CathInfo.com

MyrnaM said,

Firstly I am shocked that you thought the Judas reference was meant for you. I only mentioned his name because if I didn't someone would come along to correct me, for saying they "ALL" served God.

Fair enough.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe its not the end yet... at least not the end in the eyes of God.  It only makes sense that in the end SHE WILL REIGN.  With or without Fatima.

I thought that in the end CHRIST WILL REIGN. Have I got that wrong?

What I was asking was - do you believe that the Holy Father will consecrate Russia, that Russia will be converted and that a period of peace will be granted to the world?

This is part of the message of Fatima.  According to Sister Lucy, this is what Our Lady said. Do you believe this will happen?

Who put you in charge of when the end will be?  Why worry about it, your end will come when you die, as mine will.  We are called to think of that, till then pray for your loved ones.  As the Bible says, "Watch and Pray".

I don't recall saying that anyone put me in charge of when the end will be.

I suggest your write to Christopher Ferrara for answers, since he is the one who wrote your book that you put so much faith in.

And I don't recall saying that I put any faith at all in Christopher Ferrara's book.  I mentioned it as an example of the time and effort that has been spent on the Secret of Fatima.

OHCA said,

Quote

The notion of your thread, "If Fatima is real; and if Sister Lucy followed then NO; then we too should follow the NO," attributes to such an instrument of the Lord used at Fatima as being God-like, omniscient, sinless, and infallible.  I used the term saint-like as a rough summary.  But this even goes beyond saint-like.

The whole notion that you posit is that if Fatima is real, then Sister would not have, or could not have, marched into conciliardom if doing so was wrong.  This does not follow.  But why would God have let it play out like this?

So, the popes, the cardinals, the bishops, priests, monks, nuns who marched into conciliardom - they are all just fallible human beings, marked by original sin, imperfect but not essentially at fault.

Because that is where your argument leads.

Furthermore, in order to resist the march into conciliardom, Sister Lucy would have had to have been - "God-like, omniscient, sinless, and infallible" - to use your own words.

Where does that leave Traditionalists who reject Vatican II?

You are a knucklehead and you're putting words in my mouth.

What you posited in your titling this thread, at it's essence, is that anyone who believes in "Fatima" should follow Lucy's NO example.  Are you too dumb to realize that the implication of your question is that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be right because of Lucy's example?  What does one have to do with the other?  You're query assumes that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be good because of Lucy's example.  The only way that that would necessarily be true would be if Lucy was God-like, omniscient, infallible, and sinless, which she was not.

". . . are all . . . imperfect but not essentially at fault.

"Because that is where your argument leads."

Try some rather than all, Logic-King.

I did not say that Lucy would have had to have been God-like, omniscient, infallible, sinless, etc., to have avoided marching into conciliardom.  I am saying that she would have, in addition to being a mere instrument in Fatima (if it's even real), would have had to have been those things for the faithful to have rightfully blindly marched into conciliardom solely based on her example.  You're saying that if Fatima is true, then the NO is necessarily good based on Lucy's example.  That's the biggest bunch of horseshit logic that I can imagine at the moment.

OHCA said,

You are a knucklehead and you're putting words in my mouth.

What you posited in your titling this thread, at it's essence, is that anyone who believes in "Fatima" should follow Lucy's NO example.  Are you too dumb to realize that the implication of your question is that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be right because of Lucy's example?  What does one have to do with the other?  You're query assumes that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be good because of Lucy's example.  The only way that that would necessarily be true would be if Lucy was God-like, omniscient, infallible, and sinless, which she was not.

". . . are all . . . imperfect but not essentially at fault.

"Because that is where your argument leads."

Try some rather than all, Logic-King.

I did not say that Lucy would have had to have been God-like, omniscient, infallible, sinless, etc., to have avoided marching into conciliardom.  I am saying that she would have, in addition to being a mere instrument in Fatima (if it's even real), would have had to have been those things for the faithful to have rightfully blindly marched into conciliardom solely based on her example.  You're saying that if Fatima is true, then the NO is necessarily good based on Lucy's example.  That's the biggest bunch of horse#### logic that I can imagine at the moment.

 :really-mad2: