Author Topic: Fatima and sedevacantism (Read 10571 times)

CM · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2009, 11:45:05 PM »

What are the fruits of Fatima? Then we shall see if it was holy.

1) It kept people in communion with the heretical antipope Benedict XV , who revealed himself a heretic in his very first paragraph of his very first public teaching. Anyone who knows their faith would have read this and realized something was wrong. Thus, most Catholics were quickly ejected from the Church by schism (Apocalypse 3:16, Romans 1:28), those who had not already become heretical beforehand.

2) It had them praying the Rosary while in that state, but as we know from Florence, prayer and other such deeds of piety are utterly useless outside of the true Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442: "It (The Holy Roman Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 16, 2009, 12:13:18 AM »

I go to CMRI which is very Fatima-heavy. I tend to keep my mouth shut about Fatima.

One thing that seems strange about Fatima is that the prophecy tells the Pope to consecrate Russia to Mary's Sacred Heart in 1917, right about the time Russia was already being taken over by Bolsheviks for good. Thus there was no time for Mary's mission to be accomplished. The Pope could have consecrated Russia but it would have been merely symbolic. It would have stopped nothing. In 1917, Mystery Babylon was already WELL underway. Of course, the Russian Revolution didn't help matters.

Oh, and there's also the problem that the "democracy" of America and most of the Western world, long before Russia turned to outright communism, was already a disaster. It was inevitably going to lead to where we are now. You have Jews running nations full of Catholics, holding the carrot stick of Rothschild cyber-Monopoly money in front of their noses, making Catholics fight Jєωιѕн wars against each other.

None of this invalidates Fatima, however, because there is still a chance that Vatican II is not the abomination of desolation. Six billion people, except a handful, who are clinging to possibly fatal error is plenty desolate. But who knows, God may have even worse in store. So cheer up!

****

I see Fatima as mostly symbolic, a final warning that Mary knew wasn't going to be fulfilled -- but she said it anyway. It can't be taken literally or it crumbles ( true of Daniel or the Apocalypse as well ).

This is why something inside me flinches when people go on and on about "consecrating Russia to the Sacred Heart of Mary." I'm sorry, but it feels to me as if they are clinging to a feel-good panacea instead of looking at the nightmare right in their own backyard. Everyone can come together and agree how Russia really, really needs to be converted... How brave! Actually, it is the WHOLE WORLD that needs to be converted to, as Thomas Droleskey says, the Social Reign of Christ the King.

The prophecy works ONLY if Russia is seen as a symbol of all communism, and that includes our "democracies," which now have taken over the entire world. If you are an American who thinks you have it better than in Russia, you're dreaming.

So I think Pius XII may have been correct to correct Fatima! Does a Pope outrank Mary, considering he's the Vicar of Christ Himself? I don't know, but why not consecrate the whole world?

Pius XII was also absolutely correct in his assessment of World War II, that he could not wholly support either side. That's because both were controlled by the same puppet-masters. If you think we are "free" and that Russia is "communist" I'm afraid you've been watching too many Steven Spielberg movies. You've been Hegelized!!!

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 16, 2009, 01:43:51 AM »

P.S. The paragraph about the abomination of desolation doesn't make sense because I deleted its intro paragraph!

I had been writing about how most of those who focus on Fatima believe in a Restoration of the Church, a new triumph of Mary over the Earth, while the Bible tells us that the abomination of desolation will last until the CONSUMMATION. Once it starts, it will increase in evil, like a snowball turning into an avalanche, until the end. There is no break in the abomination of desolation.

But as I said, Vatican II is not necessarily the abomination of desolation. It feels like it is to me, but that is only a feeling.

As far as the triumph of Mary goes, that is certainly true, however you interpret it. I was reading in Louis de Montfort that the "saints of the end of times" will have a special devotion to Mary. She pulls them/us through SPIRITUALLY, through the gift of perseverance. She certainly could restore the Church if that were God's will but is it? I'm not sure.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** June 16, 2009, 01:52:30 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Fatima was supernatural yes, but it was not from God. It was from satan. It occurred during the reign of an antipope, and the three shepherd children who were subject to that antipope received 'communion' at the hands of the 'angel' and 'our lady'.

It is unlawful for schismatics to receive communion, so this cannot have been anything but a trick of the devil, designed to keep people in communion with the line of antipopes he had installed in the Vatican.

Hel-low!

You just rendered your other comments worthless with this zinger. You may have gone off in some of the others, too, but I have not had time or desire to read all posts of late.

God speed.

Btw, do you now what supernatural means? The devil does not operate on the supernatural level - his natural powers are simply above our own.

roscoe · « **Reply #9 on:** June 16, 2009, 01:57:07 AM »

It seems Pius XII had doubts of certain parts of the Fatima propheies and consecrated the whole world instead. I have no problem with that: especially when the Pope has proclaimed the only Infallible word since the V Council in favor of the Holy Virgin.

Someone posted prev that Ben 15 had condemned a La Sallette prophesy re: Papacy being 'v2ed' at some point-- the forecast has surely been shown to be true. If he did that it would be another planck in my platform of the anti-pope Ben. I understand that some prophesies are not held as Doctrine but to condemn them seems most unorthodox. Something else interesting is that F McNutt implies that Ben XV(15?) is part of a faction that is putting the shill Mussolini into power. Francis does not have much of an opinion of Della chiesa as is evident to anyone who has read Papal Chamberlain.

Putting aside any doctrinal or conduct related issue that may be cause to consider Ben 15 an antipope, the mans very election is so suspect as to recall Boniface. Pius X, Card's Del Val and Rampolla were all three at odds with him despite the efforts of some to claim Ben's policies are somehow are a continuation of the alleged worldliness of the latter---huh? I tend to agree with CM in his op of Ben as anti-pope however even if I once mistakenly believed Pius XII to be so, I do not see Pius XI or XI as anti-popes .

On the subject of anti-pope, something needs to be corrected that was posted by another member. It was implied that anti-pope does not necessarily mean a bad Pope. THIS IS HISTORICALLY A HIGHLY MISTAKEN INTERPRETATION.

What the poster was most likely referring to was the GWS when the two split factions were at odds stictly because of political views.

Most of the 42 or so anti-popes are very bad men indeed.