|
| I received
a letter from a woman who subscribes to an e-mail discussion group. It seems
that my URL was mentioned on the list, and people on the list liked my site
-- until they saw that I linked to Fr. Gruner's site, www.fatima.org. Fr.
Gruner, for those of you who might not know, is convinced, despite the assertions
of Catholic hierarchs to the contrary, that the Third Secret of Fatima has
not been fully revealed and that Russia has not been consecrated to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary. The reaction on the list to their discovery of
my link to www.fatima.org was a tad hysterical on the part of some, in my
opinion. People on the list were warned away from my site, and I was accused
of having "an agenda," of having fallen over the "right edge" in an overreaction
to the liberals that populate the Church. One man on the list,
Mr. Symonds, took a more measured
approach and addressed the issues without the demagoguery. This he did at
his website, sending
the
URL for my response. Our first exchange is below; I await his OK to respond
to his rebuttal of what I've written: |
Hello to you,
Mr. Symonds, and may He lead us both to all Truth! I've taken the liberty
of copy-pasting your text below. My responses will be in bordered tables
like this so as to make them stand out from your words.
I want to say at the outset that I am no "Fatima expert" and would personally
much rather focus on other Churchly issues. Out of 440-some pages of my site,
I link to www.fatima.org 4 times, I believe: on my front page (among other
Catholic links); on my page for new Catholics, "Warning: Take Charge of your
Catechesis"; on the page on devotion to the Immaculate Heart; and on the
page "Marian Apparitions Deemed Worthy of Belief." It is strange to find
myself in a huge debate about Fatima as it is not the focus of my site; but
since it has become the sine qua non of my Catholic credentials
(apparently), and because I do happen to believe that Fr. Gruner is a holy
priest and completely undeserving of the animus shown toward him by many
in neo-conservative circles, I will do my best to defend him, for what it's
worth.
You write: |
Hello everyone. I am a part of a mailing list on America Online run by a
friend of mine named Marie. She recently sent everyone an E-mail with a web
page about Catholic resources. I checked out the site a bit and I was disturbed
by some of the statements that I found. Then, I clicked on a link that took
me to some information that included a reference in defense of Fr. Nicholas
Gruner.
Fr. Gruner is a priest living up in Canada and prints a magazine called "The
Fatima Crusader" if memory serves. To truncate his message, he is a conspiracy
theorist. He believes that the Vatican is silencing Sr. Lucia--the sole surviving
visionary of Fatima at age 97--and that there's a cover-up of the famed Third
Secret of Fatima. He believes that the 3rd Secret involves an apostasy of
the Roman Church from the Faith and that Rome is trying to cover this up.
I will interject
at this point to say that the label "conspiracy theorist" has become much
like the label "anti-semite" in that it says nothing, really, and is used
to stop thought, to categorize an individual and "blacklist" him from polite
discourse. Use of the label alludes to the idea that the existence of
conspiracies is an insane notion and the domain of those who look especially
smashing in tinfoil hats, but the truth is that conspiracies are made all
the time. Any time two or more people make a plan, especially with nefarious
ends, they are "conspiring" and have formed a "conspiracy."
Now, quoting myself quoting
Popes, I will show that our pre-conciliar Popes took the notion of "conspiracy"
quite seriously. They warned of the evils of Freemasonry and what Fr. Fahey
used to call "organized naturalism":
From Pope Gregory
XVI's Mirari Vos (1832):
You know what storms
of evil and toil, at the beginning of Our pontificate, drove Us suddenly
into the depths of the sea. If the right hand of God had not given Us strength,
We would have drowned as the result of the terrible conspiracy of
impious men....
... Now is truly the time in which the powers of darkness winnow
the elect like wheat. "The earth mourns and fades away....And the earth is
infected by the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws,
they have changed the ordinances, they have broken the everlasting
covenant...
...We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities,
and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great
mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects
in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous, and blasphemous has gathered
as bilge water in a ship's hold, a congealed mass of all filth.
From Leo XIII's
Humanum Genus (1884):
The Roman Pontiffs
Our predecessors, in their incessant watchfulness over the safety of the
Christian people, were prompt in detecting the presence and the purpose of
this capital enemy immediately it sprang into the light instead of
hiding as a dark conspiracy; and , moreover, they took occasion with
true foresight to give, as it were on their guard, and not allow themselves
to be caught by the devices and snares laid out to deceive them.
The first warning of the danger was given by Clement XII in the year
1738, and his constitution was confirmed and renewed by Benedict XIV.Pius
VII followed the same path; and Leo XII, by his apostolic constitution, Quo
Graviora, put together the acts and decrees of former Pontiffs on this subject,
and ratified and confirmed them forever. In the same sense spoke Pius VIII,
Gregory XVI, and, many times over, Pius IX.
Pope Saint Pius X in
Pascendi Dominici
Gregis (1907):
There has never
been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary
to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human
race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things," "vain
talkers and seducers," "erring and driving into error." It must, however,
be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase
in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely
new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the
Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom
of Christ....
...That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially
by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the
Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in
her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the
open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity,
and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated
by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy
and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines
taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty,
put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly
into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ,
not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious
audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
Pope Pius XI in
Divini Redemptoris (1937):
Nevertheless, the
struggle between good and evil remained in the world as a sad legacy of the
original fall. Nor has the ancient tempter ever ceased to deceive
mankind with false promises. It is on this account that one convulsion following
upon another has marked the passage of the centuries, down to the revolution
of our own days. This modern revolution, it may be said, has actually broken
out or threatens everywhere, and it exceeds in amplitude and violence
anything yet experienced in the preceding persecutions launched against
the Church. Entire peoples find themselves in danger of falling back
into a barbarism worse than that which oppressed the greater part of the
world at the coming of the Redeemer.
This all too imminent danger, Venerable Brethren, as you have already
surmised, is bolshevistic and atheistic Communism, which aims at upsetting
the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian
civilization.
...A third powerful factor in the diffusion of Communism is the conspiracy
of silence on the part of a large section of the non-Catholic press of
the world. We say conspiracy, because it is impossible otherwise to explain
how a press usually so eager to exploit even the little daily incidents of
life has been able to remain silent for so long about the horrors perpetrated
in Russia, in Mexico and even in a great part of Spain; and that it should
have relatively so little to say concerning a world organization as vast
as Russian Communism. This silence is due in part to shortsighted political
policy, and is favored by various occult forces which for a long time
have been working for the overthrow of the Christian Social Order.
Pope Pius XII's
Humani Generis (1950):
Disagreement and
error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of
profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons
of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of
Christian culture being attacked on all sides.
Now, either our
glorious Popes should have been wearing tinfoil tiaras for 300 some years,
or there is indeed such a thing as "conspiracy" -- more particularly, a
conspiracy against Christ's Church. I will quote myself again quoting others:
Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America, testified
before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953:
Once the tactic
of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin... the
Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much
faster through the infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within
the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized
that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to
American conditions and the religious makeup peculiar to this country. In
the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available
to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries.
The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions
would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology
of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes.... The
policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist
expectations.
A Catholic monk
who heard ex-Communist Bella Dodd speak at Fordham University in the 1950s
had this to say:
I listened to that
woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she
said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's
greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the
step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church.
She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was
the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.
The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather
the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible,
to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something
that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.
Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex
introduced into the Church…. to label the ‘Church of the past’
as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming
to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious
bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame
Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible
attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then
exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.
Frankly, how one can know anything about the nature of fractional reserve
banking, the Federal Reserve, the United Nations, the American two-party
political process, etc. -- nevermind the testimony of ex-Communists before
Congress -- and not believe in conspiracies is astonishing. |
Needless to say, I disagree with him. However, he has gained quite the following
over the years and despite being in a LOT of hot-water with the Vatican,
he continues to parade around his conspiracy theories. The website that I
mentioned earlier defends him and is one of his followers. I wrote an E-mail
to everyone on the mailing list and said to please use caution when viewing
the web site given in the original E-mail.
What I did not know was that a friend of the webmaster of said web page is
also on the mailing list and forwarded my text to her without my knowledge
or consent. This caused a huge spark on the mailing list and that issue aside,
the webmaster responded to my statement with a list of questions for me and
resources. I decided to take the time out to answer the questions and I'd
like to post them up here on my web site for all to see.
What you will find is the original text of Mrs. Lopez, the webmaster, and
my response. Vox is in italic and my response is in plain font. By the way,
"Respondeo" means "I respond" in Latin. April 21st, 2004 A.D. Feast of St.
