3rd Secret of Fatima?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Does anyone believe the Vatican has actually released the REAL 3rd Secret of Fatima?
-- Just Me (choas@ivillage.com), June 11, 2002
Yes.
-- - (-@-.-), June 11, 2002.
There is interesting evidence suggesting that the Third Secret has not been revealed in its entirety.
-- jake (jake@msn.com), June 11, 2002.
JakeOH - The POPE did reveal it completely as we are told by the direct request of Sister Lucia who wrote it many years ago and the Pope did in fact visit her and ordered the release of the Secret. Are you sure you read a reliable Vatican source? Cardinal Radzinger has been involved for years on this issue. Somebody trying to pull the rug out under the Cardinal now?
Blessings
Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.
The third secret, in fact, is not revealed in its entirety. And those of you who have faith that Cardinal Ratzinger is telling the complete truth need to do a little more research on him. He is one of the most liberal leaders in the Church today. According to fact, the Bishop who Sister Lucia wrote down the 3rd secret for, documented the physical characteristics of the paper it was written on. He documented that it was 26 lines long on ONE piece of paper with 3/4 centimeter margin on each side. The paper the Vatican released (as being the so-called original) was 62 lines long on 4 pieces of paper with NO margins. Since around 1960, NO ONE can go and see Sister Lucia without the permission of Cardinal Ratzinger or the Pope. Not even her confessor. She was forced to get a new confessor. Her sister cannot even visit her without at least one other nun in presence. The third secret supposedly has to do with the apostacy of the heirarchy of the church. I am a devout Catholic, who will defend my faith until my dying day, so when I tell you all this, it is not to discredit the church, but to hopefully raise more awareness, that more Catholics will push for the wishes of Our Lady of Fatima. I have made a pilgramage to Fatima, and I take Our Lady's desires very seriously. For more information on this, you should contact Fr. Gruner or the Fatima Crusader.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
I wonder if your information is in fact legitimate as we are aware of the fact there are many people who just love to doubt things just for the sake of it. Who has so much information as you say and yet the letter is the most secret of all which so few have actually seen it? I wonder about outsiders getting involved in things just for the sake of attention or for spite alone.Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.
Furthermore Sister Lucia did verify the letter used by the pope and the Bishops was in fact hers and in the original handwriting of hers. So you all now disputing Sr Lucia now. I find this very disturbing on the part of those who were not present at the meetings with Sr Lucia. And the Rumors are just what they are "RUMORS". I want proof of what you say from the originators. Not some outsiders.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.
JH,The Fatima "secrets" are an interesting message from Our Lady. That said, Mary gave as an infinitely more important message 2000 years ago.
Luke 1:46-55
"And Mary said: 'My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.'"
Mary was totally obedient to Jesus. Mary trusted Jesus completely. Mary's command to us is the same command that she gave the servants at the wedding at Cana: "Do whatever he tells you."
That's the true message of Mary!
Your speculation about Cardinal Ratzinger and the Church's furtive cover-up of Sister Lucia's message from Mary is silly. If Lucia had received another "hidden message" that was meant for all of us, Lucia would act to rectify the situation. Further, the message of Mary, any other saint, any angel, cannot be hidden if it is God's will that the message be delivered to humanity.
Mary proclaimed, "The Mighty One has done great things for me... He has...dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart."
No conspiracy theory is going to contradict Mary's words.
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.
And did Sr. Lucia PUBLICLY say this in the presence of nuetral onlookers? Or was this in the presence of only Vatican officials. I am no outsider, as you like to put it, but very active in the church. Only I am very much a traditional Catholic, only attending the Latin Mass, still teaching the Catechism to my children, and believing in all church dogma. As I said, look into the Fatima Crusader and Fr. Gruner. They will give you much information. I love the church with all my heart and would never try and cause trouble for the sake of trouble. The church in its present state distresses me, though, for it has left alot of tradition and dogma behind in its quest to become more ecumenical. We must not ALWAYS follow blindly. We are allowed to question when it is not a dogma of the faith. It was not until Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette and pronounced herself to be the Immaculate Conception that this was pronounced a dogma, for until this point many questioned the validity of that. It is good to question at times, even if those who say it end up being right, we then know the truth because of our own willingness to find it, and not blindly taking others words. No, I have not seen the document myself, so I guess in a way I have followed those words blindly, but all things point to something amiss. This was supposed to be released in 1960........why was it not done so? Why has Russia not converted to Catholicism as Our Lady promised if the consecration has been done? Those who say the consecration has been done do not listen to what Lucia said that Our Lady said was required for the consecration. All the elements required were not there. We were promised a time of peace after the consecrations, and here we are in war. There are just too many things not falling into place for me to take the Vatican's word on the consecration and the third secret.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
Mateo, But God does not always IMPOSE his will. Is it His will that we sin? No, it is ours. Is is His will that people are murdered, raped and robbed? Is it His will that the Catholic church is in the crisis that it is today? Of course not. God lets man's will only go on for so long, then His Will will prevail. Let me relay a supposedly true story.......Our lady appeared to a nun in Italy during World War II. She told the nun to contact Mussolini (as she did with a letter which has been saved) and tell him to spare Italy from the war or his life would not be spared. Mussolini not only entered the war, but aligned himself with Hitler and shortly thereafter died a horrible death. (This is a fascinating story made very short for the sake of the readers.) This was another example of Our Lady and God saying, "Do this OR this will happen." God's will was for Mussolini not to enter the war, but as God gave Mussolini free will, he let Mussolini decide, but in the end God's will and threat prevailed. Why can this not be with Fatima, as well. Our Lady did not say or promise that the secrets and consecrations would take place, she only said to do them, but IF THEY DID NOT HAPPEN........ well you know the rest.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
JH writes:"This was another example of Our Lady and God saying, 'Do this OR this will happen.'"
Distill all of the Bible and the message becomes simple--serve God. Prophesy isn't going to give us more than what we already know. Love God, cooperate with His plan, and we will find the peace of God's love. Deny God, and we will suffer the despair of an absence of God's love. Mary simply reaffirms these basic truths. Two thousand years from now, she would come with the same message. The message may be timely; but it's just a restatement of a truth.
JH wrote:
"Only I am very much a traditional Catholic, only attending the Latin Mass, still teaching the Catechism to my children, and believing in all church dogma."
With regard to Latin Mass, I also value our Latin heritage; but I hope you don't think that the Latin Mass is objectively "more pleasing" to Jesus than an English Mass. That is the sin of scrupulosity (pride). I don't want to berate you for being pious and striving to live out your faith. I just want to caution you of the trap the devil made for those who love God to lose sight of humility. It's not an accusation, it's just a caution from someone who has to watch out for it in his own life.
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.
Mateo, You have made a very good point, except for one thing. Even if I said I thought the Latin Mass was better than the English Mass, that would not make ME prideful. What would make me prideful is if I THOUGHT I WAS BETTER, just because I attended the Latin Mass. And I definitely do not. I believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true church, but there are many protestants out there who are better people than me. I have a long way to go, but like you am trying my best. I stated that so that anyone reading this would know that I am not trying to discredit the church, by any means, only questioning certain issues that arise in the church. My views on the English and Latin Mass are a whole seperate topic.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
I wrote:"With regard to Latin Mass, I also value our Latin heritage; but I hope you don't think that the Latin Mass is objectively "more pleasing" to Jesus than an English Mass. That is the sin of scrupulosity (pride)."
To which you responded:
"Even if I said I thought the Latin Mass was better than the English Mass, that would not make ME prideful"
You are correct. I made a false conclusion. That said, here's EWTN's view of the Church's teachings.
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.
My general feeling is that the Latin Mass is being the USE of a virtually dead language which is being slowly abandoned by the world. Why in the world would anyone want to listen to a language that is no longer understood by all? Seems to me people are just to busy worrying about the beauty of sound than the true beauty of the understood words of the native tongue.Let's face it would you go to another country and fully understand what is said? I surely would not, I have been to Mass in Mexico and it is difficult as it is trying to follow just by actions alone. I will never understand why people are so busy worrying about a language that is not native to us. Christ spoke in his native tongue and was fully understood. Not in some foriegn tongue which the people did not speak.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.
Hello, JH.I'm afraid that you come upon a forum where you will not feel comfortable. This is an orthodox Catholic forum in which the "regulars" are totally obedient to the pope, reject traditionalist schisms (e.g., Society of St. Pius X [SSPX]), have full trust in the validity of the new rite of the Holy Mass, and have no fears at all that Cardinal Ratzinger would ever try to deceive us.
JH, you have repeatedly promoted Fr. Nicholas Gruner and the "Fatima Crusader" above. Everyone reading this thread, especially you yourself, needs very badly to read EWTN's short essay on this deeply troubled priest and his misleading writings. There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that any further Fatima secrets remain to be revealed.
You wrote: "And did Sr. Lucia PUBLICLY say this in the presence of nuetral onlookers? Or was this in the presence of only Vatican officials."
JH, your lack of trust in trustworthy people is mind-boggling! The fact that you would sooner trust in a priest (Gruner) who does not even have a bishop's diocese in which to function shows how out of touch with reality you have become. Please come back down to earth, forget about "Fatima Crusader," and trust the pope and his curia. If there were any further secrets, the pope would not for one second allow Cardinal Ratzinger to say the opposite.
JH, you wrote: "I am no outsider, as you like to put it, but very active in the church. Only I am very much a traditional Catholic, only attending the Latin Mass ..."
Please let us know if you are attending Latin Mass at an SSPX (or other schismatic) chapel -- or if you are really trying to be a good Catholic by attending Latin Mass in a church/chapel where it is approved, under the papal indult, by a bishop who will be attending the USCCB meetings this week.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2002.
Fred wrote:"Let's face it would you go to another country and fully understand what is said? I surely would not, I have been to Mass in Mexico and it is difficult as it is trying to follow just by actions alone. I will never understand why people are so busy worrying about a language that is not native to us. Christ spoke in his native tongue and was fully understood. Not in some foriegn tongue which the people did not speak."
Fred,
Yours is precisely the reason why Latin has been used by the Western Church. By standardizing on Latin, you could have gone to Mexico and more fully participated with our Mexican brothers and sisters in the mass. By going to a vernacular mass, you actually lose that bridge.
I'll turn to the secular world for support for Latin. Both the medical and legal professions rely on Latin. By using latin, it is easier (though still challenging) to learn the profession in one language and practice it in another. The common use of Latin terms means that there is no need to learn much of the technical vocabulary in each vernacular tongue.
Music uses Italian (forte, piano, coda, etc). Even if a German wrote the music, I could understand the music because it is based on Italian.
Areas of human knowledge often transcend vernacular languages. "Church Latin" is not an anomoly, it's one of a number of examples of this phenomenon.
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.
Fred Bishop wrote:My general feeling is that the Latin Mass is being the USE of a virtually dead language which is being slowly abandoned by the world. Why in the world would anyone want to listen to a language that is no longer understood by all?
Let's face it would you go to another country and fully understand what is said?
