Any regular reader of my blog knows that I am someone who does not give apparitions undue credence in the spiritual life. The faith is taught to us by the Church and we should base what we believe on Her teachings as properly understood. Reading the approved theologians will do more for you to understand the Faith than trying to discern the alleged sayings of an approved apparition.
Nevertheless, the letter was so blasphemous and fraught with errors, I felt compelled to make this response.
The Approved Apparitions of Mary
Only the following Marian apparitions have Church approval pre-Vatican II (there is currently no authority to pass judgement during the Great Apostasy), and notice how few there are; only ten (10):
1. Our Lady of Guadalupe (took place 1531; approved 1555)
2. Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (took place 1830; approved 1837)
3. Our Lady of LaSalette (took place 1846; approved 1851)
4. Our Lady of Lourdes (took place 1858; approved 1862)
5. Our Lady of Knock (took place 1879; approved 1879)
6. Our Lady of Fatima (took place 1917; approved 1930 by the local bishop and in 1940 by Pope Pius XII)
7. Our Lady of the Good Event aka Our Lady of Quito (took place 1594-1634; approved 1611 while still taking place)
8. Our Lady of Hope (took place 1871; approved 1872)
9. Our Lady of Beauraing (took place 1932-1933; approved 1949)
10. Our Lady of Banneux (took place 1933; approved 1949)
There are seven cases where the Holy See and local Ordinary have not pronounced directly on the supernatural character of the apparition, yet have implicitly attested to their veracity by approving the public religious activity inspired by the apparition and/or authorizing liturgical veneration:
1. Our Lady of the Pillar (took place 40 AD while Mary was still alive; considered the first Marian apparition wherein Our Blessed Mother assisted the Apostle St. James the Greater)
2. Our Lady of Walsingham (took place 1061)
3. Our Lady of Mount Carmel (took place 1251)
4. Our Lady of the Watch (took place 1490)
5. Our Lady of Siluva (took place 1608)
6. Our Lady of Pellevoisin (took place 1876)
7. Our Lady of Zion (took place 1842)
Holy Mother Church has only given approval to 17 apparitions out of the countless millions reported to the Vatican. I have frequently wrote against those I label "Apparitionists:" They are people who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). The late "Fr." Gruner falls squarely in this category.
Personally, I don't think Traditionalists should concern themselves over private revelations. To make the terminology clear, "private revelation" has nothing to do with the number of persons that claim to have seen and/or experienced something. "Public Revelation" refers to the Divine Deposit of Revelation given to the Church for all human beings to believe, so that they may be saved. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, in 100 AD. Private revelation refers to all communication by God (directly or indirectly) with humans after Public Revelation ended. I can't stress strongly enough that no private revelation, including those deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church, need to be accepted by Catholics. You can reject any or all of the above Marian apparitions and you would not be a heretic, nor would you commit a sin.This does not mean that private revelations are "useless." Obviously, if the Church approves something as worthy of belief, we can believe it without fear of sinning against faith or morals. God communicates to us for a reason. However, I refuse to get drawn into arguments over what a particular apparition or a particular revelation "really means." Moreover, it is by studying the approved theologians that we can learn the One True Faith and make our Catholic way the best we can through these most difficult times. To be certain, I believe in approved apparitions without making them the focus point of faith. I have devotion to Our Lady of Hope and Our Lady of Fatima. I wear the Five-fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, insert the "Fatima Prayer" at the end of each Rosary decade, and try to attend Mass every First Saturday of the month. These are great Catholic devotions all Traditionalists should try to maintain. I do not view "Consecrating Russia" as some panacea to the Great Apostasy. Nor will I quibble over specific sayings Our Lady is supposed to have said.
The Criteria of the Church When Discerning Private Revelations
As explained by theologian Volksen in detail (See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961] by theologian Volken) and reproduced by me here in outline form, some of the pertinent criteria in discerning private revelations are:
1. Every revelation must be rejected a priori if its context is opposed to Church teaching. In places where the Scripture speaks most explicitly of the discernment of spirits and where it urges Christians to "try the spirits if they be of God," it gives only one criterion which is of a doctrinal nature. "By this the spirit of God is known:every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God." (1 John 4: 2-3). That must be understood as teaching that every private revelation which does not confess Christ as God, and in anyway derogates ("dissolveth") Him by rejecting the teaching of His One True Church, is not of God and must be rejected.
2. A medical examination of all seers should be had to determine physical and psychological soundness. If the seers are healthy in mind and body, this constitutes support for a favorable judgement. If it can be established that the seer(s) showed all the symptoms of hysteria or other mental illness when receiving the revelations, a favorable judgement cannot be reached.
3. The seers should have deep humility (not seeking self-glorification), be obedient to proper ecclesiastical authority, and have fortitude. Fortitude is necessary, as the seer(s) will be pressured to recant and in many cases persecuted/threatened (e.g., St. Bernadette and the three children of Fatima). While they need not be saints, they should display innocence and piety.
4. The revelations must be of a serious nature and not frivolous or overly concerned with mundane things.
5. Any indication of natural explanations and/or fraud must be ruled out to allow for a supernatural character.
The Charges Leveled Against Fatima
I will reproduce the letter exactly as it was sent to me, but in parts, so I may respond to the accusations. The letter will appear in red font. My response below it will be in black font.
Holy Bible - Saint John 5:43 - I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.
Church approval of apparitions is not infallible.
Reply: The use of St. John 5:43 is disingenuous. The Blessed Mother never comes in her own name, and Fatima is not of Satanic origin. Sounding like Feeneyites,-- "It's not infallible!"-- the fact remains that Pope Pius XII, a true pope, approved Fatima as "worthy of belief" in 1940. Such approval is not ex cathedra and, as I stated above, no one is required to believe in any private revelation--even those with papal approval. You can deny Fatima without committing sin. However, to ascribe demonic origin to an apparition with papal approval is blasphemous.
If something comes from Satan, it must be (in whole or in part) heretical, evil, or both. The ultimate goal of the devil is to deceive the faithful and to lead souls to Hell. If the pope says a private revelation is from God, it cannot be demonic in origin. Pope Leo XIII teaches:
" In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [1870] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See."
(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #24; Emphasis mine).
In following the pope's approbation, one can be certain he is acting correctly without fear of evil or heresy. If the purpose of "demonic Fatima" is to damn souls (which can be the only goal for which the devil works), the Holy Ghost would prevent the Holy Father from approving it. Therefore, Fatima is NOT of demonic origin--and that is certain. That should end it, but the reasons advanced against Fatima need to be answered.
The false apparitions of the devil in in Fatima, Portugal.
1) An angel cannot administer Holy Communion.
From the Roman Catechism / Catechism of Pope St.Pius V:
PART II : THE SACRAMENTS.
The Ministers of the Sacraments.
But although God is the author and dispenser of the Sacraments, He nevertheless willed that they should be administered in His Church by men, not by Angels. To constitute a Sacrament, as the unbroken tradition of the Fathers testifies, matter and form are not more necessary than is the ministry of men.
Reply: Again, like the R&R and Feeneyites, a part of a Catechism is twisted out of context. As the writer is no doubt R&R (as he is sending his missive to an R&R website), most people in the R&R and Vatican II sect think of a "minister" of a sacrament as the local janitor who calls himself the "Eucharistic Minister" and hands out the Novus Bogus cracker. In the Roman Catechism (i.e., The Catechism of the Council of Trent), the "minister of the sacrament" is the one capable of confecting the sacrament.
For any sacrament to be valid there must be (a) proper minister, (b) proper matter, (c) proper form, (d) proper intention of the minister, and (e) no obex (invalidating impediment) on the part of the recipient.
Right below the section the author cites, the Catechism makes clear, "Since the ministers of the sacraments represent in the discharge of their sacred functions, not their own, but the Person of Christ, be they good or bad, they validly perform and confer the Sacraments, provided they make use of the matter and form always observed in the Catholic Church according to the institution of Christ, and provided they intend to do what the Church does in their administration." (pg. 155)
Christ made men priests, not angels. Priests confect the Holy Eucharist, not angels. However, angels can bring the Eucharist to people in extraordinary circumstances. Many saints have had angels bring them Communion. Here's but one account correctly noted from a Vatican II sect website:
"St. Pascal Baylon was a Franciscan lay brother who lived in 16th century Spain. As a young adolescent, he looked after his father’s sheep on the mountainside. While there he could not attend Holy Mass, something he loved to do as he longed to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. From where he was with the sheep he could hear the bell ring during Mass and this meant it was the time of the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Pascal would then fall on his knees in adoration knowing that Jesus in the Sacred Host was being elevated for the congregation to adore. The young man had an ardent love of the Eucharist, and when he was able, he would spend hours on his knees before the tabernacle. God was aware of the great love that Pascal had for Him.
During those times when his work prevented him from attending at Mass, the Lord sent an angel to give him Holy Communion." (See https://www.myfirstholycommunion.com/portfolio-view/angels/).
Therefore, there is nothing against the faith about the Fatima children receiving Holy Communion from an angel.
2) Who gave the falsely claimed to be an angel a consecrated host and consecrated chalice?
No Angel can do a consecration.
Reply: In no account I've ever read is it claimed the angel CONSECRATED the Host. He adored a Host already consecrated (perhaps by a priest or by Christ Himself).
3) Francisco and Jacinta had not received their first Holy Communion nor prepared for it.
The Parish Priest could not be bypassed.
Were they three in a state of sanctifying grace before receiving the false holy communion, which was without any notice? Did they need to go to Confession?
Reply: Who says, "the parish priest cannot be bypassed"? Like Home Aloners who feel every provision of every Canon must be observed even when impossible--this is mere discipline. God can certainly bypass a parish priest. "Did they need to go to Confession?" it is asked. If God allowed them to receive Holy Communion, we can be sure they were not burdened by mortal sin.
True apparitions are rare supernatural events, so why be surprised if they come with other supernatural acts by God?
4) The fasting law of the Church before reception of Holy Communion was to fast from midnight before receiving Holy Communion under pain of mortal sin.
Did they not eat anything from midnight? Did their parents send them starving to do their work? On a previous occasion they ate in the morning and went out.
Reply: God is expected by the writer to be bound by His ecclesiastical law such that He can't make an exception to it. Pope Pius XII mitigated the Eucharistic Fast to three hours in 1957. When in danger of death, Holy Viaticum can be received without any fast. So God made an exception for the children of Fatima.
5) Holy Communion could only be administered in the form of bread and not in the form of wine because that is what was mandated by the Church.
Lucia received the falsely claimed to be holy communion in the form of bread. Francisco and Jacinta received the falsely claimed to be holy communion in the form of wine.
Reply: Merely disciplinary. Christ is received whole and entire under either Species. According to theologian Ott, "The Whole Christ is present under each of the two Species." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 385).
6) Francisco did not know what he received.
Only Francisco, not having heard the angel, had a question to ask. "Lucia," he said, "I know the angel gave you Holy Communion, but what was it that he gave to Jacinta and me? "That was Communion, too, Francisco. Didn't you see the blood that dropped into the chalice from the Host?"
Reply: In the Eastern Rites, babies receive baptism, first Communion, and Confirmation all at once. Confirmation is more commonly referred to as Chrismation. A golden spoon pours a couple of drops of the Precious Blood on the tongue of the newly baptized infant to swallow. He receives First Communion, even though he obviously doesn't know it and will not remember it. Why did God or the Blessed Mother not teach the children of Fatima about Holy Communion before they received It? Who knows? However, it doesn't go against faith or morals in the least.
7) To administer Holy Communion licitly in the Roman Rite the Rite to administer Holy Communion had to be used.
Only the Pope has the authority from GOD to create a new rite for the administering of Sacraments.
The Council of Trent, "Canon 13. If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."
Only these words could be said for the administering of Holy Communion:
Corpus Dómini nostri Iesu Christi custódiat ánimam tuam in vitam ætérnam. Amen.
The falsely claimed to be an angel said this before giving what was not Holy Communion: "Take and drink the body and blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Repair their crimes and console your God."
Reply: The Canon from Trent forbids the ministers (priests and bishops) to change Rites, not the pope who has authority from God. Yet, the writer would have us believe God Himself can't make an exception?
8) No Holy Communion Paten kept.
God protected Himself in the Eucharist from profanation, so no paten would be necessary in this case.
9) Father Manuel Marques Ferreira Parish Priest of Lucia after interrogations told Lucia that the visions were a deception from the devil and not Our Lady. Father Ferreira vehemently denied any possibility of the apparitions being true.
Reply: Father was a mere parish priest and the approval of Pope Pius XII overrules his judgement.
10) Lucia was disobedient to her Parents and the Parish Priest.
GOD will never work through those who are disobedient. One of the biggest warning signs of a false apparition is if the purported visionaries are disobedient to the Church authorities.
Reply: This assertion has nothing to support it. These alleged instances are not enumerated and no details are given. Pope Pius XII had all the facts and did not find the children of Fatima to have been disobedient.
11) Our Lady who is GOD's most humblest child would never say that only she can help you. This is blasphemy to GOD. Saint John 2:5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Reply: That Mary has no power independent of God to save us, CONCEDED. God is telling us we must go through His Mother as the means He has chosen to save us. Her Rosary. Her scapular. All leading to God.
12) This has to be confirmed:
De Almeida claimed to have witnessed the whole event, but Judah Ruah, standing next to him, said he saw nothing at all. When asked why, he replied, “because nothing strange happened to the sun. But when I saw all those people kneeling I understood something to be happening and so I photographed them instead.” – On October 13 1917.
Sun:
Spiritual beings may appear to do things miraculous in our eyes, is by what is called fascination or bewitching, which may be conceived possible in two different ways, either by making such impressions upon the organs of our senses, as if the real material object that naturally could make them were present and acting on them, or by taking upon themselves the outward appearances of the things which they wish to represent.
The devil can perform an appearance of a miracle. For example, in Exodus, Moses changes his staff into a snake before the Pharaoh and his court. Then the Pharaoh tells his priests to do the same. In the sight of all, the staff is changed into a snake by the pagan priest. How did this happen? It must be remembered that an angel can move at very high speed, faster than light itself, and so he can substitute, more quickly than our eyes can discern, one thing for something else. Consequently there was an appearance of a miracle done by the pagan priests, but not a true one.
Spiritual beings, both good and bad, have a very great power in acting upon our internal senses, by altering and moving the humours of the body, so as to raise many ideas in our imagination, and affections in our appetite, will not be called in question by any who profess the Christian religion.
Reply: Offering as "proof" something yet to be confirmed is far from "compelling." Pope Pius XII claimed to have seen the "Miracle of the Sun" no less than four times. According to the Fatima visionaries, Mary had said there would be a miracle October 13, 1917, so that people would come to believe. Thousands had gathered at the site of the visions, and the sun "danced," reportedly drying instantaneously the rain-soaked land and spectators. Pius XII wrote, "I have seen the 'miracle of the sun,' this is the pure truth."
The papal note says that at 4 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1950, during his "habitual walk in the Vatican Gardens, reading and studying," having arrived to the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, "toward the top of the hill […] I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen."
"The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle,” he recounted. And one could look at the sun, "without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it."
The Holy Father’s note goes on to describe "the opaque sphere" that "moved outward slightly, either spinning, or moving from left to right and vice versa. But within the sphere, you could see marked movements with total clarity and without interruption." (See https://zenit.org/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun/)
As a priest, the future pope celebrated his First Mass on April 3, 1899, at the altar of the icon of The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, under her title Salus Populi Romani in the Basilica of St. Mary Major. Fr. Pacelli was consecrated a bishop the same day the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima. As Pope, in 1940, he approved the Fatima apparitions as "worthy of belief," and in 1942, consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (I refuse to get bogged down in argumentation over the "true meanings" of private revelations, and therefore will not argue with those whom assert he should have specifically consecrated Russia, as was the hallmark of "Fr." Gruner).