Anselm
Dear Vox,
-Hello. Your E-mail was forwarded to me by your friend Cindy. I would like
to respond, but I believe I should explain something first.
-That E-mail was not given to you. Cindy forwarded it to you without my knowledge
or consent. Essentially, she did it behind my back. Now, I do not have a
problem talking with people about the Catholic Church. That is not the point
at stake here. The point at stake is, had I known that my comment to exercise
caution was going to be so hotly received by your friend (whom I didn’t
know was your friend until after the forwarding), I would have re-written
it.
| While I truly
believe that Cindy meant no harm at all and was actually trying to do a good
deed in allowing the webmistress of a site she liked to defend her work,
I do understand that one talks one way among friends and another way among
strangers, and that you might have written things differently if you'd have
known I'd read it. There is no offense taken, though, and you don't need
to explain yourself : ) |
-That aside, I have chosen to defend my words and I hold to every single
one of them, Vox. I do not recant a single one. I am on Poor Clare’s
mailing list because she has some good materials to send. When I saw this
recent one with your web address, I looked it up and was very much saddened
to see you parading around tired, old and beaten-to-death arguments that
have already been answered. Your web page, I noticed, had a lot of potential
to it on being a very informative web site, but when I saw that you backed
Gruner, I decided to alert everyone to have caution and I stand by it.
| The "answers"
to the "tired old, old, and beaten-to-death arguments" have been answered,
too, friend. It's a matter of open-minded study to ascertain which answers
are the better ones. That said, I don't "parade" any arguments around concerning
Fatima because I don't address the arguments at my website. I merely link
to Fr. Gruner's site on 4 out of over 440 pages and present the conclusion
-- i.e., that the Third Secret has not been fully revealed and that Russia
has not been consecrated to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart -- on two pages,
leaving the arguing to Fr. Gruner, Robert Sungenis, Christopher Ferrara,
J.D., Dr. Thomas Drolesky, and other great Catholics. |
-The question is, then, why do I stand by it? First, Our Lord said we will
be held accountable for everything we say. That tells me that honesty is
needed. If we lie in this life and delude ourselves, we’ll have one
huge wake-up when we are before His Judgment. I’d rather be honest here
for the sake of the Gospel of Christ. This is not to say that I would attempt
to delude anyone, I may add. I have no reason to lie to anyone here in the
first place.
| I believe that
you believe what you assert, are not "lying" in any culpable sense, and act
with good intentions. But I believe, too, that you are wrong in your conclusions
and very wrong to calumniate Fr. Gruner (and, indirectly, me by warning people
from my site because of my four links to his site). |
-Secondly, I stand by it because to exercise caution with your site is the
truth. As you saw from the forwarded E-mail, I am a student of Theology.
I have a Bachelors' Degree and am currently working towards a Master's. One
of my areas of interest in Theology happens to be Marian apparitions. With
that said, I hope you find the following response enlightening and informative.
Understand, though, that this is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on
the subject.
Let us now set out to explore the question(s) at hand. You said:
“I'll respond to the note above from Mr. Symonds: I guess my questions
for him would be: if the secret was as it was "revealed" to be, and dealt
only with the shooting of Pope John Paul II, why did the Vatican keep it
quiet for not only 40 years longer than Our Lady wished, but for 19 years
after His Holiness was shot (in 1981)? Why is Sister Lucia still being kept
quiet? If the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary took
place, where's the promised peace? Is Our Lady a liar? Are the seers liars?
Or had the Church been lying between the time of the apparition and the time
it was swept under the rug in the spirit of Ostpolitik?”
Respondeo:
-Vox, the Third Secret of Fatima simply was not ONLY about the shooting of
Pope John Paul II in May of 1981. I believe there was much more to it than
just that. The text of the 3rd Secret doesn’t even say, “A Pope
will be shot.” It says, “A Bishop clothed in white.” Now,
to say that is a Pope IS an interpretation. For all we know, it could have
been a Dominican Bishop because Dominicans wear white as do Carthusians if
my memory serves. Sr. Lucia interpolated in her recounting of the vision
itself (that is to say, it wasn’t a part of the vision) that her, Jacinta
and Francisco’s impression was that it was the Holy Father, the Pope
of Rome. Either way, you are still dependent upon Sr. Lucia’s impression
and interpolation into the text. I am not saying it wasn’t the Pope
of Rome indeed. I am demonstrating the ins and outs of the Fatima case so
you see it isn’t so iron-clad as you make it out to be. This will become
important later on between this exchange as well as in future ones between
us.
That the shooting
of His Holiness in 1981, along with the 20th c. martyrs, was the subject
of the Third Secret is the Vatican's interpretation, not mine. As you say,
there is a matter of the vision itself and the separate matter of
what it means, but I think that sometimes the arguments can get quite pedantic
when one tries to defend the idea that the Vatican's recent interpation is
consistent with how pre-conciliar Popes perceived the message of the Third
Secret. Now, here is the text of the "Third Secret" as released by the Vatican
in 2000:
"I write in obedience
to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop
of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.
"After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady
and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand;
flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world
on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated
towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand,
the Angel cried out in a loud voice: "Penance, Penance, Penance!"
"And we saw in an immense light that is God: something similar to how people
appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it, a Bishop dressed in White.
We had the impression that it was the Holy Father.
"Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain,
at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree
with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big
city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain
and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way;
"Having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the
big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows
at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops,
Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks
and positions.
"Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal
aspergilium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs
and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God."
And here is how
Cardinal Sodano, speaking for the Pope, interpreted it at the beatification
of the seers in Heaven (emphasis mine):
Brothers and Sisters
in the Lord!
At the conclusion of this solemn celebration, I feel bound to offer to our
beloved Holy Father John Paul II, on behalf of all present, heartfelt good
wishes for his approaching Eightieth Birthday and to thank him for his
significant pastoral ministry for the good of all God's Holy Church.
On the solemn occasion of his visit to Fatima, His Holiness has directed
me to make an announcement to you. As you know, the purpose of his visit
to Fatima has been to beatify the two "little shepherds". Nevertheless he
also wishes his pilgrimage to be a renewed gesture of gratitude to Our Lady
for her protection during these years of his papacy. This protection seems
also to be linked to the so-called "third part" of the secret of Fatima.
That text contains a prophetic vision similar to those found in Sacred Scripture,
which do not describe with photographic clarity the details of future events,
but rather synthesize and condense against a unified background events spread
out over time in a succession and a duration which are not specified. As
a result, the text must be interpreted in a symbolic key.
The vision of Fatima concerns above all the war waged by atheist systems
against the Church and Christians, and it describes the immense suffering
endured by the witnesses to the faith in the last century of the second
millennium. It is an interminable Way of the Cross led by the Popes of
the twentieth century.
According to the interpretation of the "little shepherds", which was also
recently confirmed by Sister Lucia, the "Bishop clothed in white" who prays
for all the faithful is the Pope. As he makes his way with great effort
towards the Cross amid the corpses of those who were martyred (Bishops,
priests, men and women religious and many lay persons), he too falls to the
ground, apparently dead, under a burst of gunfire.
After the assassination attempt of 13 May 1981, it appeared evident to His
Holiness that it was "a motherly hand which guided the bullet's path", enabling
the "dying Pope" to halt "at the threshold of death" (Pope John Paul II.
Meditation with the Italian Bishops from the Policlinico Gemelli, Insegnamenti,
vol XVII/1, 1994, p. 1061). On the occasion of a visit to Rome by the then
Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, the Pope decided to give him the bullet which had
remained in the jeep after the assassination attempt, so that it might be
kept in the Shrine. At the behest of the Bishop, the bullet was later set
in the crown of the statue of Our Lady of Fatima.
The successive events of 1989 led, both in the Soviet Union and in a number
of countries of Eastern Europe, to the fall of the Communist regime
which promoted atheism. For this too His Holiness offers heartfelt thanks
to the Most Holy Virgin. In other parts of the world, however, attacks against
the Church and against Christians, together with the burden of suffering
which they involve, tragically continue. Even if the events to which the
third part of the Secret of Fatima refers now seem part of the past,
Our Lady's call to conversion and penance, issued at the beginning of the
twentieth century, remains timely and urgent today. "The Lady of the message
seems to read the signs of the times - the signs of our time - with special
insight... The insistent invitation of Mary Most Holy to penance is nothing
but the manifestation of her maternal concern for the fate of the human family,
in need of conversion and forgiveness" (Pope John Paul II, Message for the
1997 World Day of the Sick, N. 1, Insegnamenti, vol XIX/2, 1996, p. 561).
In order that the faithful may better receive the message of Our Lady of
Fatima, the Pope has charged the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
with making public the third part of the secret, after the preparation of
an appropriate commentary.
Let us thank Our Lady of Fatima for her protection. To her maternal intercession
let us entrust the Church of the Third Millennium.
So, according to
the Vatican's interpretation:
-
the events of the
Third Secret seem to be in the past;
-
Communism is now
of no concern to the West; we have triumphed!;
-
the Bishop of the
vision was the Pope, who was not killed (let alone by bullets and arrows
launched by a group of soldiers), but was wounded instead by a lone gunman;
-
since the Bishop
spoken of is John Paul II, who became Pope in 1978 and was shot in 1981,
the corpses must have been all those martyred priests, nuns, and laymen who
were slaughtered in 1981 (you remember that; it was in all the papers!) --
21 years after the secret was to have been revealed. Either that, or they
were all those nuns, priests, and laymen who were slaughtered after 1960
when the Secret was to have been revealed. It must be either of those two
because to release a secret in the year 2000 -- a secret written down in
1944 and which was asked to be revealed in 1960 when things would be
clearer -- and then claim it as relevant to a Pope who became Pope in
1978 is to preclude the possibility that the martyrs were, say, the martyrs
of the Bolshevik and Stalinist gulags, or the Catholic inmates of Nazi
concentration camps.
How that interpretation
would have been more "clear" in 1960 is beyond me. And how anyone
can think that Communism, in its deep sense, is dead is beyond me, too (both
Communism and usurious Capitalism in a fiat-money economy with centralized
banks lead to the exact same end in terms of power in the hands of the
few). |
-I have mentioned that there was more to the 3rd Secret than simply the Pope
of Rome being shot. This is true because there is more to the text and the
incident with the Pope comprises less than 14% of the total text. Even less
if you, Vox, hold as others in your position do, that there is still more
of Lucia’s actual text that was not revealed that deals with some apostasy
of the Roman Church/See. Matter of fact, Sr. Lucia backs the interpretation,
“that the vision of Fatima concerns above all the struggle of atheistic
Communism against the Church and against Christians.” She said this
to Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The 3rd Secret is a part of
this message.
| I agree. The
"errors of Russia" have spread and are now mainstream, everyday thinking.
The tenets of cultural Marxism are basic premises nowadays. The problem is
that these ideas have inflitrated the human element of the Church. |
-The other part of the 3rd Secret being largely comprised of “the struggle
of humanity in the second half of the 20th Century” checks out with
what we know from the visionaries as far back as before 1925. Think of Jacinta
Marto’s statement about dress before she died and why Sr. Lucia remarked
that the 3rd Secret would become clearer after 1960. So please don’t
relegate the 3rd Secret to just the shooting of a Bishop clothed in white.
There is actually much more to it.
| Whose side
are you arguing for? That is precisely what Fr. Gruner is saying. |
-In response to the second half of your question about keeping it secret
still after 1960, first of all, the world was not mandated to know. Sr. Lucia
said that the Secret was addressed to the Holy Father and it was his decision
(not yours or anyone else that purpots your position) to reveal it or not.
Secondly, I’d like to see where Our Lady said, “The 3rd Secret
can be revealed to the whole world because that is Heaven’s wishes.”
Again, I am
not as obssessed with the Third Secret as I am deemed to be for having linked
to Fr. Gruner's site in 4 out of over 440 pages of my site. That said, the
Third Secret is now alleged to have been fully revealed and has been interpreted
for us by "the Vatican." It is allegedly out there now, and we can use our
reason to see if what we are being told makes sense.
In addition, if the "revelation" of the Third Secret referred only to its
being read by the Holy Father, then why did the Vatican go to such lengths
in explaining that it would not be "revealed" in 1960, even after it had
already been read by Popes? They could have simply said that it was a
message meant only for the Holy Father and left it at that. But they didn't
-- and Sr. Lucia's Bishop and the relevant Popes could have read it any
time they wished. No need for a great "unveiling" or announcements
thereof. |
-Don’t bother looking, our Holy and Blessed Mother never said such a
thing. The actual statement that I believe you are referring to is when Sr.
Lucia wrote about Our Lady appearing to her saying she can write it down.
Please check your statement again. The significance of the 3rd Secret was
very burdensome both in text and that she was under the prior command of
Our Lady in 1917 to keep it secret—which was clashing with the desires
of her religious superiors and the obedience due them. Sr. Lucia was already
suffering from an illness as well (which is what gave serious prompting for
her superiors to order her to write it down for fear of her taking the secret
to the grave), so you see that Sister was under a lot of pressure.
| I'm not really
referring to any statement other than the common knowledge that the Third
Secret was to have been "revealed" in 1960. Then I am coupling that with
what I see as common sense per my statements above. |
-That is when Our Lady appeared to her, to comfort her and to tell her that
she had permission from Heaven to write it down on paper. Now, let’s
take this to the literal sense because any interpretation of the narrative
depends on that first. Note how Sr. Lucia didn’t understand Our Lady
to be saying that permission was granted for her to tell the whole world
the 3rd Secret. That is to say, go on the radio and broadcast it or go to
the local newspaper. Sister did no such thing. Instead, she simply wrote
it down. That is, she kept to the wording of Our Lady. IF Our Lady’s
intention in this apparition to Sister was to have her reveal it to the world
then and there, then Sr. Lucia wouldn’t have simply written it down
and be done with the matter. No, she knew Our Lady’s comment about
‘permission’ was restricted to meaning that Sr. Lucia could write
it down in that moment, not broadcast it to the nations.
| Our Lady told
Sister that it was OK to write down the secret, which she did. Sister Lucia
didn't feel comfortable giving it to anyone other than a Bishop. There was
no talk that I know of of Sister Lucia herself making any statements
to the world, and no one I know believes otherwise. |
-In short: No, Our Lady did not wish it then and there to be revealed to
the world in 1944. Even Sister’s stipulation that the envelope wasn’t
to be opened until 1960 or after her death indicates this. Our Lady’s
intention in the apparition to Sister informing her of Heaven’s permission
to write it down, referred strictly to the communicating of it in that moment
to writing. What the religious superiors and the Holy Father did with it
was their own business.
And what they've
apparently chosen to do with it, according to the present Vatican's reasoning,
is to make a big stink about "revealing" it in 1960, then not revealing it
(in any public sense, if you want to get picky), then waiting 40 more years
to "reveal" it -- only to maintain that it pertains to a Pope shot 19 years
before (and even though that Pope wasn't Pope in 1960 so nothing about him
would have been any more "clear" then) and to the demise of Communism (nevermind
China, South Africa, Cuba, Brazil, the regrouping of Russia's Commie mafia
and their new weapons tests aimed at America, the Trotskyist neo-conservatives
who run Washington D.C., the culturally Marxist United Nations, etc.).
The truth is that it was common knowledge that the Third Secret was to be
revealed in 1960. Cardinals Cerejeira, Tisserant, and Ottaviani, Bishop Leiria
-- Lucia's Bishop -- who promised her to reveal it at her death or in 1960,
whichever came first -- all these men led the world to believe that the Secret
wouldn't be secret after 1960. There was even a TV show, "Zero 1960," about
the phenomenon
(Sundays,
9AM, NBC). [Ed. note: A site visitor writes to say, ""Zero 1960" was
not a NBC network program, although it may well have been carried on some
NBC-affiliated stations. It was a non-network syndicated series that was
in production from 1958 to 1960."] |
-Further, why keep it secret even after the Pope was shot? That answer is
very simple and yet profound. First off, your question hinges on the earlier
point that I already rebutted—the 3rd Secret is not solely about the
Pope of Rome being shot. There was the “struggle” motif as well,
which in 1981 was STILL going on. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would also later comment that
The Vatican feared a sensationalistic backlash that would downplay the heart
of the Fatima message—conversion. If the Secret was released before,
then everyone would have been waiting on edge for a Pope to be shot. Even
after the actual shooting, the Vatican didn’t want all kinds of
sensationalism to result. Nowadays, with all the, I dare say somewhat sinful,
hype on Marian apparitions, I think the Holy Father was correct in not revealing
it even after he was shot.
Well their
plan backfired, if that is the case.
Now, you're saying that it wasn't revealed even after the Pope was shot because:
-
it wasn't only
about the Pope being shot; it was also about the ongoing struggle with the
Commies
-
people would focus
on the sensationalism of a Pope possibly getting "shot" rather than on
conversion
Re: point 1:
No one on Fr. Gruner's side is saying that the secret was only about the
Pope being "shot" (see above),. and the struggle against atheism and the
"errors of Russia" is not, in any way, over.
It
is getting worse.
Re: Point 2:
How would revealing the message then -- the message being, in part, "penance,
penance, penance!" -- have not served the cause of "conversion" (it seems
to be it would have the exact opposite effect than the one claimed!)? How
concerned do you believe the Vatican truly is about "conversion" when it
allows false teachings about
Judaism and salvation? when the doctrine of
original sin (and therefore the very need of salvation as
the Church has always understood it) is seemingly denied while the idea
is promoted that Christ is united "in a certain way" with all men, for all
time, since, not His Sacrifice even (which would be bad enough), but His
Incarnation? When
ambiguously
written accords and agreements are signed that do nothing but lead to
intense confusion about Catholic doctrine and downplay the need for conversion?
When Orthodox Christians who want to convert
are
told no? (Much better to leave them in their literal heresies and schism,
but meanwhile, let's go pick on the "S.S.P.X.'ers"! Can you possibly explain
that? And don't say it's for some vague political reason, such as "if we
sell out those individual souls, maybe the entire Orthodox Church will come
back some day. We just can't look too serious about the primacy of the papacy;
we'll scare 'em!" Remember, we can't do evil so that good might come from
it.)
The Vatican is not concerned about "conversion"; it is concerned with people
respecting "the dignity of man," "the mystery of man," and "peace."
That is what "the new evangelization" is! It is not about spreading
the Gospel and preaching about the need for Christ, the Sacraments, and penance,
but getting people to build a "civilization of love" that does not require
the acknowledgement of Christ's Kingship (a very Masonic notion -- one the
Church has always taught against, most explicitly by Pope St. Pius X in his
"Our Apostolic Mandate").
Find for me documents from the last 40 years which speak of sin, Hell, judgement,
evil, the existence of Satan and the lesser demons, etc. Find some that preach
the truth that outside the Church there is no salvation in clear and unambiguous
language. Find some that uphold the dignity of the Church as the source of
all Truth. And good luck doing it.
"O, my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all
souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy." That is
the prayer of Fatima. |
-Given all the above so far, we can then understand more of why Sr. Lucia
is keeping quiet. She is under obedience to her religious superiors and they
don’t want to make a spectacle of themselves. It is bad enough that
when a recent renovation to the local church where Sr. Lucia resides was
made, it now allows people to catch a glimpse of her during Mass. People
sit on that side of the church to see her, at the expense of the other side.
This is about humility, simplicity and the protection of her privacy—not
to mention her religious order. She’s a cloistered Nun for goodness
sakes, Vox! Sr. Lucia isn't being kept hidden away as you suggest. Even on
the literal level, Cardinals are allowed to go see her at any time, and can
bring a guest if they choose. Dr. Zugibe is a recent example of someone seeing
Sr. Lucia. I am sure there’s even more issues at stake here that I’m
not even aware of and I see NO evidence of conspiracy theories on Rome’s
end to back up any other interpretation of said events.
| It would take
a 20 minute press conference held by Sister herself, in broad daylight, with
cameras from around the world, a few tape recorders, and translators from
various denominations and persuasions, to set the record straight, once and
for all, as to what Sister is now claiming. That's how easy it would be to
close that aspect of the matter. (and blame the Novus Ordo wreckovators
for the changes to Sister's church. I only pray there are no Risen Christ
"Crucifixes" above the Altar -- er, table!) |
-This is not about some conspiracy theory, Vox. It is far from it. The
visionaries were/are not liars. There is more than enough information and
backing that states Sr. Lucia verified the 1984 Consecration as being done.
If my memory serves, and I am looking for the text again, Sr. Lucia also
commented that the fall of Communism in 1989 and the crashing of the Berlin
Wall are results of the Consecration. The problem that resides here is that
people such as yourself who hold a non-valid 1984 Consecration are looking
for a sign from God to come flying down out of the heavens and smack us all
in the face. No, it isn’t going to happen in such a way. The lateness
of the Consecration affected the end-result and the effect it would have
had is no more.
I don't believe
the visionaries are "liars" -- but above you wrote:
The text of the
3rd Secret doesn’t even say, “A Pope will be shot.” It says,
“A Bishop clothed in white.” Now, to say that is a Pope IS an
interpretation. For all we know, it could have been a Dominican Bishop because
Dominicans wear white as do Carthusians if my memory serves. Sr. Lucia
interpolated in her recounting of the vision itself (that is to say,
it wasn’t a part of the vision) that her, Jacinta and
Francisco’s impression was that it was the Holy Father, the Pope
of Rome. Either way, you are still dependent upon Sr. Lucia’s impression
and interpolation into the text. I am not saying it wasn’t the Pope
of Rome indeed. I am demonstrating the ins and outs of the Fatima case so
you see it isn’t so iron-clad as you make it out to be.
In September of
1985, Sr. Lucy told Sol de Fatima Magazine that the Consecration
has not been done. In 1986, Sister Lucy's cousin affirmed that
Sister said the Consecration has not been done. In 1987, Sister Lucy
told journalist Enrico Romero the same thing. In 1987, Cardinals Mayer and
Stickler say the Consecration has not been done. Then suddenly, in
July of 1989, the stories change after Sister Lucia is given instructions
by the Vatican, according to Father Messias Coelho, whose testimony was given
in front of 3 witnesses. So, if the words of Sister Lucia (assuming they
are accurately reported) are to settle the question in one's mind as to whether
or not the Consecration was done in 1984, it depends on which Sister Lucia
you want to believe -- the one who said "no" in all the years up to July
1989, or the one who said "yes" after that.
You belittle the position of those who believe that the Consecration has
not taken place by saying that we are looking to get smacked in the face
by God. We merely ask that Russia, by name, be consecrated to the Immaculate
Heart by the Holy Father and all the Bishops in communion with him. That's
what Our Lady asked for, and that is what she should get. |
-Even then, we may speculate what the period of peace actually is. Had Russia
been Consecrated in 1942 properly, then she would not have spread her errors
and we’d be none the wiser of Russian politics of the Communist sort
in today’s world. Instead, we have 1984 and the fall of the Berlin
Wall/collapse of Communism.
Communism has
not collapsed; it has just changed its appearance to include usurious Capitalism,
fiat money nonsense, the "World Bank," the IMF, etc. (both Communism and
this sort of Capitalism leading to wealth in the hands of the few), all dressed
in a cultural Marxism marked by anti-Catholicism, radical feminism,
egalitarianism, homosexualism, a culture of decadence, abortion, contraception,
the decay of the family, increased centralization, taxation rates that keep
people poor and unmotivated, assaults on private property, gun grabs, and
on and on and on. What is the essential difference between a world like this
run by Trotskyist-neo-conservative American imperialists, Russian mafia,
and Israeli Likudniks as opposed to a world like this run by self-described
Communists? There is no difference.
As to the "Fall of Communism" in the former Soviet Union, read
"New Lies for Old" and
"The Perestroika Deception." |
The difference
is, Russia has spread her errors and we have to deal with them. So then the
problem is your thinking that the Consecration is going to magically solve
all the world’s problems today after the errors were spread. My dear
Vox, that is NOT the way God works—magically making things disappear
without any accountability for our own actions.
| Tell that to
the Pharisees who saw the Temple disappear in A.D. 70. |
Communism has fallen,
and peace has been granted in that. However, we must now deal with the effects
of Communism. Not understanding this is the mistake of Fr. Nicholas Gruner,
yourself and others. You mistake the forest for the trees.
| You mistake
the lies of the media -- the same media that tell us that Islam means peace,
Israel is our friend, Mel Gibson is an anti-semite, the Gospels are a joke,
Jews can do no wrong, Catholics are evil, evangelicals are retarded, men
are inferior to women, extramarital sex is good, dressing like a hooker makes
men love you, condoms are magic, Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalen, pro-lifers
are nasty, there is no Truth -- you mistake as "truth" the fruits of the
same media that force this trash down our throats when it comes to the idea
that "Communism has fallen"? Why? |
You say:
“Remember, this is not some unexamined apparitiion that took place
in the living room of some good ole gal's trailer; this is the appearance
of Our Lady accompanied by a miracle witnessed by 100,000 people -- complete
with predictions that have come true.”
Respondeo:
-Actually, it was 70,000 people, not 100,000. However, I understand the point.
Numerous people all saw it and reported the same thing. I am not disputing
the validity of Fatima, Vox. I am disputing your fractional interpretation
of it.
| You are right;
I was wrong. But I was writing a quick e-mail to an internet acquaintance,
though, not writing a book. The point remains. |
You say:
“It is not a "public revelation" in the sense of the public revelation
that ended with the death of St. John -- i.e., revelation that must be held
de fide -- but it is a public revelation in the sense that the Church has
not only deemed it "worthy of belief" (parish churches are named after this
apparition), but what Our Lady spoke of was for the entire world (in other
words, she didn't appear to some woman and tell her that her husband would
be healed of cancer or some such; the message concered peace, war, and the
spread of the errors of Russia throughout the world).”
Respondeo:
-Vox, did I dispute the widespread devotion of Fatima? No. I agree with
everything you’ve said above. I just don’t agree with how you slant
it.
And many good
people dispute how you slant it.
I am not sure why one's take on whether or not the Third Secret has been
fully revealed and Russia has been consecrated per Our Lady's instructions
is the criterion by which one judges another's orthodoxy. I don't believe
that if you were to talk to the average person who believes that Russia has
not been consecrated and tell him that you believe otherwise, that he would
freak out and accuse you of not even being Catholic. He might debate you
and try to persuade you, but he wouldn't freak out and shun you, as
neo-conservatives apparently do to those who disagree with them. Why is
this? |
You say:
“More questions for Mr. Symond: Let's just say that Fr. Gruner is
some nutjob of a priest who truly doesn't believe that Russia was consecrated
per O.L.'s wishes: why is the Vatican so viciously concerned with going after
him rather than after ephebophile sodomite priests; heretic priests for whom
Purgatory, Hell, and sin are laughable; radical feminist priests, like the
BISHOP in -- was it England? -- who said that he believed that women should
hear women's confessions; priests who abuse even the Novus Ordo liturgy as
not modern enough for them; priests who run colleges and allow "The Vagina
Monologues" to appear on their campuses; Bishops who run over people with
their cars and then take off, not even having the decency to give them Unction
-- need I go on? Why did the Vatican choose to censure Fr. Gruner ONE DAY
after the twin towers were toppled? Of all the problems of the human element
of the Church, of all the miseries and heresies and vile sins commited by
some of our hierarchs, on all the days possible, why, on 12 September 2001,
did the Vatican do that?”
Respondeo:
-Oh good, more questions. Let’s see how well this set fares. Funny thing
when you say Fr. Gruner is a ‘nutjob of a priest.’ That is exactly
what he is. Sr. Lucia doesn’t back him and has specifically stated that
he doesn’t tell the Fatima message. So yes, that just about qualifies
him to be a ‘nutjob.’
-Why the Vatican would go after him instead of these other groups of people.
Mrs. Lopez, I don’t wake up daily in the Vatican apartments. I don’t
know the daily routine, nor do I have access to the Holy Father directly.
You demand of me, a simple layman, to know the Vatican inside and out on
how she operates on every single detail of her daily work of running the
Church. I can’t do that and neither can you. I only know what gets back
to me from people with access to the Vatican, what I have studied, and what
I have simply looked up. I can’t perform the impossible. No I don’t
know why Gruner was suspended one day after 9-11, although for some reason,
I tend to think that Gruner was already suspended prior and this was a
reiteration of it.
I don't expect
you, a layman, to know the ins and outs of the ways of the Vatican. But I
do expect you, a layman, to use reason, to inculcate charity, and to refrain
from calumniating a priest who has done nothing to deserve the slings and
arrows that are being hurled at him.
My belief is that anwers to such questions as "Was the Third Secret fully
revealed?" and "Was Russia consecrated?" are prudential judgements that Catholics
can disagree on (though I am in Fr. Gruner's camp on the question and see
Mary's message as extremely important and timely). It is the neo-conservative
camp that jumps on fine priests like Fr. Gruner and excoriates those Catholics
who believe that the answer to both of those questions is no. |
-What I can do, however, respond in a somewhat general way. I don’t
think that the Vatican isn’t concerned with molesting/ephebophile/sodomite
priests. The problem that you apparently are caught up in, Vox, is that you
think the Church has some sort of “Divine Foreknowledge” and that
she should have been prepared to handle the scandal in recent years. That
is a historical theory error. You can NOT place what we know now back into
the past when it doesn’t fit the bill. We in the present look back at
events and say it is terrible (and indeed it is) but to say that they knew
the significance of what we know now is absurd. That’s putting the cart
before the horse.
It doesn't
take divine foreknowledge to refrain from filling our seminaries with
homosexualists or appointing Bishops who would. It takes no gift of prescience
to realize that sending a pedophile to a different diocese merely exposes
children of a different diocese to a pedophile. That isn't rocket science
(and please, please don't say that we've learned so much about "sexuality"
since the glorious revolution of the 1960s. People were much wiser before
that wrecking ball came through). The future ramifications of such things
aside, they are inherently wrong, and any Catholic with two brain
cells to rub together can know it. One would think that the successor of
Peter, and those he nominates to the episcopacy, would know it, too.
During the most recent Consistory, the Holy Father appointed 31 more new
Cardinals, and not a one of the newly-appointed Cardinals would have been
considered worthy of the priesthood, let alone the Cardinalate, by any Pope
before the Second Vatican Council. Among them is now-Cardinal O'Brien of
Scotland who,
"used
a Mass of thanksgiving as an occasion to question Church teaching and
discipline regarding contraception, homosexuality, and clerical celibacy.
Archbishop O'Brien… said that the Church should re-examine her [sic]
teaching regarding contraception. He said that he assumed a large number
of Catholic priests are homosexual, and is not troubled by that fact if they
maintain their vows of celibacy. But he also questioned whether the discipline
of priestly celibacy is necessary, pointing out that ‘throughout the
world there are married priests and in England there are a number of converts
from Anglicanism who are married and who became Roman Catholic
priests’” (CWNews.com, 10-2-03).
Bishop Vincent Malone of Liverpool
advocates
that women, who are by nature unable to be priests, hear confessions.
He was made Bishop by JPII, who also made
homosexualist
Cardinal Mahony Bishop of Los Angeles. Cardinal Kasper, who teaches that
Jews
don't need Jesus to be saved and who
denies the Catholic
understanding of apostolic succession, was appointed to the Curia by
JPII. Bishop O'Brien of Phoenix -- he of sex scandal, "I thought the guy
I hit was a dog," and
"can the time spent by my chauffeur driving me around count
for part of my community service" fame -- was appointed by JPII. Bishop
Kevin Dowling was appointed by JPII, too; he believes that
condoms are wunnerful. Oh, but then so does
Cardinal
Danneels, to whom JPII gave the red hat in 1983. John Paul The Great
made a Bishop out of Harry Joseph Flynn, too, a man famous for harrassing
those who complain about the
heresy
that rages in his diocese. And there's Bishop McGrath, who
denies
the historicity of the Gospels but was made a Bishop by JPII anyway.
Then there's Bishop Lucas of Springfield, who held his
ordination
party in a Masonic Lodge. JPII made him Bishop in 1999, when someone
had to replace Bishop Ryan, who was
caught
with his cassock down around priests and male prostitutes (JPII made
him Bishop in 1981). And let's not forget the great models of virtue, Bishops
Zipfel and Aquila of North Dakota, both appointed to their Sees by JPII;
they refused
to endorse a bill to criminalize abortion. I could go on a long, long
time -- but I think I've described the scene.
Now, I'm no "brain surgeon," as they say, but I'd be willing to bet, even
without the divine gift of foreknowledge, that there will be ramifications
of this gross dereliction of basic pastoral duty. Being able to see what
is going on and what might come of it isn't a matter of being endowed with
one of the charismata; it's common sense. Likewise, upholding the teachings
of the Catholic Church, demanding orthodoxy and chastity from our priests,
and keeping perverts away from Catholic youth isn't some option one should
weigh for its potential future effects; it's a divine mandate. |
-About these radical feminists, I seem to recall Rome excommunicating several
women 2 years ago who claimed they were ordained by an already excommunicated
Bishop. What disturbs me the most about this part of your post, Vox, is how
little you really do understand about the Church. The Church is not some
almighty levier of the terrible and frightening excommunication. Nor are
the first words out of her mouth at Pentecost, “Anathema sit to all
heretics!” You, mind you, YOU, want the Church to excommunicate everyone
and everything that disagrees with her. That is not what the Church is about.
