chosen voicebox of Fatima) the date 1960 is of God. Lucy was the Authentic Prophet chosen of Our Lady! Think of St Elizabeths intuition (Illumination) at the Visitation. Think of St John the Baptists illumination “behold the lamb of God”.

    The vipers of the Curia are attempting to discredit the honesty and integrity of Pius XII in 1946.

    In 1945/6 Lucy well recorded reluctance to the 3rd secret(s) to writing and Heavens approval are known and recorded. Why doubt the promise exacted from the Bishop of Fatima!!
    She is spot on about it being later and better understood! She is confirms exactly the following
    “Sister Lucy had made the Bishop of Fatima-Leiria promise that the Secret would be read to the world at her death, but in no event later than 1960, “because Our Lady wishes it so.”

    As Sister Lucy would later explain to Cardinal Ottaviani and Canon Barthas (a renowned Fatima expert), Our Lady told her that the Secret must be disclosed by 1960 “because it will be clearer.”

    Now comes the ambiguity of “I wrote down what I saw;” Yes the Vision(s).
    ” however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope.” Simply obedience of the religious.

    So what was John Paul’s interpretation?

    But this throws back to the Truth .
    1/ We have John Paul’s sermon
    2/ Cardinal Raztingers intrepretation.

    Let the simply Truth shine out

  175. toadspittle says:

    “Understand that word (I had the intuition) means illumination..”
    Well, Robot, I must admit I frequently point out that words mean whatever we want them to mean … but there are limits.
    Intuition does not mean illumination, not even in the Looking Glass world of CP&S.
    You might as well say, ‘bicycle’ means ‘marmalade.’

  176. JabbaPapa says:

    voicebox

    This characterisation of seers and visionaries is almost insultingly flawed, as well as constituting a directly false representation of the purpose and nature of private revelations.

    the Vipers nest embedded in the Curia

    A grotesque characterisation of the Prelates serving the Ordinary Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church.

    Understand that word (I had the intuition) means illumination

    No it doesn’t.

    As Sister Lucy would later explain to Cardinal Ottaviani and Canon Barthas (a renowned Fatima expert), Our Lady told her that the Secret must be disclosed by 1960 “because it will be clearer.”

    The opposite is clear from my earlier quote of Lucia’s own words. 1) Our Lady told her no such thing 2) after 1960 is the diametric opposite of “by 1960”.

    Do you have comprehension difficulties, Roger ? If so, you should strongly refrain from seeking to “instruct” others.

    Now comes the ambiguity of “I wrote down what I saw;” Yes the Vision(s).
    ” however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope.” Simply obedience of the religious.

    There is no “ambiguity” there whatsoever, except for some false ambiguities that you are dreaming up out of your own mind, due to the somewhat destructive desire that you seem to have toward believing in baseless and sensationalist conspiracy theories.

    And no, that’s not a particular “obedience of the religious”, it is the obedience that all Catholics must provide to the Holy Roman Pontiff and to the binding decrees of the Apostolic See of Rome.

  177. Robert says:

    Toad
    Lucy’s quandary in 1946 is recorded and evidenced by sundry Cardinals and her own Bishop.
    Lucy insisted on the Bishops promise. The witnesses who could attest to 1946 are no longer there are they?

    This is the Seer Of Fatima?
    The English Intuition means “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.”

    In other words the Biblical (and you have JP II’s sermon that Fatima is Biblical) understanding is
    as pointed out already.
    Another example is St Peter’s response to Our Lord when Our Lord said who do you think I AM?
    St Peter’s response wasn’t His reasoning and Our Lord confirmed that it was from God the Father!

    I praise and thank Our Lord and Our Lady because you can see how Providence unmasks and has nullified the vipers. The simply will see and understand.

  178. Tom Fisher says:

    I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood.

    So somewhere between the end of the “Chatterley” ban and the Beatles’ first LP?

  179. Tom Fisher says:

    SELF Is your enemy (All this Self awareness, Self realisation etc.. doesn’t come from Christ) Adam and Eve after the Fall became Self aware of their nakedness.

    The occasional flash of self awareness can’t hurt, Robert.

  180. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 06:10 yesterday

    Thank you for this, Jabba. (Sorry for the delay in responding; I was keeping Sunday as a family day!😉 )
    I have read many books on Fatima – Fr Andrew Apostoli’s “Fatima For Today” was the last one, highly recommendable – but not the one you mention, “Fatima in Lucia’s own words”. Shall be put on my reading list tout de suite.

    BTW, to make it a bit clearer to who you were responding to at that time yesterday, I took the liberty of adding the names of the commenters in brackets. Hope you don’t mind. In this way it just helps us understand who you were replying to.
    _________

    Roger mentions:

    “the Vipers nest embedded in the Curia”

    And you respond to that with:

    “A grotesque characterisation of the Prelates serving the Ordinary Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church.”

    Hmmm. Certainly it is wrong to tar every holy, consecrated prelate of the Curia with the same brush, branding them all as “vipers”! “The gates of Hell, etc.” is a guarantee that the enemy will never topple the Bride of Christ.
    However, it is very evident, and something that Popes Paul VI, Benedict XVI, and even Francis, have all recognised, that within the Curia there is embedded an anti-Catholic element that has been working against the Holy Catholic Church. (N.B. the “wolves” Pope Benedict referred to.) Who is this ‘enemy-within-the-gates’? I certainly don’t know. It/they have not been clearly identified, but we have heard about the sodomite ‘lavender mafia’, the Freemasons, and also the Communist (thus atheistic) infiltration testified by Bella Dodd and such reliable holy bishops as Ven. Fulton Sheen.

    Some of the incredibly shocking things that have happened or been said from sources emanating from the Vatican could well make us say that implanted therein there is a “viper’s nest”. God help us.

    Ed. (@ 13 hrs.): We all love and swear loyalty to our Catholic Church. The Church is holy and always will be, but men are sinners. There are many many good and holy men in the hierarchy, protecting the sacred teachings of the Church without compromise. But we have it from these same saintly prelates themselves that they are fighting a battle against the forces of evil that have infiltrated the very heart of the Church.

  181. ginnyfree says:

    But Jabba, Robert has never let the facts get in the way of a good story. He has his own sources who’ve retold the story so well, no one needs the original any more. He will never admit he is wrong, nor will he amend his versions of the truth. Several persons have pointed to major doctrinal errors in his words, yet he simply ignores them, over and over and over again. Some folks really don’t want to come to the fullness of the truth who is found in Jesus Christ. They do desire to influence persons into rejecting the same.

    I’ve got a real problem with him claiming the Curia has been taken over by the Masonic Temple! How many good men does that disparage at once? Yet such hate speech is tolerated here. And that is exactly what that is. Hate speech. He wrote that same thing not only on this thread, but elsewhere. I love my Church. When persons say such things about her Congregations, they say them about me and the whole. That’s a little too far for me and I don’t understand why that kind of talk IS tolerated here.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  182. Tom Fisher says:

    Popes in Hell? DANTE
    There key is canonisation, There was no formal process for something like a 1000 years. Prior to the year 1234, the Church did not have a formal process as such. Later the process became embedded in Canon Law etc..

    Dante puts one pope, Pope Nicholas III, in hell and announces the arrival of two others, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Celestine (who resigned)
    Dantes work was hugely influential with theologians.
    His work heavily Influenced by: Virgil, Aristotle, Homer, Thomas Aquinas, Ovid

    Robert. Dante is not a source you can cite in a discussion of the occupancy of hell. Dante himself would be appalled at such an abuse of his work. He is the supreme poet of the Catholic tradition, but his work cannot be used in that way.
    So, for example, it is not Catholic doctrine that when a person commits a mortal sin their soul instantly descends to hell and a demon occupies their body till the body dies. But it is Dante’s account. Because it suited his poetic purpose. But never in a million years would he have claimed it as a doctrinal truth. At a more basic level, Dante described specific individuals as damned – but he knew perfectly well that he was not privy to any such knowledge.
    It’s just silly to try and use Dante as you have done in your comment

  183. Robert says:

    Tom

    The simply will understand.

    Our Lady’s promise to the children and her Prophesy of their future.
    Lucy lived to see her friends confirmed as in Heaven!
    The Joy of knowing that her exile was surely coming to an End.
    Such a faithful guardian of Heavens pearls.

    Self awareness was the first noticeable fruit of the Fall. Self esteem , Self awareness, self realization, self interest, of course self centred.

    Self is a distinctive element of the Pagan Religions. With Self comes Self Will of course.
    Now look at Our Lord come to do the Will of His Father. To be about His Father’s business etc..
    How Our Lord thanked Heaven for hiding from the Wise and Prudent and revealing to the little ones (children).

    I am simply sharing this with you. Were does self lead? materialism and comforts? worldy ambitions. But if these leads you away from Heaven of what use will this be?

    Use the gifts God has given you but seek first the Kingdom of Heaven. If you become side tracked
    of what use is this to your neighbour and God?

    Lucy in 1946 (after that dreadful second world war and the BOMB) insisted on the Bishops promise over the year 1960. Whom do you believe the Saint of the flunky?

    Love and Peace and gratitude to Our Lord and Our Lady for the Wisdom of their little Shepherds!

  184. ginnyfree says:

    Not to mention that Dante got in a whole bunch of trouble over this very issue. Ah, but then again why let facts interfere with a good story?

  185. toadspittle says:

    What we are seeing here these days are differences of opinion (of interpretation, if we prefer) – nothing more. I’m confident each individual sincerely believes she (or even he) has The Truth and the others don’t. That’s life.
    It could be called relativism. But that’s a rude word. And we don’t use it round here. Do we?

    “So somewhere between the end of the “Chatterley” ban and the Beatles’ first LP?”
    Wonderful, Tom (insert smiley face). But now quit larkin around.

  186. Tom Fisher says:

    Dante puts one pope, Pope Nicholas III, in hell and announces the arrival of two others, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Celestine (who resigned)
    Dantes work was hugely influential with theologians.
    His work heavily Influenced by: Virgil, Aristotle, Homer, Thomas Aquinas, Ovid

    You will note, Robert, that Dante’s (likely) reference to Celestine as damned didn’t stop Pope Benedict XVI regarding him with compassionate reverence when he visited his tomb.

    Dantes work was hugely influential with theologians.
    His work heavily Influenced by: Virgil, Aristotle, Homer, Thomas Aquinas, Ovid

    Lucan and Boethius (who you do not mention) were both far more significant than Homer in their influence on Dante. He knew of the Iliad and Odyssey, but never read them. Homer was only an indirect influence. Interestingly his contemporary Petrarch owned a copy of the Iliad, and treated it with reverence, but could not read it.
    His work has been influential with theologians, but not in the preposterous sense of creating doctrine from his poetry.

  187. Robert says:

    Tom
    The Church has had what 1000 years to deny Dante. The simply truth is His work conforms to the Faith and has influenced Cardinals, Popes, Theologians.
    Before a formal process was formulated and later became Canon Law the sanctity and indeed otherwise was through the Churches including St Augustine the Fathers of the Church etc. etc..
    Where are the denials?

  188. Robert says:

    Ginny
    Dante’s protagonist had their self vested interests didn’t they?
    Was His work placed on the Index? Was His work banned?
    Remember Saints were then by popular acclaim, the Will of God through His Church.
    The Pope has to earn his sanctity like everybody else he is not exempt from the Anathemas of the Church. He has to submit to Gods judgments in the Confessional.

  189. Tom Fisher says:

    Not to mention that Dante got in a whole bunch of trouble over this very issue

    Good point Ginny! Some of his criticisms struck a little too close to the bone. And his reputation wasn’t secure for a good while. But if only Robert could understand that Dante being the greatest poet in Catholic history doesn’t make him an authority on the occupancy of Hell.

  190. Brother Burrito says:

    Contingent upon everyone’s blessing I propose that Robert’s future comment contributions be put into pre-moderation.

    This does not mean his comments will never be published, but that they will only appear after approval by a moderator. We find that this helps souls in the control of their ardour.

    He will thus join the exalted rank of such blog luminaries as Messrs Toad, Kehoe, and Bosco.

    Do I hear “Aye”?

  191. Tom Fisher says:

    Tom
    The Church has had what 1000 years to deny Dante. The simply truth is His work conforms to the Faith and has influenced Cardinals, Popes, Theologians.
    Before a formal process was formulated and later became Canon Law the sanctity and indeed otherwise was through the Churches including St Augustine the Fathers of the Church etc. etc..
    Where are the denials?

    Robert, I really think that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what Dante was trying to do. The 33rd canto of the Paradiso is beautiful beyond measure, and it is (the Catholic faith tells us) true. In that canto Dante is struggling to put into words the highest hopes and beliefs of the Church. But to reach the sublime heights of theology, Dante used narrative poetry. He did not, as a matter of fact, banter with Virgil on the slopes of a sea girt mountain in the southern hemisphere. Nor did he climb down the hairy thigh of Satan. — And he did not and nor could he, provide evidence either way for the status of deceased popes.

