Author Topic: Our Lady of Akita (Read 1869 times)

Matthew · « **on:** March 22, 2014, 09:46:21 PM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Ferdinand
Of course the event occurs on JPII's "Divine Mercy" Sunday (aka Low Sunday... a very low Sunday indeed).

Unfortunately there are many foundering souls in the SSPX who have been misled by clergy to accept the "Divine Mercy Message and Devotion" and false/Novus Ordo apparitions like Akita.

I agree with you about the Divine Mercy, for countless reasons.

But what about Akita makes it dubious or unworthy of belief? I am familiar with the apparition, and it seems quite legit from every angle: From the message, to the seer, to the seer's life, to the apparition itself, etc.

On second thought, if you do choose to respond, please start a new thread. It would cause a major derailing of this thread.

Akita doesn't deserve a new thread, or any additional comment.

Akita gives an "Imprimatur" to "Bastard Rites" and related "Eucharistic Presence Miracles" as well as a thumbs up on VII and the Apostates in Rome. It has the same stench as "Stefano Gobbi" and his "Marian Movement of Priests".

If Our Lady were to appear at Akita, she would most certainly address the general apostasy, the Robber Council and the Bastard Sacraments... IMHO

Not necessarily. What if the Novus Ordo isn't intrinsically invalid? How can you say that every Novus Ordo Mass ever celebrated was completely invalid, regardless of the priest's intention, translation used, matter used, etc.?

That certainly wasn't the SSPX position. Are you better educated than Archbishop Lefebvre?

I certainly couldn't rule on the validity of ALL N.O. Masses one way or the other. But you can? Are you omniscient?

Akita only has a "stench" for you because you're a staunch Sedevacantist (now). When we spoke by phone, you gave me the pearl of wisdom that no group around today was capable of answering perfectly ALL the hard questions arising from the Crisis in the Church. When I thought about it, it rang true. Hence the element of mystery in this Crisis, and why we shouldn't be harsh to judge our fellow Traditional Catholics trying to cling to Tradition.

Anyhow, I thought it summed up everything I know about the Crisis perfectly, and then some! I think I literally gained some insight and wisdom from that conversation of ours. I've been repeating that gem to others ever since.

I've noticed that for several months now, your posts all sound like those of a Sedevacantist, and an angry/frustrated one at that.

Anyhow, Akita is no more or less unpalatable than Fatima to a Sedevacantist. After all, with a 55 year interregnum, and almost no bishops appointed by Pius XII left alive, there is no longer a way to elect a pope and end the Crisis. So how can the Pope consecrate Russia to the I.H.M., if there is no Pope?

Indeed Fatima poses plenty of a problem for sedevacantists, which is probably why some good Trads stay away from that position.

Let's put it this way -- even if you've changed your mind, it's still nevertheless true what we agreed on back in 2012: The Sedevacantist position has at least a few holes, as does the SSPX position, the Indult position (and all the others). None of them is able to answer all the other side's objections perfectly, to everyone's satisfaction, and removing all the mystery.

Ambrose · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:51:10 PM »

Matthew wrote:

Quote

Anyhow, Akita is no more or less unpalatable than Fatima to a Sedevacantist. After all, with a 55 year interregnum, and almost no bishops appointed by Pius XII left alive, there is no longer a way to elect a pope and end the Crisis. So how can the Pope consecrate Russia to the I.H.M., if there is no Pope?

Indeed Fatima poses plenty of a problem for sedevacantists, which is probably why some good Trads stay away from that position.

Let's put it this way -- even if you've changed your mind, it's still nevertheless true what we agreed on back in 2012: The Sedevacantist position has at least a few holes, as does the SSPX position, the Indult position (and all the others). None of them is able to answer all the other side's objections perfectly, to everyone's satisfaction, and removing all the mystery.

Allow me to add few points:

"Sedevacatism" if understood correctly is the blueprint to a correct understanding of this crisis. If understood correctly it shows the way out of this crisis.

