Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Kephapaulos on June 15, 2009, 07:39:23 PM
-
MHFM does not preach the Catholic faith inviolate. If it did, it would definitely believe in BOD and BOB and not be sedevacantist.
Those two topics are an oft-debated subject.
If I'm not mistaken, does not MHFM argue that Russia has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
I believe that they say that the consecration was done by Pius XII - however, it was late, so there was only a small period of peace, and the benefits that would have come about if the consecration was done on time and according the instructions of the Blessed Virgin did not.
If so, how can they explain the fact that the Russian state does not confess the Catholic faith and still has the errors of communism under the guise of a "democratic republic"?
above
The question also to pose to sedevacantists is how will there be another pope properly elected if they would even argue that all sees are vacant?
It would fall upon the clergy of the Diocese of Rome to elect their bishop.
Our Lady of Fatima's request that Russia be consecrated has not been fulfilled. There was no period of peace at all and has not been up to this day. No pope who has attempted to do the consecration has done it in the manner prescribed by the Blessed Mother. So, De Maistre, it does not make sense that the consecration was already done and was late since in 1942, Pius XII consecrated the WORLD to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, not Russia by name. What MHFM says concerning Fatima is related to what many in the Novus Ordo would probably argue, for there is the argument in the Novus Ordo that John Paul II accomplished the consecration in 1984. Either argument does not hold weight. As far as I know, none of the attempts at the consecration were done with all the bishops participating. Also, if MHFM argues that there was a small period of peace, there was not truly a period of the peace Our Lady meant. The peace she meant is the peace of Christ.
-
The dimond's are cranks.
-
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.
-
Wasn't the big message of Fatima to pray the rosary? What was the devil's point if you believe he was behind Fatima?
-
Don't be too surprised if there are those who say Fatima was the work of something unholy. Remember that in the Bible, the enemies of God said the same kinds of things about Christ for casting out devils.
There have always been people like that, and there probably always will be. If the words and works of Christ weren't "holy enough" for some people, it can hardly be shocking that Fatima should "fall short" as well.
-
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 (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/05/benedict-xv-was-antipope.html), 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."
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
God sets the conditions, not you. As God let the redemption of ALL men hang upon the 'fiat' of ONE MAIDEN, surely he might make the conversion of the world hang upon the consecration of one nation. To aruge the entire world needs to be consecrated is to state the obvious - and NO ONE is arguing the contrary (nor did Our Lady intimate the contrary).
Some around here seem to be talking out of their asses about things that are beyond their knowledge and experience.
-
EDIT: To argue that the entire world needs to be CONVERTED (not, as I wrote, consecrated)...
-
Gladius, I usually agree with you, but you are way off base here.
The devil indeed has supernatural powers. He can use people to talk through as if they were nothing but marionettes. Ever read any rock music lyrics? They are full of fantastical visionary wisdom, like that of a Greek oracle. Satan possesses all these people. He plays around with the truth, through the mouths of others, and often sounds like a prophet.
What makes you think he couldn't possess some kids to see the Virgin Mary? I don't think that's what happened. But it is SO VERY possible.
The reason CM is saying that is because the apparition was approved by Benedict XV, who he considers an anti-Pope because of the BoD-confirming 1917 Code of Canon Law. What he is saying is entirely in character, and consistent, if you accept his logic.
-
God speed.
I can only accept your "God speed" if you agree with all Catholic doctrine, and I admit I have not retained a lot of knowledge about your positions. To be safe, I decline your "God speed," until I can see your position paper or abjuration or some other assurance that you are certainly Catholic and not heretical or schismatic.
Btw, do you now what supernatural means? The devil does not operate on the supernatural level - his natural powers are simply above our own.
It seems to me I have heard something like this before. I guess the devil manipulates nature to create false miracles, which are not really supernatural? This fits with some things I read about Fatima. If I misspoke, I stand corrected. I wonder if you might kindly provide me with some resources, which go into detail about your understanding of the supernatural? I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
-
The reason CM is saying that is because the apparition was approved by Benedict XV, who he considers an anti-Pope because of the BoD-confirming 1917 Code of Canon Law. What he is saying is entirely in character, and consistent, if you accept his logic.
That is not at all why I am asserting that Benedict XV was an antipope, sir. In fact, if it were not for his public utterances of heresy against the salvation dogma (universal salvation to be exact) and Geocentrism, I would not have come to this conclusion about him at all. Even with the heretical 'Code', which also allows for people to receive sacraments from heretic priests, and for Catholic children to go to non-Catholic schools.
With all the links to my article on this forum, I am surprised that you would make such a blatant misrepresentation of the theology behind my position.
-
I am always happy for a correction when I am talking above my station. But I never said "God didn't set the conditions" gladius. I am just not sure what God's conditions are in this situation.
Pius XII, Vicar of Christ, servant of the servants of God, DID consecrate the whole world to the Heart of Mary, or try to. That was his action based on this approved apparition.
Are you saying he was talking out of his you-know-what? Then you are the one who knows better than the Pope?
If Russia had been consecrated, if it had converted, I agree, history might have been changed. For one, Catholic Russia may have destroyed the Jєωιѕн United States... But Russia was never Catholic to begin with; it has always been mostly Orthodox. Certainly in 1917 it wasn't going to convert.
The way I am coming to see this message is as a symbolic warning, a prophecy against communism in general, IN ALL ITS FORMS, including democracy -- hence Pius XII's desperate consecration of the whole world.
Again, I'm not questioning God. I'm questioning your interpretation of God. If we disagreed on a passage in the Apocalypse would you say I was questioning God? Some people think the Mark of the Beast is an actual mark; I also think the Mark is symbolic. This is just how I see things. If the mark were physical and real, then no one would be fooled by it... Do you see?
-
Gladius, I usually agree with you, but you are way off base here.[/quote
Actually, I am not.
The devil indeed has supernatural powers.
No, he does not. ALL creation is of the NATURAL ORDER. GOD ALONE is of the SUPER-natural order. He can and does ELEVATE us to his level - by means of sanctifying grace. Btw, there is also something called the preternatural. Adam was given gifts on this level, but he lost them when he fell.
What makes you think he couldn't possess some kids to see the Virgin Mary? I don't think that's what happened. But it is SO VERY possible.
Reread my words. You will actually see that I did not say he could not do so.
The reason CM is saying that is because the apparition was approved by Benedict XV, who he considers an anti-Pope because of the BoD-confirming 1917 Code of Canon Law. What he is saying is entirely in character, and consistent, if you accept his logic.
He is wrong. :cheers:
-
A pope cannot be held personally responsible for any works he approves in forma communi, only those he approves in forma specifica, thereby assuming authorship of the work, even if he did not pen it himself. This is why the heretical 'Code' is not sufficient to indicte Benedict XV, and it is why, even though I reject the heresies in the "Compendium of Christian Doctrine' by 'Cardinal' Respghi, which was later renamed 'Catechism of Pope Pius X', I cannot reject Pope Pius X, since he only approved it in forma communi, thereby leaving the authorship of the work in the hands of Respighi. He may not have even known the heresies were in there, and if he did, he was still not a public heretic; he never taught them.
-
The manipulation of nature above our level of understanding is NOT the same as something SUPER-natural.
-
He is wrong.
Nope. Benedict XV taught universal salvation and brotherly love and that Catholics and non-Catholics should unite, and that worldly peace is more important that spiritual peace, that there are Christians outside of the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church does not have true unity, and all the while was willfully ambiguous, a real deceiver, the first of many.
http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/05/benedict-xv-was-antipope.html
http://www.thecatholicfaith.us/index.htm
ANTIPOPE.
-
Gladius, what are your sources? Is this Aquinas who says only God is super-natural? I'm not being facetious, what you said fascinates me.
I had always defined the super-natural as being whatever is above the "natural" order of man, such as the angels.
The devil being a fallen angel, I had classed him as a supernatural being. I didn't mean by this that he had as much power as God, of course! In fact what many don't realize is that the devil, despite his rebellion, cannot make a move without God. His rebellion was entirely futile and he simply boxed himself in a corner, allowing himself to be used by God in the way that a hunter may use a caged ferret to harass his prey. As he says in a rock song "Despite all my rage, I'm still just a rat in a cage."
Meaning, God allows him to tempt us, but he is still God's creature. Every knee UNDER THE EARTH bows to the name of Jesus... Even the rebels have to bow! How can you rebel against the One who made you? The very concept is absurd.
So yes, I appreciate that you're trying to set God high above His creation, because He is. But I have never heard the supernatural defined that way before -- that only God is supernatural. I defined it from our limited perspective.
Again, give me your source, I have some reading to do...
-
God allows him to do so nasty stuff though, and why? Because God's justice is perfect, and we deserve it. Especially when we ignore the truth that stares us right in the face. Benedict XV was an antipope and BoD is heresy.
You may think I am a broken record, but this is a very important thing for people to assent to.
-
I just told you two Doctors of the Church (and many more besides) do NOT assent to your 'important truth', CM. To become a Doctor, the writings of the man under consideration are perused with a comb of the finest teeth. BoD and universal salvation are NOT the same thing, although an INCORRECT understanding of the one often leads to the other, truly heretical concept.
R76, although the angelic nature is ABOVE our own, it is still created - as you clearly understand. ALL creation may be classed as the NATURAL - God, being of an altogether different order (think TIME versus ETERNITY, which is NOT merely time without end), is above all. Faith, hope and charity are what we call supernatural virtues. They pertain to an order of activity that surpasses our own natural capacities, and the natural capacity of all created beings, including angels. God, in his goodness, elevates us to this level of activity - which is proper only to him.
CM, as for God's reasons for allowing the devil to act as he does, there is much more to it than mere justice and our own supposed deserts. Tell me, what is the worth of a Church that elevates a man to the status of Doctor if he teaches heresy (for which he was never censured)?
-
I defined it from our limited perspective.
"My thoughts are not your thoughts, and My ways are not your ways."
I will get back to you on a particular source, but it is a thread that runs through all sacred theology. Have you ever read Fr. Fahey?
-
All created things belong to the "natural order" because, as it has been rightly stated, only God is SUPERnatural, that is, "above (created) nature".
Angels may have more and better natural abilities than we do, but even as animals and men, or even plants and men, being as far apart in gifts and abilities as they are, belong to the scope of (created) nature, so, too do the angels belong to that same scope.
Yes, St. Thomas is, by the way, at least one of the people who said that only God is supernatural, or "above (created) nature".
That the angels are far superior becomes useless as an argument when we realize that even inanimate objects are put in the same category with human beings, under the "natural" heading. And there's certainly a wide gulf between us and the stones. Just like there's no "sub-natural" level to define created things that are way below man, it also makes sense that the angels would be included in the same scope of all things created.
It seems St. Thomas uses the words natural and supernatural here, to define that which is created, and subject to some constraints of it's nature, and that which is uncreated, and subject to no constraints (of what could be called God's nature). [My personal understanding.]
Of course, if, by nature, you mean that which is intrinsic to something, then even God has His nature, so to speak. But speaking of "natural" as that which belongs to the created order, then of course angels would also be included in that category, in spite of their awesome abilities and gifts from God, because they, too, are created, even if their nature has such superior properties and gifts to our own.
[Sorry if my post is rambling. I've got a bad cold, and it doesn't do the brain any favors.]
-
Tell me, what is the worth of a Church that elevates a man to the status of Doctor if he teaches heresy (for which he was never censured)?