    I’m trying to be polite Robert, but it’s just too silly

  192. Tom Fisher says:

    Do I hear “Aye”?

    BB, please let me register a nay vote. Robert has strong views, but he is clearly sincere, and clearly Catholic, and is no ruder to his fellows than the rest of us. For what it’s worth I don’t think he should be in pre-moderation.

  193. kathleen says:

    Another “nay” vote from me too, BB.

    I agree absolutely with Tom’s views about Robert/Roger.

    P.S. Wish we could clear up which of the two is his real name. His moniker is now “Robert”, but he often signs his comments with the original “Roger” he used to use.

  194. Tom Fisher says:

    Wish we could clear up which of the two is his real name

    No, it’s part of Rogbert’s unique charm. He has a sublime disregard for the restrictions of english grammar, and for our bourgeois expectation that he keep the same name from minute to minute.

  195. ginnyfree says:

    Robert, how far off topic is this latest question of yours? The subject is is Pope Francis a lemon or the Church? You seem to think both are and you’re not. I disagree with you on this and many other things. Dante’s works have nothing to do with the original subject which I think has been beaten to death and should be laid to rest. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  196. mmvc says:

    “Nay” from me too.

  197. toadspittle says:

    Nay from Toad. Naturally.
    God knows why I’m subjected to it – well, Him, and Bro B., of course

    What would happen to Roger’s comments comments if he were to be moderated?
    Grammar corrected? Enthusiasm curbed? Unpopular views censored? Useful additional information regarding Fatima added? Vicious and venomous attacks on The Ginless Wonder expunged?
    We should be told, I think.

  198. johnhenrycn says:

    I hardly ever read Robert’s epic length comments, but if pre-moderation means that I won’t be financially ruined, what with all the “White-Out” I buy to hide his comments on my laptop screen, well I’d be tentatively favourably somewhat disposed to vote “Yay” in the fullness of time.

  199. JabbaPapa says:

    What we are seeing here these days are differences of opinion (of interpretation, if we prefer) – nothing more

    No, dear Toad — you are more than welcome to your own gentle opinion, but the Reality of Divine Intervention and personal revelations is intrinsically real in a manner that opinion is not.

  200. JabbaPapa says:

    The Church has had what 1000 years to deny Dante. The simply truth is His work conforms to the Faith

    Oh don’t be ridiculous, you seek to conflate (excellent) poetry with Doctrine.

  201. JabbaPapa says:

    Sorry, I don’t wish to “censor” him, but his posts are nevertheless in some ways harmful to the Orthodoxy of the Faith, including one must fear to those who come here as lurkers or readers and who, without commenting, might be tempted by him towards some false notions that are incompatible by nature with the Catholicity.

  202. toadspittle says:

    “…but the Reality of Divine Intervention and personal revelations is intrinsically real in a manner that opinion is not.”
    Lots of things are “intrinsically real,” like Big Macs, Altar girls, or Mahler’s 6th – but we are allowed to have differing opinions about them. At present, anyway…Until Francis tells us we can’t.
    “Sorry, I don’t wish to “censor” him, but…” …there’s no other word for it.
    I’m rather surprised at you, Jab.
    Still, takes all sorts though, dunnit – as you frequently reminding us.

  203. johnhenrycn says:

    “Sorry, I don’t wish to “censor” him…”

    Who is “him”, Jabba? You have an annoying habit of not referring to people by name. His prolonged peripherals and the equally prolonged persiflage that you and Ginny post in reply are such a bore, which is not to say that I don’t read what you and she write – excepting what you write to “him”.

  204. johnhenrycn says:

    But since we are thinking about putting someone into pre-moderation, I nominate the person who wrote these words about our Holy Father on another thread today: “The current poor clown of a pope…” Know who I mean? He and I (and Ginny) visit another Catholic website just as orthodox as this one; and he would have been banned – not just moderated – for such an outrageous insult, which is not a one-off with him. He is becoming increasingly Mundabor-ish. Not a good thing.

  205. JabbaPapa says:

    You have an annoying habit of not referring to people by name

    Can you see any other nits that need picking ?

  206. johnhenrycn says:

    “Nits” is a euphemism for head lice, don’t you know? You’re an excellent commenter in lots of ways, as I’ve said before. Your depth of Catholic historical knowledge surpasses mine, but my joy in seeing your icon is not unalloyed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s