|
Mr. Symonds
writes:
I understand that your not being a “Fatima expert” isn’t the
focus of your web site. My point in raising the red flag though, Vox, is
that no matter the number of times that you link Fr. Nicholas Gruner’s
web site to yours, it is still linked and it creates a problem. This is what
is being extrapolated here. If I may add a note about the other parts of
your site, I was very grateful to see you put up a warning on Medjugorje.
I, myself, am very much opposed to Medjugorje and have a web page dedicated
to throwing it into the depths of hell from whence it comes. I will give
you that site privately and ask for your review. I give it privately because
I am still writing it, still researching, etc. Right now, I give it out to
a few people for review/opinion purposes.
| Yes, there
is a lot of evil coming from Medjugorje. Michael Davies' book, which can
be read online
here, explains it all very well. |
Mr. Symonds,
in respose to my quotes from papal encyclicals warning of the inflitration
of the Church and the doings of evil men:
Vox, while I appreciate the strain of quotes from previous Popes, I think
I need to clarify my original response. I was not claiming that there has
never been controversies or conspiracies with the Church be they from within
or from without. I understand the Masons issue, Communism, etc. What I was
saying, was there is no conspiracy involving Rome, Sr. Lucia and the Third
Secret of Fatima’s text not being “fully” revealed and/or
Sister’s “silencing.” It is simply a machination of Fr. Gruner
and others such as yourself who purport this position.
-N.B.: I include “yourself” in there because so long as you back
Fr. Gruner, you are part of his ideology, or as I put it originally—his
“party-line.” It is simple guilt by association. You may not like
it, but you are guilty as he is if you associate yourself with him. Thus,
I answer here your next point in your response about “parading”
his argument. Also, I happen to agree very much with those Popes whom you
quoted above.
| I'm just saying
it's a question of fact as to whether or not there is a conspiracy involving
Rome with regard to the Third Secret of Fatima. I note the language you use
with regard to Fr. Gruner -- "machinations" and the like. You might disagree
with his conclusions, but you don't have to accuse him of fronting some big
scheme to -- what, exactly? Get rich or something? |
-I believe you operate with good intentions as well and I don’t think
you lie in any direct/overt sense. If, however, Fr. Gruner is indeed wrong
and he knows better, then he has lied to many people and you assist in those
lies. The same is true for me the other way around, so please don’t
think I’m not aware of the “flip-side.” The thing here is,
both of us have chosen our sides, believe they are correct, and operate from
that.
-I must object to saying I am calumniating Fr. Gruner, though. The fact that
he has been suspended is public record. I was simply going off of that and
you can not hold me accountable for that. Saying that he isn’t telling
the truth about Fatima is not a matter of calumny. Perhaps I should explain
something. Fr. Gruner is known to Sr. Lucia. She knows what he preaches on
Fatima and she has denied him. That pretty well convinces me that I can go
around telling people Fr. Gruner is a conspiracy theorist and is wrong. If
Sr. Lucia said he is not keeping with Fatima, then I will not question her
judgment, Vox, and neither should you. Perhaps you were not aware that she
did this. I will be glad to get you in touch with the person who has more
information about it. He lives in Fatima and I am an acquaintance of his.
-I made the point earlier that you are guilty as Fr. Gruner is once you aligned
yourself with his message. That, Vox, is the justification for my warning
to caution for your web site. Notice I did not say “Don’t read
it” with a period at the end of the sentence. I said, “read it
with caution.” I am far from calumniating you. I told you earlier that
I have no problem talking to people about the Church (and matters that pertain
to her, as well let me add). The problem here is how we came about talking.
That is the invisible wall that we have to climb and once over it and behind
us, we can march forward without this hindrance. the Roman Church from the
Faith and that Rome is trying to cover this up.
If you still
think that Fr. Gruner is suspended, then you must not have read any of the
links I gave you in my first response. I'll post this one again:
http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.asp
Now, saying that
Fr. Gruner is suspended when he is, in fact, not suspended is an untruth.
One is culpable for telling untruths if he knows that what he says is a lie.
I don't believe you think that what you are saying is a lie -- but you are
nonetheless wrong.
As to the rest of it and what you allege that Sr. Lucia says now, that was
all addressed in the last response. And you still haven't answered the question
raised by what I'd written before:
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.
Explain that, Mr.
Symonds. Tell me why what Sr. Lucia is alleged to have said recently is right
and what she is alleged to have said earlier is wrong. Which of the
contradictory, mutually exclusive statements are we to believe?
As to my "guilt" in linking to Fr. Gruner's website and defending his position,
I believe what I say. (Hey, wasn't it Vatican II that tried to teach, "It
is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the
divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity
so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be
forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting
according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. The reason
is because the practice of religion of its very nature consists primarily
of those voluntary and free internal acts by which a man directs himself
to God. Acts of this kind cannot be commanded or forbidden by any merely
human authority"?) |
-Vox, indeed the 3rd Secret involved both the shooting of the Pope and the
struggle of humanity (and/or the Church) against atheism and Communism. That
was my point in the first place. You said in your original response to me
that the 3rd Secret dealt ONLY with the shooting of the Holy Father in 1981.
By all means, scroll up and check the text again. I haven’t changed
it at all and I still have your original E-mail to back myself up if you
wish to see it again. So you see why I responded as such.
No, my point
is that that is what the Vatican wants us to believe, that the Third
Secret was about the Pope's having been shot and that any "struggles with
atheistic systems" are "in the past." Sister Lucia must agree that that
interpretation is bogus because she wrote a letter to the Pope in 1982, a
year after he was shot (which happened on 13 May 1981), and said, "if we
have not yet seen the complete fulfillment of the final part of the prophecy,
we are going towards it little by little with great strides. If we do not
reject the path of sin, hatred, revenge...it is the people themselves who
are preparing their own punishment." On 13 May 1982 , a year to the day after
the assassination attempt on the Pope, she said, "The message of Fatima is
more relevant and more urgent today than 65 years ago."
I am also saying that any interpretation of the Third Secret that intimates
that Communism is dead and over is nonsense. |
-Also, I think you have slipped into some sort of eisegetical hole here.
Cardinal Sodano never said we don’t have to worry about Communism in
the West. That is putting words into his mouth. Matter of fact, he said events
still tragically affect the Church in other parts of the world. Why? RUSSIA
HAS SPREAD HER ERROR. Even speaking for the Western World, I don’t think
the Cardinal meant to say such a thing. I think what he did mean was that
Communism has fallen and so an immediate threat isn’t here, but that
doesn’t speak for the effects thereafter. Far be it that Cardinal Sodano
said what you think he said. His intention was not to give a huge exposé
on the 3rd Secret and I am sure he didn’t cover every minutiae of detail.
I don't have
to put words in Cardinal Sodano's mouth. What he said (on 13 May 2000) is
this: "the events to which the third part of the secret of Fatima refers
now seem part of the past."
...And Communism has not fallen. See the links on
this
page. Please. Read some of the books I brought to your attention in my
first response. |
-Nor do I think you are correct in interpreting the Secret’s words so
literally and (indirectly) applying this to the Cardinal’s understanding
of the Secret. What I mean is, the over-arching theme of the 3rd Secret,
according to Sr. Lucia, is the struggle of humanity and/or the Church against
Atheism and Communism in the 20th Century. The part about other priests,
bishops and nuns being shot and killed doesn’t refer strictly to 1981,
I don’t think. It isn’t as if there haven’t been martyrs in
the ranks since 1981 or something. History more than enough backs that up.
Well, as I've
said before, our dealings with Communism aren't over. Or if you don't think
so, then go to Cuba, China, North Korea, or Moscow and set up a 100% Catholic
parish that agrees with everything the Church has always taught and proclaims
fidelity to the Pope. Good luck!
Second, consider China more closely -- the country that runs the Communist,
pro-abortion, anti-Pope "'Catholic' Patriotic Association" that the Vatican
sucks up to even as the Chinese government throws real Catholics in prison.
Two more priests were just arrested on 14 May (see
this
page), a situation the likes of which the Vatican calls "disappointing"
-- even ask it goes on to acknowledge and claim "unity" with the HERETICAL,
nevermind schismatic, "priests" of the "Catholic" Patriotic "Church" that
denies the papacy and supports abortion. The Vatican recognizes these Commies,
and kow-tows to them, even as the government they support throws Catholics
into gulags -- but disses the Fr. Gruners of the world. Explain that. Read
this and answer these questions, if only for yourself:
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fo/tocfo.asp
And finally, what about any of this would have been "clearer" in 1960? |
-Also, I see a seed of misunderstanding here that is later confirmed in your
response. You keep falling into the thought that the 3rd Secret was meant
to be revealed to the world in 1960. This simply isn’t the case. It
was addressed to the Holy Father and it was his decision to reveal it or
not on or after 1960. Sr. Lucia wasn’t speaking on a literal level here.
Remember, there was still 40 more years to the 20th Century. Of course if
you look at it literally, 1960 wouldn’t demonstrate the struggle—there
was 40 more years of it to come! So no, I do not believe Sister meant that
to be taken so literally in that sense.
-The permission, however, to have it opened up in 1960 I believe is literal
and should be taken that way. The events to which they spoke of, however,
I don’t think should be taken literally. That is the problem I see you
slipping into.
1960 was the
year the schemata were being drawn up for Vatican II. No, I think it would
have been very, very clear then if the Third Secret dealt with the apostasy
within the human element of the Church, which is what those who've read the
Third Secret maintained before the year 2000.
As to the secret's release, I'll quote myself again:
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).
Now, you say the
events spoken of in the alleged Third Secret shouldn't be taken literally.
That may be so. But even taken symbolically, the official interpretation
of its meaning doesn't add up and is, in fact, rather arrogant. The Vatican
would have us believe that a-way back in 1917, the very Queen of Heaven,
the woman predestined before time to be the Mother of the Savior of mankind,
appears to three children in Portugal to tell one of them a really big secret.
This great secret --- a secret that made Popes blanch, that had Catholics
on edge and whose revelation they'd been led to anticipate in 1960 per Our
Lady's request --- was that 64 years later, in 1981, a Pope would be shot.
Not killed, just shot. If Shakespeare had written that story, he'd have called
it "Much Ado About Nothing." Now, 1960 comes and goes, and so does 1981.
But 19 years after the shooting, here comes the big reveal. What a
denouement! In spite of the fact that we know that the good God Who inspired
Sacred Scripture is capable of so much more, this silliness wouldn't pass
as a good paperback plot, really.
And what are the effects of asserting the official interpretation? More glory
for "the Fatima Pope," the one said to have been saved from a bullet by the
very hand of the Virgin. Nevermind that this is the same Pope who has
consistently appointed Modernist Bishops and Cardinals; who's done nothing
except throw out a few documents to stem the egregious liturgical abuses
(of the already Protestantized Missae); who did nothing as the homosexualist
"lavender mafia" has taken over our seminaries, universities, and parishes;
who praises the Godless, sovereignty-usurping United Nations; who denies
the doctrine of original sin; who worships in mosques and Jewish temples,
etc. All of this we can shove aside, because Heaven itself has deemed him
"John Paul the Great," the focus, since 1917, of the Third Secret of Fatima.
Oh yeah, there was the little issue of the Church's going up against atheistic
systems, but that's all in the past! Whatever you do, nevermind that
Pact
of Metz behind the curtain! Nevermind the Church's dealings with the
Chinese CPA!
Forget
about Ostpolitik and
the
worship of the United Nations, which is Communist in origin (its
first
Secretary General was Alger Hiss, for crying out loud)! |
-Vox, again, you personally may not be ‘obsessed’ with the 3rd
Secret as Fr. Gruner may be, but you are caught in guilt by association by
the fact that you associate with him.
| For the record,
I've never met Fr. Gruner in my life. |
-By 1960, the Secret had only been read by Pius XII and John XXIII. Even
then, Pius XII violated Sister’s stipulation when he read it in the
late-late 1950’s just prior to his death. I don’t hold him accountable,
don’t misunderstand me. He’s the Pope in the first place and the
only reason for the 1960 date was because the events foretold in the secret
would become clearer after 1960. I don’t blame him at all.
-Actually, I don’t see any discrepancy when you ask “if the
‘revelation of the Third Secret referred only to its being read by the
Holy Father…etc.” I was not alive at that time, but, Vox, is it
perhaps the reason for the Vatican’s “great lengths” with
this were to stop a misunderstanding already rampant by that time? It is
undoubted public knowledge that Sister had communicated the Secret to writing
and given to Rome with the 1960 stipulation. Is it possible that the stories
flying around about it included a misunderstanding of the 1960 stipulation
and the addressee of the Secret? Of course there is, and the Vatican DID
say that it was addressed to the Holy Father and thus his discretion to reveal
it.
-Furthermore, on this point, Sr. Lucia was interviewed on some questions
regarding the Consecration, Russia, and the Third Secret. It is recorded
for all to hear. She said the following on the Third Secret:
Question: ...is
the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian
People to Catholicism?
Sister Lucia: Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations
around. The fact is that in Russia, the Communist, atheist power, prevented
the people from carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice
to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many
conversions are, in fact, taking place, and that man in Russia, unknowingly
was an instrument of God in the conversion.
Question: What man? Gorbachev?
Sister Lucia: Yes!
Finally, what she
also said on the specific mentioning of Russia in the Consecration is as
follows:
Question: But did
not Russia have to be specifically mentioned, and did not Our Lady say that?
Sister Lucia: The Pope's intention was Russia, when he said: "Those Peoples"
in the text of the 1984 Consecration. Those who knew of the request for the
Consecration of Russia, knew what he was referring to as did God, who is
all knowledgeable and can read the minds of men. God knows that the Pope's
intention was Russia and that he meant "Russia" in the Consecration. What
is important is the intention, like when a priest has the intention to Consecrate
a host.
Question: But didn't Our Lady want Russia to be specifically mentioned?
Sister Lucia: Our Lady never requested that Russia be specifically mentioned
by name. At the time I didn't even know what Russia was. We thought she [Russia]
was a very wicked woman. What matters is the Pope's intention and the Bishops
knew the intention the Pope had was to Consecrate Russia.
-These are real
citations, Vox. To argue them is to just prove that there is a conspiracy
mindset dominating this discussion. It simply isn’t the case that Rome
is covering up some apostasy. If indeed the 3rd Secret is referring to John
Paul II then don’t you realize that the Secret is backing him up and
not looking at him as the head of some conspiracy? He is leading the world
to the Cross. That tells me, if only indirectly, that he is doing something
right in his Papacy and isn’t falling into some machination of heresy.
So not even the 3rd Secret backs up this notion of a “Neo-Catholic”
Church in your words.
And these real
citations contradict everything Sr. Lucia had said for decades. On 19 March
1983, Sr. Lucia re-affirmed that Russia must be consecrated by name,
by all the Bishops of the world in union with the Pope. She wrote:
In the act of offering
of Mary 13, 1982, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration.
And each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony
of reparation and consecration of Russia. Pope John Paul II simply renewed
the consecration of the world executed by Pius XII on October 31, 1942. From
this consecration we can expect some benefits, but not the conversion of
Russia.
Just before the
1984 consecration, the one that was supposed to have been "the real deal,"
Sr. Lucia's friend, Eugenia Pestana, asked her if the upcoming consecration
in three days would fulfill Our Lady's request. Sr. Lucia, who'd read the
text of the Pope's speech, said:
That consecration
cannot have a decisive character because Russia does not appear in it as
the sole object of consecration. (Fatima, Tragedy and Triumph, pg. 172-173).
An interviewer
with Sol de Fatima asked her in September 1985, after the 1984
"real deal" consecration, whether that 1984 consecration was what Our Lady
wanted.
Sister Lucia: There
was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia."
Interviewer : So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?
Sister Lucia: No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act.
And here's another,
this time with Cardinal Ratzinger. He's being interviewed by Vittorio Messori
in November 1984 -- again, after the consecration:
Interviewer: Cardinal
Ratzinger, have you read the so-called ‘third Secret of Fatima’?
Ratzinger: Yes, I have.
Interviewier: Why hasn’t it been revealed?
Ratzinger: Because according to the judgement of the Popes, it would add
nothing to what a Christian must know from Revelation: radical call to
conversion; the absolute seriousness of history; the dangers threatening
the faith and life of the Christian; and therefore of the world. And also
the importance of the last times.
Notice the references
to last times and to the dangers threatening the Christian faith. How do
these relate to the official interpretation of the Third Secret? Why is there
no reference to fears of "sensationalism," the excuse they later gave for
not revealing the Secret? Why no reference to the Pope being shot, since
this interview took place 3 years afterward?
Here is the admission from the Pope himself as to whether he actually consecrated
Russia in 1984. He is quoted praying this to Mary after the alleged
consecration of "Russia," on 25 March 1984, in Osservatore
Romano:
Enlighten especially
the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and
confiding.
Sr. Lucia told
journalist Enrique Romero, on 20 July 1987, that the Consecration has not
taken place according to the Virgin's request.
These are real citations, Mr. Symonds.
As to His Holiness leading people to the Cross, I beg you to read my first
responsea again and CLICK ON THE LINKS. Read the stories. Open your eyes,
friend. I know you're busy (so am I), but take a link a day if you have to.
Read what "trads" have to say. Please. |
Mr. Symonds, in response to my having written: “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.”
-Sr. Lucia not making any statements to the world was the whole point of
that response, Vox. I made it to counter this mindset that seems to think
that when Sister received permission from Heaven to write it down, that
permission also was a license for Sister Lucia to tell people about it freely.
Please look back again at your first response to me and then look at my response
to that and you will understand better what I was referring to.
| I've read what
I've written and see nothing that indicates I believed that Sr. Lucia herself,
a cloistered nun, would walk out onto her balcony and reveal the Third Secret
in some Urbi et Orbi address. What was commonly accepted belief, thanks
to the words of Sr. Lucia's Bishop, Cardinal Cerejeira, Cardinal Tisserant,
Cardinal Ottaviani, among others, was that the Pope would reveal the secret
in 1960. The world expected it, and was led to expect it by the Vatican.
To deny this is to deny History. |
Mr. Symonds, in response to my having written: “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 first paragraph here is simply foolish, Vox. The point has already been
established that the 3rd Secret dealt with the struggle in the 20th Century
against Atheism and Communism. I think that answers this part of your response.
Part of it being about a Pope being shot was enough to warrant the Secret
remaining a Secret for the reason I gave in the original response to
you—People would have been waiting on edge for a Pope to be shot. That,
my dear, detracts from the Fatima message, and such was the Vatican’s
concern. I see no problem with trying to protect the Faithful from such a
thing. It sounds more to me like a pastoral decision on the Pope’s end,
and a smart one at that.
With re: to
the first paragraph, the one you deem "foolish," you're missing the point
that Communism is not dead and forget that what I refer to in those parentheses
is happening now.
And would people be "waiting for a Pope to be shot" 19 years after the Pope
was shot? Does that make any sense to you? The Pope is shot in 1981, the
Berlin Wall falls in 1989 (falsely leading people to believe that now "Communism
is dead"), but the secret wasn't revealed for another 11 years. Why? And
how would any of that have been any clearer in 1960? |
Mr. Symonds, in response to my having written: "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).”
-Either I’m reading your post wrong, or the grammar is throwing
me off, but it also seems to me that you are saying Cardinals Cerejeira,
Tisserant and Ottaviani promised Sr. Lucia to reveal the Secret at her death
or in 1960. It’s funny, but taken at face value, the way you worded
it sounds awkward. With all due respect, I’m going to have to ask you
to please clarify what you mean. It sounds as if you saying Sr. Lucia was
going to reveal the Secret at her death, which is a bit problematic for a
woman on a death-bed, not to mention how would anyone (including herself)
know the hour of their death unless given by God? You are either expecting
some sort of Godly miracle here, or something that I’m just not sure
on.
| The "who" refers
to Bishop Leiria, not to Sr. Lucia, whom noone expected to reveal the secret
herself (see above). The direct object is "her," meaning Sr. Lucia. If she
had been the subject of the sentence, I'd have written "herself." The point,
though, is that all of these men led the world to believe that the secret
would be revealed in 1960, not by Lucia, but by the Pope or someone he designates
for the task. |
-Vox, yes, I affirm that was my point as to why the Third Secret wasn’t
revealed even after 1981. I would also like to remind you that it is my purely
subjective opinion based on the facts, so I admit it could be wrong, but
it isn’t proven to be. What I think you are having a hard time understanding
here is just how bad the subject of sensationalism is in today’s world.
I really and truly don’t think I could do it any kind of justice to
here explain the subject, so I shall begin simply and fine-tune it to a point.
-I am currently working on a project that discusses Dan Brown’s recent
blockbuster book, “The Da Vinci Code.” I am more than positive
that you’ve heard about it and know something of the book. My research
has proven to be very extensive and the more I read, the more I see how twisted
the book actually is. Coupled with my studies in Marian apparitions that
I mentioned originally, I am very aware of how serious
“sensationalism” is. I mentioned to you earlier that I would give
you my site on Medjugorje. There is more information on there about this,
so I will leave that to your reading and further reflection on this matter.
-That said, I am deeply concerned with the subject of sensationalism and
it’s a subject near and dear to my heart. You can understand, then,
that I believe the Vatican was right in withholding the publication of the
Secret for this purpose. Yes, it was withheld for that reason according to
Cardinal Ratzinger. The Vatican knew that people would be fixated upon the
fact of a Pope being shot, to the detriment of the heart of Fatima. The fact
of the Angel saying, “Penance, Penance, Penance” simply isn’t
enough to warrant the publication of it given the historical context we were
in at the time of the 2nd half of the 20th Century. This problem continues
to our own day even! I am sure you share the same concerns I am about to
list. How many people run to even the slightest possible mention of some
person in no-wheresville, U.S.A. or Europe having “apparitions?”
It happens all too often. It is a lack of discernment and points to a far
greater problem that I shall not get into here.
I'm hip to
the issue of sensationalism, but fail to see a) why that would be a concern
when Our Lady herself said that the secret should have been revealed in 1960,
and b) how, after that date went by, "sensationalism" could be an excuse
for 19 years after the Pope was shot. What happened in 2000 that made anything
less "sensational"?
...And now, since everything's hunky-dory according to the Heavenlies, where's
that promised peace, anyway? Is it in Iraq next to the weapons of mass
destruction? |
-Now the point you make on the New Evangelization is simply untrue. The New
Evangelization is about reaching people where they are at, Vox. I believe
Fr. Benedict Groeschel summed it up nicely in a story he told us once here
in Steubenville last summer during a homily. He was in communication with
someone who struggles with homosexuality. This person knew Father had a lot
of experience in the field, and although this person was caught up in it,
he was beginning to see the light, but he was not there yet. It is something
akin to when St. Augustine said, “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.”
The moment of conversion hadn’t come yet for either Augustine or this
person that Father was talking to.
-However, the key statement that this person made to Fr. Benedict is very
telling. He said to him, “Father, I know what you are saying, and I
am realizing things, but I’m not there yet. Please, whatever you do,
just don’t change the rules [for when I do get there.]” God bless
Fr. Benedict as he is recuperating in a hospital right now, but this story
is true, and that is what the New Evangelization is about—reaching people
where they are at.
My friend,
that is what the Old Evangelization was about. The Apostles went everywhere
-- to India, Ethiopia, Europe -- i.e., where people were at -- and met people
"where they were at" in the looser sense. And they preached the Gospel. They
wrote apologies to the Gnostics and the Arians and the Manichaeans and and
and.. This is nothing new, nothing new at all. The sound idea of "meeting
people where they are" was known as far back as St. Paul, for crying out
loud:
I Corinthians 9:16-23:
For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon
me: for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. For if I do this thing
willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed
to me: What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the
gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. For whereas
I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain
the more. And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: To
them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself
was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To
them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I
was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might
gain them that were without the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might
gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all. And
I do all things for the gospel's sake: that I may be made partaker
thereof.
And even before
St. Paul this was exhibited when Our Lord met with prostitutes and tax
collectors.
I find it absolutely fascinating, though, this idea that seems to be out
there that "before Vatican II" Catholics just didn't know a danged thing
about anything. They never prayed -- not really. They just sat through
Mass thinking of their grocery lists. They never tried to bring their friends
and families to Christ. Those old Catholics never cared for the sick and
the poor (well, nevermind St. John of God and the like; somehow people like
him were "conciliar Catholics" before the Council). My gosh!
Now, am I saying that the human element of the Church was perfect before
Vatican II? By no means, and I think that much could have been done
with regard to in-depth catechesis; Scripture study with solid,
traditional commentary; arming the Church Militant with arguments against
Protestantism and materialism; and having a bit of foresight on the imminent
loss of community that would afflict the West -- and then making up for it
with community-oriented things in our parishes (but never, EVER with
"the community" as the the purpose of the parish, or as the focus of the
Mass, which is what the Novus Ordo Missae and attitude are all about). But
to accomplish those things, we sure didn't need a Council, and I have to
admit to resenting this prevalent implication that Catholics who see Vatican
II as the destructive Council it inarguably was just don't "get it,"
that we're not really, really, reallllllllllllly in love with Jesus like
all the cool people who worship the gods of EWTN, think Crisis Magazine is
the greatest thing since macaroni and cheese, think voting Republican is
the "conservative" thing to do, and think we can "reform the reform" and
actually make it "really Catholic" if only our Bishops would listen
to the Pope (who appointed all those Bishops everyone dislikes and who does
nothing to rein -- or reign -- them in). This attitude is nonsense and a
slap in the face to almost 2000 years worth of Catholics. |
-Believe it or not, this has total Patristic backup. The Fathers spoke in
terms of the synkatabasis and anabasis, that is to say the Divine Condescension
and Lifting Up. God came down in order to raise us up. This is the focal
point of the New Evangelization. We, people like you and I, who know the
Faith, live it, breathe it, sleep it, love the Lord, etc., must show people
the Lord. How you go about doing it is another story. God never spoke over
our heads. He became one like us in all things but sin in order to bring
us to God.
| Why wouldn't
I believe it? Because I'm a lidless-eyed integrist trad? I just quoted St.
Paul, and gave the example of Christ Himself. You yourself quoted St. Augustine
(with whom I'm familiar, by the way) as I gave the examples of other Saints.
As I've said, it is no wondrous new teaching that we are to "meet people
where they are." The problems come in defining what that means. To the
traditional Catholic, it doesn't mean hiding the Truth or watering it down
to make it more palatable. It does mean presenting it in a way that
would make it understood and accepted, all wrapped up in a bow of charity.
|
-The approach is similar in what is called the “New Evangelization.”
We must talk to people where they are at—in the midst of their very
lives, wherever they may be. It is a totally Incarnational approach. Another
example—we aren’t going to tell a 1st grader about the Council
of Nicaea regarding specifically the whole doctrine & controversy of
“Homoousios.” First things first. St. Ignatius of Antioch knew
this principle and St. Irenaeus was aware of it. We live in a world that
no longer recognizes Christ as King, Lord, and Savior, and thus doesn’t
think in a Christian economy. That is why several chapters of Gaudium et
Spes are dedicated to explaining Atheism in the modern world.
-The question, then, Vox, how do we evangelize in the modern world? That,
my dear, is what the heart of the problem here is. Yet, you seem to think
that to meet people where they are at in order to raise them up is wrong.
I do not understand this position.
We evangelize
the "modern world" (which is no different in nature from the "old world"
because people are the same, believe it or not) by first of all knowing the
Truth -- the Truth about God and about human nature, including the latter's
fallen-ness. This last has been forgotten since John Paul II goes about saying
that since the Incarnation (not even the Passion, mind you), Christ has "in
a certain way" -- how exactly is never defined -- united Himself with all
men for all time. And then there's Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" nonsense.
Indeed, the problem since the Council is the forgetting of original sin,
a lapse that results in a ridiculous optimism that believes peace is achievable
by human effort (it's the Tower of Babel all over again). If we all just
"dialogue" enough, all problems will disappear. Now, look about you in the
world. What do you see? How did the Jews react to "The Passion of the Christ"?
Do they or do they not try to tear apart Christendom, even going so far as
to moan about manger scenes in the public square for a few weeks during the,
ahem, "Winter Holidays"? And how 'bout those Muslims? Great lovers of Christians!
I hear they just slaughtered 600 of us in Nigeria (15 May 2004), and they're
calling for jihad all over Europe. I don't know how such things could be
after 40 years of yackety-yack, but, well, there you are.
We evangelize by never forgetting original sin and never forgetting how it
is overcome: by the grace of Christ -- and ONLY by the grace of Christ. "Meet
people where they are"? Of course. When speaking to the Spaniard, use Spanish
when telling him about Jesus. When evangelizing a Korean woman, speak to
her in Korean. When speaking to Snoop Dogg, use slang, ya dizzle? When confronted
by a 2nd-grader, use words with fewer syllables. When dealing with a person
deep in sin, be patient and helpful and sympathetic. If someone with bad
conclusions accepts a few true premises, build on them. And as you evangelize,
show the love of Christ: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the
sick, bury the dead. Of course! (and we don't need liberation theology-Jebbies
telling us how to do it). These things are a no-brainer, even to us lidless-eyed
reactionary "nostalgia buffs"! But if you forget the essential message --
that we are fallen, and that only Christ Jesus can save us, and that this
Christ built a Church to which we must all belong -- you are not evangelizing;
you're having a rap session. We've had 40 years of rap sessions, and the
human element of the Church has gained nothing and lost much -- almost
everything.
How do we evangelize? As we always have:
Romans 10:17
Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.
|
-As for finding people/documents that speak of hell, purgatory, Church as
upholder of Truth, actually, I see it all the time. I have been involved
in Apologetics since 1998. I have been blessed by God to have seen some fine
Catholics get out there and defend Holy Mother Church. Here in Steubenville,
we have a bookstore open 6 days a week that is just chock full of books on
Catholic subjects. People travel here from all over the United States, Vox,
in order to participate in things going on and to visit that bookstore. In
the 4 years that I’ve been here, I can testify to that. You mentioned
Robert Sungenis earlier. We even sell his books.
| I'm glad
Steubenville has a nice library, but when I asked about documents (I said
nothing about "people") that refer to Hell, Purgatory, etc., I was referring
to documents from Rome since the Council, not to books. |
-As for official (that is, Magisterial) documentation about these subjects,
I seem to recall 4 years ago John Paul II clarifying the nature of hell and
Paul VI ordering an update on demonology. I also seem to recall John Paul
II chiding out, publicly even, a priest for being a part of public office
against the law of the Church. I also will put out there the Pope’s
many Encyclicals ranging from social issues to now the Eucharist. Let’s
even throw in the recently published Redemptionis Sacramentum by the Congregation
for Divine Worship. Or could it be that such a document isn’t in your
range because it is “Novus Ordo” and not “Tridentine?”
Let’s be real here. There is more going on than your post gives credit.
You want Iuris, thus exposing your Modus Operandi.
In case you
haven't noticed, I link to the Vatican's website from my front page. John
Paul II's works are there for me to read, and they are discussed among
traditional Catholics.
Now, on John Paul II's "clarification" of Hell, are you maybe referring to
the
general audience during which he effectively denied that
we can know that anyone goes to Hell, saying (28 July 1999), "Eternal
damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special
divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings
are effectively involved in it"? Note, he doesn't stop at "which human beings,"
he had to add "whether" -- we can't know "whether human beings go to Hell"
even though Jesus Christ said that they most certainly do!
Speaking of 'updates on demonology, have you read this (onsite)?:
New Rite of Exorcism is
Worthless.
As to His Holines chiding a priest -- what, was he a trad or something? They
tend to be the only priests who get chided these days. In any case, I'm not
sure why you mention the incident....
Finally, as to Redemptionis Sacramentum, forgive me for not jumping
up and down with joy over yet another document that won't be enforced (in
the document itself it states, "As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic
See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration
of Holy Mass and reiterated the same in 1988"! Wow, some good that did!)
and that has as its alleged purpose the clamping down on the liturgical abuses
of a Missae that is by nature abusive and extremely Protestantized. I just
can't get happy about that, and I bet you that 5 years from now, EWTN's Colin
Donovan will still be answering questions like these in EWTN's "Experts"
Forum: "My priest pranced around in a leotard singing Hare Krishna during
the consecration. Is this a liturgical abuse? Should I talk to the priest
or write to my Bishop?" |
Mr. Symonds, in response to my having written: “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!)”
-Vox, this is simply ludicrous. Even if Sr. Lucia did such a thing, Fr. Gruner
would never believe that it was she and deny it was valid. He would say it
was a body double, or doppelganger or something of that sort. I have seen
this before with my own two eyes regarding people who believe as Gruner does.
I’ve had someone go so far as to say that they don’t think Sister
is still alive. That, my dear Vox, are the kind of people who follow Gruner.
Even if he doesn’t believe such absurd statements, I have yet to see
statements from him that rebukes these people in plain unambiguous language.
You understand better why I am opposed to Gruner.
-Also, it is also to my understanding that Sr. Lucia did do such a thing.
She gave an interview in February/March of 1998 on Spanish television. I
am still looking into this, however, so more to come as it is made available.
Obviously,
it would have to be clear that it was Sr. Lucia to be effective. That said,
though, such an appearance would only answer the question as to what she
is truly saying now. It would do nothing to clarify why she seems
to have changed her mind all of a sudden (if she did), thereby saying two
distinctly different things about an event in the past. And it would do nothing,
in itself, to answer the questions I pose above (and which you haven't answered).
Your description
of a certain type of person coupled with "That, my dear Vox, are the kind
of people who follow Gruner" is an ad hominem circumstantial that says nothing
about the veracity of Fr. Gruner's claims. First, I don't know anyone who
believes that Sr Lucia is dead, have never heard the claim, and don't see
its relevance to the questions "has the Third Secret been revealed?" and
"what are the text and meaning of the Third Secret?" Second, even if such
people exist, Fr. Gruner can't help who might also believe what he believes,
and by your logic, we should forget about fighting the Devil because a lot
of schizophrenics believe Old Scratch lives under their beds. I mean, I could
probably find a few Novus Ordo Catholics who see Mary's face in their bowls
of cornflakes, too, but what would that prove?
Now, would you like to hear some names of other people who agree with
Fr. Gruner? How about Robert Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D (cand.)? Dr. Thomas Drolesky?
John Vennari? Christopher Ferrara? Mark Alessio? Dr. David Allen White? Fr.
Paul Kramer? Fr. Charles Fiore? The Bishops of the S.S.P.X.? Hey, even Mother
Angelica (EWTN) doesn't believe the third secret was revealed. |
Mr. Symonds,
in response to my having written:
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.”
-I have been looking forward to answering you on this part of your response.
I don’t believe the visionaries are liars, either, Vox. I already explained
why I wrote what you cited above, so I will not explain that further.
-In one fell swoop you have managed to contradict yourself. You say that
you don’t think the visionaries are liars, then you turn around and
tell me that Sr. Lucia said one thing and then another in 5 years. This is
absurd. Again, it doesn’t make sense, Vox. Sr. Lucia, as a 10 year old
girl was willing to die in a vat of boiling oil before she’d recant
her story of seeing Our Lady. Now you are telling me that because the Vatican
gave her some instructions (which you fail to tell us what they were) she
has changed her story. Because of your insinuation of conspiracy that arches
your whole response, you have essentially told me that Sister is lying and
that the Vatican has told her to do so.
-So please, either provide the ‘instructions’ that the Vatican
gave Sr. Lucia so all can see its text, or if you can’t provide said
‘instructions’, you should be silent on this issue until further
information becomes available. You have no right to be claiming conspiracy
theory without that text.
-What I say that text could be (my shot at it is as good as yours at the
moment) is that the Vatican clarified its actions in 1984 to Sr. Lucia and
she then understood and thus changed her statement(s). It makes sense and
fits the bill.
I have not
contradicted myself. Read more closely what I've written, not only in the
above paragraphs but elsewhere. Look for the "alleges" and "assuming they
are accurately reported" and such words and phrases as these. In addition,
Sr. Lucia could simply be old and confused, as far as that goes, which wouldn't
make her apparent contradictions those of a "liar." The contradictory statements,
which are alleged to be from her lips or pen, are there for you to sort
out.
Now, explain to me how the Vatican's having possibly "clarified its actions
in 1984" would make Sr. Lucia change her mind when she had read the text
of the consecration before it was given and deemed it not what Our Lady wanted.
She said so again afterwards, and, Pope John Paul II himelf admitted that
Our Lady was still awaiting the consecration. The quotes are above. |
Mr. Symonds, in response to my having written:
“Tell that to the Pharisees who saw the Temple disappear in A.D.
70.”
-Vox, that is not an instance of God punishing us for our actions. The Temple
sacrifices were no longer valid as Christ became the Sacrifice. See
Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy for more on this.
| It was God
punishing the Pharisees for their actions, i.e., those Jews who not only
did not accept the Messiah, but killed Him, and whose spiritual descendants
have been glorying in their anti-Christ, Deicide-loving religion ever since.
We are Israel, and when Israel goes astray, Israel gets punished. I don't
need to read Ratzinger to know that the Old Covenant sacrifices were no longer
valid after Calvary; that's Catholicism 101. |
Mr. Symonds, in response to my having written:
“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 the fruits
of the same media that force this trash down our throats as truth when it
comes to the idea that "Communism has fallen"? Why?”
-I am far from thinking the Media tells us the whole picture, Vox. I am very
much aware of every single one of all those issues that you address and I
tend to stay away from the TV these days more and more. So let me explain
what I meant by “communism has fallen.” I was speaking within the
confines of the Fatima message regarding Russia and Communism. As a Catholic,
I tend to associate the two closely because of the Fatima message. I was
speaking “Intra-Russia” so to speak. I do see where you are coming
from and I apologize for the misconception. I hope this clarifies it.
That's just
it: Communism, in its essence, has not fallen in Russia or anywhere.
You might have your little tugs of war between the Stalinist types vs. the
Trotskyist types and the "Russian Mafia," but the song remains the same;
the only difference is how many radio stations it's played on.
Now, can you tell me the essential difference between a Communist state (as
Communist states are in reality, not in Marxist theory, i.e., "whithered
away") and a system marked by: usurious capitalism/fiat money/fractional
reserve banking that puts wealth in the hands of the few; bought and paid-for
politicians that come from the same secret societies; media conglomerates
owned by the few; extreme rates of taxation and regulation; Courts that
consistently rule against Christian morals and the family; a welfare system
that destroys fatherhood; an extremely decadent, hypersexualized, anti-Christ
popular culture; the Patriot Act; the neo-conservative goal of spreading
this "freedom" all over the globe, and their willingness to shed blood and
invade non-threatening, sovereign nations to do so? Name one essential
difference. |
-Yes, of course many good people dispute how I tell the story of the 3rd
Secret of Fatima and/or the whole message. I don’t look at it from a
conspiracy point of view such as yourself and Gruner. That makes a WORLD
of difference between our opposing camps.
See, there
it is again: the idea that to believe that conspiracies exist is to be
ridiculous. Now I could ask questions like "did the Nazis conspire or not
conspire in burning down the Reichstag so they could blame the Communists,
and would one be 'ridiculous' for believing so?" "Would King George III have
been better off not believing that the American colonists were conspiring
to separate from England?" And so on. And then you'd undoubtedly come back
with, "Vox, I've never denied that conspiracies exist." So let's fast forward
through all that and you tell me why your not seeing a conspiracy here makes
some "WORLD of difference" in the logic of our arguments?
Second, you seem to be assuming that those who believe there is more to the
Third Secret than we are being told wake up in the morning, put on their
Conspiracy-colored Sunglasses, and view all they see through that lens. But
the situation is that the existence of a conspiracy is the conclusion,
not the premise, and it's certainly not some "idealogical world-view" (though,
of course, traditional Catholics certainly believe that we are at spiritual
war with Satan, powers, principalities, and those who do their will on earth).
People who believe we're not being told the whole story believe this because
they've looked at the evidence, not because they assume that "there
must be a conspiracy because -- well, just because." |
-I never said your take on the 3rd Secret is the measure of your orthodoxy.
So let me clarify here and now that I was not disturbed just by the reference
to Fr. Gruner. What initially made me hesitant with your site were the sources
to the SSPX listed right on the front of your page and other references outside
of Gruner. It was only upon further searching that I saw the Gruner reference
and believe it or not, that was the final straw for me that compelled me
to write the E-mail expressing caution. If I thought you were heterodox,
I would have straight up said don’t view said web page. I didn’t,
did I? Nor did I ever accuse you of not being Catholic. You sound like you
may be more “Catholic” than plenty of people I’ve met before
who claim the name.
-It has been my experience with “Grunerites” that indeed, I am
shunned because I don’t believe as they do. You are actually the first
(I dare say shining) example of someone who doesn’t act the way previous
people had been towards me. In that, I thank you, but this doesn’t mean
that we’re not going to duke it out, intellectually speaking. Nor does
it mean that I take those people as the sum total of what it means to hold
to a position and disagree with others on said position.
| "Grunerites."
Hmm. Not bad coming from a "Wojtylarian" LOL |
-I know you weren’t calling him a nutjob. I was exploiting the term.
I think I should explain something though. You keep focusing on the scandal
in recent years versus Fr. Gruner. You are right, first things first and
I agree. However, that is not the subject of this discussion already underway.
Fr. Gruner, his take on Fatima, and your backing him up is what is being
discussed at the moment. If you wish to start a separate discussion, so be
it, but it is that—separate. I will even offer my web page as a server
for such discussion. I have the ability to set up chat rooms and would gladly
do so.
-Couched in the way you put it, Fr. Gruner’s ‘sin’ does seem
rather stupid. That isn’t the problem here. It is his persistence that
it hasn’t been done and his conspiracy theories that undermine the authority
of Rome (and even Sr. Lucia’s credibility) that becomes problematic.
-Furthermore, you can’t say Fr. Gruner spreads the message of Fatima
when Sr. Lucia has said that he isn’t faithful to it.
It's the position
of most who believe we are not being told the whole Fatima story that the
Third Secret dealt with apostasy, from the highest levels in the Church,
and the subsequent loss of faith. Therefore, the scandals of recent years
are very relevant.
Fr. Gruner's position doesn't undermine the authority of Rome; Rome does
that all by itself.
Furthermore, whether or not Fr. Gruner spreads the message of Fatima is a
question of fact -- the very thing we are arguing. I've given reasons why
I believe that he is; you simply state that "Sr. Lucia" says he isn't. I've
shown you quotes from her that contradict that position, and have shown you
quotes from those who've read the Third Secret who contradict that position.
|
-I understand you don’t make arguments about Fatima on your site. I
was referring to your E-mail to me, Vox. Nor did I ever say alluding conspiracies
is ludicrous. If the conspiracy doesn’t exist, THEN it is ludicrous.
That is the context from which I am speaking from and that is how you were
supposed to read my statement. I believe Gruner’s belief to be ludicrous
because I don’t see a conspiracy going on. I hope that clarifies what
I meant. Thus is answered the 3rd paragraph above.
-I disagree. Fr. Gruner’s campaign has changed. Once the Vatican produced
the text of the 3rd Secret, Gruner’s argument changed to the one line
found in Sr. Lucia’s 4th Memoir, “In Portugal, the Dogma of the
Faith will always be preserved.”
-Nor did I ‘panic’ when I saw Gruner’s name. I’ve experienced
panic before (plenty of it too, I may add) and I did not experience that.
You have bought into his line, “I’m a victim, I’m a victim”
that you read things from that perspective. He is not a victim, nor a martyr.
He is a misled man bent on proving himself correct.
If the conspiracy
doesn't exist, then it'd be simply wrong. It might be "ludicrous" if it entailed
little green men from Mars and such, but, well, it doesn't.
Obviously after the so-called revelation of the Third Secret in 2000 Fr.
Gruner would focus on the dogma of the faith being preserved because it is
precisely that point that is omitted in the official interpretation!
As to the panic at the mention of Father's name, I wasn't meaning you personally,
but was referring to others on the list whose comments I duplicated in my
first response. And Father Gruner is most certainly the victim of a smear
campaign. Of this there is no doubt whatsover. Read what he says. |
-I speak in “heavy” language because it is necessary. These are
the facts, Vox—Gruner is a conspiracy theorist and undermines Rome’s
authority. In my humble belief, yes, I do believe that the devil is undermining
Fatima’s message through Gruner’s work. Will I say that to
Gruner’s face? Bring him to me, or fly me to where he is and I’ll
stand up in the middle of a room and say so straight to his face.
There it is
again. "Gruner is a conspiracy theorist" is pretty much your only
premise. Your conclusion, that somehow springs from that in full bloom,
is that anything he says can be discounted. You are not debating the points!
The entire question is about whether there is, in fact, a "conspiracy" insofar
as we have mutually exclusive statements as to whether or not the consecration
has taken place according to Our Lady's wishes, and whether or not we are
not being told the full secret and a true interpretation thereof. Those are
the questions, the answers to which either point to a "conspiracy" or not.
They either do or they don't, but there is nothing inherently whacko about
believing that conspiracies exist, a point I know you claim to agree with
-- but this issue, nonetheless, keeps coming up again and again because you
are always labelling Father "a conspiracy theorist" in order to write him
off.
And once more, John Paul II himself said after the alleged "real
consecration" that Mary awaits the consecration, and Cardinal Ratzinger himself
said that the Third Secret dealt with "last times." So how is it again that
Fr. Gruner is "undermining Rome's authority" when it is our hierarchs
who contradict themselves? Does pointing that out consitute "undermining"
their authority? If so, was Sister Lucy undermining their authority when
she said on numerous occasions, after that consecration, that it was
not done according to the Virgin's wishes? |
-Given what I mentioned about my concern about “sensationalism”
and how Catholics are starting to follow these apparitions more than Rome,
you understand my heaviness even better. You obviously aren’t a stupid
woman—you know the issues. That is why I speak bluntly to you. I know
you can handle it.
-About being victimized…….I seem to recall many people saying similar
things to what you just said who are caught in things they shouldn’t
be doing. I think of things like birth control, sex before marriage, etc.
When I try to tell people they are offending God and lying to their spouse,
I get the same thing, “I don’t feel like I’m doing that, nor
do I believe I am.” So how do you convince people of the truth of the
matter? The point of the New Evangelization that I gave above……then
again, you think that’s heresy so I guess I can’t cite that as
a source.
| Oh, come now!
You're equating those who believe that Russia wasn't consecrated with
fornicators? And what does the "New Evangelization" have to do with this?
