Author Topic: The Whole Truth about Fatima in 3 vols. (Read 2757 times)

MariaCatherine · « **on:** June 11, 2013, 07:03:18 PM »

What an amazing book! In vol. 3. it explains why Pope Pius XII did not consecrate Russia, even though he had all the necessary information, and believed it completely. He was fooled by Moscow, just like the Americans and the allies, to believe that Russia would practise tolerance in religious matters. How utterly sad.

I thought that the Vatican/Moscow agreement was born in the 60s, but it actually began in the 20s with Pope Pius XI. This is all news to me.

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2013, 07:14:12 PM »

Quote from: MariaCatherine

What an amazing book! In vol. 3. it explains why Pope Pius XII did not consecrate Russia, even though he had all the necessary information, and believed it completely. He was fooled by Moscow, just like the Americans and the allies, to believe that Russia would practise tolerance in religious matters. How utterly sad.

I thought that the Vatican/Moscow agreement was born in the 60s, but it actually began in the 20s with Pope Pius XI. This is all news to me.

I've always wondered why Pius XI didn't do the consecration. He had from 1930 when the apparition received full approval from the Church until his death in 1939. Maybe the reason was this Vatican/Moscow agreement?

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2013, 07:19:33 PM »

Here are the links to "The Whole Truth About Fatima"

http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima1/
http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima2/
http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima3/

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #3 on:** June 11, 2013, 08:33:39 PM »

It utterly floored me that the Vatican and Russia were already friendly in the 1920s. But this is the section that moved me to post here:

Quote

Now, contrary to appearances, which made him seem a very authoritarian and independent person, Pius XII was by nature sensitive and impressionable. He was strongly susceptible to the influence of those around him. We can hardly do better here than quote the perceptive testimony of his most intimate, devoted and selfless collaborator, Msgr. Tardini. These few lines written in 1959 shed a great deal of light on all the shortcomings of Pius XII’s pontificate.

«Pius XII had a gentle and rather timid temperament. He was not made for struggle. In this he was very different from his great predecessor Pius XI, who seemed, apparently at least, to relish a struggle. Pius XII, on the contrary, visibly suffered from them, This inclination, which led him to prefer solitude and calm, disposed him to avoid rather than face the battles of life.

«His great goodness led him to please everybody and irritate no one; to prefer the ways of mildness to those of severity, persuasion to force. The candour of his soul did not even permit him to suspect a lack of veracity or sincerity in somebody else. Humble as he was, he believed that everyone was like him: just as devoted to truth, just as selfless as he was.

«Sometimes, at the most difficult moments, his penetrating intelligence, applying itself to the situation, made him see promptly and clearly all the possible solutions. Immediately there appeared to him the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages, the possible favourable or unfavourable consequences. Then he would remain uncertain, hesitant, as if he were not sure of himself. Then he had to be left to reflect and pray. But not everyone acted in this way... One person suggested one thing and another suggested something else. Everyone – as often happened – claimed to have found the just solution, the only solution, the solution the Pope had to follow. All that troubled him.

«Once the decision was made, it had to be executed: this too was a delicate step, especially if the decision was by its nature displeasing to some. In this case, Pius XII loved – as he himself used to say – “to sweeten the pill”...

«A question can be asked here: is it possible for a man not only to conquer himself, but to destroy and even annihilate his own natural dispositions? I don’t think so. Given human frailty, something of the temperament remains in the depths of the psychic structure of man, and at certain moments emerges at the surface once more.

«Moreover, a person who occupies an elevated post very frequently encounters, among those who approach him, somebody clever enough to exploit his weak side. The interest of the exploiter, his ideas or his friends profit from the superior’s weak side. Pius XII himself cannot be entirely exempted from this common law of human existence.»

In writing these terrible lines, was Cardinal Tardini thinking of the influence Msgr. Montini exerted on Pius XII? It is very probable, for the lively tensions between the Pope’s two closest collaborators reveal that Cardinal Tardini did not appreciate his colleague’s encroachments and hazardous initiatives.64

Msgr. Tardini added: «In his exquisite amiability, the Pope desired to see those whom he received in audience leave him with a grateful memory... At certain moments he was unable to say no.»65 As it concerned President Roosevelt and his special envoy, Myron Taylor, this real weakness of Pius XII was undoubtedly combined with a debatable political view: the Pope did not want to risk gravely displeasing the powerful American democracy, on which Europe’s fate principally depended after the war.

I no longer wonder why he didn't come out more strongly in favor of Fr. Feeney. How sad.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #4 on:** June 11, 2013, 10:37:15 PM »

Quote from: MariaCatherine

What an amazing book! In vol. 3. it explains why Pope Pius XII did not consecrate Russia, even though he had all the necessary information, and believed it completely. He was fooled by Moscow, just like the Americans and the allies, to believe that Russia would practise tolerance in religious matters. How utterly sad.

I thought that the Vatican/Moscow agreement was born in the 60s, but it actually began in the 20s with Pope Pius XI. This is all news to me.

Tragic but hardly surprisingly really. Following Pope St Pius X, you basically had a string of pontiffs that were committed diplomats. Pius XI and XII especially were so concerned with the material and administrative state of the Church following their respective world wars that they clearly fell short of their sainted Predecessor in battling the heresy of modernism.

Binechi · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2013, 06:50:44 AM »

It is said that Pius XII was by no means a staunch traditionalist.

His reforms, omissions and failures paved the way for Vatican II. Just a few things that Pius XII did are:

He promoted Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New Mass, and began the liturgical reform with his allowance of reforms in the Holy Week Rites. A good number of liturgical scholars think that the reforms of Holy Week were terrible.

One example is the allowance of distribution of Holy Communion on Good Friday. The decree of the Holy Office under Pope Pius X On Frequent Communion cites Pope Innocent XI who condemned such a practice.

· He promoted men like Giovanni Montini (later Paul VI) and Angelo Roncalli (later John XXIII), without which promotions these men could never have had the influence or caused the immeasurable destruction that they did.

· He said that theistic evolution could be taught in Catholic schools (Humani Generis, 1950), which is nothing short of ludicrous – and arguably heretical.

· He taught that birth control could be used by couples by means of the rhythm method (or Natural Family Planning), which is a frustration and a subordination of the primary purpose of the marriage act – conception.

· He allowed the persecution and subsequent excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney, whether through willful complicity or neglect, for doing what every Catholic priest should do: preach the Gospel, defend the faith and adhere to defined dogma.

This last offense was the most serious. With the persecution of Father Feeney, the “authorities” in Boston and Rome not only did not aid Father Feeney in his quest to convert non-Catholics, but actually stopped him! Think about that: The men who were supposed to foster the salvation of souls and conversion to the true Faith actually made it as difficult as possible for Father Feeney to do so.

They made his task of delivering Christ’s saving message – that salvation only comes from membership in the Church He established – as hard as they could, while giving millions of non-Catholics the false impression that they were okay in the state of damnation in which they existed.

Richard Cushing, the apostate Archbishop of Boston, who first silenced Father Feeney – not over baptism of desire, but over extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) – boasted before his death that he had not made a convert in his whole life.

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:27:35 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: MariaCatherine
What an amazing book! In vol. 3. it explains why Pope Pius XII did not consecrate Russia, even though he had all the necessary information, and believed it completely. He was fooled by Moscow, just like the Americans and the allies, to believe that Russia would practise tolerance in religious matters. How utterly sad.

I thought that the Vatican/Moscow agreement was born in the 60s, but it actually began in the 20s with Pope Pius XI. This is all news to me.

Tragic but hardly surprisingly really. Following Pope St Pius X, you basically had a string of pontiffs that were committed diplomats. Pius XI and XII especially were so concerned with the material and administrative state of the Church following their respective world wars that they clearly fell short of their sainted Predecessor in battling the heresy of modernism.

I've only been a Catholic for 8 years, and have only been reading Catholic history since my conversion. The people I know who support Fr. Feeney couldn't really explain why Pope Pius XII never answered Fr. Feeney's letters to him. Not to suggest I know very many of Fr. Feeney's supporters, and certainly not to disparage the few I do know; good Catholics are often too busy to be good historians too. Ultimately I'm responsible for my own ignorance anyway.

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:43:27 AM »

Quote from: Director

It is said that Pius XII was by no means a staunch traditionalist.

Thanks for all that information. I see I'd been led astray to some degree.

Maybe you have too, regarding the alleged excommunication of Fr. Feeney.

Quote

On January 9, 1953 Father Feeney was then threatened with automatic excommunication, ipso facto, if he failed to report to Rome by a certain date. This letter ignored Father Feeney’s points concerning Canon Laws requirements, for the offense alleged against Father Feeney — not obeying the summons to Rome — is a matter for a court or judge to weigh. He could not be excommunicated ipso facto because his action did not fall under the category of crimes meriting such a sentence.

It should be noted that in the demands and threats from this member of the Roman Curia there were six direct violations of Canon Law. Both the appeals and canonical rights of Father Feeney were ignored and disregarded. Thus, this whole ordeal is not only suspect, but fallacious and immoral.

http://catholicism.org/father-feeney-fact-sheet.html

Or maybe you just meant to put quotes around the word 'excommunicated'. Anyway, thanks again. :cheers:

Binechi · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2013, 08:31:39 AM »

Pope Pius XII, Father Feeney and the dogma

One of the reasons that the heretical and deadly Protocol 122/49 gained such momentum in the minds of so many bishops and priests, and was literally able to wipe out belief in the dogma (that those who die as non-Catholics are lost) in almost the entire Catholic world, was because they thought that it had at least the tacit approval of Pope Pius XII.

Indeed the docuмent claims that he did approve of it. The bottom-line is that he didn’t sign it, nor did he promulgate it in any manner that would have affected infallibility. It wasn’t even published officially. And obviously no pope could have signed the Protocol because it is quite heretical, as stated.

If Pope Pius XII agreed with the Protocol and the persecution of Father Feeney for preaching the dogma, then he was just simply a mortal sinner against the Faith. If he had come out in favor of the Protocol and against Fr. Feeney then he would have been a heretic.

If Pope Pius XII had denied the dogma – as did the priests at Boston College, for example – and assented to the stifling of Father Feeney’s apostolic preaching of it, then Pius XII would have become a heretic and an enemy of the Faith.

If Pope Pius XII thought that Father Feeney was preaching his own doctrine for asserting exactly what Pope Gregory XVI asserted in Summo Iugiter Studio and what the Chair of Peter has dogmatically defined (that all those who die as non-Catholics are lost), then he didn’t understand the first thing about the Catholic Faith – and indeed he did not possess it.

People need to remember that not every decision by a pope is infallible. In studying papal errors throughout history in preparation for its declaration of papal infallibility, the theologians at Vatican I found that over 40 popes held wrong theological views. But none of these errors were taught by popes from the Chair of St. Peter.

In a well known case of papal error, Pope John XXII held the false view that the just of the Old Testament don’t receive the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment.

Perhaps the clearest case of papal error in Church history is the “Synod of the Corpse” of 897. This was where the dead body of Pope Formosus – who by all accounts was a holy and devoted pope – was condemned after his death by Pope Stephen VII for a number of supposed violations of canon law.

This condemnation of Pope Formosus by Pope Stephen VII was overturned by Pope Theodore II and Pope John IX, but favored by Pope Sergius III.
This should show us very clearly that not every decision, speech, opinion or judgment of a pope is infallible. A pope is infallible when speaking from the Chair of Peter or reiterating what the Church has always taught in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Pope Honorius I was condemned by the III Council of Constantinople for at least furthering the monothelite heresy (the belief that Christ had only one will) in two letters to the Patriarch Sergius. So, just as Pope Honorius I (625-638) was condemned for furthering heresy by the III Council of Constantinople and other ecuмenical Councils.

So too would Pope Pius XII have fallen into heresy if he held that non-Catholics could be saved and supported the persecution of Father Feeney for affirming that they could not.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2013, 03:29:47 PM »

Quote from: MariaCatherine

What an amazing book! In vol. 3. it explains why Pope Pius XII did not consecrate Russia, even though he had all the necessary information, and believed it completely. He was fooled by Moscow, just like the Americans and the allies, to believe that Russia would practise tolerance in religious matters. How utterly sad.

