I believe the same. Pre V2, this the how we were supposed to believe, no? - Unless or until approved by the Church.
Yes, that's always been the Church's attitude, and the attitude of the faithful ... presumed false until proven otherwise.
Bishop Williamson seems to think that if it's preternatural that it's undoubtedly authentic. Garabandal for instance was clearly preternatural.
But what of the consideration that it could be diabolical? IMO, that's clearly the case with Garabandal.
I've speculated before about why the devil would try to pull Garabandal, and generally landed on the notion that it was a distraction from the Third Secret needing to be revealed. But then the Dimond Brothers made a very astute observations. Garabandal and Akita both focus on a PHYSICAL chastisement, making people think that the chastisement is "yet to come" as a physical chastisement. While there's no doubt that that will be coming ALSO, it's clear that the Third Secret was about the (worse) SPIRITUAL chastisement of Vatican II and the NOM. Cardinal Ciappi, who read it, said it had to do with an apostasy beginning "at the top". Sister Lucy said it should be revealed around 1960 because "it would be much clearer then". Sister Lucy got almost physically ill when attempting to write out the Third Secret. There was something terrible in there that goes beyond a physical chastisement and goes beyond even their vision of Hell. And she was ordered to write it down under obedience, so it wasn't hesitation on those grounds either. There's something unthinkable in the Third Secret, something that has precious little to do with the failed assassination attempt on Wojtyla or even -- and this is Wojtyla's misdirection -- entire nations being swallowed up by the oceans. Of course, that means Wojtyla was caught in a lie, since the Third Secret he "released" made no mention of any such thing. So either he was lying when he said that earlier or lying in terms of what was released ... or, IMO, both.
So that's a plausible reason for why the devil would pull off Garabandal or Akita ... with no mention of the apostasy beginning at the top, and a token mention of "bishop vs. bishop", which too was intended to disguise the fact that this isn't in-fighting among liberal vs. conservative bishops, but that the entire Conciliar institution eclipses the Catholic Church and is an imposter anti-Church.
Similarly, with the NOM "Eucharistic miracles," the intent could clearly be for the devil to have people second-guess their opposition to the NOM and/or their believe that it's of doubtful validity. Well, if God worked a miracle through it, it must be valid and it can't be "all that bad", right? Alas, that's precisely the conclusion Bishop Williamson drew from it. So the trick worked.
Topic: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing Part 1 (no. 802) (Read 11842 times)