You've lost me big time. |
-You place the weight of your decision upon what Sr. Lucia said before 1989
without even bothering to read the text of this “instruction” given
to Sister. That is absurd and to tell others to do the same thing is logically
absurd, Vox. I reiterate my request—please provide said
“instructions” or if you can not, please be silent on the issue.
| Now what could
possibly have been in this "instruction" that could change black to
white? Note that I'm not asking you to tell what was, in fact, in this
intruction; I'm asking you what could possibly have been in it that
could change History. Just before the alleged consecration, and after having
read the text that would constitute "the consecration," Sr. Lucia said it
was not according to Mary's wishes. After the alleged consecration,
Sr. Lucia says it wasn't done according to Mary's wishes. She said
this numerous times, and the Pope himself said that Mary was still awaiting
the consecration. Then the Vatican gives Sister an "instruction" and she
is then alleged to have said that it was done. What could have
possibly been in that instruction that would change whether or not
the consecration was done? |
Mr. Symonds responds to my quoting Pius XII ("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.") and Cardinal Luigi Ciappi ("In the Third Secret is foretold,
among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the
top"), both of whom read the Third Secret:
-I see what the problem with this particular Cardinal and Pius XII is. You
see a dichotomy between the text of the 3rd Secret and the statement of Pius
XII. I really don’t see a strong disconnect here. The Church has never
changed her doctrine, faith, or her soul. The only one that even remotely
fits that bill is the Liturgy. Tell me, what do you think of Mediator Dei
from Pius XII?
"The Church"
can never change Her doctrine, faith, or soul; every traditional Catholic
would agree with that. But what has changed is Her human element, and the
presentation of Her doctrine and faith by Her hierarchs, and the reception
of the doctrine and faith by the laity.
No, Her teachings have not changed, but they are presented
as having changed. It is "common knowledge" that the Church "no longer" believes
or teaches certain things "since Vatican II." You will hear statements like
this (especially with regard to the Jews, Hell, Purgatory, original sin,
certain personal sins, and the necessity of Baptism and belonging to the
Church) from Cardinals, Bishops, and priests. And "Rome" not only does nothing
to stop them, but adds to the confusion with a very un-Catholic pastoral
orientation, one that allows worshipping in mosques, Assisi events, receiving
certain Sacraments from the heretical and schismatic Orthodox, not frowning
strongly on mixed marriages, allowing our tribunals to grant declarations
of nullity as though they were handing out candy, tearing down beautiful
churches and replacing them with ugly, modernist buildings, destroying the
Liturgy, appointing Bishops who loathe Tradition, allowing homosexualists
to get control of our dioceses, etc., ad nauseum (and I mean that literally).
If you think that nothing other than the Liturgy has changed since the Council,
and if you think that people don't perceive the Catholic Church in an
entirely different way since the Council, you are blind.
As to Mediator Dei, I quote from it all the time. Why do you ask? |
-Rather, what I think has happened is, the Church has rediscovered some of
her Apostolic roots and has decided to take that course of action in
re-evangelizing the modern world. Why else is the Pope constantly telling
people that they need to be saints in the modern age and witness to Christ?
That is what is happening, not some conspiracy.
What "Apostolic
roots" did the Church "rediscover"? And how did that affect the post-conciliar
"course of action" with regard to "re-evangelization"? Was there some newly
discovered documents from St. Ignatius that shed light on the Church's "Apostolic
roots"? Was there some archaeological dig somewhere that opened up some
heretofore hidden font of knowledge that would have changed the way St. Dominic
evangelized? Where are these "new discoveries"? What are they? What is it
that Karl Rahner could have taught St. Francis?
While you think about that, I can tell you some "Apostolic roots" that haven't
been "renewed": abstaining from sex during Lent, public penance that lasted
a long, long time, women knowing their place, consecrated virginity, etc.
Why were the Minor Orders done away with since they were in existence so
early on? Why the allowing of married Protestant ministers to become Catholic
priests with no admonishments to them to abstain from their wives? The idea
that was has been done to the Church was done because of some newly-discovered
"Apostolic root" is nonsense -- and calling such an alleged goal worthy,
at least with regard to the Liturgy, is decried in Mediator Dei, which you
just mentioned.
As to why the Pope is constantly telling people they need to be Saints, well,
that's what Popes have always said to people. Nothing new there either. Of
course, it's easy for this Pope to "make Saints" since they've done away
with the traditional process of canonization. Now everyone's a Saint, with
no "Devil's Advocate" to prove otherwise. John Paul II has canonized more
people in his pontificate than have been canonized in the past 4 or 5 hundred
years. The idea of Sainthood has been watered-down along with the rest of
our holy religion. |
Mr. Symond
in response to my having said I wasn't impressed with the Vatican spin on
the Third Secret:
-Who says anything about being impressed? You are coming to the text with
pre-conceived notions that because they aren’t in the text and thus
aren’t answered, you walk away feeling less than impressed. The whole
heart of your argument lies around conspiracy, Vox, and that is the problem.
You won’t see past it because you realize that if you do, it all makes
sense. I may also add that if the Seattle Catholic article you gave me earlier
is any sign of its orthodoxy, then I would question them as well. The article
you sent me had inaccuracies that I shall get into later and it is this that
I refer to. On your site, I really don’t care if it was just one reference
to Gruner in backing him up. The fact is, you back him up and that’s
what is important.
I am coming
to the text with the notions that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ciappi, Cardinal
Ratzinger, and many others who've read the Third Secret led me to believe,
and with the common sense notion that God doesn't waste miracles and wouldn't
send the Blessed Virgin in 1917 to tell the world that a Pope will get shot
in 1981.
You come to the text with the pre-conceived notion, despite all evidence
to the contrary, that everything at the Vatican is hunky-dory, that our hierarchs
don't ever play games, and that John Paul II should have a "St." before his
name and a "The Great" after it.
And once more, forget the word "conspiracy"; that's your buzzword, not mine.
Just deal with the facts. |
-You ask me to
study. Did I not mention I am an M.A. Theology student? If you mean
“study” by reading The Great Façade and books that you think
are approved, then I know where you are coming from. Otherwise, I don't quite
understand the request to study as I already do..
-By all means, post up my comments on your web site with my name for all
to see. I have been asking you for the same thing but have not received a
response yet. I would appreciate one. I just ask that you post it as I write
it and not change anything—including grammatical or spelling errors.
Also, please provide my E-mail address as well a link to my site.
Yes, you mentioned
you are an M.A. Theology student, and yes, I was indicating that you study
the books I mentioned and what traditionalists have to say about the state
of churchly affairs. I will end with that same plea:
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...
Take care, Mr.
Symonds, and "good luck" with your studies. |
Mr.
Symonds's e-mail
address
Mr. Symonds's website |
|
