Author Topic: Sedevacantists Reject Fatima? (Read 3836 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** April 26, 2014, 09:07:39 PM »

Question for the sedes:

The 3rd secret was to be revealed by "the Pope of 1960."

Problem: You contend there was no Pope in 1960.

Conclusion: Either sedes reject the Fatima apparition, or, admit they are wrong regarding the pontificate of John XXIII.

Which do you prefer?

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:30:11 PM »

Quote

The 3rd secret was to be revealed by "the Pope of 1960."

What is the precise source for this?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #2 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:36:45 PM »

1) Not all sedevacantists believe that John XXIII was an anti-pope

2) Even if he was, some sedevacantists believe that Siri was pope at the time

3) It would not follow that the only conclusion would be that some sedevacantists (since not all reject John XXIII) reject Fatima. Other possible conclusions: This particular part of Fatima is misunderstood (perhaps the pope "of" 1960 was born in 1960, died in 1960, who knows?) or was relayed incorrectly, is misinformation, who knows.

4) John XXXIII didn't reveal the third secret anyways, so using your very, very loose logic I could argue that anyone who doesn't believe that John XXIII revealed the Third Secret rejects the Fatima apparition

Charlemagne · « **Reply #3 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:42:09 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Question for the sedes:

The 3rd secret was to be revealed by "the Pope of 1960."

Problem: You contend there was no Pope in 1960.

Conclusion: Either sedes reject the Fatima apparition, or, admit they are wrong regarding the pontificate of John XXIII.

Which do you prefer?

Here's another typical display of your complete misunderstanding and ignorance regarding sedevacantism. Not all sedevacantists consider John XXIII to be an antipope. Why are you so obsessed with sedevacantism, anyway?

---------------------------

Question for SeanJohnson:

Our Lady asked that the Third Secret be revealed by 1960 (not by "the Pope of 1960," as you state erroneously).

Problem: John XXIII refused to reveal the Secret, saying reportedly, "This is not for our time."

Conclusion: Either you reject the pontificate of John XXIII or you admit that John XXIII didn't believe in the message of Fatima.

Which do you prefer?

--------------------------

See how ridiculous that sounds? There are no black-and-white answers to the Crisis, either for dogmatic sedevacantists or for dogmatic sedeplenists such as yourself.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:45:19 PM »

I'll play along for the purpose of driving the point home:

You are suggesting that someone other than the Pope in 1960 would be in a position to reveal the secret?

Charlemagne · « **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:03:48 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I'll play along for the purpose of driving the point home:

You are suggesting that someone other than the Pope in 1960 would be in a position to reveal the secret?

Not at all. I'm just trying to show you that there are very few "either/or" answers to the Crisis. You're assuming that John XXIII was the Pope (which I believe), but some believe it was actually Cardinal Siri. Insisting that the answers during this time are a simple choice of "A" or "B" is prideful, which is very Dimond-esque (a trait that I assume you - and most (all?) here - don't wish to possess). I actually like that you take time to formulate your responses, unlike andysloan, who just relies on Saint Internet for prooftexts.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:38:14 PM »

Why do you suppose it wasn't revealed?

We didn't have a pope, that is why!

Charlemagne · « **Reply #7 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:55:27 PM »

I do want to apologize to andysloan for mentioning his name in my response, which was unwarranted.

Ambrose · « **Reply #8 on:** April 26, 2014, 11:15:52 PM »

Sean,

Regarding John XXIII:

As many posters have already said: many sedevacantists remain unsure about John XXIII, and do not go tread there. They will usually just say, "Pope Pius XII was our last certain Pope," leaving open the possibility that John XXIII was a true Pope.