You are right about Latin being a dead language, and that is why many years ago the church chose Latin to be used in all Masses around the world. So that, no matter where you went to Mass, whether it be Spain or Russia, you could follow along with the Mass, and since it was a dead language, its meaning would not change. I am not fluent in Latin, that is why we use missals. One side is Latin the other is English, and this helps us follow along. Even before the English (or other appropriate venacular) Mass was introduced, and only the Latin Mass was said, most used these missals to follow along, since most lay people never have been fluent in Latin.
John Gecik wrote:
I'm afraid that you come upon a forum where you will not feel comfortable. This is an orthodox Catholic forum in which the "regulars" are totally obedient to the pope, reject traditionalist schisms (e.g., Society of St. Pius X [SSPX]), have full trust in the validity of the new rite of the Holy Mass, and have no fears at all that Cardinal Ratzinger would ever try to deceive us. There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that any further Fatima secrets remain to be revealed.
JH, you have repeatedly promoted Fr. Nicholas Gruner and the "Fatima Crusader" above..... deeply troubled priest and his misleading writings.
JH, your lack of trust in trustworthy people is mind-boggling!
If there were any further secrets, the pope would not for one second allow Cardinal Ratzinger to say the opposite.
Please let us know if you are attending Latin Mass at an SSPX (or other schismatic) chapel -- or if you are really trying to be a good Catholic by attending Latin Mass in a church/chapel where it is approved, under the papal indult, ...........
1st statement - Are you suggesting, John, that because I attend only the Latin Mass that I should feel uncomfortable about that? Is the fact that I want to hold onto tradition a bad thing? Are you suggesting that I am not obedient to the Pope, or that I do not recognize the Pope? I respect the Pope and believe in his authority 100%. But that does not always mean I agree with him 100%. He is, after all, a man.....only infallible on matters of church law and dogma, not in everyday life. Not all traditionalists are schismatic. You make strong accusations there, althought I am not affiliated with SSPX, I do know who they are and I am not against their desire to keep tradition. The pope has NEVER said that a priest cannot celebrate the Latin Mass, quite the contrary. As far as the validity of the new rite........what makes a Mass valid? It is obviously the ultimate sacrifice and Consecration which make a Mass valid. During the Council of Trent (a dogmatic council) they stated that anyone who changed the words of consecration would render it invalid. That is exactly what was done when they formed the 'new rite.' And it ought to bother you that 2 Jewish rabbis and 6 Protestant ministers helped to form the new rite.
2nd statement - And if you have no fears that Cardinal Ratzinger would never deceive you, then why has he repeatedly tried to say the consecrations have been done, when it is obvious to anyone who does their homework that they have not. If there is nothing to hide in the third secret, nothing to fear as to its contents, then why was it not released in 1960, as was ordered by Our Lady? Why was the consecration not done in 1929 as desired by Our Lord and His Mother? These are very serious matters which deserve serious questioning by us as Catholics. That is why I do not consider some these people trustworthy. Why is Lucia not allowed to speak publicly, when she is the only one who has the full truth on these matters? One must not always follow blindly.
3rd statement - you call Fr. Gruner deeply troubled? That is strange. Have you ever heard him speak? Is it because he promotes Fatima devotion around the world, promotes the wearing of the Brown Scapular, promotes the First Five Saturday devotions, or promotes the daily recitation of the Rosary that he is troubled? These are things Our Lady specifically asked of us, and which have been slowly abandoned since the new rite. Or is it because some of the more modern priests do not like him that you do not? He is supported by many priests and bishops. He was personally requested by Pope Paul VI to come and see him. He has opened numerous orphanges. He worked with Mother Theresa in India. He was at ground zero in New York giving blessings and handing out Brown Scapulars and Rosaries. These are not signs of a troubled priest, but signs of a dedicated one. Were not the apostles themselves and Christ despised?
4th statement - I go to a Mass said by an independent priest. Validly ordained, but left the diocese because they would not let him say the Latin Mass in his parish. He saw errors with the new rite and only wanted to say the Latin Mass. He was not allowed. He found a home with many of us who were tired of hearing priests stand on the pulpit and condone homosexuality, birth control, divorce and many other issues that the church teaches is wrong. He found a home with us because our children were no longer being taught the catechism at school, they were not instructed in the Sacrament of Penance or even allowed to receive it until AFTER First Communion. They are not allowed to receive Confirmation until 8th grade, when they need those graces from the Holy Ghost so much sooner. I grew up in the new rite in an archdiocese school, and it was hard to leave my parish, but I had to follow my heart, and my heart said that a lot of the changes in the last 40 years have not been for the better. I want my children to learn to teachings of their faith so that they can live it, and they were not learning that before.
So do judge harshly, for I do not judge anyone else harshly. I only follow my heart, as you do. And before you condemn, research what I say, and not just from one source. Make sure you search different sources. A great source is the website "Catholic Family News." You see, I believe in all the dogmas of the church and in tradition, outside of that, I am allowed to question.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
JHHow in the world can you ever consider yourself a FULL CATHOLIC when you belong to a schismatic group. You sir are the one who is falling out of the fullness of grace of GOD by denying the Holy Spirit during the Vatican II Meetings and all the rest. We are formall Catholics with full ties with ALL of the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope. You belong to a group of Priests who have been deemed Banned by the Pope and the rest of the church and you are now jeopardizing your own salvation and that of your entire family. You are denying Christ, the Holy Spirit and GOD the Father in rejecting the Vatican II processes. And you have judged us as well.
Sorry but you are avoiding GOD by following a Shismatic group and are heading to your own damnation by doing so.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.
Fred,I do not belong to a schismatic group. We, none of us, including our priest, has never been excommunicated or thrown out of any diocese. We do not teach any heresy, and believe in all the dogmas of the faith. He, our priest, voluntarily left so as to be able to say the Latin Mass. How can a bishop be good when he refused to let this priest say the Latin Mass, when the Pope has said that any priest who so desires should be allowed to say it. I do follow the Pope and believe in him as the head of the church, but I do not wish to sacrifice what is in my heart. I have not judged you or anyone, and respect all of your opinions, and yet you are harsh with me because I attend a Latin Mass. The Council of Trent was a dogmatic council, Vatican II was not. Do your homework before you berate me in a public forum. Debate me if you will, but research what I have said before you berate me. Let us remember that charity is the greatest of all virtues.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
By the way, Fred, you may address me as Ma'am.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
Another thought..........Do you have daily Mass and confessions? We do. Does your church say the daily rosary at church? We do. Do you still have May Processions? we do. Do you still have Corpus Christi processions and masses? We do. Do you still ever have benediction of the Blessed Sacrament? we do. I could go on and on. And all these things are done by a validly ordained priest.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.
You just confirmed your act of Scism and the rest and you are following a priest who is not following the Vatican II requirements.You can be assured on this too, we have all of the masses daily confessions and the rest too. So what is it now? Do you want to life in salvation or in a church of lies and half truths. Your desire for a life in a Schismatic Church is going to lead you towards denial of Graces by GOD himself.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.
Another thing too is this. Is the priest you see now on good grounds with the Cardinals and the rest of the Church. He cannot be so, he is in denial of Vatican II and furthermore, he is in an excommunicated state and denies telling you the truth. He is living in a lie and leading you all in the same path of mortal sin. I am telling you to wake up and smell the roses and see the truth and realize the wrong and harm you are heading your family into.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.
Without remotely addressing the issue of the Latin Mass or schisms of any kind, and regardless of Fr. Gruner or anything he has to say... I have, from the very first I heard of it, totally doubted that the 3rd Secret, as 'revealed', has been revealed in its totality. I didn't need to read anything to gather that opinion. In fact all I needed was my 'yeah, whatever' attitude. I know that sounds curt, but whatever.Before anyone takes issue with my stance on the matter, ponder this closely: as belief in apparitions is not mandated, conversely, I can doubt the latest revelations concerning the 3rd Secret.
Tell me I'm wrong.
-- Emerald (emerald1@home.com), June 11, 2002.
JH writes:"Another thought..........Do you have daily Mass and confessions? We do. Does your church say the daily rosary at church? We do. Do you still have May Processions? we do. Do you still have Corpus Christi processions and masses? We do. Do you still ever have benediction of the Blessed Sacrament? we do. I could go on and on. And all these things are done by a validly ordained priest."
You're making a strange argument. You argue that you know better than the Magesterium what is a valid Mass and what is not. You argue that your "validly ordained priest" makes everything OK.
Well, imagine if a pro-homosexual marriage, pro-abortion, etc. priest led an "independent" flock. He would also reject Vatican II and the Magesterium as not truly representing Catholicism. He would also be wrong.
What I find disturbing is that you feel that abandoning the Church is the appropriate move. This, JH, is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If "traditional" Catholics abandon the local Catholic Church, it's no surprise that all that would remain would be non-traditional Catholics. You are purposely losing your own fight! I pray that you would consider this.
You brought up a bunch of points. I'll try to briefly address some of them.
1. The current form of the Mass: The Novus Ordo Mass is a valid celebration of the Eucharist.
Refer to this link.
Though you don't attend the Tridentine Mass, I'd recommend that you visit this link. It affirms that the Pope (and Vatican II) had the authority to modify the Mass.
2. Regarding the 2 Jewish rabbis at Vatican II. You might want to consider that the first Mass was celebrated by a Jewish Rabbi. His name was Jesus Christ. :-)
3. Sr. Lucia "not allowed to speak publicly." I don't doubt that the Church and Sr. Lucia both want to avoid fostering a "cult of personality." She has spoken publicly, and a quick visit to sites like EWTN.com and others will confirm this.
4. JH writes: "He [JH's priest] found a home with many of us who were tired of hearing priests stand on the pulpit and condone homosexuality, birth control, divorce and many other issues that the church teaches is wrong."
Well, condoning homosexual behavior, artificial contraception, divorce, etc are all against Church teachings! Why would the solution be to abandon the Catholic Church? If the Pope and the Magesterium is behind you, why not defend the teachings instead of abandon ship? You are seeing a problem and contributing to make the problem worse!!!
Also, you won't be surprised that many heterodox liberal Catholic priests abandon the Church and create independent (Protestant) churchs. They even call themselves "Catholic."
JH writes:
"I do not belong to a schismatic group. We, none of us, including our priest, has never been excommunicated or thrown out of any diocese. We do not teach any heresy, and believe in all the dogmas of the faith. He, our priest, voluntarily left so as to be able to say the Latin Mass. How can a bishop be good when he refused to let this priest say the Latin Mass, when the Pope has said that any priest who so desires should be allowed to say it."
The Church doesn't spend all day sending out "you're excommunicated" letters. It doesn't work that way. Those who deny the authority of the Catholic Church are ipso facto throwing themselves out of the Church. You do teach heresy if you reject the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.
I'm not a priest, but if I were your priest was being denied the right to celebrate the an approved form of the Mass in Latin, I wouldn't abandon the Church; I would make noise!!! There are sympathetic ears in high places...they're not hard to find. And if you have trouble getting to them, there are plenty of orthodox Catholics who would join in making the noise louder...all without abandoning Christ's Church.
In Christ,
Mateo.
PS--Emerald, if no one else will do it, I will...you're wrong. :-) Just kidding. I don't know whether you're right or wrong...
I honestly care little about the Fatima Secrets--that probably seems obvious. I've got my salvation as a top concern for myself. Salvation of souls is the top mission of the Catholic Church, right? The Fatima message really doesn't impact the reality of the Christian message.
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.
I might not have mentioned it, but I'd like to make an additional point about post-Vatican II changes. There are parts of the country where priests have illicitly changed the wording and form of the Mass. These priests often desire to be more politically correct, or they think they've got a way to make the Mass more "user-friendly." The priests have no authority to invent their own wording or modify the form of the Mass in any way that is outside of the Church's instruction.These irregularities are an attack (often subtle) on the authority of the Church. I wouldn't condone these prideful priests.
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.
MateoOn the "User friendly" issue I am fully in agreement with you on that too and there have been many warnings handed out to the priests not to do these things by the Holy See for years and they still disobey only to appease the feminists and others. I find this habit being very widespread and totally annoying too.
But like Gene told mewe cannot argue with the priests and the bishops on anything. So you see we are handcuffed.
Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
OOPsI should rephrase that one: We should avoid controversy with our Church leaders in public and try to create dialog to properly solve disagreements. At best we need to respect the authority of the priest and his bishops first.
Sorry Gene. I miffed that one up a tad.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
Fred BishopYou just confirmed your act of Scism and the rest and you are following a priest who is not following the Vatican II requirements……… he is in denial of Vatican II and furthermore, he is in an excommunicated state
I have confirmed nothing of the sort. There are many priests who refuse to say the Novus Ordo Mass, and that definitely does not make them excommunicated. The pope has given permission for any priest who wants to say the Latin Mass to be able to. So what would make him excommunicated? Many priests are making noise, but it rarely gets much higher than the Archbishop of the Diocese. Everything does not go to Rome as easily as you say. Vatican II holds no "requirements" as you say. This was not a dogmatic council, therefore subject to error. Even if it is not in error, there are no requirements that say you must follow Vatican II and abandon tradition. There is no one that said if you choose to remain 'traditional' that you are not a member of the church. The only reason we are not members of the diocese is because the diocese will not allow us to be unless we abandon all tradition. That is very strange, since the Pope has said anyone could say the Latin Mass. Where exactly is the problem with people wanting to hold onto all the hold traditions of the church?
……..church of lies and half truths.
We hold all the truths of the Catholic Church, believe all the dogmas of the faith, worship in the same manner that was done for centuries, follow all church laws set down by the church. Vatican II, as I said before, is not church law.
……..leading you all in the same path of mortal sin.
I receive the sacraments often, believe in dogmas of the church, hold all tradition on the same level, and believe in the authority of the church. Mind you, I believe in the authority of the church and the pope. The pope never mandated the novus ordo mass. Therefore, as a Catholic I am entitled to celebrate only the Latin mass. No part of what I have chosen to do can even be remotely considered a mortal sin. Just because I am no longer a member of the actual diocese, does not mean I am not a member of the church. Where is the law that says you must be a member of a diocese?
JH writes:
"Another thought..........Do you have daily Mass and confessions? We do. Does your church say the daily rosary at church? We do. Do you still have May Processions? we do. Do you still have Corpus Christi processions and masses? We do. Do you still ever have benediction of the Blessed Sacrament? we do. I could go on and on. And all these things are done by a validly ordained priest."
Mateo writes
You're making a strange argument. You argue that you know better than the Magesterium what is a valid Mass and what is not. You argue that your "validly ordained priest" makes everything OK.
Can the magisterium throw out dogma? You seem to forget the fact that the Council of Trent, which formed the Latin Mass in its final state, was a dogmatic council. (Vatican II was not.) The magisterium of that time, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, proclaimed that the Mass should not be altered in any way, especially the words of the consecration, and if done so, would render it invalid. I would tend to think that a valid priest who holds to that dogma and all other dogmas is OK.
What I find disturbing is that you feel that abandoning the Church is the appropriate move.
I have not abandoned any part of the church or its teachings. I simply left a diocese to find a chapel would hold true to all tradition and teachings.
1. The current form of the Mass: The Novus Ordo Mass is a valid celebration of the Eucharist.
See reference to Council of Trent above.
Though you don't attend the Tridentine Mass, I'd recommend that you visit this link. It affirms that the Pope (and Vatican II) had the authority to modify the Mass.
Again, Council of Trent above.
2. Regarding the 2 Jewish rabbis at Vatican II. You might want to consider that the first Mass was celebrated by a Jewish Rabbi. His name was Jesus Christ. :-)
Christ, in the strict sense of the word was not a rabbi. He came on earth to open the gates of Heaven by His death, and to establish a new church, the Catholic Church. Almost 2000 years later, 2 Jewish rabbis and 6 Protestant ministers have no business messing with a Catholic Mass. After this was done, many protestant ministers were heard to say that they would now see no reason why a Protestant would not feel comfortable in a Catholic Mass. What a shame!!!
3. She (Sr. Lucia) has spoken publicly, and a quick visit to sites like EWTN.com and others will confirm this.
Sr. Lucia has not spoken publicly since 1960 on her own accord. She was always in the presence of a Vatican official. I have visited EWTN, and I was greatly disturbed by some of what I saw. I saw a priest giving horrible advice in many cases. A woman asked a question concerning the salvation of non-catholics. She had been told that no one but Catholics would be allowed to enter heaven, and she was questioning that, because being raised a Catholic she had never heard that. Well that question was never even answered!!!!!!!! "No salvation outside the Catholic Church" was a dogma pronounced at the Council of Trent and reinforced more than once. Much of the other advice went against Catholic teaching, as well.
I have attached some websites that are very good reading. Please read, do your research, feel free to question, search all avenues necessary to find the truth, but mostly pray and remember that church dogma holds more ground that anything else that is said. And also think of this………look a how many of the truly beautiful ceremonies have been rapidly decreasing, such as widespread processions, benedictions, singing of the Divine Office, May crownings……..etc. You don't see a whole lot of those anymore. Why????? Think about it.
http://www.catholictradition.org/cfn-jews.htm http://www.catholictradition.org/cfn-lucy1.htm http://www.catholictradition.org/cfn-lucy2.htm http://www.catholictradition.org/cfn-messiah.htm http://www.catholictradition.org/cfn-vatican2.htm http://www.catholictradition.org/cfn-masonry.htm
http://www.catholictradition.org/true-mass.htm
This will be all I say on this matter. Please read above and pray for guidance. My conscience is clear.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
I forgot to add that Padre Pio (who will canonized this summer) absolutely refused to say the novus ordo mass. Upon receiving permission from his bishop to stay faithful to saying the Latin mass, he told his bishop "Please, end the council quickly"!!!!!!????? Interpret as you will.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
JHYou are following an excommunicated priest and are denying the Pope and his bishops You last post has clearly proven that fact. As i have said before you are in denial of Papal orders from Pope Paul VI to Pope John Paul II. The Vatican II decrees do stand as valid and ther is nothing that you can do about it but to obey them. Do you really want to spent eternity in hell for being diobedient to the Pope and to Christ? You are making that choice on your own. I am only warning you of what lies you are following and telliong others. YOU ARE IN SCHISM. PERIOD.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
But JH, if your priest isn't acting in cooperation with the bishops and is not bound by a dicees, or there is no leader figure in your "parish", then how can you be sure that he is saying the Mass, and doing the traditional serimonial acts correctly? Unless you were trained in Latin and in how the Mass is said and done in Latin, it might be hard to catch little deletions or additions that would serve to secretly belittle Christ and the True Catholic Church. Do you know every word that is said during the readings, etc.? I'm not saying that you don't know these things (you very well might be trained in Latin). But it is just a question.In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 12, 2002.
JakeIt is obvious that she cannot tell what is right from wrong at the present as long as she is so willing to follow the words of a priest in a schismatic church. He will dupe her to believe him first and not the Vatican II orders.
Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
JHYour Quote: Christ, in the strict sense of the word was not a rabbi. He came on earth to open the gates of Heaven by His death, and to establish a new church, the Catholic Church. Almost 2000 years later, 2 Jewish rabbis and 6 Protestant ministers have no business messing with a Catholic Mass. After this was done, many protestant ministers were heard to say that they would now see no reason why a Protestant would not feel comfortable in a Catholic Mass. What a shame!!!
____________________________________________________________________
You really blew that one well. Why don't you go back to your Bible and read it. There are several passages where the disciples clearly referred to Christ as "RABBI" in english it means simply "TEACHER". He also taught at the temple at 12 years old to the elders. And others besides the disciples referred to Christ as "RABBI". Your Priest really blew that one out. You are terribly misinformed. The Jewish Carpenter/Rabbi is my LORD. Who are you following? Satan?
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
JH wrote:"Christ, in the strict sense of the word was not a rabbi."
Umm...Jesus most certainly was a rabbi/teacher.
JH wrote:
"Almost 2000 years later, 2 Jewish rabbis and 6 Protestant ministers have no business messing with a Catholic Mass."
They had no authority to "mess" with the Catholic Mass at Vatican II. They were simply different perspectives that the Catholic Church could consider when it modified the Mass.
I wonder if you have read any of the links that I have provided.
With regard to the Novus Ordo, you seem to believe that the entire Catholic Magesterium is in teaching contrary to previous years. So, you believe that the Catholic Magesterium is not guided by the Holy Spirit. That's a problematic position to maintain.
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 12, 2002.
Jack,Thank you for being so calm, even though I know you do not agree with me. Yes, I do know that the Latin Mass that I attend is not meessed with in any way, because the Sunday missal I use was printed before Vatican II. I found it in an antique shop. One side is English, the other is Latin. And every missal I own (about 8) is exactly the same.
Fred,
Jesus was called rabbi, in the same sense they called each other brother or sister. Rabbi may mean teacher, but you do not go to school today and call your teacher rabbi. We do not call our priests rabbi either, even though they are teaching us. I think you know exactly what I meant when I said that, I meant in the strict sense that we use the word rabbi today, but in your quest to discredit me, you will twist it totally out of context.
Also, in your quest to discredit me, you lose sight of the fact that the Council of Trent (which formed the Latin rite in its final form) was dogmatic, and Vatican II was not. Therefore, the teachings and laws of the Council of Trent supersede those of Vatican II. If there are discrepancies between what was formed or taught by the two councils, you are bound by the dogmatic one. Nowhere does it say that one is bound to follow the new rite to be a Catholic.
And you statement that we are schismatic because we are not part of the diocese, is as ludicrous as it is crazy. We have saints that were independent priests. We all know the church cannot err in proclaiming saints. It is the diocese who will not accept us, because we will not give up tradition.
You have anger issues, don't you? Until you calm yourself and read the web pages I posted above, I have nothing further to say to you. By the way, I mistakenly put two web pages per line. There are six in the top group, and one by itself.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
Regarding Latin, again...One of JH's links complains that Vatican II moved from Latin to vernacular. Latin is not Dogma...it's not doctrine...it has never been universal tradition in the Catholic Church! Never.
Latin was and is the ecclesiastical language of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. One might as well abandon the Maronite Rite because not all of its Masses are said in Aramaic.
Quote from the same link:
"Replace the Altar of Sacrifice with the table for a meal"
Ugghhh...the Novus Ordo Mass is not "Catholic mealtime." It is the Eternal Sacrafice at the altar. As I mentioned in a previous post, there may be priests who tinker with the Mass to make it more "user-friendly;" but, it is they (not the Catholic Church) who are at fault and deserving of correction. Their "innovations" are illicit in the eyes of the Church.
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 12, 2002.
JH writes:"We all know the church cannot err in proclaiming saints."
Ummm, just like the Church cannot err in instructing on the Novus Ordo Mass. :-)
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 12, 2002.
Mateo,Your point is well taken, but think of this. Christ promised that the church would last until the end of time, and to always be with his church, and that the Holy Spirit would guide it. You are correct on all this. The church is guided by the Holy Spirit, in the fact that it cannot proclaim untrue dogmas, or canonize those that are not in Heaven, etc. That does not mean that certain heirarchy in the church keep their hearts and minds open to the Holy Spirit at all times. We have had many Popes that were not good men, as well as bishops and cardinals (such as fathering illegitimate children). These men were not good examples of the teachings of the church and obviously did not keep their hearts and minds open to the Holy Ghost and grace. But, even the bad popes could still not proclaim untruths as dogmas. Because THAT is where the Holy Ghost would not let them err. We must remember that these are men, Vatican II was not dogmatic, and both are subject to err if they let it. Please research Vatican II somewhere other than pro-Vatican II websites to get a fully rounded history. Your points are well taken, though, but I have prayed much over this, and my heart and reason tell me not to follow everything blindly. I certainly did not mean to upset so many people by the statement of attending a Latin mass, but apparently I have done so. And what is done, cannot be undone, and I must defend myself and my conscience accordingly.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
JHYour intelect has actually made you stupid a a rabid dog. You ignore everthing that is TRUTH and you point out things very clearly which points to your own ignorance. The diocese gave up on your "Independent" Priest because he refuses to follow orders from the VICAR of CHRIST himself. How in hell could you possibly misundrstand that one?????? You are in SCHISM and your own writings prove my point very clearly. You are the one living in mortal sin by simply ignoring the Bishops and Popes who have HONORED the Holy Spirit and the Vatican II process. You just have too much self centered intellectual pride in yourself and it shows very clearly andyou are doing yourself, your family and the Church very grave harm in your own actions alone.
All who read this forum can see the Schism that your Priest amnd yourself are promoting and your intellectual pride is standing in the way of the salvation your children are in need of. So you desire to put your own kids in hell for your own ignorance. Then DON'T blame me for not warning you. You are the one who is denying the VICAR of Christ and the Church. You are following a priest who has been excommunicated by his actions and lies alone. Furthermore if I want to use anger towards you I will for it is your inate ignorance that bothers me and you are the one who is downright foolish in your own actions. You have written very clear proof of your own ignorance.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
JH writes:"I certainly did not mean to upset so many people by the statement of attending a Latin mass"
It appears that you only accept the Tridentine form of the Latin Mass. Is this correct?
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 12, 2002.
JHI must defend myself and my conscience accordingly.
Are you really saying the false pride of the priest you are following? If you are following your true conscience, then you would not deny the Holy Spirit and the needs for the changes as mandated by Vatican II. Don't tell me that foolishness of yours of following the Pope when you deny the Vatican II Councillar Meetings. To deny this, is a conscience that denies God and the Holy Spitrit and the Church and the rest. You are NOT CATHOLIC in your actions alone. You have denied all of the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II. Yes, Pius XII did in fact recommend that Vatican II needed to be done to clean house again. It is there for all to read. Your Priest never told you that one too. What is it you need to be told to accept Christ? You are following the schism, not I.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
First, I can relate to JH's thinking as I love the traditional Mass, and almost always attend a traditional Mass, albeit indult Masses, i.e. approved by the local bishop. My children, all under the age of 12, only really know the old Mass. We read "The Remnant" (although I don't always agree with it) and "The Wanderer" , and "The Latin Mass"and in the past have read Fatima Crusader (Father Gruner's magazine).The big problem with what I call "Capital T" traditionalists is that of obedience. Father Gruner was recently removed of his faculties by the Vatican. Why? Was it unjust? I don't know. But he HAS to obey! JH mentioned Padre Pio. He was, at one time, silenced by his superiors. The Jesuits were suppressed, probably unfairly, by the Pope for a number of years. Did these priests go form their own church? No. They obeyed. Many times in the past, good and holy people have been silenced by the Pope or their bishops. They obeyed. Obedience is the hardest of those three vows, not poverty or chastity. You can't just go form your own church. The Church as we know it is full of sinners, including those who run it. But you must stay with Peter! Many of these independent traditionalists don't accept the last 4 Popes as valid. Our Lord said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Once you stray from Peter, you open yourself up for all kinds of errors.
I don't know where JH is from, but there is one "independent" priest on Long Island, New York, who was given permission to say the old Mass, at the time of the changes, and that permission was never revoked, even though he is not under any particular bishop.
-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), June 12, 2002.
Mateo,That is not what I have said, I said I ONLY ATTEND the Latin Mass.
Fred,
But it is you who uses anger instead of intellect and reason. You will never win people to your way of thinking with that attitude. You have great knowledge in the church, but that knowledge does you no good when you are irate and disrespectful. And it is you who repeatedly said we are excommunicated, but cannot validate it whatsoever. We do not deny the authority of the church in any shape or form. (Remember that no authority ever mandated, by danger of excommunication, that you could not be an independent priest saying the Latin Mass.)
When you can prove to me that Vatican II supercedes the Council of Trent, then I will listen. But, last I heard, dogmas overrules all.
-- Jh (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
Christina,Thank you, just one thing.
When the pope has clearly given priests the right to say the Latin Mass, then no one else can take that away. Not even a bishop. Therefore, the pope's authority supercedes the bishops. It was the bishop being disobedient by not allowing him to. Yes, they must be obedient, but even St. Athanasius was disobedient to his superiors when his conscience dictated so. He was later cleared and brought back from exile.
-- Jh (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
JH writes:"That is not what I have said, I said I ONLY ATTEND the Latin Mass."
JH,
I didn't make an accusation--I merely asked a question. The basis for asking my question is this: many of the links that you have cited seem to be pro-Tridentine/anti-Novus Ordo Latin Mass. If you disagree with this "Tridentine-only" position, I'm curious why you would cite a website that supports a view which contradicts your position.
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 12, 2002.
JHYou continue to condemn yourself by youur own writing alone. NO PRIEST, I repeat again, No Priest can be independent from the Bishop, his Cardinal and the Popes. That very statement clearly gives me the proof that you are in a Schismatic Church. And that is without a doubt. How can you possibly be so blind? An eight year old child can see the error of this statement of yours. You seem to think I am stupid? Well I will have you know this I think your pride has gotten the best of you. You want to follow a fallen away priest then go right ahead. I really am not interested in your propaganda and LIES. I Know what the Church is like and you are only decieving yourself with your prideful hatred of the previous Popes and listening to heretics.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
Hi everyone - -I've been "lurking" and enjoying your interesting group and posts for a few days!
Just wanted to add to this thread. I attend a Church in Los Angeles, California which DOES have daily Mass and confessions, May processions, Corpus Christi, and all the other things which the schismatic poster claims are unique to his schismatic group.
None of these things are prohibited by the so-called "Novus Ordo" Church - in fact, ALL of them have been specifically encouraged by the Pope and by the documents of Vatican II. It's too bad so many churches haven't followed through but that doesn't mean you have to leave the True Church to find them.
Love, Christine :-)
-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 12, 2002.
ChristineSome parishes do not do all of the things mention only because of the shortage of priests. Lets face it, they also deserve some time off for personal recreation and relaxation. Also the lack of functions is because of the laity who will not take the time to help out in making some of these extra functions possible. My pastor has to run three churches and also run the parish school as principal, just to name a few things and yes, make the rounds in three local hospitals. He is also available literally 24 hrs for confessions. All one has to do is make a phone call and he will set up the meeting. NOW how can you beat that one?
Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
I attend the Novus Ordo Mass. I know Spanish, but I don't think I would get much out of a Latin Mass. Plus I was raised going to this Mass. But when I read JH's posts it got me thinking. So, I've tried quickly to research the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass (I have to leave the computer pretty soon). I read that the Council of Trent infallibly taught that the Mass cannot be changed (in actions or words). I don't know how true that is, but I wanted to know if anyone has any info. to back up how Vatican II was able to change the Dogmatic council of Trent’s position on the Latin Mass. All the sites that I have found during my brief search have been anti-VII.I don't want to cause any commotion. And I give complete allegiance to the Pope and the Catholic Church (Founded by Christ Himself) as you can tell by all my posts. But I'm just curious.
Thanks for the help.
-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 12, 2002.
JakeSimply put. all the vatican II did was remove some things that were not in the Mass (Missal) at the time of the Council of Trent and the basic Mass did not in fact change at all except that it is now said in the common language of the congregation. What JH is trying to say is full of holes and thee truth is that the Mass really never Changed at all except to be more friendly to the congregation. That is about all that has happened. Oh yes, one more thing. It was also determined that the laity should participate in the Mass instead of being merely an audience watching the Priest perform.
Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
Dear Fred - actually, I think we're on the same page!You're quite right, it isn't always a matter of "disobedience" or "heresy" when a Church/parish doesn't have all those things - often there's just no time! Which means it's a good idea for us lay people to offer our help whenever possible.
Love, Christine :-)
-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 12, 2002.
To the dismay of some, I have found for you the actual text from the Council of Trent. Now keep in mind that this was an infallible council, and I will also paste a doctrine set forth in the council concerning the Canon of the Mass. I have also found the complete Latin Mass online (Latin on one side, English on the other) for any one who desires to see the undisputed reverence of this Mass. We use a missal during Mass that has Latin on one side and English on the other, so anyone, no matter how novice you are in that language, may see and understand what is going on. More changed with Vatican II than just the language of the Mass and having the people participate more. I know and realize that these things are not ordered by the church, or even recommended by the church, but they have nonetheless happened. Such as removal of statues from many churches, using contemporary music during services, lay people giving out communion (of which no hand should touch but a consecrated priest's), communion in the hand, removal of communion rails so that one is standing while receiving the Blessed Sacrament instead of kneeling before it as he should be, lay people reciting the epistle and gospel (which was spoken against in the Council of Trent, as you will see below), many churches do not have the faithful kneel during Consecration. Another thing that has become commonplace is the use of unleavened bread for Consecration (which can disastrously cause pieces of Our Lord to fall on the floor and be trampled) and well as Communion of the Blood of Christ, which is unnecessary since the host contains Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Communion of the Wine was not commonplace because it opened more room for the mistake of spilling by the faithful. I have even been to a Novus Ordo Mass where a plate with the Hosts (of unleavened bread) was passed around the room for people to help themselves instead of being distributed by the priest. Now don't forget that I grew up going to an archdiocese school and church, so I have seen all these things first hand. I was taught in school (a Catholic school) that the Bible was just a compilation of stories to live by. And the Christ's only sin was to throw the money changers out of the temple. (Funny, I thought Christ was God and therefore, could not sin.) Now, like I said, I realize that these things are not taught by the Church and do not necessarily happen in every church, but unfortunately they have become more and more commonplace since Vatican II. So for the text I am about to paste, is the reason I attend only a Latin Mass, the only one I can find.CHAPTER IV On the Canon of the Mass.
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently [Page 156] offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred CANON, SO PURE FROM EVERY ERROR, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.
CHAPTER V. On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
CHAPTER VIII. On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.
Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has NOT seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; [Page 158] and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
I think we all know what "let him be anathema" means. Now for a little more from the Council of Trent.
Furthermore, they shall not allow any one who is publicly and notoriously stained with crime, either to minister at the holy altar, or to assist at the sacred services; nor shall they suffer the holy sacrifice to be celebrated, either by any Seculars or Regulars whatsoever, in [Page 161] private houses; or, at all, out of the church, and those oratories which are dedicated solely to divine worship, and which are to be designated and visited by the said Ordinaries; and not then, unless those who are present shall have first shown, by their decently composed outward appearance, that they are there not in body only, but also in mind and devout affection of heart. They shall also banish from churches all those kinds of music, in which, whether by the organ, or in the singing, there is mixed up any thing lascivious or impure; as also all secular actions; vain and therefore profane conversations, all walking about, noise, and clamour, that so the house of God may be seen to be, and may be called, truly a house of prayer.
Immodesty at church has become commonplace, even though it was spoken against above. As well as contemporary music. I think the 'Peace Be with You' creates a lot of commotion which was obviously spoken against above. Here's more..........
CHAPTER IV. Those not initiated into a sacred Order, shall not have a voice in the chapter of any Cathedral or Collegiate Church. The qualifications and duties of those who hold Benefices therein. Whosoever being employed in the divine offices in a cathedral, or collegiate, Secular or Regular, church, is not constituted in the order of subdeaconship at least, shall not have a voice in the chapter of those churches, even though this may have been voluntarily conceded to him by the others. As to those who possess, or shall hereafter possess, in the said churches, any dignities, personates, offices, prebends, portions, and any other manner of benefices whatever, to which various obligations are annexed, such as, that some shall say, or sing, mass, others the Gospel, others the Epistle, they shall be bound, all just impediment ceasing, to receive the requisite orders within a year, whatsoever may be their privilege, exemption, prerogative, or nobility of birth; otherwise they shall incur the penalties enacted by the constitution of the Council of Vienne, which begins, Ut ii qui, which by this present decree is renewed: and the bishops shall compel them to exercise in person the aforesaid orders on the appointed days, and to discharge all the other duties required of them in the divine service, under the said penalties, and others even more grievous, which may be imposed at their discretion. Nor, for the future, shall any such office be assigned to any but those who shall be well known fully to have already the age and the other qualifications; otherwise such provision shall be null.
This clearly speaks against lay people saying parts of the Mass, such as the gospel and epistle, or handing out Communion. Let me know if any of you would like to see the Latin Mass, I can paste that as well.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
JHFor your information I do have 2 copies of the Old Latin Missal and to be truthful they do not differ hardly at all from the missals we use today. So big deal it is your problem in not recognizing the validity of the New Mass as it stands. You hava been well brainwashed by a group of heretics who want power for themselves and could care the least bit about anyone else. You obviously have not taken the time to read the letters from Pope Pius XII and the others after him. I have read their letters and the validity of the Vatican II council is well detailed in those letters. The reasons forthe updating of the Church was simply to bring the liturgical celebrations into the twentieth century language familiar to today's people.
Your ignorance is indeed just that IGNORANCE. You chosed to be the one with the selfish ideals of your brainwashers and excommunicated clergy. Wake up woman. You are destroying your own family.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
Well, J.H., I actually mean help in a PHYSICAL way - for example, offering to do chores, shopping, cleaning, et al. to help the poor overwhelmed priest.I know of one priest who, in addition to his duties as a priest, has "adopted" two elderly Alzheimer's sufferers who have no one else to take care of them. Now this is a priest who could really use some help! (and he has been getting some, but not nearly enough!) THAT is the sort of "help" I was referring to.
No Canon Laws against that as far as I know.
Love, Christine :-)
-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 12, 2002.
Hey Fred, nice to hear from you, too. So then, you are challenging the validity of the doctrines and infallible articles set forth in the Council of Trent? Because that is clearly what you are doing. Nothing, not 10,000 letters from the Popes can take away previously defined doctrine. No matter how much they want it to be true. And it was my own research that brought me to this point, not 'brainwashers'. No, I have not read those letters, to be honest. But I still don't see how those letters can validate changing doctrine as set forth above. I have a Novus Ordo missal, as well, and the Canon of the Mass is defintely not the same. That was clearly set forth by the Council of Trent. I am sorry you feel so harshly, and were my decisions based on rumors alone, my conscience might bother me, but my decisions are based on much research from BOTH sides. Because the Mass, the Sacraments, and doctrinal teachings supercede obedience when there is discrepancy.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
Welcome, Christine Lehman! You are breath of fresh air! So nice of you to compliment the forum.
Thanks, Christina for your words of wisdom to JH -- standing up for a legitimate form of embracing the Latin tradition, but with full obedience to the pope (and no schism).
JH stated, "You see, I believe in all the dogmas of the church and in tradition; outside of that, I am allowed to question." By "question," she means "I can selectively obey" and "I can disbelieve in the validity of the new rite of the Mass." Both of her notions are TOTALLY false. Being a Catholic means not just believing doctrine (Scripture and Tradition), but being docile and submissive to the Magisterium on disciplinary issues and trusting the Church to promulgate only a valid rite of Mass.
Jake H, you stated: "I give complete allegiance to the Pope and the Catholic Church (founded by Christ Himself) as you can tell by all my posts."I hope that this will always remain true. One of the best ways to keep it so is to go first to what the pope, the Church herself, and orthodox Catholic believers write about these controversial subjects. One of the worst things you can do is to go to the sites of dissenters and schismatics with the expectation that you will find the all the truth and only the truth there. I'm afraid that you have already had your thinking somewhat tainted by schismatic sites, so I have to encourage you to try to rinse your mind clean of what you have read, because it is not reliable.
You said that you read that "the Council of Trent infallibly taught that the Mass cannot be changed (in actions or words). I don't know how true that is ..."
It is false. The manner in which the Mass (or "Divine Liturgy") is celebrated, with the exception of the consecrations of bread and wine, is NOT a matter of dogma. That is, it is not something that is "taught" -- infallibly or not. Moreover, the Council of Trent did not promulgate a rite of the Mass. The Council only set up the "machinery" by which was promulgated, some years later, the Mass according to the Missal of 1570 approved by Pope St. Pius V (the unofficially labeled "Tridentine Rite").
The very fact that a new rite was established in 1570 should tell you (and JH) something -- namely, that popes had approved of other Latin Mass rites in previous centuries. That in turn should tell you that no Council or pope of the 1500s had the authority to prevent popes of the 20th century from approving of a new rite (the unofficially labeled "Novus Ordo" rite -- i.e., Mass according to the Missal of 1969 approved by Pope Paul VI).
You (and JH) may have read about a 1570 papal document that seems to bind the Church to stick with the new rite permanently. That was a disciplinary document that was able to be overturned by any succeeding pope. You (and JH) are probably not aware of the fact that NUMEROUS, mostly small changes were made to the 1570 rite during the subsequent 400 years. I'd bet that JH, in her schismatic gatherings, attends a Mass at which the "Leonine Prayers" (Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel and Hail, Holy Queen, I think) are recited at the end. These were ADDED to the Mass by Pope Leo XIII just before the year 1900. In fact, the schismatic priest who celebrates the Mass that JH attends is most probably using the final edition of the "Tridentine Rite" missal -- that of 1962, approved by Pope John XXIII. Why a new edition in 1962? Because the 1570 rite had undergone small changes under more than one pope during the 20th century, leading up to 1962!
Jake (and JH), I encourage you to read about the new rite of the Mass at official Church sites and supportive sites. You can start by reading the first published of Vatican II's sixteen documents -- the 1963 the very illuminating Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which set in motion the preparations for the rite of 1969.
You can read parts of the Vatican Instruction on the proper celebration of the new rite of Mass. Not only does it contain the rules to follow, but gives lots of background about the meaning and purpose of the Mass and its parts.
I also urge you to read a couple of good articles -- Latin and English in the Mass and Tridentine Mass and disobedience.
Finally, so that you can see that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has undergone constant development/evolution from the first century onward, please read at least parts of the old (c. 1913) Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Mass. If you can't read it all, please look at least at sections B, C, and D. Keep in mind that this article was written 50 years before Vatican II.Jake H, you stated: "All the sites that I have found during my brief search have been anti-V[atican-]II."
If a site is against Vatican II (which Pope John Paul II has called a "gift of the Holy Spirit"), that is a sure clue that you are a bad site. If you have any waverings of faith or trust in the Magisterium, you need to get away from sites like that in a huge hurry. Many ill-informed people (such as JH) have been utterly fooled by the errors and half-truths found at sites like the ones she recommended to us.
Although Vatican II has rightly been called a "pastoral" council, it was also dogmatic. The two highest-level documents (of its sixteen) are called the "DOGMATIC Constitution on the Church" and the "DOGMATIC Constitution on Divine Revelation." These documents restated, in new language, with some development of doctrine, countless ancient teachings of the Church on key subjects.God bless you all.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 12, 2002.
JHYou are not a theologian and you atre trying to be one -LOLOLO How foolish of you. I am no fool and would never attempt such a foolish thing. We have people here who would love to tear you up word for word. But to tell the truth I am not interested in Damning myself with your silly dogmatic rubbish. You seem to not realize the validity of the Vatican II council and frankly I am tired of idiotic fools like you who cannot accept the Popes and his Bishops and follow other renegade priests who have succeded in getting you to follow the Devil too. He is getting his jollies watching you fall. TOO BAD.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
Folks,
As you can imagine, it took me a good while to write the above message. After posting it, I noticed that several of you had posted new messages, including the big one from JH.
This forces me to make this addendum ...Dear JH, you have a major problem. You seem to be totally unaware of the fact that the Council of Trent issued statements of two entirely different types:
(1) There are DOGMATIC doctrinal statements, in which some truth of faith or morality was stated in a formally binding way, sometimes under pain of excommunication for disbelief. These are TRUTHS taught to us -- things that can never change and that must be believed.
(2) There are DISCIPLINARY statements and rulings, in which the leaders of the Church BIND the members to behave in a certain way. All disciplinary actions of the Magisterium are subject to change -- by a later council, by the same or a later pope, etc..