Divine revelation has already been given by GOD for His greater glory and the salvation of men. Nothing can be added nor taken away from it. GOD will not send any new "messages for the world".
'World "peace"' (false peace) is a freemasonic concept to bring in the Antichrist. Trying to make "peace", which is false peace, without being one with GOD through His Catholic Church.
1 Thessalonians 5
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say: Peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape.
6 Therefore, let us not sleep, as others do: but let us watch, and be sober.
GOD JESUS did not come to bring world peace.
Saint John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world.
Reply: That nothing can be added to the Divine Deposit of Revelation, CONCEDED. That God cannot communicate further with human beings to give them helps for salvation, DENIED. The Rosary and the Sacred Heart devotions are both products of private revelations. The message of Fatima is peace through Catholicism, not false "Bergoglian peace."
The apparitions in La Salette were another work of the devil.
“She wept all the while she spoke to us,” said Maxim.
”How long have I suffered for you!”
This contradicts Divine Revelation.
Our Lady can never be sad. She can never cry nor suffer. She is one with GOD in Heaven in perfect happiness for eternity.
Apocalypse 21
3 And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men: and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people: and God himself with them shall be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.
Reply: Mary was weeping, and seen in that state, to convey a powerful message. It is metaphorical not literal. Likewise, the Bible says of God how He had "regret" which is impossible for an omniscient and omnibenevolent Being; it implies wishing to have acted otherwise.
It must be noted that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office prohibited the so-called "Secret of La Salette" from being disseminated and discussed. It shows the vigilance of Holy Mother Church in protecting Her children. Here is the text of the Decree as published in 1915 with full approval of Pope Benedict XV:
"THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE DECREE CONCERNING THE COMMONLY CALLED "SECRET OF LA SALETTE."
It has come to the attention of this Supreme Congregation that certain ones are not lacking, even from among the ecclesiastic assemblage who, responses and decisions of this Holy Congregation itself having been disregarded, do proceed to discuss and examine through books, small works and articles edited in periodicals, whether signed or without a name, concerning the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times; and, this not only without permission of the Ordinaries, but, also against their ban. So that these abuses which oppose true piety and greatly wound ecclesiastical authority might be curbed, the same Sacred Congregation orders all the faithful of any region not to discuss or investigate under any pretext, neither through books, or little works or articles, whether signed or unsigned, or in any other way of any kind, about the mentioned subject. Whoever, indeed, violates this precept of the Holy Office, if they are priests, are deprived of all dignity and suspended by the local ordinary from hearing sacramental confessions and from offering Mass: and, if they are lay people, they are not permitted to the sacraments until they repent. Moreover, let people be subject to the sanctions given both by Pope Leo XIII through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities against those who publish books dealing with religious things without legitimate permission of superiors and by Urban VIII through the decree "Sanctissimus Dominus Noster" given on 13th March 1625 against those who publish asserted revelations without the permission of ordinaries. However, this decree does not forbid devotion towards the Blessed Virgin under the title of Reconciliatrix commonly of La Salette.
Given at Rome on 21st December, 1915.
Aloisius Castellano, S. R. and U. I. Notary."
From the Roman Catechism decreed by St. Pope Pius V:
Signs Of The General Judgment
- The Sacred Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist.
- Gospel preached throughout the world. (St. Matthew 24:14)
- Apostasy (St. Luke 18:8) and Revolt (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
- Katechon taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
- Manifest reign of the Antichrist (Three and half years) (The False Prophet of the end times will be the main instrument of satan to bring in the Antichrist)
- Final Coming of GOD JESUS CHRIST who will kill the Antichrist, destroy the world by fire and conduct the General Judgment.
- The Kingdom of GOD in its full flight for eternity. The New Heaven and Earth, the Heavenly Jerusalem for the elect forever. The heavenly liturgy forever and ever. Greater than any liturgy on earth.
Eternal torments in the fires of hell for the reprobates forever and ever as long as GOD is GOD which is forever and ever and ever.
The Apostasy has been and is here and so is the revolt inside and outside of the Catholic Church. It has been and is there to see in plain sight. After the gospel going to the end of the world comes the only one apostasy. The gospel has gone to the ends of the world. The apostasy has been and continues to go on now. Sacrileges to the Most Holy Eucharist and all the other Sacraments are going on in a massive scale inside the Church. Most Catholics do not know the basic catechism. The revolt is here in plain sight to see. It is lawlessness inside and outside the Church to make way for the man of sin and lawlessness the Antichrist.
Reply: He doesn't see the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. Not surprising after seeing his take on Fatima and La Salette.
There is no earthly restoration after the apostasy in the end times. This is absolutely clear in Sacred Scripture and clearly taught by the Church through the Catechism of St. Pope Pius V. GOD JESUS CHRIST who is victory himself has kept the final victory that will take place personally for Him. His Final Coming is at hand. It is He who alone will restore His Kingdom which is His Catholic Church.
The false apparitions which so many are trapped in are contrary to Divine Revelation which is the only infallible source and are a huge deception which is to catch unawares of the coming of the Antichrist hoping for world “peace” for a period of time which is a false freemasonic concept.
Reply: That certain aspects of Fatima cannot be understood, CONCEDED. Yet, papal approval of an apparition does not mean every statement ascribed to it is true, or recorded accurately. I don't understand what "Portugal will always retain the dogma of faith" allegedly means. Portugal is just as pagan as all other formerly Catholic countries. Yet, simply because we don't understand all things ascribed to a private revelation, doesn't mean we can't learn from those parts that are clear: do penance, pray the rosary, wear the scapular, make the Five First Saturdays, venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Can God permit a respite, or "period of peace" before things go even worse? I'm sure He could without violation of His Revelation. We don't know exactly what was meant, or if it was recorded accurately.
St. Matthew 24: in 24 shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
St. Vincent Ferrer (In relation to the end times):
masters and teachers no longer care for study of the Bible, but prefer the study of the poets and other profane works.
Masses and attending such and administering and receiving sacraments without the permission of the Church is a grave sacrilege, a sin of grave matter. Done with full knowledge and free will it is a mortal sin. Anyone who dies in one unrepented mortal sin will be cast by GOD into the eternal fires of hell forever.
From the Roman Catechism decreed by St. Pope Pius V:
I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood.
There can be no circumstance where masses can be offered or sacraments can be administered without the permission of the Church no matter how evil, unjust and wicked a Pope may be. This is against Divine Ordinance. The solution is only in the legal structures of the Church.
Note: Protestants are never Christians.
Reply: Now who is doing the "work of the devil"? He rips into approved apparitions in order to tell us that we are to remain in the Vatican II sect--the creation of Satan. Yes, a pope can be "evil, unjust, and wicked," but NEVER a heretic.
According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).
Doctor of the Church St Alphonsus Liguori: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes 9:232.
Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."
(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371).
Conclusion
I have frequently wrote against those I label "Apparitionists:" They are people who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of Lourdes) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses or Garabandal) over the teaching of the Church. It should be painfully apparent how placing these apparitions over doctrine will inevitably lead people into error (usually by being trapped in the falsehood of the Vatican II sect). People also fail to learn the Faith because they want to know the "true meaning" of the "Third Secret," or how some alleged saying of the Blessed Mother squares with the Bible.
Now, we have the sorry example of another opposite error: claiming that approved apparitions are the work of the devil. If there is a true pope, when he approves an apparition as "worthy of belief," we cannot declare it the work of Satan. You can choose not to believe at all, but that's foolish. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error and evil to the Church. Error and evil is all the devil works for, so that nothing that comes from the devil can ever have papal approval; the Holy Ghost would prohibit it. With such a hard line against Fatima and La Salette, isn't it interesting that the author of the letter doesn't go after Medjugorje? Bergoglio allows pilgrimages there. Enough said.
Hello Introibo
ReplyDeleteA very blessed Christmas-tide to you .
Thank you for a very interesting writing on an important subject.