Infallible decrees. God speaking through men. I'd say that's worth a lot. The fact is that the popes who utter such decrees do not even have to be fully aware of all the ramifications of what God the Holy Ghost is speaking through them. Caiaphas did not realize that he was prophesying the Redemption, for example.
-
No one can be said to be teaching "heresy" until the dogma is actually defined. Before that, it's merely every man's knowledge and opinions on the matter against every other man's. If the truth is not made clear or defined, how can someone be said to be against it, since they have not known it?
Saying St. Thomas was a heretic is like saying no person who lived before Christ went anywhere but hell, because they did not accept Christ. Well, one problem. Before a specific date in history, Christ had not yet come, so there was not yet any issue of denial or no denial for which those people could be condemned.
Likewise, condemning saints for teaching something in error, before the truth was defined and the error condemned, is equally insane. If they did not know the truth, how could they be guilty of rejecting it?
And if they could NOT be guilty of rejecting what was not yet known certainly, then there is no sin, in which case their personal sanctity is not threatened by their error, even if it WAS, indeed, error. God does not condemn those who are innocent of guilt.
So we need not be threatened by the sainthood of those who unknowingly adhered to heretical positions before they were such. We have only to switch on our Catholic minds, and reject the errors now that we DO know them to be such.
Unfortunately for the lazy man, Catholicism, or indeed the truth in anything, is never something which you can find by just switching off your brain and swallowing everything blindly. None of us are God, so none of us knows everything. That being the case, until the end of time, truth will always need to be picked out from among errors. Which promises always to be confusing at times, difficult at other times, and in some cases virtually impossible in the moment given certain circuмstances. Things will never be simple, and all black and white, and easy for us to find and follow. Even the infallible pope must choose to use his infallibility, so even HE is capable of erring otherwise, so we cannot even follow HIM with total blindness. (As we learned in V2.)
Sorry, but there's no easy way in this life.
-
A good person to listen to discussing the preternatural, is Father Malachi Martin. I'll try to find one of his interviews with Art Bell in the past. I distinctly remember him discussing this when he was speaking on demonic possession.
-
Malachi Martin is almost certainly a Marrano Jew. And he's CERTAINLY a con artist.
Have you heard of his book Windswept House? The premise of the book is that the "Slavic Pope" ( as he calls John-Paul II ) is really trying to hold the Vatican and the faith together, but he is besieged by internal and external forces of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
Did you get that? John-Paul II was the good guy; it was everyone else around him who was trying to make him a heretic! Sure.
Actually this book would have worked if it were about Pius XII. He really was a man surrounded by malign influence with no hope of escape.
-
The mere fact that M Martin was of good terms with Art Baal is suspicious in and of itself.
-
The reason CM is saying that is because the apparition was approved by Benedict XV, who he considers an anti-Pope because of the BoD-confirming 1917 Code of Canon Law. What he is saying is entirely in character, and consistent, if you accept his logic.
That is not at all why I am asserting that Benedict XV was an antipope, sir. In fact, if it were not for his public utterances of heresy against the salvation dogma (universal salvation to be exact) and Geocentrism, I would not have come to this conclusion about him at all. Even with the heretical 'Code', which also allows for people to receive sacraments from heretic priests, and for Catholic children to go to non-Catholic schools.
With all the links to my article on this forum, I am surprised that you would make such a blatant misrepresentation of the theology behind my position.
Is there any specific docuмent or proclamation where Ben XV(15?) says that he believes the Sun revolves around the Earth?
-
Malachi Martin is almost certainly a Marrano Jew. And he's CERTAINLY a con artist.
Have you heard of his book Windswept House? The premise of the book is that the "Slavic Pope" ( as he calls John-Paul II ) is really trying to hold the Vatican and the faith together, but he is besieged by internal and external forces of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
Did you get that? John-Paul II was the good guy; it was everyone else around him who was trying to make him a heretic! Sure.
Actually this book would have worked if it were about Pius XII. He really was a man surrounded by malign influence with no hope of escape.
Father Martin, at the end of his life, doubted that JPII was a pope by the way. Sometimes, it takes longer for people, and because he had the position he had in the vatican, I'm not surprised it took him so long. The "bad disguises" as Saint Pius X said they had would deceive even the elect.
At the end of his life, some tried to slander him and claim that he was pro Medjigorje (or however you spell it.) He came out guns ablaze and spoke against it, calling it a "demonic hoax."
I don't believe he was a "Merrano Jew." His situation was as precarious as Archbishop Lefevbre, actually.
Just pray for his soul. He was right on about certain things, especially if you listen to his discussions about possession.
-
He was IRISH, not a Jew for the love of.... :cussing: Good grief.
-
Let's get back to Fatima... I want people to give me their thoughts about this without waving fingers and getting all righteous. Gladius -- who I respect greatly by the way -- even insinuated that I was practically denying God by questioning Fatima. But we are not called upon as Catholics to blindly believe in visions and miracles. Hasn't anyone heard "A wicked generation seeks a sign?"
I could write hundreds of pages about the false prophecies of even Catholic saints. No one except Anne Catherine Emmerich came close to predicting Vatican II, showing about how much prophecies are worth. I trust Catholic tradition, my sensus Catholicus, and my own insight into the words of Jesus Christ and the apostles before I will trust an apparition, vision or miracle. Among the words of Jesus Christ that I believe more than Fatima are included these: "You are the children of the devil and the desires of your father you will do." I'll get back to that later.
That doesn't mean I don't believe in Fatima. I do believe it, I just want the correct way of interpreting it ( if that's even possible considering we don't know the Third Secret ).
It is not the message of Mary that bothers me. It is the way it has been interpreted. I am just put off by the way that it reinforces many Americans in their blind dream of "America good, evil communist Russkies bad." The Bolsheviks who engineered the Russian Revolution were the same Jews who controlled and still control America. When you look at your vice-president Rahm Emmanuel, or the Jєωιѕн neo-cons like Wolfowitz or Perle, you are looking right at new incarnations of Leon Trotsky, the Jew from Brooklyn who helped establish communism in Russia.
I am getting increasingly frustrated with sedevacantist Catholics who refuse to acknowledge this glaring truth. It seems that when they talk about Fatima, they are deliberately trying to keep people in the dark about their own country. As a result, we are seeing all kinds of bizarre paradoxes, like Catholics who fight for the devil's children ( Jews ) in the Iraq War. BY NO MEANS could this war be considered a "just war" as defined by the Council of Trent. Catholics therefore are not protecting their flock from spiritual ruin. I'm sorry, but I am disturbed by this, and will continue to be disturbed by it.
In the sede movement there is a disturbing preponderance of Republicans who don't see that both parties are controlled by Jews and Freemasons, which is Conspiracy Theory 101 -- I mean, it could not be more basic. They don't even try to hide it anymore. You can see this in the way Bush made no effort to actually stop abortion, just as Obama made no effort to actually stop the Iraq War which was associated with the Republican party. You have socially liberal "conservatives" and war-profiteering "peaceniks."
How are we ever going to move ahead if even in our small little enclaves if we are too scared to tell the truth? Someone like Thomas Droleskey gets it finally, and he ran for public office. EVERYONE SHOULD GET THIS. There are no exceptions.
I just don't know how I'm going to convert people to Catholicism if the Catholics are acting like flag-waving Bush-loving Protestants. That is highly unappealing. Obama and Bush are the same -- they even look the same with their jug-ears and Alfred E. Newman faces! How can someone who can see through Ratzinger, a subtle evil genius, not see through BUSH?! It is just baffling.
What does this have to do with Fatima, you ask? It is that the Fatima message seems ( SEEMS ) to place all the problems of the world on the head of the Russians. Not the Jews, but the "Russians." This isn't Mary's fault, of course -- she was probably being euphemistic!