And the Church
should have excommunicated the "ordained priestesses" or else we'd have women
running about claiming to be priests with noone who has been (truly) ordained
saying anything different, thereby leading the otherwise faithful to believe
that women can be priests, that those particular women are priests, and that
their "Masses" are true Sacrifices and that the bread they offer is the Body
of Christ. That wouldn't be schmardt.
But what I am not getting is this: you present me with an example of the
human element of the Church's hierarchy doing its duty in exercising some
discipline, and you do this as if it is a good thing, and rightfully so.
Then you admonish me for your belief that I believe the Church
should be an "almighty levier of terrible and frightening excommunications."
First, I have never said that I, mind me, I want the Church to excommunicate
everyone and everything that struggles with Church teaching -- but I most
certainly believe that those who've been given authority by the Church need
discipline if they abuse that authority, harm souls, and distort Catholic
teaching. To whom much is given, much is required, and those who claim the
authority to speak in the name of Christ and the Apostles had very well better
see to it in the utmost humility and (true, Christian) obedience.
No, I'm not the one bringing up the "E" word and throwing it around like
so much confetti; that is the neo-conservative camp. Now, think for a minute.
Who is it that goes about hurling anathemas lately? Isn't it true that Fr.
Gruner was just accused of being "excommunicated" on the e-mail list that
brought about this discussion? Isn't it neo-conservatives who like to mislead
people into believing that people who assist at Mass in S.S.P.X. chapels
are "excommunicated"? The words "schismatic," "excommunicated," "Protestant,"
etc. are usually coming from the neo-Catholic side (nevermind the other slurs,
such as "lidless-eyed wonders," "integrists," and "reactionary fringe
types.")
Who was it who warned, with alarms blaring, about my website because I link
to www.fatima.org? Even if one disagrees with Fr. Gruner's conclusions, a
simple, "Nice site -- but I don't like the link to Fr. Gruner's website"
would suffice. No need to call out the Polizei and "excommunicate" me from
Catholic society, which is precisely what was being done on that list. People
who don't know me were warned away with such words as "some people, with
the help of the devil, in their attempt to run away from the dangers of the
left (liberalism), run clean off the right fringe under the guise of ultra
conservativism and traditionalism." My personal character was impugned with
accusations of spiritual pride: "When the devil fails to get people to fall
off the edge of liberalism, he tempt them to fall over the right edge too,
using the spiritual pride they may possess." And there was this:
This web site that
many of us thought was "wonderful" has been exposed ( I believe by the grace
of God) ....
The Scriptures tell us that we will know when one is from God by their
fruits...Someone had reached out to this person and her response was not
Godly....
When this woman defended Fr. Gruner (excommunicated from the Catholic Church)
...Fr. Gruner is what one would call a wolf in sheep's clothing....Anyone
who is not with the Church is against Her..
Remember, Blessed Mother Teresa said "We must be obedient to Mother Church"...and
we must....
Please do not think of this site as the true source of information on the
Catholic Church and her teaching...As some of it may be correct...the bottom
line is it has its own agenda...and it does not follow what the Church teaches
to the ...
Im sorry to have sent you such a deceptive site....but , for me, it is just
another lesson learned....We must always be alert and aware of the deception
of the enemy..
Now really. Who
is attempting to "excommunicate" whom? Who is practicing the pseudo-Catholic
version of Amish or Jehovah's Witness-style shunning? Who are sounding less
like intelligent Catholics than Salem Puritans out to burn someone at the
stake? Who is accusing whom of "having an agenda" and being led by the Devil?
And why? Because we disagree about a non-dogmatic phenomenon of the
Church, determining the questions of fact surrounding which being a matter
of prudence? Because some are wrongfully under the impression that Fr. Gruner
is "excommunicated," that it would be dastardly to presume otherwise, and
that the only "Christian" response to one who has been deemed to be
"excommunicated" is to heap unabashed scorn upon him? (God forbid one should
even consider entertaining the thought that, even if he were legally deemed
so --
which
he isn't -- that he could even possibly be innocent nonetheless? Remember
SS. Athanasius and Joan of Arc were both "excommunicated.") |
-If you read Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium, as you claim you do, then
also take a look at the Opening Speech of Pope John XXIII to the Council
as well as subsequent comments given by Pope Paul VI about the purpose of
the Council. John XXIII was quick to realize that the modern world didn’t
understand the Church. Levying an Anathema sit would have been pointless,
same for declaring excommunications upon everyone who taught/thought contra
Church teachings. The saying, “It would have gone over like a lead
balloon” is exactly what I am trying to say.
I've read the
Opening Address (I link to
it at my site) and find its optimism ridiculous and quite obviously
misplaced. See my article on
that here.
Now, the "modern world" understood the Church just fine; the modern world
simply rejected Her, for the most part. What should the Church's reaction
be to rejection? To change Her eternal teachings (impossible)? To present
Her eternal teachings as having changed? To appease? To let the world that
hates Her in through Her windows? Well, the hierarchs chose the last three
options, and the world still hates Her and still wants more appeasement and
change. "We want birth control and condoms and homosexuality and masturbation
...!" I guess we could give in some more if it would make them happy. And
if the time were to come that the hierarchs present the Church as having
"always taught" -- "actually," "in a certain way" -- that contraception is
OK, the papolaters would be right behind them calling white black, and black
white. If a Pope says it, it is so! Legal Positivism in all its glory! The
worship of man, not God! Exactly what the Protestants accuse us of...
There were no great anathemas that needed to be hurled at Vatican II, except
for one against Communism, but the policy of Ostpolitik, made official with
the
Pact
of Metz, made the Church incapable of Christian response (so we got
liberation theology instead, yay!). Earlier works covered everything else,
especially the Syllabus of Errors
and Mortalium
Animos. |
-Vatican II, in essence, knew what she was about. Gaudium et Spes indicates
this plenty. The Church knew the ills of the world and that she (the Church)
had the remedy for it. How was this to be done? Your way indicates ramming
Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium down their throats. Vatican II’s
way was to apply the medicine of mercy to the world and actually EXPLAIN
herself. Enter into dialogue, etc. Take the example of John Paul II. Instead
of declaring excommunications on everyone at the slightest hint of heterodoxy,
he enters into their world and exposes their error. “Theology of the
Body” is one of those responses as is Evangelium Vitae and Fides et
Ratio.
I don't want
to ram anything down anyone's throat (except maybe for a slab of pie down
mine right about now). I simply want the Church to preach the Gospel (all
of it,
even
the parts that get the Jews' tallitot in a bunch), preach against error,
discipline hierarchs who lead souls to Hell, offer the Sacraments as they've
always been offered, help the poor, care for the sick, and act as the Light
unto the Nations, which is precisely what She is made to be.
I obviously have no problem with the obvious need for the Church to
explain what She teaches -- that is what my website is about, and I'm not
making all these pages for funsies, lemme tell ya! I also have no problems
learning about the false religions of other people, but any Religions of
the World 101 textbook can take care of that without the need for Catholics
to
pray in mosques or invite worshippers of the Great Thumb
to Assisi. The constant dialogues and workshops and conferences,
all in the name of "ecumenism," have led to nothing but
rot. The Catholic side gives in, appeases, waters down doctrine, sells
out --
over and over and over. The Muslims don't. The Jews don't.
The Evangelicals don't. The Hindus don't. And if they take their religion
seriously, as Catholics should, then they shouldn't give in. Truth is not
some "thing in the center" that people "dialogue" toward. Truth is Christ.
And Christ's Church is the Catholic Church. She needs to stand firm, make
Herself quite clear, and basically quit monkeying around and confusing the
heck out of everyone involved.
And, once more, it is you who is hung up on the idea of excommunicating people.
I am not bringing up that topic yet again; you are. |
-This requires saints, Vox. Living, walking, breathing, saints who live,
move and have their being in Christ Jesus the Lord. These saints are YOU
and I. If I may offer another beautiful example, take Elisabeth Leseur. A
high-society Parisian woman living in the time of St. Therese of Lisieux
who struggled in the time of “The Age of Reason.” Her husband was
an atheist and most of those around her were as well. Yet, she held fast
to the Faith. She lived an exemplar life of heroic virtue against the errors
of her day and taught religion by example, not necessarily by word. She died
prematurely and her husband read her writings, converted, and became a priest.
Well, that's
a lovely story indeed. But we are commanded to preach the Gospel.
Matthew 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world. Amen.
Romans 10:13-17 13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then
shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they
believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without
a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written,
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring
glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For
Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Once again, it
is obvious that we are called to be Saints -- but I can think of no
greater Saints that Francis and Dominic, who fought heresy and who believed
and worshipped as traditional Catholics. |
-These are the actions of a saint, and is what John Paul II has been calling
us to. I can not speak for a Bishop who may fail in his post or is not up
to snuff on what the Holy Father asks of us. RUSSIA HAS SPREAD HER ERROR
AND WE MUST DEAL WITH IT. Bishops don’t deserve attack, they need prayer
and encouragement to take back up the cross and follow Christ if they have
fallen. We all have a touch of the hum-bug so to speak and far be it from
me and even yourself to judge another man. I will let Rome handle the matters
it needs to, but it doesn’t need you telling it to throw the book at
the world. Nor I, for that matter. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is unquestioned
an excellent Bishop in the eyes of many Catholics. Yet, when he first took
the Episcopacy of Lincoln-Nebraska, he did not excommunicate people off the
bat. One nun he knew right off the bat to be in dissent of Church teachings.
Yet, he took mercy. I dare say he knew that she was the product of an age
of misinformation that is in part due to his brother Bishops. He chose to
be a saint and help her come back to the true Faith. Excommunication would
have done that.
It truly stuns
me, this apparent idea out there that traditional Catholics like to sit around
judging the souls of others. It is doubly interesting in that these admonitions
to us against judging people is in itself a judgement. And it's triply
interesting when these judgements against us are coupled with false accusations
of heresy, of having been "excommunicated," and of our being generally "bad
medicine" for the souls of others.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't dream of judging another man's soul. But we must
apply reason and use our informed conscience to judge doctrine and sin. Judging
doctrine is not judging the doctrine-giver, and judging sin is not judging
the sinner.
Have you ever seen the traditional list of the "nine ways we participate
in the sins of others"? It goes like this:
By counsel
By command
By consent
By provocation
By praise or flattery
By concealment
By partaking
By silence
By defense of the ill done
I see many in the
neo-conservative world participating in sin by consent (shown every time
a Catholic drops money into the offering basket at some wretched Novus Ordo
Mass in a diocese whose Bishop uses that money to engage in ridiculous ecumenical
events or send his parish teachers to sex workshop conferences, etc.); by
praise and flattery (exaggerating the good of any Bishop who makes the slightest
overture toward orthodoxy); by concealment (by concealing the Bishops'
concealment of their responsibility for sexual abuse); by silence (by doing
nothing to fight the heresies and modernism); by defense of the ill done
(defenses such as yours above).
We are not talking about little boys in a sandbox who might need a kiss for
a boo-boo rather than a spankin'; we are talking about grown men who've been
entrusted with the souls of each and every Catholic in their dioceses.
We are talking about eternal stakes -- Heaven and Hell. Eternal
stakes! I would be the first to kneel and kiss a Bishop's ring, but I'd
also be the first to let him know he is a complete slacker if the case called
for it (well, if I thought it'd do any good).
(It occurs to me as I type that though "pre-Vatican II Catholics" were accused
of being "clericalist" dolts who only knew to "pray, pay, and obey" -- a
mind-set that Vatican II was supposed to have fixed up once and for all --
it is rather the neo-conservative Catholics who have this mindset. "Don't
actually do anything, just pray a lot and it will go away, but keep
filling those coffers! And, whatever else, do and believe whatever they tell
you, even if it goes against the eternal laws of God.") |
You say:
“If the Third Secret was revealed and/or the spin given to it by
the Curia was accurate, where is the reference to anything related to the
dogmas of the faith being kept pure in Portugal? And if it had to do with
the Holy Father being merely shot, why did it actually mention the Holy Father
being killed? Where were the ruined cities, the dead priests and religious,
etc.? Why does the recent spin contradict the earlier interpretations?”
Respondeo:
-I would hardly agree to say that the commentary given by the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith (as opposed to saying the larger and more general
“Curia”) is a ‘spin.’ If for nothing else, Sr. Lucia
was consulted about it and she agrees with Rome. It is hardly “Rome’s
Spin.” You might want to change your wording here, Vox.
-Secondly, the text said, “In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith will
always be preserved.” Unless you know Portuguese and can provide a better
translation, what I have given above is the standard English translation.
I stand corrected if it isn’t a proper translation, however, and will
admit to that. I must object to saying “dogmas” and “kept
pure” in your rendition. Otherwise, you’d have to explain to my
why Portugal recently legalized abortion.
No, you are
right, of course. Rome wouldn't spin anything. I just got confused by remembering
the Holy Father's review of Gibson's film,
"it
is as it was," having been changed to
"it is a common practice of the Holy Father not to express
public opinions on artistic works, opinions that are always open to different
evaluations of aesthetic character" (Joaquín Navarro-Valls) and
"He does not make judgments on art of this kind; he leaves
that to others, to experts" (Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz) -- even though
the Holy Father has no problem
naming
"Schindler's List" as his favorite movie or praising
the talents of break-dancers.
"Kept pure" or "always be preserved," what does it matter? I was writing
a quickie e-mail, not a thesis, but to belabor the point is another exercise
in pedantry. The point is that Sr. Lucia's mentioning specifically that the
dogma of the faith will be preserved in Portugal (followed by an "etc.")
intimates that it will not be preserved elsewhere. Else, why mention it at
all? Was there some question at the time that the dogma of the faith wouldn't
be not be preserved in Portugal? Or were there words that came after the
mention of Portugal -- words indicated by the et cetera -- that shed
light on why Portugal was mentioned? |
-Vox, your whole argument revolves around conspiracy theory, scandal and
cover-up. This is simply a joke. The issue you are having is how something
seemingly doesn’t quite grammatically fit a narrative structure. Unless
you can claim you know Portuguese and its literary functions, then you have
no authority here. Even then, with an English translation, I would have to
look more closely at the text. What we have here, Vox, is the result of Fr.
Gruner and others grasping at straws. They realized that they were screwed
once the Vatican released the text. So in order to save face, Gruner looked
for ANYTHING that he could grasp onto to save his campaign.
I don't make
any arguments about Fatima at my site. I present my conclusions (that Russia
has not been consecrated to the Virgin's Immaculate Heart and that the Third
Secret was not fully revealed in 2000) in about one or two sentences worth
of text. Then I direct people to
Fr. Gruner's site to
study the issue for themselves. Contrary to what is apparently believed here,
Fatima is not my greatest passion. My passion is basic apologetics and
catechesis.
But you once again indicate that alluding to conspiracies is ludicrous. To
that I say this.
As to the idea that scandal and cover-up just couldn't happen at the Vatican,
I am so glad I wasn't drinking root beer when I read that (ever have that
come out your nose? I wouldn't wish that on Hitler!).
Finally, as to Fr. Gruner rushing to "save face" grasping at anything to
save his "campaign," his message hasn't changed since he started his Fatima
apostolate. All he wants is for the Holy Father and the Bishops to consecrate
Russia, by name (Russia alone -- not "the world," not "the Northern Hemisphere,"
not "Detroit" -- but Russia) to the Immaculate Heart, and for people
everywhere to spread the message of penance and to pray the Rosary. I truly
don't see why his message -- Our Lady's message -- is so threatening and
why panic ensues at the mention of this priest's name. Why don't you tell
me? Tell me why it is so apparently threatening to so many to "dialogue"
with people who believe that Russia has not been consecrated. Why the "Oh,
no! Beware of that site! The webmistress is obviously led by the devil!"
type talk? Everything is "Dialogue! Dialogue! Dialogue" (to paraphrse the
Angel of Portugal) -- until it comes to someome who's come to different
conclusions about Fatima (and/or who believes and worships as all Catholics
had up until 1970 or so). |
-You are the victim of nothing more than him trying to save face, Vox. Sr.
Lucia has already put him in his place. Why you think he is credible is beyond
me. What you have involved yourself in is Gruner’s “us versus
them” attitude with everyone who disagrees with him being on the short
end of the stick. You say you uphold Rome, yet you smack it in the face at
the same time. THAT is not Catholic whatsoever. Seriously, Vox, think about
what you are into. Take a look around you, not through Gruner’s eyes,
but through the eyes of common sense. You say:
The language
you are using is so -- so strange to me. You and I disagree about whether
Russia has been consecrated. That is pretty much it (as far as this matter
goes). So why this heavy language? Would you speak of someone who, say, disagrees
with you over any other simple question of fact -- a question of fact that
deals not at all with a matter of dogma or morals, and the truth or falsity
of which brings no personal harm to any particular individual -- in terms
of his being a "victim" of something, of having "gotten himself into" something,
etc.? No one on my end is hooking himself up to E-meters, drinking poisoned
Kool-Aid, or lying in bed with purple cloths over his head, waiting for the
Mother Ship to take him home. We are talking about a question of fact concerning
a private revelation of public importance, a private revelation that has
been deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church and which was accompanied by
true prophecies and miracles.
A "victim"? But I don't feel victimized in any way or believe myself to have
been victimized in any way, and can't see how I've been taken advantage of
in any way. How I've "involved" myself in something or gotten "into" something
escapes me, too; it took a few minutes putting up a few links and, until
the e-mail list incident and this chat with you, I've spent barely any time
on the Fatima phenomenon at all.
Reasonably concluding that Sr. Lucia has put Fr. Gruner "in his place" depends
entirely upon whether you want to believe what Sr. Lucia is alleged to have
said before 1989 or after 1989. You made your choice; I made mine. The reasons
I believe Fr. Gruner is credible can be found at his website.
As to "upholding" Rome, I merely call a spade a spade. We are Catholics,
Mr. Symonds, not mice. We have brains, we have consciences, we have reason,
and eyes to see. In fallible matters (i.e., in matters that are not resolved
by the exercise of the Solemn Magisterium or the Constant Magisterium), we
can disagree. |
“See:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20010810_Third_Secret_of_Fatima.html
Truly, I challenge Mr. Symond to visit this page, listen to Fr. Gruner (Real
Audio), and prayerfully ask himself if this priest is insane, whacked-out,
evil, up to no good, or whatever. I hope he listens first to the show with
Christopher Ferrara on the attacks against Fr. Gruner:
http://www.fatima.org/audiolibrary1.html
And while listening, I pray he reads this page on the chronology of events:
http://www.fatima.org/croncover.htm.”
Respondeo:
-Vox, I take you up on your challenge in the spirit of academic pursuit and
intellectual honesty. I have checked the first link you have given me and
will check the other two when I have more time. I have somewhat constrained
in my time as I am in college right now. I don’t know how I managed
to type out this 7-page response as it is. I will follow up on the 3 links
together, but I would like to say that I have seen some discrepancies in
the Seattle article. Not to mention, Mr. Miller leans very heavily upon a
Cardinal who speculates about the Third Secret. This Cardinal is taken as
the chief authority on the matter, yet, it is perplexing as to why this is
when this Cardinal admits he has never, ever seen the Third Secret. I’m
sorry to have to tell you this Vox, but you are in error to take this Cardinal
so dogmatically when he himself admits he never saw the Secret. His speculation
has become your dogma. Simply because he is a Cardinal doesn't make him right
here.
"Bishops
don’t deserve attack, they need prayer and encouragement to take back
up the cross and follow Christ if they have fallen," he wrote earlier.
The poor Cardinal is simply sharing the concerns of Pope Pius XII who said,
"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This
persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine
warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of
the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul." ("Pie XII Devant
L'Histoire," by Msgr. Georges Roche). And there are these further words from
Pius quoted in that same work, "A day will come when the civilized world
will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will
be tempted to believe that man has become God."
Concern about the gravity of the message was widespread in the Church until
the "big reveal" of 2000 by those who want us to believe that our troubles
are past because we've defeated Communism and because a Pope was shot in
1981, two things that somehow would have been much more clear in
1960.
What did happen in 1960, though, was the beginning of the preparatory
period for Vatican II -- the drawing up of the later ignored schemata for
the Council that was announced in 1959 and formerly opened in 1961. Maybe
men like Pius XII, the Cardinal you admonish, and millions of Catholics worldwide
were and are so concerned because because hierarchs, like the Pope's theologian,
Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, who did have access to the Third Secret, went
about dropping nuggets like, "In the Third Secret is foretold, among other
things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top" (Catholic,
March 2002, Fr. Gerard Mura) -- and because, looking back we can see that
Vatican II, which Pope John XXIII was warned against convening,
began the process that, at the least, has led to confusion,
corruption, scandal, egregious changes to the venerable practices of
the Church, and the presentation of Church teaching. |
You say:
“Now, I mean no offense, but having a photocopy of a document is
nothing. I have the "Third Secret" as revealed by the Curia at my website,
too, and could easily handwrite it out, make a copy, and call it whatever
I want...
All that is food for thought, I hope. But the bigger point of my site, Fatima
aside, is the one Faith, the one Holy Sacrifice, and the Sacraments -- all
consistent with Scripture, Tradition (extrinsic and intrinsic), and the Living
Magisterium (this last properly understood). So I hope that even those who
aren't "into Fatima" can at least get something out of my site in that regard
:)
God bless, friend! Off to read the rest of your notes...
i.p.i,
Vox
http://www.fisheaters.com/”
Respondeo:
-I disagree. Having a mimeographed copy of the Third Secret means a lot.
We can take the text, compare it to other copies of Sr. Lucia’s handwriting
and see if they match. Besides that, Vox, in the same above-mentioned copy
of the Secret’s release, Sr. Lucia admits that it is her writing and
the text given is hers. Again, you depend upon conspiracy to make your point.
I would like to end this response very simply. Re-examine your own sources
and people who represent them and/or are those sources. In order for a fair
critique of those people, such as myself, who disagree with you, you must
also see where we are coming from. I have done the same with you.
Yes, we could
look
at the handwriting.
I've read the spin coming from Vatican apologists and am not impressed. I
make the rounds with Zenit News Service, E.W.T.N., The Wanderer, Crisis Magazine,
National Catholic Reporter and National Catholic Register, too. But I bet
that neo-conservatives pay no mind to
The
Remnant Newspaper,
Si
Si No No,
Angelus
Magazine, Catholic
Family News,
Latin Mass
Magazine, and other traditional publications, nevermind Catholic websites
like
Christian
Order, Seattle
Catholic,
Catholic
Insight,
Dici,
Catholic Apologetics
International, anything from the keyboards of
Gerry Matatics
or Dr. Drolesky,
etc.! I've already seen how some people on one particular e-mail list respond
to one relatively insignificant website that merely provides links to Fr.
Gruner's site in 4 out of 441 pages. |
Peace!
-Kevin J. Symonds, B.A., M.A. (Cand.), Theology
Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH
KevinJ@kevinsymonds.com
http://www.kevinsymonds.homestead.com/main.html
I want to wrap
this up by begging you to do five things:
-
read
The Great Facade (a general, light introduction to the
post-conciliar mess)
-
read
Iota Unum (much more scholarly and extremely thorough.
If you only read one, read this one!)
-
don't knock
"traditional Catholicism" (i.e., Catholicism) until you've studied what "trads"
have to say, and, please, fight the trends of throwing around the words "schism"
and "excommunicated," and calumniating good, honorable Catholics who work
very hard for Holy Mother Church and the salvation of souls. When you see
someone bashing a Catholic as a "radical integrist" or an "extremist
traditionalist," note the emotive language, ask its cause and purpose, and
then ask yourself, after hearing what that "trad" is saying, whether the
Popes of 1,960 years would find his ideas abhorrent -- or simply Catholic.
In making considerations like this, don't try to twist words, split hairs,
and think like a Pharisaic lawyer to make things that were infallibly taught
pre-Vatican II and fallibly taught post-Vatican II match up. Forget the "in
a certain ways" and "in some sense" and all the wishy-washy language that
keeps people confused. Just line things up -- if you can. And as you try,
keep in mind this from Vatican I, a dogmatic Council (unlike Vatican
II which was pastoral) that exercised the Solemn Magisterium and issued --
dare I say it? -- anathemas:
"The meaning of
the sacred dogmas must always be retained which Holy Mother Church has once
taught, nor may it ever be departed from under the guise, or in the name
of, deeper insight... If anyone shall say that, because of scientific
progress, it may be possible at some time to interpret the Church's dogmas
in a different sense from that which the Church understood and
understands, let him be anathema."
-
study the nature
of true Christian obedience as taught by the Saints and Doctors
-
pray very hard
about it all
Forget about Fatima
for now (as I said earlier, Fatima isn't the only thing or the main thing,
and isn't one of my particular pet passions). Just study...
Peace to you, too, and may He lead us both to all Truth! |
|
|
