Author Topic: Fatima and sedevacantism (Read 5142 times)

Kephapaulos · « **on:** June 15, 2009, 07:39:23 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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

Quote

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.

sedetrad · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2009, 08:08:15 PM »

The dimond's are cranks.

CM · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2009, 09:53:39 PM »

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.

trent13 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2009, 10:25:10 PM »

Wasn't the big message of Fatima to pray the rosary? What was the devil's point if you believe he was behind Fatima?

Dulcamara · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2009, 11:20:50 PM »

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.

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 Jєωs 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 Jєωs 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.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** June 16, 2009, 01:59:19 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

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.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #11 on:** June 16, 2009, 02:01:14 AM »

EDIT: To argue that the entire world needs to be CONVERTED (not, as I wrote, consecrated)...

Raoul76 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 16, 2009, 02:04:30 AM »

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.

CM · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2009, 02:11:26 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

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.

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

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.

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** June 16, 2009, 02:14:54 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

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.