There is no theological problem with "sedevacantism," as it is built on the principles of canon law, dogmatic and moral theology. It is also the only explanation that fits to describe how a man who claims to be Pope can canonize men that must never be canonized, promulgate evil laws, and teach heresy and grave errors to the universal Church.

The "sedevacatist" position, if understood correctly does not have any holes, it is air tight in its application of logic to Catholic principles. By this I am not saying that there is not still a mystery that remains unanswered, but it is answerable.

The Church will not and cannot lack members of the hierarchy, and secondly the diocese of Rome cannot fail, and by implication, there must remain some (or at least one) lawfully appointed members of the Roman Clergy who have kept the Faith.

The hierarchy and the Roman Clergy maintain the stability of the visible Church in our situation, as these two groups have the unique ability to elect a Pontiff at any time, in the absence of the cardinals.

The part of this that remains a mystery is identifying who these men are who are the last members of the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy. Secondly, if they could be identified, would they have the courage to call for an election and elect a Pope?

This part of the equation demands a trust in God as this remains a mystery to us how this can happen. But, what is not a mystery is the mechanism for how this can happen. That part has already been answered by the theologians.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:33:12 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

What if the Novus Ordo isn't intrinsically invalid?

Even if you consider it possibly valid, presumably you still consider it a defective "bastard" non-Catholic rite, as did Archbishop Lefebvre. So the implicit endorsement of the Novus Ordo should be considered problematic, and invalidity has nothing to do with it.

Bishop Williamson was enamored of both Garbandal (IMO obviously diabolical and since proven false due to the false prophecies) and Akita. Bishop Williamson has always been a little too much into "End Times" stuff. And, Matthew, I take it that your defense of Akita has to do with Bishop Williamson's attachment to it. Garabandal was a distraction from the fact that the Third Secred should have been revealed in 1960, and Akita was the Novus Ordo Fatima (an attempted replacement for Fatima, a Novus Ordo analogue to Fatima).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:39:41 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

[Anyhow, Akita is no more or less unpalatable than Fatima to a Sedevacantist. After all, with a 55 year interregnum, and almost no bishops appointed by Pius XII left alive, there is no longer a way to elect a pope and end the Crisis. So how can the Pope consecrate Russia to the I.H.M., if there is no Pope?

That's the weakest argument against sedevacantism. There are alternative ways to elect Popes, and with the sedeprivationist approach even the normal mechanismis persist despite the formal vacancy of the Holy See. There's one end times prophecy in particular from a saint that says the Apostolic Succession will almost appear to have ceased. So, sure, rather than a 55-year interregnum you have "Popes" leading the entire Church into error? I'm glad that the "Papacy" was kept intact ... for the purpose of leading the entire Church into error. I'll have to dig up the quote from a pre Vatican II theologian who said that a 30-year interregnum would not be incompatible with the Church's indefectibility. He was arguing from the Great Western Schism and said that if the See had been vacant the whole time, that would not have been incompatible with indefectibility. In fact, prior to the Great Schism, nobody really would have believed that kind of thing could happen.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2014, 07:03:37 AM »

Quote

...pre Vatican II theologian...a 30-year interregnum...

Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J.

The Relations of the Church to Society: Theological Essays 1882

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2014, 07:26:27 AM »

Thanks. Based on that I googled up the quote.

Quote

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:09:58 AM »

Some years ago, when Father Schell was still alive, I viewed some pictures taken at Akita during the apparitions. At the time, my friend, Dr. Ted Nicholoff, was providing clef pallet surgeries for children in the Philippines; He was present at (one of) the apparitions and took some pictures. This is absolutely private revelation and not binding on anyone, but the pictures were really amazing. Of interest to me at the time was a series of three pictures that captured what appeared to be a spherical ball or bubble that was noted as being a transportation medium for the Blessed Virgin Mary.