For myself, I believe the evidence supports his claim to the Papacy:

1. He was universally and peacefully accepted by the Church.
2. He was accepted by the Roman Clergy whom he ruled.
3. He was peacefully accepted by the hierarchy.
4. He never professed a public heresy.
5. He never taught any heresy or grave error against the Faith.
6. He never promulgated an evil universal disciplinary law.
7. He never signed the docuмents of Vatican II, he was long deceased before the end of the Council.
8. There is evidence to support the idea that he wanted the Council stopped.
9. The Holy Office under John XXIII continued to function as it should, with Cardinal Ottaviani as it's prefect.
10. All other functions of the Roman Curia and all dioceses continued to function properly and peacefully, during the reign of John XXIII.
11. It is a fact that overall, Catholics throughout the world in the 1950's and up until the death of John XXIII were completely oblivious to the fact that the Church was on the verge of a major revolution. No one grasped this until the ascendency of Paul VI, as the Council was already hijacked and the battle between the orthodox bishops and theologians (periti) vs. the liberals were becoming more public.

Alcuin · « **Reply #9 on:** April 27, 2014, 04:13:04 AM »

So you don't have a problem with Pacem in Terris?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #10 on:** April 27, 2014, 06:21:00 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

So you don't have a problem with Pacem in Terris?

You're asking the wrong question. The issue is whether or not it is heresy.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #11 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:15:02 AM »

Regarding John XXIII

http://www.rense.com/general73/ppe.htm

also:

Quote

Portugal Newspaper Shows Pope John XXIII Was a Practicing Freemason
Other allegations surface showing John XXIII was closely associated with Communists and Freemasons, as he and his followers illegally usurped the papacy from the lawfully elected and true Pontiff, Pope Gregory XVII.
19 Sep 2006
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/58388.htm
By Greg Szymanski

After the Vatican Bank scandal erupted in the early 1980’s, French and Italian news publications listed the names of more than 150 high ranking bishops, archbishops and cardinals who were active members of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, including the P2 Masonic Lodge and other dark and sinister secret societies.

The startling information never was publicized in the United States, but the implications should have been devastating to practicing Catholics worldwide since affiliation with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is against Canon Law and grounds for immediate expulsion from the Roman Catholic Church.

As damning as the Masonic connections should have been to the Vatican, nothing happened as the allegations were quickly swept under the rug while those high level Vatican priests connected to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ actually flourished in positions of Vatican power.

However, as bad as it was for high-ranking bishops to be connected with Masonry, now comes even more shocking allegations that Angelo Roncalli, a.k.a. Pope John XXIII was also a practicing Freemason.

The following article, originally published in the Portugal Daily Newspaper on Nov. 12, 2002, and never seeing the light of day in America, proves beyond a reasonable doubt even the highest leader of the Roman Catholic Church was serving a devilish master instead of following and spreading the word of God.

Not only was Roncalli subject to immediate expulsion from the Church for his duplicitous and satanic actions, other recently declassified FBI docuмents showed Roncalli illegally usurped the papacy by force, at the 1958 Papal Conclave, from the lawfully elected and true Pontiff, Gregory XVII, formally Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Genoa, Italy.

Here is the 2002 Portugal news article:

The Portugal Daily News
(November 11, 2002)
Fátima International (FI), an historic review organisation with offices in Australia, USA, Paraguay and Portugal, has issued a further press release claiming that Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, who was elected as Pope John XXlll in 1958, was a Freemason. In 1994 the Portuguese newspapers “O Dia” and “Correio de Domingo” published a summary of FI’s investigations into the case, which stated that Pope John XXlll [Roncalli] had been initiated into a secret society, the Order of Rosicrucians, whilst serving as the Vatican’s Charge d´Affairs in Paris during 1935.

A spokesman for FI told THE NEWS that Virgilio Guito, former head of the Italian Grande Oriente Masonic Lodges, in a statement published by the French newspaper “30 Days”, said: “It seems that Pope John XXIII has been initiated in Paris, and participated in the works of the Lodges in Istanbul”. The spokesman said that as leader of Italian Masonry, Guito would be in a position to know with certainty if Angelo Roncalli had been initiated into the Order in Paris. “It would be incredibly reckless of him to make such a statement if it were not true” he said.

According to Carpi's book, during his Nunciature in Turkey, Roncalli was admitted "into the sect of the Temple" receiving the name "Brother John" - Prophesies of John XXIII, Pier Carpi, p. 52.

