Author Topic: Rejection of Fatima is how Sedevacantism isnt Catholic? (Read 4309 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2011, 11:41:56 AM »

( 1 ) I don't reject Fatima, I question the secrets of Tuy which are not approved.

In the case of La Salette, we see an example where there is an approved apparition, but where the seer was later considered by the Church itself to have become untrustworthy and whose writings were banned.
To say it couldn't happen to Lucia, especially when there are so many questions about the secrets, and when the Church is was in crisis, is what strikes me as... Sentimental.

I'm not making any claims, I'm not saying the secrets are fake, I'm merely asking pointed questions in the DESIRE to believe in these secrets. But I cannot just force myself to believe, it has to hit me.

I can tell you this, I fear for my soul, like I might be lacking some grace by not believing in these secrets. It doesn't help me when I'm asking questions about things that genuinely trouble me, and instead of answers, I get hysteria.

( 2 ) Very few sedevacantists question ( the secrets of ) Fatima. This is a cheap shot, trying to use my doubts about this against sedes as a whole.

If it is devotion to Fatima that you want, CMRI would be a better option for you than SSPX. Bishop Schuckardt of CMRI was in the Blue Army before founding the CMRI, he founded a group called the Fatima Crusade, and that is presumably why their nuns to this day wear blue habits. They are extremely devoted to Fatima. In my confirmation class, they teach it as if it's an article of the faith. My opinion is no more popular there than it is here, probably less so.

However, that is also where I have noticed a connection between a certain Cold War, pro-American mentality and the "consecration of Russia," which isn't very appealing to me, to say the least ( Fatima seems to be used to blind people about the true nature of America and to paint Russia alone as the evil empire ). However, I can make the distinction now between a possible misapplication of the Fatima secrets and their real content, if there is any.

TKGS · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2011, 12:28:23 PM »

Until I joined CathInfo, I was not aware that there were any sedevacantists that rejected Fatima. I have spoken to quite a number of sedevacantists, read the writings of quite a few sedevacantists, and I have never heard or read of any of them rejecting Fatima as a true apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (I admit that Fatima is not always a topic of conversation.) All of the sedevacantists I personally know pray that "Fatima Prayer" (i.e., "O my Jesus...") after the Gloria when praying the Rosary.

On the other hand, I know a few Conciliar Catholics (both ones who ordinarily attend a traditional indult Mass and ones who exclusively attend the Novus Ordo) who reject Fatima, accept the "Third Secret" released by Cardinal Ratzinger, and the official explanation that Sister Lucia may have just made up the whole thing from forgotten memories of stories she had heard or read. And one of these believes Medjugorje is clearly a true apparition (largely, I think, because one of the messages said John Paul 2 was "her pope" and many of her messages mirror Conciliar doctrines).

These are simply my experiences. I would not presume to paint all Conciliar Catholics with rejecting Fatima because I know Conciliar Catholics who reject Fatima. I think it unfair to paint all sedevacantists with particular beliefs based upon what a few particular sedevacantists say they believe.

We need to keep in mind that the term, "sedevacant" was coined only a few years ago. This is why we find no references to "sedevacantists" a hundred years ago. We likewise find no references to "dinosaurs" prior to 1841. It's not that no one believed in dinosaurs before then, it's that the word was invented in that year.

For better or worse, the word "sedevacantist" means nothing more or less than a person who believes that Benedict 16 is not a valid claimant to the See of Peter. Some sedevacantists eschew the term, but this is the commonly accepted term. Sedevacantism is not a movement, a group, a set of doctrines, or anything other than the recognition of the fact that Benedict 16 is not a valid claimant to the papacy.

Fatima has nothing to do with whether one might or might not be a sedevacanist.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2011, 01:29:59 PM »

"Fatima" has different meanings to different people. I'm not aware of any sedevacantists who reject Fatima as an approved apparition. It is likely the disagreements come from many of the things claimed to be part of "Fatima."

Raoul76 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2011, 03:08:15 AM »

The approved Fatima apparition has very little content besides "Repent."

It is the secrets that are controversial. Your reaction to them probably depends on your worldview.

My problem with the "consecration of Russia" idea, it is easy for me to figure out, comes from too much exposure to Catholics who think America is the greatest country ever and spend too much time living in a Cold War movie in their heads, demonizing Russia. I have seen the Fatima secret used in order to increase blind patriotism.

Then TKGS talks about Vatican II people who find the Fatima secrets too doom-laden.

I know of others who aren't sedevacantist because Mary said the Pope would have much to suffer, therefore we must still have a Pope... ( Did Mary say when and who this Pope would be, how they do they know he didn't die a long time ago? )

It's really a Rohrschach blot, these secrets. That is another aspect that worried me, that they were causing more confusion. But it's a chicken or the egg question -- is it the Fatima secrets that caused confusion, or is it people slapping their own prejudices onto the Fatima secrets that caused confusion?

Today, I made great progress towards believing, the only aspect that still troubles me is the second secret being released subsequently to the war that it was supposed to prevent, if Mary's words were heeded. And it wasn't a cover-up, from what I can tell, but that is when Lucia wrote it down.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2011, 01:45:42 PM »

Okay, all my objections have been lifted, unless another one pops up unexpectedly. I believe in the secrets.

One less reason for Matthew not to be sede :wink: