.
Example:
The Blessed Virgin Mary does not use bad grammar, or make
nonsensical statements. Everything she says carries a lot of
weight because it is packed with meaning.
She comes from a place where ALL TRUTH IS KNOWN, and she
has NO REASON to make silly errors with her words.
Keeping that in mind, check out this sentence:
"Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima."
That is a compound sentence, which is not a problem in itself, but
as such, the second part, after the comma, should refer to the
first part, especially in light of the fact that the subject of the
second sentence is "ITS."
"Its authority will be moved," refers to the authority of something.
Now, would it be the authority of -- the subject of the first part?
Normally, that would be the case. Such as: "My apple is green,
but its skin is thin." Obviously, "its" refers to the subject, "apple,"
because you don't say "green has a skin."
However, with this: "Since the apple has a worm on top, it's going
to be removed;" is the apple going to be removed, or is the worm
going to be removed?
So in the quote, can we be sure that it does not mean that the
authority of the dogma of the faith will be removed and delivered
to Fatima? But if that were the meaning, then this authority which
will be moved from Rome to Fatima has
not been conserved in Rome,
so how can it now be moved out of Rome, after having not been
conserved there? Also, how does a dogma's authority have any
specific location, such as Rome or such as Fatima?
Alternatively, if it means that
the authority of Rome will be moved
to Fatima because in Rome the dogma of the faith has not been
conserved, it would seem it is
as a consequence or perhaps a
punishment for not conserving the dogma in Rome. Of the two possibilities, the second seems the more likely.
Similarly, we have the preceding and subsequent sentences, as
follows:
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
Let's take the subsequent one first. What is the cathedral of Rome?
One might think that's St. Peter's, however, that is not a cathedral, but
a basilica. The Cathedral of Rome is San Giovanni. It is one of the
most ancient churches in the world, and steeped in history, but this
message says it must be destroyed. One is left wondering if it will
be destroyed BECAUSE of this message, or because of something
else. The more likely is the latter. But what that cause is, is not
mentioned, therefore
we have an unknown force that will destroy San
Giovanni Cathedral in Rome, and the reason is because the dogma of
the faith has not been conserved in Rome. Finally there is the "kingdom of John Paul II." When has Our Lady ever
referred to any location, especially one in Rome, as "a kingdom" of a
pope, but not only a pope, but a pope who would not be elected for
another 34 years? There is one time at Fatima when she predicted a
second war (world war) and a worse one, that would begin in during
the reign of Pius XI, but he would not be elected for another 5 years
(from 1917 to 1922). But even so, she didn't say, "the kingdom of
Pius XI." This lack of precedent makes the phrase look rather contrived.
It wouldn't be the first time Our Lady said something that was a shocker,
for she said to St. Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception." That
one sentence put a number of theologians into pretzel shapes of logical
contortions. But it had enormous implications.
For her to say "the kingdom of John Paul II" would seem to imply that
the See of Peter somehow belongs to one particular Pope, and by any
reasonable assessment, one of the worst of all the popes. Which other
pope instead of dying to resist indifferentism endeavored to practice it?
And he is called the King of the Papacy by Our Lady? I don't think so.
But in any event, this "kingdom" apparently refers to
Vatican City, for
that's the only sovereign state over which the Pope could be said to
be the "king."
The "cornerstone of Peter's grave" is a real puzzle. When the tomb of
St. Peter was discovered (and it was only recently) there was no
cornerstone there. All of the "stones" you see there today have been
brought in to dress up the space, because it was just a hole in the
dirt when it was found. A cornerstone is for the foundation of a stone
building (not for a wood frame or a steel building). And additionally, the
laying of a cornerstone has a lot of symbolic significance for Freemasons.
The transferral of a "cornerstone" as part of the translation of relics and/or
power and/or authority from one place to another is more of a Masonic
type of thing than a Catholic one. Last but not least, the conferred
Scripture is regarding "the head of the corner," which is otherwise known
as the keystone, not the cornerstone. A keystone is the one at the top
of an archway that locks all the other stones into place, making a strong
arch that spans over a gateway or a passageway. To confuse this with
a stone that is placed in the ground as part of the foundation is not a
small matter. Since there are no keystones or cornerstones in St. Peter's
tomb, our best guess would be
"some important part of St. Peter's
grave."Therefore, we have:
In Vatican City, some important part of St. Peter's grave
shall be translated to Fatima, Portugal. The authority of Rome
will be moved to Fatima because in Rome the dogma of the faith
has not been conserved. This is a consequence or perhaps a
punishment for not conserving the dogma in Rome. We have an
unknown force that will destroy San Giovanni Cathedral in Rome,
and the reason is because the dogma of the faith has not been
conserved in Rome. Usually, when you reconstruct a text like this based on the context,
it makes the whole more clear. But in this case, does this
reconstruction help the meaning or make it less understandable?
.