.
Doesn't that depend on (a) whether we accept Akita and (if so) (b) whether the reference to infiltration by the devil means an ongoing process or a completed one?
No, it does not depend on (a) and/or (b).
Actually, you have it backwards, inspiritu20. Whether "Vatican
II is good, and the Newmass is good, for Akita" or not, does not
depend on
whether we accept Akita. Rather whether we accept
Akita should depend on whether Vat.II is good according to Akita,
and whether the Newmass is good, according to Akita.
We don't accept Akita or reject it first, and then think about Vat.II
and the Newmass. You have it backwards, inspiritu20.
Personally I don't accept Akita as a Marian revelation and the Church doesn't require that we do.
It's true, the Church does not require that the faithful accept any of
the many approved apparitions of Our Lady. Apparitions,
per se,cannot be dogma.
However, when a publicly announced (that is, prophesied, literally)
miracle of unprecedented magnitude in the history of the world, such
as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima in 1917 occurs, together with all
the 'little miracles' that accompanied it, it's not just something that we
can all turn away from and say it's not required of us to pay any
attention.
As for Akita, it is under the jurisdiction of the local bishop to review
and to pronounce any danger to the Faith that an apparition in his
diocese represents, and Bishop Ito of Akita did the required work and
asked the proper questions and spent the necessary time, coming up
with his own authoritative approval, saying there is no danger to the
Faith there.
Okay, so we are left with the fact that he was on board with the
Newmass and the aftermath of Vat.II. But note the timing: he was not
a Newbishop, but consecrated in the Old Rite, and ordained before any
of the changes in 1970 to the ordination form, so you can't accuse him
of not being a real bishop or a real priest. That rug is pulled out from
under the sedes' feet at Akita.
It seems to me that the principal message of Akita is that everything
is not simply black or white. There are shades of grey, too.
By 1973, the revolution in the Church was well advanced and the person who declared Akita worthy of belief was one of its praetorian guard. None other than Joseph Ratzinger.
Well, no, the person was not Ratzinger, but rather the person was Bishop
Ito of Japan. The local bishop has the authority, and does not need to
rely on any word from the Vatican or whatever. It's his own jurisdiction.
The smoke of Satan entered the Church in the 1960s and has been progressively obscuring Truth ever since. I believe that Akita is an example of that.
There isn't anything to stop you. But likewise, you have no right to
say someone else is wrong for believing in Akita, because the local
bishop said there is no danger to the Faith in what happened there.
At the end of the day, it's a pretty banal message from the Mother of God: repent, pray and hope that She can restrain the arm of the Lord and prevent a great chastisement by fire.
It may seem banal to you, but that's your choice. Maybe if an angel
held a bible up in front of your face and pointed to Genesis 3:15, the
protoevangelium, and you could hear him speaking even though you
had been deaf all your life, you might not think it was so "banal."
Don't forget, that the version of the Scripture was a faithful translation
of the Latin Vulgate, while every other translation since the KJV has
categorically changed the words of Gen. iii. 15 to say something else.
It is practically impossible that the devil would draw anyone's attention
to the very thing he wants the world to FORGET, that it is the HEEL of
the Blessed Mother of God that will crush his head. That is not at all
'banal' any way you slice it.
Nor is the warning to "repent" a banal message. You know, inspiritu20,
millions of real people fall into hell because they just can't seem to
muster the gumption to practice a little contrition. So the same old
tired message to repent might make the difference of your eternity
if you are one of those guys. Is that so "banal?"
As for Our Lady preventing the arm of God from chastising the world
by fire, you sound like you don't believe that. Are you aware that
this is a doctrine of the Church? Now, maybe it's not a dogma that
you'd be a heretic for refusing to believe it, but it is what the Church
teaches, that Our Lady restrains the wrath of God. If you were caught
in a fire and a fireman came to you with an insulating shield that keeps
the heat off of you, would you scoff at him and say it's a "banal"
concept to hope that he can help you that way?
You would do so at your own peril.
It adds nothing to Fatima - a revelation truly worthy of belief.
I can understand your suspicion of Akita okay, and as you say, it
doesn't "add anything" to Fatima. But you have to keep in mind
that there are a number of authentic apparitions of Our Lady that
don't
'add anything' to other apparitions.
Her message is really the same throughout all of history, so why
does any particular appearance have to "add" anything?
Maybe if you were the Blessed Virgin Mary then you could think of
a few tricks to add to make it more exciting for the skeptics?
I'm reminded of the
Fatima Crusader, whose critics told Fr. Gruner
after the first issue in 1978, 'Well, that's about all there is to say
here, so you're not going to have anything "
new" for a
second issue'!
He recalled that criticism when they printed Issue Number 100
this past year, after 35 years of his apostolate for Our Lady. They're
now on Issue 106. Maybe you think that's "banal" too?
I've always been suspect of Akita but couldn't pinpoint why. These articles provide the theological analysis proving why Akita is not worthy of belief.
Thank you.
Oh, okay. So the Internet Court of Popular Opinion oversteps the
jurisdiction of the local bishop. :judge:
Fascinating!
Where is that found in the history of the Church? Or is it a new
POWER of Antichrist via signs and wonders so as to deceive (if
possible) even the elect?
Hmmmm??
.