I thought that the Vatican/Moscow agreement was born in the 60s, but it actually began in the 20s with Pope Pius XI. This is all news to me.

Sorry if I missed something but Pope Pius XII did consecrate Russia specifically to the Immaculate Heart.

Pope Pius XII, Sacro Vergente Anno (Apostolic Letter), July 7, 1952: “…just as a few years ago We consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today We consecrate and in a most special manner We entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart…”

Sacro Vergente Anno

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2013, 03:52:10 PM »

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

Quote from: MariaCatherine
What an amazing book! In vol. 3. it explains why Pope Pius XII did not consecrate Russia, even though he had all the necessary information, and believed it completely. He was fooled by Moscow, just like the Americans and the allies, to believe that Russia would practise tolerance in religious matters. How utterly sad.

I thought that the Vatican/Moscow agreement was born in the 60s, but it actually began in the 20s with Pope Pius XI. This is all news to me.

Sorry if I missed something but Pope Pius XII did consecrate Russia specifically to the Immaculate Heart.

Pope Pius XII, Sacro Vergente Anno (Apostolic Letter), July 7, 1952: “…just as a few years ago We consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today We consecrate and in a most special manner We entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart…”

Sacro Vergente Anno

He was instructed to consecrate Russia, in union with all the bishops. We're still waiting for that.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2013, 04:22:17 PM »

Quote from: MariaCatherine

Quote from: Isaac Jogues
Quote from: MariaCatherine
What an amazing book! In vol. 3. it explains why Pope Pius XII did not consecrate Russia, even though he had all the necessary information, and believed it completely. He was fooled by Moscow, just like the Americans and the allies, to believe that Russia would practise tolerance in religious matters. How utterly sad.

I thought that the Vatican/Moscow agreement was born in the 60s, but it actually began in the 20s with Pope Pius XI. This is all news to me.

Sorry if I missed something but Pope Pius XII did consecrate Russia specifically to the Immaculate Heart.

Pope Pius XII, Sacro Vergente Anno (Apostolic Letter), July 7, 1952: “…just as a few years ago We consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today We consecrate and in a most special manner We entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart…”

Sacro Vergente Anno

He was instructed to consecrate Russia, in union with all the bishops. We're still waiting for that.

On July 13 Our Lady said that

Quote

In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

You are waiting in vain. She predicted that in the end the Holy Father, not the Holy Father and all the Bishops, will make the consecration (Pius XII-Sacro Vergente Anno) and he did. He was initially instructed to do it as you said but it didn't happen that way as she predicted

obediens · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2013, 04:55:38 PM »

Our Lady reappeared to Sister Lucy on June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, when in a great and sublime vision representing the Blessed Trinity, She announced that "the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia."

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

You are waiting in vain. She predicted that in the end the Holy Father, not the Holy Father and all the Bishops, will make the consecration (Pius XII-Sacro Vergente Anno) and he did. He was initially instructed to do it as you said but it didn't happen that way as she predicted

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #13 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:19:33 PM »

Quote from: obediens

Our Lady reappeared to Sister Lucy on June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, when in a great and sublime vision representing the Blessed Trinity, She announced that "the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia."

Quote from: Isaac Jogues
You are waiting in vain. She predicted that in the end the Holy Father, not the Holy Father and all the Bishops, will make the consecration (Pius XII-Sacro Vergente Anno) and he did. He was initially instructed to do it as you said but it didn't happen that way as she predicted

I understand that Our Lady said this but the final prediction is that in the end the Holy Father would do the consecration. This happened and her prophecy was fulfilled.

songbird · « **Reply #14 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:36:44 PM »

I read all those books and that was about 20 years ago and they were very informative! I saw Pius the xi and xii as weak. It was in my mind that they were either weak themselves or that those around them and issues brought it to that point. I would go with my first thought. If your not weak, you say "over my died body" and I didn't see that with those 2 popes.