P.S. Need I mention that Western Catholics fought on the same side as Russia in World War II, and still today Catholics who believe in Fatima think we were the good guys? We supported the EXACT errors that Mary warned against! We supported Stalinist/Bolshevik Russia! Do you see that you are all contradicting yourselves? You're trying to reconcile ideas that cannot be reconciled. This is how I see Mary's message -- STOP BOLSHEVIK COMMUNIST JUDAISM WHICH HAS TAKEN OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD. Even when it calls itself "democracy."
And I will put my name on this to show that I am not a coward, because I am speaking truth here.
-- Michael de la Sota
-
Oh, by no means do I believe that the United States are the "good guys." The foreign policy here is an outrage. A good example is the "Israeli state." The government is advocating nαzι genocide on the Palestinians in Gaza.
Russia, however "will spread its errors." It is hard to make too many comments on Fatima with certainty, however, if one listens to Malachi Martin on what he has to say about the Third Secret, (which he actually read), one of the things he said was "Unless you believe that there is a "wholesale apostasy among the clergy and laity" of the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. Here's a link. What he has to say is important, IMHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNBJZee7D0
(Disclaimer: I don't agree with the images in the video part posted of other "apparitions" that haven't been approved.)
-
I think that is what she said. The errors of Russia, which is communism which of course is from the Jews.
I too get tired of Catholics telling me they are looking for the Republicans to find someone to run against Obama and turn the country around. What fools they are, look at the puppet masters in the last race I would say. Kissinger for McCain (a.k.a. as son of Cain) and then Soros for Obama. Both of them Jews.
-
Oh, Father Martin also said the "conservatives" have less of a clue than anyone! :laugh1: Here's from an interview I read:
Q. The nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is quickly becoming a reality. If we continue to vote conservative men and women into political office can they turn the tide?
Answer:
Fr. Malachi: "No. Conservatives are the last to understand what is happening."
http://www.roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/FrMartinInterview.htm
-
The period of peace was the short period between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
-
The period of peace was the short period between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
That was no true peace. Definitely not the peace of Christ.
-
The period of peace was the short period between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
Only an earthly peace, not the peace of Christ as promised by the Blessed Mother.
-
While I agree that the Western states have been controlled by anti-Christians in a subtle way (at times there is not much subtlety, the point is that the typical Christian can be raised not realizing that the system of government in their country is fundamentally anti-Christian), the fact is that the Communists were bent on the total destruction and subversion of Christianity in a very militant way. Communists with ties to Russia were not just working against the Church in Russia, but everywhere.
By dominating Eastern Europe, the Communists were in a position to blackmail priests and bishops like never before.
The subversion of the priesthood in the Western world was a goal of the Communists.
When I see the phrase "Russia will spread her errors" I see it as meaning Russia will spread the Revolution. The Revolution will try to militantly persecute or craftily subvert the Church everywhere.
To me the question comes down to what happened in 1958 and 1963.
Is it possible, some sort of horrific threat was made that caused those who should have defended the Faith to lose their nerve?
-
While I disagree with your taste in music, this interpretation of Fatima seems to be more realistic than others I have heard.
-
The period of peace was the short period between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
Only an earthly peace, not the peace of Christ as promised by the Blessed Mother.
That is because the consecration was done late, and not according to the will of the Blessed Virgin.
-
The period of peace was the short period between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
Only an earthly peace, not the peace of Christ as promised by the Blessed Mother.
That is because the consecration was done late, and not according to the will of the Blessed Virgin.
The consecration was not even done in the manner prescribed and so hence, not done at all. So the peace of Christ did not come out. Any apparent earthly peace during the 1950s fooled many into thinking times were good which they were not, considering that Russia still held her errors and spread them. Those errors are still around today. For one thing, the whole Third Secret has yet to be revealed even if it was not revealed in 1960 or claimed to have been revealed in 2000. Fatima is sadly still put forth as consummated and just something nice for devotion. The argument of MHFM concerning the consecration requested by the Blessed Mother at Fatima is akin to the Novus Ordo argument that the consecration was done in 1984.
-
-
You are an expert in evaision--the question asked was about the Sun rev around the Earth, not the Earth as center of the Universe. These are two different questions as far as I understand how INQ dealt with Galileo. THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY RESPECTIVE OF IT'S PHYSICAL LOCATION. This is because Jesus has been here. The above statement by BenXV(15?) WOULD be accurate IF he said that the Earth is not be the center of the Universe in a strictly physical sense.
-
Why is CM alleging that Ben XV(15?) thinks the Sun rev around Earth?--- 'yep'. The above statement clearly implies that Earth rev around the Sun.
-
Well maybe not clearly....
-
The period of peace was the short period between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
I can only presume this is a serious comment. Oh well...
-
That is because the consecration was done late, and not according to the will of the Blessed Virgin.
This is not correct. It would appear you are merely (and unintentionally) circulating one of the myriad canards about this matter. No harm, no foul. God speed.
-
Why is CM alleging that Ben XV(15?) thinks the Sun rev around Earth?--- 'yep'. The above statement clearly implies that Earth rev around the Sun.
Sorry. I read your post backwards. I thought that's what you meant.
-
Telesphorus, I was just thinking that after I posted my harangue. The unadorned communism of Russia was much more militant than our democracies and directly attacked the Church. It makes sense that Mary would "make a statement" about it.
Again, it's just the people who make "consecrating Russia" into their pet cause that bother me. Mary said Russia would have to be consecrated THEN, not now. It's too late.
That being said, maybe I am crazy, but I kind of prefer when communism shows its true face. When it comes right out and says "YOU, Catholic Church, and Catholic people, are my enemy." At least then we know who we're fighting. We're not just lost in a nebulous fog, punching at shadows.
If I were living in Poland when the commies took over I'd have been martyred. Here I'd have been drafted and sent off to die in a Jєωιѕн war, which, unlike martyrdom, may not lead to heaven.
What is so uniquely ominous about America ( Mystery Babylon? the New Egypt at least ) throughout its history, and it hasn't been much different in Europe over the last few centuries, is that while it allows you to be Catholic in theory and in name, it twists the truth around so much, flipping it right upside down, that I'm not sure God will recognize some of these Catholics as Catholics.
Of course, communism does the same, with more vicious tactics. It kills those who speak up and then helps the rest to sell out. Here you can speak up and you just get ignored or treated as a basement-dwelling loony. So I guess we do have relative freedom, in a way. Unfortunately not enough people choose to exercise it correctly. They buy into all sorts of lies.
I am talking to Dawn in E-mails and she knows the truth. Many others on this site do. The question is, how much truth do you need in order to please God and get into heaven? What happens to a Catholic kid who is drafted into World War I or II, which I believe God would see as unjust wars? I don't know why, but this really troubles me. Luckily, I doubt God sees things as black-and-white as I do.
-
Roscoe, are you referring to me when you say you don't like my taste in music? I don't think I've mentioned my taste in music.
I listen to music from France, motets from the time of Louis XIV-Louis XVI and lots of organ music. Flemish and French polyphony from the Late Middle Ages. Only Catholic music. My taste in music is impeccable, sir! I have nothing else to do but listen to music!
-
I realize now that I am being very indistinct about the source of my rage on various issues.
Let me put it this way -- in my sede group most people are Republicans. They don't understand the Hegelian pincer-hold over both parties.
Dawn picked up on that because we've been talking about it. A lot of these people are into the 'conversion of Russia" because they buy into the hoax that America is a great country and Russia is communist. Having a Fatima procession and marching for Russia, considering the stranglehold that Masons and Jews have over ALL OF US now, is like going on an Easter-egg hunt. A pretty and fun distraction that makes you feel good about yourself.
They have rose-colored glasses on and it's going to trap them when they end up losing their jobs and becoming engineers for an Obama work-camp.
That sums up my problem, I think.