(3) The "angel" allegedly gave the Precious Blood to two visionaries, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;
Quote from: fkpagnanelli(3) The "angel" allegedly gave the Precious Blood to two visionaries, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;
In both the Coptic and the Byzantine rites the laity recieve the Precious Blood.
... my first reaction was to think that at the end of the day the events at Fatima are not that important...No one has declared belief in them De Fide and therefore it is pointless bringing it up in a theological debate as proof of anything as some people here have been doing.
6.) So did Fr. Feeney.
If I say to you "It's impossible for me to cook without a stove or some food" It obviously does not logically follow that ALL I need to be able to cook is a stove or some food, but that I need both.
Likewise Trent is not saying "Here is what you need to be justified the laver or the desire", No, Trent is saying "Here are two things, and if either one or the other is MISSING you cannot be justified".
I thought you spoke Latin Eamon.
Go translate 'aut (http://www.tranexp.com:2000/Translate/result.shtml)'
:cowboy:
Anyone who studies Fatima even for an afternoon will be inundated with things that just don't add up.
Fatima is a false apparition.
I know you have raised the apparition to the level of a dogma in your mind...
Quote from: Raoul76Anyone who studies Fatima even for an afternoon will be inundated with things that just don't add up.
Thank you for that informative post. I agree with everything you said, except you do not believe that Fatima must be rejected, but it must. All these Freemasonic ties lead right back to the Vatican and antipope Benedict XV. Anyone who studies Della Chiesa for even an afternoon will be inundated with heresies and Freemasonic overtures in all his encyclicals. Oh not to mention, Della Chiesa's mentor was "cardinal" Rampolla, a notorious Freemason.
Do you really think Della Chiesa didn't know? Certainly, he did. Della Chiesa was handpicked by the modernists, as was Pacelli.
The Vatican fell in 1914, boys! That you have to get right. You claim submission to an antipope, you follow that antipope right to hell.
Quote from: fkpagnanelliQuote from: Raoul76Anyone who studies Fatima even for an afternoon will be inundated with things that just don't add up.
Thank you for that informative post. I agree with everything you said, except you do not believe that Fatima must be rejected, but it must. All these Freemasonic ties lead right back to the Vatican and antipope Benedict XV. Anyone who studies Della Chiesa for even an afternoon will be inundated with heresies and Freemasonic overtures in all his encyclicals. Oh not to mention, Della Chiesa's mentor was "cardinal" Rampolla, a notorious Freemason.
Do you really think Della Chiesa didn't know? Certainly, he did. Della Chiesa was handpicked by the modernists, as was Pacelli.
The Vatican fell in 1914, boys! That you have to get right. You claim submission to an antipope, you follow that antipope right to hell.
What would you suggest happened on October 13th 1917 then when the "miracle of the Sun" happened?
(5) The Blessed Mother doesn't come to give "secrets", but instead comes to publicly urge the Faithful to repentance;
Quote from: fkpagnanelli
(5) The Blessed Mother doesn't come to give "secrets", but instead comes to publicly urge the Faithful to repentance;
This is really what I would have the most problem with. I distrust any Christian message that is "secret". The Gospel is meant for all the world, not a select few, and so I wonder about that. Smacks of Gnosticism almost, as though there is some secret knowledge that only a few in the Church are privileged with.
Quote from: ClovisQuote from: fkpagnanelli(3) The "angel" allegedly gave the Precious Blood to two visionaries, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;
In both the Coptic and the Byzantine rites the laity recieve the Precious Blood.
Thanks for pointing that out. It would then depend under what bishop (a Latin rite or other rite) had jurisdiction over the visionaries. If the bishop allow for it, then the alleged angel would not have done anything wrong in this regard.
Thanks again and good point.
Quote from: theology101Quote from: fkpagnanelli
(5) The Blessed Mother doesn't come to give "secrets", but instead comes to publicly urge the Faithful to repentance;
This is really what I would have the most problem with. I distrust any Christian message that is "secret". The Gospel is meant for all the world, not a select few, and so I wonder about that. Smacks of Gnosticism almost, as though there is some secret knowledge that only a few in the Church are privileged with.
It's not like such a thing would be unheard of, though. Our Lady of La Salette confided a secret to each of the visionaries, Maximin and Mélanie, who sent them to Pius IX and which have never been published in their original versions (Mélanie later published her secret, although the extent to which it adheres to the original version or is a product of her own creation remains unclear).
Raoul76 is certainly capable of speaking for himself but in his byline (or is it signature line) he makes it clear that his past views on Fatima are to be ignored.
I've never even heard of OL of La Salette. Can't be blamed, it took me a long time to understand Marian theology, and I still don't really.