It drives me crazy that no one ever had the charity to teach you this distinction!!!The huge problem is that you have just quoted several DISCIPLINARY texts from the Council of Trent. You are completely wrong to think that all of them are still binding on us now. You have also quoted at least one doctrinal statement from Trent that is not at all denied by Vatican II and the new rite of the Mass. Perhaps, given enough time, we can go through each thing that you quoted, and we can show you that you are completely off base on this. You have been utterly deceived by schismatic people, most horribly betrayed by the disobedient priest who is leading you down a very bad path.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 12, 2002.
Fred, No theologian here. Never claimed to be one. Only reading in plain English. How the words of the Council of Trent can be interpreted any differently than as they read above, is beyond me.John, Pro-Vatican II websites will condone and validate what you say. As well as anti-Vatican II websites will discredit it. That is why it is important for one to get all the material they can and compare it. And by questioning, I do not mean being disloyal or disobedient. I am in fact participating in a Mass that is also approved by the Pope. As I have stated many times, the Pope has given permission to any priest wanting to say the Latin mass. I do recognize the Pope and the Magisterium of the church, and am only participating in something approved by them. And everything that members of the heirarchy of the church say or do is not always right, as can be proven by history. There are conditions to infallibility, as you are well aware. So I don't see how having a priest leave his parish because he is not allowed to do something granted by the Pope makes him schismatic. Not that this would ever happen, but if a Bishop told his parish priests not to celebrate Mass on Sundays, would that make it OK for them to do so? There are some things that supercede obedience, not many, I grant you, but the right to say and participate in the Latin mass is one of them. You are right about the Mass evolving over the ages, I don't dispute that, but the Canon of the Mass and the venacular in which it is said is pronounced as dogma. At least that is the way it reads to me in the passages from the Council of Trent above. You say Vatican II was a 'pastoral' council, but dogmatic, as well. It cannot be both. You can have a pastoral council that proclaims or reinforces dogma, but it also means that the rest of it is not dogma. The Council of Trent was a DOGMATIC council, through and through. And although, I seem to creating quite a stir, unintentionally, and must now must defend the reasons behind my thoughts, I am amazed that some (not you I am speaking of) are allowed to be so malicious. For surely, anger, disrespectfulness, and irate behaviour cannot be OK, no matter what your reasons. That is defintely not the way get me or anyone else to one's way of thinking. When someone posts a view, it ought to be respectfully debated and/or proved wrong, no matter what the issue.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
Christine, I did know what you meant, and my references were not for you. I am sorry if you took it that way. Though we may not agree, you have acted with eloquence and respect in expressing your views, and that is to be highly commended. I do agree with you much on helping out in physical ways. We do that all the time, such as washing and ironing cassocks and vestments, cleaning the chapel and priest house, etc. To help out in ways such as these, I would think to be all parishoners duty, if they want to be able to free the priest for his more important responsibilities.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
John, with all due respect, I have listed two items pronounced as dogmas. And the Canon of the Mass has been changed, contrary to the dogma above, has it not. Even if you say it has not, are all the changes in the church since Vatican II....have they really been beneficial. To see so many Catholics deny dogma and believe in birth control, not believe in Transubstantiation, etc. is rather disconcerting. Have all the changes really promoted devoutness and holiness among the faithful? I do not see that they have, for I know too many Catholics that pick and choose which dogmas they believe in.
-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 12, 2002.
JHWe DO believe totally in transubstantiation totally. What is this? more of your misguided rubbish. And YOU DON"T pick and chose either. And birth control, HAH, you are now making me very tired of your ignorance.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
JohnYou will notice in her earlier posts she is attaending mass being presided by a priest who is no longer inthe guidance of a local Bishop. Priests for hire type or independent priests. Hardly what I call being in order with the Vatican. This woman is definitely not in her right mind. She has one foot in the devils lair for sure.
Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
JHFor your information, birth control was not a realissue til recent times. In the old times women used to throw the unwanted babies outside of the gates for the wolves and even on the road sides on their travels. The Church was totally powerless to stop these activities til recent decades. So you think you know everything!
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.
I've got a new thread called Dogma, Doctrine, and TraditionIt seems like we've moved beyond the "3rd Secret of Fatima."
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 12, 2002.
To JH-I applaude your efforts. You are obviously a very intelligent woman and good mother. I, too, do not believe the 3rd secret was revealed. I, too, can understand why you follow the traditional Catholicism. I, too, can appreciate your right to question. I am sure you know you are not alone as you have Christ and truth on your side but I wanted you to know you are not alone here. I commend your steadfast beliefs and firmness in your faith. I would like to see the Latin/English side by side that you spoke of. Is there a URL that you could point out?For someone that simply came to read more about Fatima, I have come away shocked and dismayed. This woman has presented her case very eloquently and instead of a peaceful debate, she has been met with hostility and a patronizing attitude. Some of you here have all but called her a psychopath. What Christian calls another Christian a rabid dog simply because they have a different opinion than you? You say you are traditional and orthodox Catholics but you are most unwelcoming to anyone that does not share your exact thoughts and beliefs. They are immediately deemed a heretic, a liar, a schismatic. I see now how Joan of Arc must have felt before she was burned alive. It's a regular witch hunt in here. When all is said and done, you may be proud of yourselves but is Christ?
-- ..... (+++@..+.....), June 13, 2002.
+++ writes:"They are immediately deemed a heretic, a liar, a schismatic."
Dear +++,
Though JH and everyone else here deserves a respectful debate, you should not leave out the important detail that it is JH's own opinion that everyone that supports the Novus Ordo Mass is a heretic. According to JH, we are going against what she believes to be Catholic doctrine. I have serious doubts that the form of the Mass for a particular Rite of the Church could even be anything more than a tradition. Aside from the underlying argument, you [+++] shouldn't ignore that the accusations of "heresy" are on both sides of this issue.
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 13, 2002.
to anonymous oneI am appalled at your lack of respect towards our Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops. All of what Sr Lucia has presented to the Pope has been fully revealed and she herself has approved it too.
Now I want to ask you this. Who in the world all of a sudden appointed you as Sr Lucia's guardian? You are in heresy by allowing heretics to influence your thoughts over church matters. Just because the secret did not reveal something more dramatic as you wanted is a sign of your own selfish attitude. AS far as it is concerned the answer the church revealed is totally within the scope of what was expected for a long time. What is it you want? Mary to say WWIII is about to happen? Or some graphic horror of some sort? I cannot help it but to say that you have shamed yourself and the rest of us by your display of mistrust of God and his Church. You have been duped well by the heretics who have longed for the complete control of our Church. The Group JH is in is totally outside the Catholic Church and in Schism and NOT IN COMMUNION with the Church and her Pope and Christ.
That is all I have to say.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 13, 2002.
There has been a lot added here since I last posted, but I wanted to add a few things. Remember, I love the old Mass and attend an indult traditional Mass.The Pope Pius V said the Mass could not change. But as noted in one reply above, this is not a dogmatical matter, it is disciplinary. He was not in the position to make that statement.
Second, one thing that annoys me about Traditionalists is that they think that they think that Vatican II and the novus ordo Mass destroyed everything, and that if only we had the old Mass and practices back, things would be peachy. Things were not wonderful before Vatican II. If they had been, so many folks would not have gone wacko and left the Church. Birth control was being seen as acceptable by many Catholics in the mid-60's...Vatican II did not produce that mindset. There was dry rot in the Church. Perhaps this is why Pope Pius XII saw the need for a council. Whether Vatican II OR THE INTERPRETATION OF IT made things worse will be discussed forever after, but it was not Vatican II itself that did all the damage.
-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), June 13, 2002.
ChristinaBless you, God is with you. Thanks for your affirmation on Pius XII's statement. It frightens me to say things without support. I knew i read it recently and can't remember where. You have taken a huge load of my shoulders.
Blessings
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 13, 2002.
Is this the same nonplussed +@+.+ that posted about being offended by the joke in the other forum?Are you the same person +++@...+....?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 13, 2002.
John,I know this got continued on another thread. But you will notice that what I learned from my priest friend reaffirms what you posted to me earlier. Thank you for your intelligent and thought out response. I am learning from you guys every day!
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 13, 2002.
(+++@..+.....), June 13, 2002. >>>>>> ''You say you are traditional and orthodox Catholics but you are most unwelcoming to anyone that does not share your exact thoughts and beliefs. They are immediately deemed a heretic, a liar, a schismatic. I see now how Joan of Arc must have felt before she was burned alive. It's a regular witch hunt in here. When all is said and done, you may be proud of yourselves but is Christ?'' --Proud of yourselves; but is Goddeee? --It's Joan of Urk.Poor Dear, her speech patterns are too hard to conceal. And it's the same complaint again. ''Anyone that does not share your exact thoughts and beliefs.'' To Sister *Bleed Baby Bleed*, a belief is either unorthodox, therefore excellent, or it's our ultra-conservative witch hunt. No in between. Nice logo, Joan-- (+++@..+..........)
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 13, 2002.
The decietful witch now hide in a wolves clothing as an anonymous person against the rules of the Moderator. I guess she has no CONSCIENCE. Oh I forgot, An atom does not have a brain. How fortunate it is for us sane people of GOD. We would all be dead if it did.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 13, 2002.
Eugene,When +++ mentioned a desire for Latin/English and commending "traditional Catholocism," I tend to doubt that this post could have been written by Joan. On the other hand, Joan frequently attempts to deceive new contributors...
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 13, 2002.
You think so? --I judge by the stock accusations Joan loves to make. So-- if a post is anonymous, and the e-address is fictitious, we can be allowed to speculate on the person behind the mask. I'll be more scrupulous about weightier matters.By the way; why such an odd fixation among our friends about the 3rd ''secret'' of Fatima? What could it matter, if the letter was only meant for the Pope to see? I think these folks who suggest we haven't been told ''the truth'' and the ''whole secret''-- have to realise they're calling our Holy Father a prevaricator, silent about truth, a liar for saying that he'd divulged the contents of this letter.
I don't think John Paul II has a dishonest bone in his body. Guess I'm a foolish Catholic.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 13, 2002.
Padrino Eugene,I also don't know why the 3rd Secret matters so much to people. At the beginning of my first post to this thread, I wrote:
"Mary gave as an infinitely more important message 2000 years ago."
I guess some people disagree... :-)
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 13, 2002.
Hi, again!Thank you for the kind welcome! I hope I won't ruffle too many feathers, though you must admit there are some strange "birds" flying around the altars these days that could use a little ruffling!
If anyone is interested, I have my own web site. Until October of last year, it carried the lovely (!) title "Jesus Is Dead - Get Over It!" Yes, I was a card-carrying, no-apologies Atheist, known as "Atheist Gal".
However, September 11th changed all that. Short story - I'm back, and now I'm "A Theist Gal"!
Will look forward to getting more involved in your forum - my link is below in case anyone wants to check out my credentials!
Love, Christine :-)
-- Christine Lehman (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.
Hello, JH.There are many, many things that you have stated to which I would like to respond, but I just don't have the time right now. Let me just touch on one or two simple things.
You stated, in reply to me: "I am in fact participating in a Mass that is also approved by the Pope. As I have stated many times, the Pope has given permission to any priest wanting to say the Latin mass."
JH, somehow you got the mistaken impression that I am against the celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of 1962 (which I think you attend). I am NOT against its celebration. I am NOT against your attending it. However, it must be a LICIT (i.e., legally permitted) celebration of that rite.
JH, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the pope and the local bishop have the power, under disciplinary binding and loosing, to specify where and when a Mass can be celebrated. Although it is true that the pope does not restrict the celebration of the 1962 Latin rite Mass to just certain priests, he DOES restrict the permission to celebrate it according to the will of the local bishop. The pope has expressed a desire that each bishop generously allow the public celebration of this Mass to take place, but he has not FORCED the bishops to allow its celebration at any specific location or time. And that is EXACTLY why what you and your priest are doing is dead wrong. Your priest is absolutely forbidden to operate independently of his bishop. Objectively speaking, your priest is committing a mortal sin of disobedience. I would have to check the Code of Canon Law to determine if he has excommunicated himself as well (for a form of schism).
To repeat part of my quote from you: "... the Pope has given permission to any priest wanting to say the Latin mass."
Your priest can remain in full communion with the pope and his bishop by celebrating the 1969 rite -- at any time and place (without special permission -- in Latin. The Latin text is in every Sacramentary.
Please, JH, do not continue to endanger your soul by wrongly thinking that you have permission to be disobedient to your bishop.God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.
Oh, I forgot two things!JH, please click on this link to see if you would like to join in a continuation of part of this discussion, which has been created by Mateo.
Christine, thanks for the wonderful news about your "reversion" [I am a revert too] and the link to your page. I look forward to your future contributions here.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.
No,I do not believe the Vatican has released the real 3rd secret.They say it belongs to the past which does not.they say it goes back to the failed assassination attempt on the pope.False.The prophecy given by Our Lady does not go with what happened that day.She sais there the pope would be walking amidst many dead people laity,priests bishops etc.There was a mountain with a huge cross.Was There any of that on May 13th 1981?NO!On that day noone was dead every priest and bishop were standing no mountains no huge cross.It was at St Peters Square.It doesn't fit the prophecies description.And I believe there's alt more t it than that,even Mother Angelica said so! And as far as latim mass goes I love it it's the best!There's no offense to God there!There's no Laity giving communion which is a sin,no communion in the hand, those who do take it in the hand sin,I know Padre Pio condemned the new mass so he condemned it,I know it's wrong just like vatican 2 is wrong(which he also condemned.They are forcing false teachings. Just like one time I was at a novus ordos mass the priest said there was no hell that it didn't exist.We know that is schism!Hell does exist Our Lady gave a vision of hell to the children of Fatima.I much prefer latin mass than the new one. I know if the consecration of Russia would have been done as OUr Lady asked the events of 9/11 never would have happened and we wouldn't be in the midst of the beginning of WWIII.
-- Laurie Anne (fourhope@aol.com), October 22, 2002.
John,Just curiouse: Who is JH. Are you thinking of jake@msn, Jake Huether (me), or was there another poster with JH?
I just want our readers to be sure that I don't support some of the notions of our other Jakes.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 23, 2002.
Hello, Jake H.
My references to "JH" are in June posts. You must not have scrolled up above my posts to see that there was a "JH (consulting@probank.com)" posting at that time. I don't know if that JH is the same as (the banned) Jake-MSN of more recent months. I do know that you do not agree with those guys (or "that guy").
JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 27, 2002.
In reference to the original question, the third secret is written on a single sheet of paper which was sealed in an envelope and delivered inside Sister Lucia's notebook. The four pages released by Rome are the pages of the notebook. The single sheet of paper with the third secret remains unreleased. http://www.traditionalcatholic.netyours in our Lord, the Christ, Jesus
-- John Anthony (a_traditional_catholic@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.
JmjJohn Anthony, you wrote:
"... the third secret is written on a single sheet of paper which was sealed in an envelope and delivered inside Sister Lucia's notebook."
Can you provide an official (i.e., Vatican) source of that allegation ("single sheet of paper")? I cannot accept claims about matters as serious as this based merely on your word nor on the word of the Gruners of the world.
All the actual facts can be seen and read here. Pictures of what you called "the four pages released by Rome" can be viewed. This site has all the official information released by the Holy See [Vatican City State, the center of the Catholic Church], as approved by Pope John Paul II, and this should not be sloughed off as "Rome."
A good Catholic, given the choice to accept what the pope has released versus the rumors that you allege, will always believe the pope. If you disbelieve the pope, I don't consider you a good Catholic.
Thanks. JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 03, 2002.
What did the Pope say about it himself, John?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 03, 2002.
If the secret was as simple as it appears to be, and there was nothing to hide, then why was it not released in 1960 as was ordered by the Queen of Heaven? Is disobedience to God and His Mother ever justifiable? And yet, John Anthony has been labeled a bad Catholic because he questions the validity of the Vatican released "document". The Vatican did not release the third secret when it was supposed to; most likely indicating the third secret had much to expose (notice the date it was supposed to be released was just before Vatican II), and the consecration was not done when ordered by Our Lord. The Pope(s) were blatantly disobedient to the will of God by procrastinating these events, and yet, we are not supposed to question the validity of them. The bishop who accepted the document from Lucia wrote down the appearances of the document. It was on a single page. Shortly after 1960 (when the secret was supposed to be released) no one could go and visit Sister Lucia without getting permission through the Vatican first. And then there must always be someone else present. Sister Lucia's sister has said that she can longer visit with Lucia unless someone else is present in the room. Strange, especially when there is nothing to hide.Our Lady promised that Russia would be converted, when Russia (not the world) was consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart, in union with all the bishops of the world, and a period of world peace would ensue. Are the current events the kind of world peace we have to look forward to? And notice the "wonderful" conversion of of Russia:
-Highest abortian rate in the world. An average woman has eight abortians in the span of her fertile years. -Biggest distibutor of child pornography. -Accelerating homosexual rate. -Extremely high divorce rate. -Highest alcoholism rate. -Persecution of the Roman Catholic Church, its priests and faithful by the Russian Orthodox Church. Even Vatican officials have expressed outrage and admitted persecution of the Church by the Russian Orthodox. -One of the highest atheism rates.
And these are the glorious effects of the Consecration? I beg, even at the risk of being labeled a bad Catholic, to question the validity of the document and the valid consecration of Russia.
-- (Tryingmybesttobe@goodCatholic.com), November 05, 2002.
To question the completeness of what we have been released in no way identifies one as being a 'bad Catholic'. I would be a bad Catholic then, and if I am bad you can bet it would be for reasons other than this.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 05, 2002.
Wrong; Our Lady of Fatima never ''ordered'' the Pope release any of the letter in 1960. The children merely said, ''She gave the letter saying it was to be kept privately by the Church until 1960.'' You seem to think there was an obligation placed on the Pope. Not so.You also say: ''Our Lady promised that Russia would be converted, when Russia (not the world) was consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart.''
It isn't quite accurate. She predicted that Russia would finally be converted, and consecrated to her Immaculate Heart. A prophesy which may yet come true. It has nothing to do with consecration of Russia beforehand.
You're trying to be a good Catholic; but you are a discordant voice, giving much vent to anger. That's not so good. ''Is disobedience to God and His Mother ever justifiable?''
What is your complaint? That you see disobedience and point the finger without true understanding of facts? Our faith demands obedience to our Church. Not publishing conspiracy theories about her prelates. If all your claims have validity, it is your duty to PRAY, not raise alarms. Above all, pray for faith, hope and charity. Because the bottom part of your posts is unhappy and pessimistic. That's the antithesis of faith and hope. Charity is your first obligation to Our Holy Father; not dissent. Practice these virtues. Then you'll truly be ''Trying to be a Good Catholic.''
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 05, 2002.
I agree wholeheartedly with this line Eugene:"If all your claims have validity, it is your duty to PRAY, not raise alarms. Above all, pray for faith, hope and charity."
I do believe that some of the claims have validity, while seeing the Pope as being a victim as opposed to any sort of perpetrator.
Hey John, I apologize if you get the feeling I'm picking on you or out to jump you in a dark alley so to speak. As knowledgable and well read as you are, I feel sometimes that you are unwilling to look more deeply into certain matters as if doing such would mean that you would have to compromise your core beliefs and loyalties. I know you trust ewtn, and I am sure that this trust is not misplaced, but at times things require more in depth research than perusing the ewtn take on things. At times we must look at what the other side has to say in a very clinical fashion, trusting that the knowledge and experience we have to accumulated in the Faith will stand the test of opposition. To play the devil's advocate is not foreign to the Church and plays a role in the cannonization process itself.
I went to see Father Gruner when he was here in San Diego a couple weeks back. I did not attend the Mass beforehand... there are questions as to his status, and whether unjustly leveled against him or leveled with the full weight of proper authority, I reasoned that if there was a doubt, I would automatically default to attending my normal Sunday Mass.
I did not hear anything in his speech that I did not already know. I came out of the conference somewhat disappointed, but I never feel that these investigations I undertake are a complete waste of time. He seemed to me to be a person of honesty, yet at the same time, there seemed to be that spirit of resistance which I feel the need to hold at arm' length; just a sense that I get. I, however, cannot be the judge of the truth in these matters. The real value of the afternoon I spent there was not in the conference itself but the opportunity to defend the Faith against the evangelical protestants standing out front of the gathering doing their thing.
I do believe that some of the claims regarding the third secret do have validity, and can easily make the case that holding such a position is absolutely in no way an affront against the Holy Father or the magisterium. In this age of diabolical confusion none of us would do well to look at one source for our information. In our pursuit of information and a fuller, clearer picture of the reality of our day, we must also above all else heed Eugene's admonition to pray and become holy. Mateo expressed this notion as well as Eugene, and they are on dry ground... to take this position is a garauntee of safety.
I guess my admonition to you John, if I may, is that to tell people to avoid looking at the other side of the argument on things is not always best... it can be construed as "hiding something" which will almost always be used against you as support for someone 'defecting' from the truth. It is not always so clear cut that all who question, as I, are in opposition to the Holy Father and the magisterium. I am hesitant to partake in a list of qualifying characteristics to which we would be matching people against to determine if they are 'good catholics' or 'bad catholics'. When I say this I'm sure you understand that I speak not of the realm of moral action, but of opinions held.
For instance John, according to your operating standard of what it means to be a 'good catholic', I do not qualify because I don't like the Legionaires of Christ too much as an organization (despite the fact that I have extended family involved with them). According to one thread, someone doubts my 'catholicity'. Let them doubt, as God's qualifiers are not man's.
If it conforts anyone, I have no intention of following Gruner anywhere... because I will not move from where I am. There are convincing opinions about the third secret that I lean in favor of at this time. They are not necessarily the same as ewtn's take on it.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 05, 2002.
^^^
-- - (.@.....), November 08, 2002.
JmjHello, Emerald. I have some responses to your comments. I'll put your words in quotation marks and mine in brackets.
"... I feel sometimes that you are unwilling to look more deeply into certain matters as if doing such would mean that you would have to compromise your core beliefs and loyalties."
[The mistake you are making, E, is to assume that I have not "look[ed] more deeply" already. I have been voraciously reading about most aspects of our Church, about some aspects of other faiths, and about many world events for eighteen years. I don't mean to say that I have seen everything and that I am never surprised about something that comes up here. However, it does not happen often. For example, I have been totally familiar with the Gruner case since the 1980s. I read a lot of what he published and much that has been said about him and about the secret of Fatima. (There is just one secret, in three parts.) All I can do is ask you to trust me when I say that, when something is in a state of uncertainty, I am not unwilling to "look more deeply into [those] matters." By contrast, when the pope has spoken, it is a signal that I need to investigate no farther. That is the case here.]"I know you trust ewtn, and I am sure that this trust is not misplaced, but at times things require more in depth research than perusing the ewtn take on things."
[I have said many good things about EWTN here, Emerald, but I am not naive. I have heard and seen some people make mistakes on EWTN -- in lectures, in celebrating the Mass, etc.. There have even been some live guests promoting private revelations in which I do not believe. I don't merely rely on "the EWTN take" for my education, for my spirituality, etc.. Heck, I was a fervent "revert" Catholic for nine years before I ever even saw an EWTN program.]"At times we must look at what the other side has to say in a very clinical fashion, trusting that the knowledge and experience we have to accumulated in the Faith will stand the test of opposition. To play the devil's advocate is not foreign to the Church and plays a role in the canonization process itself."
[I have nothing against "look[ing] at what the other side has to say," until a decision has been made. I reject doing that after the Vatican has firmly ruled, as in this case. When people continue to hammer away even after a decision, they are doing the Church harm, trying to subvert authority. By the way, E, the use of a "devil's advocate" in the canonization process was abolished by Pope John Paul II.]"I went to see Father Gruner when he was here in San Diego a couple weeks back. I did not attend the Mass beforehand... there are questions as to his status, and whether unjustly leveled against him or leveled with the full weight of proper authority, I reasoned that if there was a doubt, I would automatically default to attending my normal Sunday Mass."
[I would say, "Wise not to attend his Mass ... unwise to waste precious time listening to him, if you were aware of his status." I don't agree that there are "questions" about his status -- well known to have been irregular for more than a decade.]"The real value of the afternoon I spent there was not in the conference itself but the opportunity to defend the Faith against the evangelical protestants standing out front of the gathering doing their thing."
[Excellent! I praise you.]"I do believe that some of the claims regarding the third secret do have validity, and can easily make the case that holding such a position is absolutely in no way an affront against the Holy Father or the magisterium. In this age of diabolical confusion none of us would do well to look at one source for our information."
[Obviously, I completely disagree with you. It is an affront, when the Holy Father has approved the information that has been released. I consider it seriously wrong to suspect the possibility of "diabolical confusion" in this case. A Catholic of trust and faith does not have any use for "conspiracy theories" and fears of devils controlling the Vatican. I ask you to pray for greater faith, my friend.]"I guess my admonition to you John, if I may, is that to tell people to avoid looking at the other side of the argument on things is not always best... it can be construed as 'hiding something' which will almost always be used against you as support for someone 'defecting' from the truth."
[I hope that, having read my various responses, you realize that no "admonition" is necessary. As I have made clear, I am not against people "looking at the other side of the argument" -- in appropriate circumstances. I am not in favor of hiding anything. But here, there is nothing "hidden," and all the facts are on the table. The "circumstances" no longer exist for people to "look at the other side of the argument." There is no longer an "argument" with two (or more) sides. (That is the kind of trust in our pope that we must have as Catholics.)]"I am hesitant to partake in a list of qualifying characteristics to which we would be matching people against to determine if they are 'good catholics' or 'bad catholics'. When I say this I'm sure you understand that I speak not of the realm of moral action, but of opinions held."
I have no problem with people speaking their minds, holding differing view, on something that is a matter of conjecture or of personal opinion. But this is not permissible on matters of doctrine or morality, and it is equally not permissible on matters of simple fact. This is a case of simple fact. Fact: A "seeress" gave a secret message to the Vatican. Fact: It has now been revealed and interpreted by trustworthy people, as approved by the pope. Case closed. If someone tries to reopen the case by doubting the veracity of the pope (thus giving bad example to the weak of faith), that makes him/her a "bad Catholic," in my opinion.]"There are convincing opinions about the third secret that I lean in favor of at this time. They are not necessarily the same as ewtn's take on it."
[As I understand the situation, there is no "EWTN take" on the third part of the (one) secret of Fatima. EWTN merely was gracious enough to provide computer storage for holding the information released by the Vatican.]God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 09, 2002.
Alright.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 09, 2002.
That's an "alright" not in the sense that I don't give a rip, but in the sense of let me think on it a bit, and either respond or not respond. Not a flippant response.Just wanted to let you know your post was read, considered, and not wasted time on your part John.
God Bless~
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 09, 2002.
Thanks, Emerald. I just re-read my post from yesterday and realized that I may have come across too "bluntly," here and there. Sorry if this offended you.
JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2002.
No problem at all buddy. =)
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 10, 2002.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all.
-- John Anthony (a_traditional_catholic@yahoo.com), January 02, 2003.
I have been following this forum with interest. I do believe that the 3rd Secret Of Fatima has not been fully revealed and that the Popes together with all the bishops in the world have not consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Instead the popes have only consecrated the WORLD to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in total disobedience to Our Lady's wishes, who specifically asked for Russia to be mentioned. As regards the issue of the New Mass, I have this bit of interesting information to add. It is a prophecy made by a stigmatised Augustinian nun, Anna Katarina Emmerick in circa 1820 and I quote her.."I saw again the new and odd- looking church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it..People were kneading bread in the crypt below...but it would not rise, nor did they receive the Body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritualy consoled, but not by their communion. Then my Guide[Jesus} said:"THIS IS BABEL" [The Mass in many languages]." This prophecy is taken from "CATHOLIC PROPHECY, THE COMING CHASTISEMENT" BY Yves Dupont
-- Roy D'Oliveiro (roy.doliveiro@optusnet.com.au), June 26, 2003.
The purpoted messages of Fatima, like all reported "private revelation", are not binding on the Church, or on any member of the Church. No-one is required to "obey", or even to believe in any such reported "messages". The Church approves for private belief those few reported events which include nothing specifically objectionable. But that does not qualify such events as anything that demands belief, action, or obedience.As for the "prophecy" received by Anna Emmerick through her "spirit guide", it is apparent that the evils of the New Age were subtly active well before the full blown epidemic began. If reference to a "spirit guide" posing as Jesus is not sufficient reason to steer clear of this woman, the content of her "prophecy" - condemnation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist itself - certainly should be!
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 26, 2003.
Dear Roy,
Sheerly by coincidence, I read the words you quote here of Anne Catherine Emmerich just recently. The odd church she was seeing in the future is not the Catholic Church at all.Her vision was the timely warning of a movement under way amidst the ''intelligentsia'' in Germany of her own day. Many humanists, freethinkers and the powerful masonic lodges of the era were trying to form a secular church of the State; where Germans would be encouraged to participate in a modernised, ''superstition-freed'' congregation; uplifting the spirit of the German citizen and casting out the Catholic faith. It never got off the ground, later on. But, the speciousness of these dishonest men still went far toward corrupting the German people and fomenting national pride in every fool who learned from these sources. It led them into criminal aggressions against their neighbors, and two world wars. The fruits of the false prophets.
You must be very careful what you conclude from reading the words of visionaries and seers. It may be they're totally different from what you think.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.
Dear Paul:
I've read the biography of Anne Catherine Emmerich. I sincerely feel she is a true Catholic mystic in the tradition of Theresa of Avila. Her personal life was very holy, and she didn't importune in the least giving away her private visions. We know of them only because many excellent souls realised their sublime quality. She was a true stigmatist of undisputed spirituality and faith; an Augustinian nun in an era of vile persecutions against Catholic clergy and religious orders. Her sufferings were atrocious; and she bore them with grace for her Holy Spouse whom she adored. I recommend the Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich --by the Very Reverend Karl E. Schmoger, C.SS.R. published first in 1867. There are up to date editions of the book available everywhere, translated to English.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.
Gene is right, Paul.
You needn't worry about Anne Catherine Emmerich. She was no New Ager. She didn't have a "spirit guide." She really was a stigmatist. Most importantly, she practiced the virtues to a heroic degree, which is why the Church now calls her Venerable Anne Catherine.
John
PS: I don't mean this message of mine to be an endorsement of her alleged private revelations. I know too little about them to make a comment.
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 26, 2003.
Perhaps I owe the lady an apology - though I doubt it matters to her at this point. I admit I don't know much about her, but the phrase "my Guide" just raised a red flag for me, since personal direction received from spirit "guides" is a common aspect of New Age spirituality, and the content of her supposed "prophesy", if it had truly applied to the Mass and the Eucharist as was suggested, would have been totally off track spiritually. But Eugene explained that this was not the actual object of her words - a relief! Of course we should all have a spirit guide, but only one - the Holy Spirit. Other spirit guides are not of God, and do sometimes impersonate Jesus, Michael, or a saint. My comments regarding the proper place of private revelation in general still stand.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 26, 2003.
When they decided to turn the vehicle of salvation into a ricerocket, I hope that thought to put in side airbags... because you all just walked into yet another motherload of a denial-buster. Some quotes from Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich:"They must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome..."
The... what?
"When the Church had been for the most part destroyed [by the secret sect], and when only the sanctuary and altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers enter the Church with the Beast."
Hmmm... not good.
April 20, 1820: "I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps."
(...a little lower-lip biting action may be appropriate here.)
April 22, 1823 "I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church. . . But God had other designs. I see that when the Second Coming of Christ approaches, a bad priest will do much harm to the Church. When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. The nearer the time of the end, the more the darkness of Satan will spread on earth, the greater will be the number of the children of corruption, and the number of the just will correspondingly diminish."
...OUCH!!! That has GOT to hurt. Oooooo!
"I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church: I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening."
I see through a greenglass darkly. lol, I really do love you people; you're an absolute riot!
Want more?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.
John, maybe... you should read more. Broaden your horizons a bit. Take a break from EWTN.There's a whole world outside there besides right-wing liberalism.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.
He thinks wordiness is next to Godliness. You have brought the world to a standstill, good Emerald, with the swirl of your composition.If only G.K. Chesterton were alive; he would name you the heir apparent to his throne. You are born too late! That's the trouble with reactionaries.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.
"You have brought the world to a standstill, good Emerald, with the swirl of your composition."I figured it was more like I gave your composition a swirly...
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.
Not up to your own bon mottes, Emmy? Go ahead, rip mine off. I got a million! You can bring us to a standstill again today, clever boy. Just repeat yesterday's clever zingers. Don't try any surprises.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.
"You can bring us to a standstill again today, clever boy. Just repeat yesterday's clever zingers. Don't try any surprises."Really? Alright. But listen, can you hang tight until I get home from work?
Thanks my friend. See ya then!
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.