Our Lady of Fatima travels to Rome at the request of two Popes

Very good Mary Ann and thanks, I buy it.

 

Your an angel Kathy! I do not hate anyone tho. I feel sorry for the man. Seriously--can you imagine going before the all HOLY and IMMACULATE MOTHER OF GOD and (assuming he is guilty) being naked before her? God have mercy---gives me the chills. I hope it too was dementia...

 

Jon, I'm not going to defend the messages anymore. They are what they are. You or anyone is not obliged to believe them. 'Inner' locutions and 'outer' locutions are explained differently and when talking to mystics or those who receive them, many times they say they are given an 'understanding' of what our Lord or our Lady is saying. I don't know how much Msgr. Esseff is putting in there either. The titles I think are of him...

I personally never thought about our Lady calling the Church HER CHURCH. Because she is BRIDE OF CHRIST--which is both our Lady and the Church. Our Lady is the NEW EVE, but intimately associated as the daughter of God the Father, Mother of the Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit is our Lady's spouse and the gates of Hell will not prevail against the CHURCH, because the Holy Spirit dwells within it as a mystical body, then Our Lady is the SPOUSE of the Church. It is HER CHURCH. WE are her children and are the BODY of the Church etc. etc. Just my 2 cents.

I read every single message from the beginning and I do believe they have merit. We will however see won't we? I've been wrong before!!

 

The following is an excerpt from an article by Christopher Ferrara, the whole of which can be read here:

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/3rdsecret1.asp

"In 1960, Pope John read and then suppressed the Secret, consigning it a drawer in his writing desk. No sooner had the drawer closed, than the Church's opposition to the errors of Russia began to soften. And then things began to go terribly wrong within the Church Herself wrong in ways which had never been seen in Her entire history.

The opening session of the Second Vatican Council was attended by two "observers" from the Russian Orthodox spy-church: Vitali Borovoy and Vladimir Kotlyarov. Their attendance had been secured at the cost of the Vatican's incredible promise that the Council would refrain from any condemnation of communism. The "Vatican-Moscow Agreement" had been reached in secret at Metz, France, after negotiations between the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan, Nikodim, a KGB agent, and Cardinal Tisserant.10

The Vatican-Moscow Agreement was the personal initiative of John XXIII, at the suggestion of Cardinal Montini, who would later become Pope Paul VI and preside over the remainder of Pope John's Council."

 

There is a very, very unusual Spiritual Battle being fought around Mary's request for Consecration

At one level we could say, 'What really does it matter one way or another, it is only a small thing, a few words said by a Pope and the Bishops, what difference can it make?' In the same way as Joseph Stalin said, 'How many divisions has the Pope?'

On another its hard not to think, 'Well if it's such a very small inconsequential thing, then why was it never done?'

Then when you ask this question your eyes begin to clear and you see a real war is raging around it.That its a question of simple Faith versus unbelief dressed up as Worldly Wisdom.


Romans 4:1-12,

Abraham is justified by faith:
"1 Then what do we say about Abraham, the ancestor from whom we are descended physically? 2 If Abraham had been justified because of what he had done, then he would have had something to boast about. But not before God: does not Scripture say: 3 'Abraham put his faith in God and this was reckoned to him as uprightness?' 4 Now, when someone works, the wages for this are not considered as a favor but as due; 5 however, when someone, without working puts faith in the one who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as uprightness. 6 David, too, says the same: he calls someone blessed if God attributes uprightness to that person, apart from any action undertaken: 7 'How blessed are those whose offence is forgiven, whose sin is blotted out. 8 How blessed are those to whom the Lord imputes no guilt.' 9 Is this blessing only for the circumcised, or is it said of the uncircumcised as well? Well, we said of Abraham that his faith was reckoned to him as uprightness. 10 how did this come about? When he was already circumcised, or before he had been circumcised? Not when he had been circumcised, but while he was still uncircumcised; 11 and circumcision was given to him later, as a sign and a guarantee that the faith which he had while still uncircumcised was reckoned to him as uprightness. In this way, Abraham was to be the ancestor of all believers who are uncircumcised, so that they might be reckoned as upright; 12 as well as the ancestor of those of the circumcision who not only have their circumcision but who also follow our ancestor Abraham along the path of faith that he trod before he was circumcised."

 

5. How exactly is this consecration supposed to be accomplished?
A: True to Her word at Fatima, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy at Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929, to say that: “The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.” The phrase “by this means” is crucial, because it signifies that the consecration is not merely a symbol of the coming conversion of Russia, but the very means by which it will be accomplished. Thus, without the act of consecration there will be no conversion of Russia, and without the conversion of Russia, Russia’s errors will continue to infest the world, producing the persecution of the Church, the martyrdom of the good, the suffering of the Holy Father and ultimately the annihilation of nations forewarned at Fatima.
Over the ensuing decades, Sister Lucy has explained time and again that the act of consecration requires that the Pope “choose a date upon which His Holiness commands the bishops of the entire world to make, each in his own Cathedral, and at the same time as the Pope, a solemn and public ceremony of Reparation and consecration of Russia ...”


Which the Pope commands! And he will have to. Merely asking them to join in just wont cut it.

 

"In 1960, Pope John read and then suppressed the Secret, consigning it in a drawer in his writing desk.

Pope John was undoubtably a saintly man , It just seems he read the situation so poorly.

The Vatican-Moscow Agreement was the personal initiative of John XXIII, at the suggestion of Cardinal Montini, who would later become Pope Paul VI and preside over the remainder of Pope John's Council."

When Good Pope John should have been submitting to Our Lady's requests he chose a different route. and as St John Boco warned...“There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady. This will come about one year before the end of the century…” 1

Also since the first words of the third secret are 'In Portrugal the dogma of the faith will be preserved....' we can assume that there will be problems with the practice of the faith ,after 1960's.

 

Why was the third secret meant to be released in 1960?

S. Cardinal Ottaviani:

The message was not to be opened before 1960. I asked Sister Lucia, “Why this date?” She answered, “Because then it will be clearer.”​

 

S. Cardinal Oddi:

​

What happened in 1960 that might have been seen in connection with the Secret of Fatima? The most important event is without a doubt the launching of the preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore I would not be surprised if the Secret had something to do with the convocation of Vatican II… I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church; grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself…

 

Pope Paul VI:

​

The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.
Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions, October 13, 1977. Pope Paul was dead 10 months later.

 

I've always felt that it had more to do with the advent of "the pill" and the sexual revolution, which in its turn led to widespread apostasy and disrespect for the Church as well as disrespect for the unborn, for women, for marital fidelity & the breakdown of the society. I don't think that Catholics could have understood this in 1917, but then in the 60's it certainly would have been "mais claro".

 

Fair enough Lumena, but I think Cardinal Oddi was spot on.

 

Besides , why would that be so frightening for the Church to release?

 

That would not be the frightening part of it Mac, though it is certainly very tragic- but it is the chastisement that we bring upon ourselves by not holding to our faith - Faith of entire countries is lost because all hell breaks loose with the Revolution and Catholics defect over to the other side & live their lives as part of the culture of death, partly through ignorance but partly through the tsunami of immorality that swept through our societies, destroying everything, inundating everything "like filthy ocean water"... to put it another way, its like the part of the Quito message that says "innocence will no longer be found in children" - that is frightening - but the punishment due to the society that corrupts the innocence of children is truly terrifying - and the loss of souls. The Chastisement that the Heavenly Father is preparing to inflict because the blood is crying out to Him from the ground. I think the message explains that there is the loss of faith of entire continents due to the sexual revolution and all of the evils therein, (e.g the pornography that it spawned) and then goes on to describe the chastisement. And those who should speak remain silent.

 

I agree with everything you write there Lumena, But the church is still afraid to release the 3rd secret today, 40+yrs later ,so I think its a little deeper than the sexual revolution.The term "Sexual Revolution" has been used at least since the late 1910s[5] Some early commentators believed the sexual revolution of 1960–1980 was in fact the second revolution in America, they believe that the first revolution was during the Roaring Twenties after World War I and it included writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edna Saint Vincent Millay, and Ernest Hemingway. However the sexual revolution that began in the late sixties among college-age hippies was reaching mainstream, middle class.
The sexual revolution of the late sixties was an after affect of vatican II .
chaos in the churh, and thus the world.

 

I cannot see that Vatican II caused the Sexual Revolution. (As to the earlier Roaring twenties era, I was not around to be able to comment on that really. I can't guess at what it was like. e.g. In my own family, there was the occasional black sheep but the basic fabric of family life was still intact and still oriented to life. Those who were caught out with pregnancies before marriage were the exception and it was hugely scandalous, so much so that they had to be "put away" and the baby adopted out as if nothing had ever happened. Or the baby would be brought in to the family but the grandmother of the baby would pretend to be its mother.)

But the real revolution happened as a result of the invention of the Pill. Without that, the revolution could not have become mainstream. Suddenly, everything changed. With the Pill came the realisation that it would be easy to commit adultery. Also that it would be necessary to have a back up for failure/ unwanted / surprise pregnancies. So the legalisation of abortion was the next crucial step along the revolutionary road.

At Vatican Council II, there was great agitation from the Papal Birth Control Commission, (Pat and Patty Crowley and co.) (funded by John D. Rockefella? more on that later) for the Church to keep up with scientific changes and allow contraception. When Humane Vitae came out, the members of the Commission were gutted to find they had not succeeded in their agenda. Then came the era of rebellion among some of the Hierarchy/ Bishops conferences. Some of the laity were clamouring for a change in the Church's teaching and the Bishops, and priests (some of them), wanted to facilitate this. The whole subject had become too hard for them. It split the Clergy in to assenters vs. dissenters and it split the Catholic Church into a kind of de facto Schism.

Also, it was early days and as time went by, it became more evident and more understood that the Pill was an abortifacient. This still is not well known. At the millennium, I had to explain to a friend of mine, a protestant christian, a nurse, that her "Mirena" IUD was an abortifacient - she did not know. (She didn't want to know, either). How these devices and drugs really work is clouded over in subterfuge, even today. The doctors who prescribe them have ways of explaining how they function. They keep it simple. They say this will "stop you from conceiving. " As far as my Christian friend was concerned, she was not doing anything wrong. Far from it, she was doing something prudent and virtuous in her own mind. The reason I had to say something to her was because she was recommending it to other innocent women at her Bible study group.

 

If we are to believe that ALL the results of the Vatican II Council arise from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then we are in the uncomfortable position of believing that the cancellation of the decree by Pope Leo XIII that the prayer to St. Michael be said after every Mass for the protection of the Church, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. We are also in difficulties over the cancellation of the decree of St. Pope Pius X that all those about to be ordained take the 'Oath Against Modernism' which was intended to protect the Church from those opinions and beliefs now widely expressed by priests, bishops and 'faithful' in contradiction to the teachings of the Church. Are we really to believe that these particular changes were dictated by the Holy Spirit? I do not.

These are just two examples of many of undesirable and spiritually dangerous 'fruits' of the Council that have emboldened those, including priests, bishops and cardinals who believe that they know better than the Church. So, if there are some easily identifiable 'bad fruits' what are we to think of the rest of the 'fruits'. Free from error maybe but free from dangerous novelty which has yielded much trouble for the Church and enormous confusion - unfortunately and definitely not.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/fullpreview/?vidID=vort-2013-07-12-a

 

Christopher Ferrara:

"...as Deitrich Von Hildebrand has noted, ...... in 1973 that "the poison of our epoch is slowly seeping into the Church herself, ..."

Dietrich Von Hildebrand, The Devastated Vineyard, p. 75.

 

I have similar thoughts... but no need to argue. For me these locutions are important at this moment, because I have to decide if I shall translate some of them to Finnish language. It's quite a big decision and I'm seriously asking help from my dear Bogoroditsa, Jumalanäiti. She'll show me what to do...

I found today this sentence of pope Francis' sermon on 15th, August:
"And in the struggle which the disciples must confront – all of us, all the disciples of Jesus, we must face this struggle - Mary does not leave them alone: the Mother of Christ and of the Church is always with us."

 

I still don't know what to make of the , 'Locutions'..but I have to hand it to her, she keeps my interest..they're never boring.