The implications of FI’s disclosures are of tremendous importance to Catholics worldwide. Under Canon Law any Catholic who [...] becomes a Mason is ipso facto excommunicated from the Church. The consequence regarding Angelo Roncalli, would have been that as an excommunicate it would have been impossible for him to be elected pope. FI also points out that any decrees issued by Roncalli under the mantle of the Papacy would therefore be null and void, including the convoking of the Second Vatican Council in 1962.

Long-standing suspicions regarding John XXIII’s links to Masonry were further aroused in 1977, fourteen years after his death. Of particular interest was an advertisement published in the USA, Boston Pilot Magazine, which was offering for sale replicas of John XXIII’s pectoral cross. The cross was decorated with several Masonic symbols and had been authorised for sale by Archbishop Capovilla of Loreto, Italy, with the backing of the Vatican.

The Australian Robert Bergin, a founder member of FI who died in 1996, spent the last years of his life in Portugal, where he financed several publications detailing the facts linking the plight of Roncalli to the prophecies given by the Virgin Mary at Fátima in 1917. His efforts to persuade the Vatican to investigate Roncalli’ s Masonic connections were unsuccessful.

This was of little surprise, as in 1976 the Vatican had failed to respond to the Italian journal, Burghese, which had published a list of over one hundred bishops and cardinals who it claimed were Freemasons. The list was purported to have been taken from the Italian Masonic Register and included the initiation dates and code names assigned to each of the clerics involved.

Furthermore, the “Siri Thesis/Fact,” holds that actually Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected pope after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, but the newly-elected Pope (Gregorius XVII, formerly Cardinal Siri) was threatened [i.e. put under grave duress at the conclave], prevented from taking the Papal Chair and illegally replaced by Roncalli aka "pope" John XXIII.

As reported on the Immaculate Heart web site, here is a sermon by Fr. Louis J. Campbell given on the last Sunday after Pentecost on Nov. 23, 2003, addressing the issue of Pope Gregory XVII as well as other problems within the hierarchy of the Church:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:30:32 AM »

BTW...CMRI hold to the sedevacantist position, each year in Oct. they host, a Fatima Conference. We do not deny the Fatima message, so the OP here is just another lie.

I belong to Mt. St. Michael as my parish Church and have heard numerous times sermons about the Fatima message also, in our gift store one can obtain books and pamphlets concerning information about Fatima.

Although Fatima is not a doctrine of the Church, CMRI encourages the laity to read about all the APPROVED messages from the White Lily of the Holy Trinity, the Mother of God. We have no interest with recent apparitions around the world that have not been approved by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It only makes good sense that in 1960 the 3rd secret of Fatima was a warning about Vatican II, which began in 1962, the enemy was well in charge at that time and were not going to tattle tale on their plan to destroy the Church.

Michael Wilson · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2014, 10:51:04 AM »

In reference to Sean's original question: According to Frere Michel of the Holy Trinity in his third volume of "Fatima the Whole Truth"; the third secret of Fatima was written down by Sister Lucy in 1940. She was instructed to hand over the secret to her bishop and he was free to open the secret up and read it as well as promulgate it immediately; but not latter than 1960. It was solely his decision. The bishop did not want to even read the message, and eventually the Message was handed over to the Holy Office, who handed it to Pius XII. Pius XII kept the message on his desk and never read it.
John XXIII read the message in 1960, in the presence of a Portugese priest who acted as translator and Cardinal Ottaviani. But remarked that "this isn't for my time but for latter."
Unfortunately I no longer posses the three volume work, so I cannot supply the quotes.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** April 27, 2014, 01:28:37 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I'll play along for the purpose of driving the point home:

You are suggesting that someone other than the Pope in 1960 would be in a position to reveal the secret?

I think we're suggesting your premise isn't factual, which destroys the argument you made. You do seem like a troublemaker who isn't interested in honest discussion. No wonder you got booted from BF.