This question can be answered by anyone but I have aseen some posters seem to skirt around Fatima that identify themselves as sede (if this isn't the 'correct' term to use please share with me what it is).

When I converted to Catholicism I was so thrilled. I had some issues with RCIA and the woman that ran it and the Monsignor- but I thought it was just that church. I was Protty so a church is defined by the pastor and the people...so perhaps theres a bit of that in Catholic church....so I tried to convince myself.

But when I actually truly participated in the Mass the very first time (I attended a different church than the RCIA location)--I was absolutely floored. I was shaken because it was exactly like a Prot service! I left my home church, created literal chaos and THIS IS IT?!  I continued to 'search' for the 'right' Catholic church and from my studies I thought they're all supposed to be the same. Same missal, same Mass, same homily. Nothing. Well I was about to jump ship and go back to my 'home church' when I was chatting with a friend from work. He said to me "well you ever heard of Masons and the Catholic church?" "What?" so he clued me in. That opened my eyes to the possibility that the Church that Christ founded has been hijacked.

During the early years of after my conversion I was totally in awe of JPII.  Once I heard my friend mentioning this and among other things I had to admit that there is something wrong with this guy. Perhaps the bible studies we had at my 'home church' were right...is JPII the Antichrist? Or will the Pope be an antichrist? Imagine my confusion. And boy was I lost!

The ONE AND ONLY thing that kept me from going sede or just leaving the Catholic church all together was the Fatima apparitions. (I've happily found many other reasons but then....) And what Our Lady has said to Sr. Lucia about not opening the Third Secret "until 1960 as it will be better understood". Well how I perceived that is Our Lady has accepted the Pope of 1960. She had the grace in knowing who he would be. If SHE accepts him and all the other Pope's since then that are bozo's then I should.

This is where my question comes--those that say they're sede, how do you feel about the Fatima Message and Our Lady accepting the Pope of 1960 when it appears you do not?

Welcome to CatholicInfo, sheepgirl.

There are somes sedes out there who reject Fatima, those such as David Landry. But most sedes and Traditional Catholics accept the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The real Third Secret of Fatima was about the destruction of the Roman liturgy, and I'm almost positive it was about the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr as well.

Our Lady did not say nor imply She accepted John XXIII. She meant for the secret to be released then because that is when the Masons would officially begin making their damage. John XXIII read the secret and refused to release it because he knew it pertained to him and his fellow Masons. There is evidence J23 was a Mason himself.

I am not a sede but do believe there was a Masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church. One Traditional priest said that the events of Fatima and the secrets of it is the most important thing to happen since the Ressurection of Christ.

Welcome to CatholicInfo, sheepgirl.

There are somes sedes out there who reject Fatima, those such as David Landry. But most sedes and Traditional Catholics accept the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The real Third Secret of Fatima was about the destruction of the Roman liturgy, and I'm almost positive it was about the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr as well.

Our Lady did not say nor imply She accepted John XXIII. She meant for the secret to be released then because that is when the Masons would officially begin making their damage. John XXIII read the secret and refused to release it because he knew it pertained to him and his fellow Masons. There is evidence J23 was a Mason himself.

I am not a sede but do believe there was a Masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church. One Traditional priest said that the events of Fatima and the secrets of it is the most important thing to happen since the Ressurection of Christ.

I'm impressed. Honestly never considered that to being a reason as to why John XXIII didn't release it. Okay you're right, She doesn't say or imply that she accepted him, but she did use the word "Pope". So to me that meant acceptance. But you certainly have given me food for thought. Truly am appreciative of both of you responding so kindly.

Our Lady has said to Sr. Lucia about not opening the Third Secret "until 1960 as it will be better understood". Well how I perceived that is Our Lady has accepted the Pope of 1960. She had the grace in knowing who he would be. If SHE accepts him and all the other Pope's since then that are bozo's then I should.

This is where my question comes--those that say they're sede, how do you feel about the Fatima Message and Our Lady accepting the Pope of 1960 when it appears you do not?

Hello!

I think you may be confusing two distinct issues: 1) whether or not the sedevacantists accept the message of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima, 2) whether or not it can be demonstrated that Our Lady implicitly "sanctioned" (for lack of a better term) the foreseen ascent of Roncalli at Rome.

I can only answer for myself, so I as a Catholic of the sedevacantist persuasion make thanksgiving to the Lord God on account of the visit of Our Lady of Rosary at Fatima, and her promulgation of the grand epitome of Divine Revelation as found in the Holy Scriptures, particularly the Gospels and the Epistles, and in sacred Tradition, as taught by Holy Mother Church: a little Summa of dogmatic and moral theology of great simplicity and practicality. If Catholic put into practice the message of Our Lady with great generosity and self-abnegation, they would simply be following the way of salvation and perfection as outlined by Our Lord in the Gospel and by the Apostles in their Epistles, and as taught by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, together with the Saints and other masters of the spiritual life.