God bless you and your family
TradSedeCath,NZ
@anon6:20
DeleteHello my friend from "down under" in New Zealand! May God's blessings be upon your family and you! be assured of my prayers.
God Bless,
---Introibo
It's true that we shouldn't obsess over private apparitions, even approved ones, but it seems to be a characteristic of some people to want to know the true meaning of hidden things, as on the subject of the end of the world, that some, especially Protestants, venture to look for the date when Christ said we can know neither the day nor the hour.
ReplyDeleteThis author did not mention Medjugorje, a real demonic apparition, but one whose pilgrimage Bergoglio has approved. This shows that he is not a real Pope.
Happy New Year 2025 to all ! May God bless you and your families, and may He bless the holy Catholic Church !
Simon,
DeleteHappy New Year and may God bless you abundantly in 2025!
---Introibo
God bless you too, Introïbo ! You are doing a tremendous job of keeping the true faith alive with this blog !
DeleteThis man is the king of cope. If he hates his religion so much he should leave it.
ReplyDeletePoni,
DeleteSo good to hear from you! I agree 100% May you have many wonderful blessings from God in 2025!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I still read your blog every monday, specially the comment sections.
DeleteI don't understand why you make this statement. He obviously doesn't hate his religion, but that which goes against his religion. Right or wrong, it appears his intention is sincere.
DeletePoni,
DeleteGlad you're still reading my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I said "hate his religion" because he is a lefebvrist, and lefebvrists are always complaining about their church (the novus ordo) and the Catholic Church
Delete-Poni
Thank you very much, a very profitable read. I for one did not know of the suppression of the 'Secret of La Salette' and find myself guilty of discussing and even promoting its content. I must make amends and I give ye thanks: thank you.
ReplyDeleteI think you may have overlooked the Virgin of Revelation (Rome, 1930s and beyond) which I had understood to have been the quickest approved of all Marian apparitions and which directly involved Pius XII - the overseeing Ordinary - via the Virgin's pre-apparition message to his sister regarding his upcoming pontificate; and, further, that the Mother of God appeared to him directly on the morning of the principal apparition to inform him that 'she had appeared elsewhere in the city that very morning'. My understanding is that 2 subsequent Sun Miracles (one caught on video tape recording) are attributable to this apparition.
Anything you can add would be greatly appreciated.
@anon2:47
DeleteIt is very interesting you bring up the "Virgin of Revelation" aka "The Virgin of Revelation at Tre Fontane." Theologian Volken does NOT include this apparition as approved. The V2 sect magazine "Inside The Vatican" says:
"It is now a shrine dedicated to the Virgin of Revelation, the site of an apparition which, though not formally approved by the Church, was acknowledged by Pope John Paul II in 1997, when he approved the renaming of the place as “Holy Mary of the Third Millennium at Three Fountains.”
(See https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/the-virgin-of-revelation-at-tre-fontane-three-fountains/).
The actions of Wojtyla mean nothing--and serve as disconfirmation, if anything! It is true Pope Pius XII blessed the statue of the Virgin of Revelation, allowed people to visit the site, and even allowed the alleged seer, Bruno Cornacchiola to speak publicly of his experience.
Does this constitute an approval, or just "I'll allow this until I can pass formal judgement"? Notice the article I cite does NOT mention any of this as a confirmation by Pope Pius. Bruno Cornacchiola does not seem genuine to me, for reasons to numerous for a comment. I might do a post on this one day.
Therefore, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Virgin of Revelation does NOT have Church approval. I could be wrong, and am open to correction, if someone can cite a pre-V2 source that affirms it as approved by the Church. It's conspicuous absence in theologian Volken's writing makes me think there's something else here of which we are not aware.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you very much for your detailed response Introibo. I will look further into it.
DeleteI understand Bruno presented to PXII the knife he had had inscribed with 'Death to the Pope' (and with which he was going to assassinate PXII) and that the same gallow as put on display in the Vatican.
I know, nor care, nothing of the involvement of the Polish gentleman.