The value of the message of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima consists precisely in how faithful a mirror it is of Divine Revelation and the doctrines of the Saints and theologians.

In fact, if one follows the counsels that our Heavenly Mother gave at Fatima with great generosity that presupposes complete and universal mortification (exterior and interior) and a docility to the inspirations of the gifts of the Holy Ghost that presupposes in turn the active and passive purification of the senses and the soul, then a Catholic can arrive at the mystical union which St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross saw as the normal efflorescence of the interior life. The unicity of asceticism and mysticism in the interior life as taught by these great Doctors and their commentators makes it clear that the soul ought to attain to the heights of the unitive life since grace and charity ought always to increase in us more and more day by day, especially they ought to augment significantly after each Holy Communion.

Furthermore, Our Lady at Fatima synthesized in a practical manner the doctrines of St. Louis de Montfort, and laid out a practical program whereby we may consecrate ourselves entire to Jesus through Mary and be enabled to attain to that apostolic zeal and charity that will enable us to edify our brethren and help restore Holy Mother Church.



Now, regarding the question of whether Our Lady "sanctioned" John XXIII's supposed "reign" as Roman Pontiff, I cannot see this to be the case. For if this was so, why would John XXIII not only neglect to disclose the Third Secret but forbid its publication? If he had been looking for a vindication for his planned "Ecuмenical Council" and his "New Pentecost," would he not have readily availed himself of the "sanction" of Our Lady at Fatima if she did in fact give such a sanction?

Clearly, the message of Fatima contradicted the false optimism that John planned to implement as the "new springtime" of the Church, condemning the so-called "Prophets of gloom," and focusing on "positive" aspects of humanity. Fatima was clearly theocentric, Christocentric, and condemned the errors and heresies of Communism, materialism and modernism.

Anyways, the message of Fatima is private revelation that does not demand the assent of the faithful under pain of sin: Divine [public] Revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle, and nothing further can be added to the depositum fidei.

However, as mentioned above, Fatima has immense value and relevance for us in the present age because it is a great little Summa of dogmatic and moral theology that is of much utility and practicality for all the faithful: a faithful mirror of the Gospels and the Epistles and the teachings of the Fathers and the Saints, especially St. Louis Marie de Montfort. To spurn Fatima would be rash and scandalous, in my opinion, for this very reason.

But I cannot see how Fatima somehow "vindicates" Roncalli. If anything, it condemns his erroneous tolerance and optimism, and the heresies of "Vatican II" (the great "miracle of John XXIII" as my elders called it) whether one believes him to have been a legitimate Roman Pontiff or not (that is an entirely different question, whereupon the sedevacantists do not agree amongst themselves).

EDIT: Oh yeah, what Spiritus said so very well. I didn't read his great post until after I finished my reply.

Roman Catholic, no worries dear.

Wow Hobbledehoy--I absolutely followed everything you said and you said it so elegantly, so beautifully. Who could possibly disagree with your post?  It needs to be framed. Not saying that the others that have responded are any less thought provoking but my gosh- talk about edifying my soul!

You are correct. I can see where my error in thought (that the other posters have shared as well) is my simply presumption that Our Lady is indeed accepting of John XXIII as he was the Pope of 1960. And he refused it's release.

This is about all I can say as I really need to digest what RC, SS, and Hobbledehoy have shared. Without sounding like a dolt, the superb answers of all has been pretty provocative, intriguing.

Clearly, the message of Fatima contradicted the false optimism that John planned to implement as the "new springtime" of the Church, condemning the so-called "Prophets of gloom," and focusing on "positive" aspects of humanity. Fatima was clearly theocentric, Christocentric, and condemned the errors and heresies of Communism, materialism and modernism.

It could very well be that Roncalli was referring to Fatima when he mentions the "prophets of gloom."

Talk about assumptions, you have a serious problem of taking your own assumptions as fact and convincing yourself of things that you conjure up in your imagination.  You use the term "evidence" rather loosely.  As for the comment "Seers can relay messages incorrectly" I suppose this would hold for sedevacantist "seers" as well, or shall we say "opiners".  The Pope is also a figure in part of the Third secret that was only partially revealed and distorted by Cardinal Ratzinger.  My opinion is that it had less to do wtih Masonic infiltration than it did with the destruction and diabolical disorientation of the Church as the result of the Council and quasi-apostasy of Bishops and priests.

I didn't say for certain John XXIII was a Mason, I said there was evidence. Talk about assumptions, you're assuming I said something that I never said.

The Third Secret was primarily about the destruction of the Roman liturgy (which I stated specifically in my previous post, pay more attention next time). And who do you think was responsible for the diabolical disorientation? I suggest you read the story of Bella Dodd, because you seem to think there was no Masonic infiltration in the Church. That is denying the facts.