Are we allowed to watch movies condemned by the legion of decency? Particularly miracle on 34th street
ReplyDelete@anon3:38
DeleteOther than movies that are pornographic, occult, and obviously against the Faith, you are not bound by the Legion's ratings/condemnations. For example, watching "Miracle on 34th Street" might be an occasion of sin for some, but not for others. I doubt in today's decadent culture, it would make someone "embrace divorce" in a society where it is already rampant.
I object to it and do not let children watch for a different reason---I hate the whole "Santa Claus" Masonic nonsense made to detract from Christmas. That's my opinion.
The decisions of the Legion--while providing a good moral compass---are not binding under pain of sin.
God Bless,
---Introibo
This is a very interesting topic and one that I have studied a lot in recent years. It ties into eschatology very much.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that one need not believe in private revelation, when something has been declared “worthy of belief” by the Catholic Church, why would one not want to take that seriously? Whenever Our Lady has appeared and the church has approved it, it is obvious that God wants us to take heed that something important is going on. If it wasn’t important, He wouldn’t just send His Immaculate Mother to us.
I have long believed that Satan and his demons have done everything within their diabolical power to try and destroy these church approved apparitions. There are two different takes on La Salette with the children. The first take is that Melanie and Maximin were very mentally disturbed children and this showed as the years went on. The other take (the one that I firmly support) is that there was nothing wrong with these children. They were heavily persecuted by the French freemasonic clergy who did everything they could to discredit them. France by this time was HEAVILY infiltrated by the freemasons. From Pope Clement XII in ‘In Eminenti Apostolatus’ in 1738 through Pope Pius XII, all of these popes were warning of the extreme danger of freemasonry and how they were infiltrating the church at the highest levels. ‘Humanum Genus’ by Pope Leo XIII may be the most famous papal writing against freemasonry, but there were MANY others. Several individual popes issued several condemnations of freemasonry under their individual reigns. It wasn’t just one writing here and there. One pope could have multiple papal writings against freemasonry during his papal reign.
Melanie and Maximin were heavily persecuted by the French freemasonic clergy. Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J. told of how 4 bishops (Bishop Ginovilhac of Grenoble, Bishop Fava, Bishop Gilbert of Amiens, and Archbishop Darboy of Paris) were relentless in their attacks on the children and how it was proof of Divine Punishment that each of these 4 bishops died terrible/strange deaths. It validates the children’s claims. Plus, Melanie asked the clergy when she was writing down her 1851 secret, how to spell the words “infallibly” and “antichrist”. A child her age wouldn’t even know what these terms meant! Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV believed in the message of La Salette and the children’s authenticity. Many saints believed in La Salette. This included St. John Bosco, St. John Vianney, St. Madeleine Sophie Barat, and St. Peter Julien Eymard. It has been said that Melanie was a stigmatist and a “miracle worker” (again, it is God working through a human vessel here, properly understood) and that Pope St. Pius X wanted to beatify Melanie immediately after her death. According to many reports, she left France because of the ongoing persecution against her. She eventually died in Italy. Another damning point against those who think the children were mentally disturbed: Wouldn’t the Immaculate Mother of God have chosen another 14 year old girl and 11 year old boy if She knew that these children would eventually become mentally unbalanced? Shouldn’t She have chosen more suitable children? She knew exactly what She was doing. While we should take the Holy Office’s 1915 message seriously about not discussing the secrets, it is nevertheless important (and interesting) to see exactly what took place here at La Salette. Again, the Immaculate Mother of God was sent to Earth specifically for an important purpose here. God doesn’t do anything arbitrarily. What would be the point??? 33 years (fitting number) after the apparition at La Salette, Pope Leo XIII formally granted a Canonical Coronation to the image at the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette on August 21, 1879. On that same day, Our Lady appeared in Knock, Ireland. Her silence there seems to signify that God was not happy with the silence by many within the church of Her apparition at La Salette on September 19, 1846. It’s too coincidental to be a mere coincidence!
CONTINUED…Fast forward to Fatima in 1917. Artur Santos, the Municpal Administrator of Ourém, in which the locality of Fatima is located, was a man who hated the church. He was a freemason and he interrogated Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta very cruelly. Again, the demons wanted to do all they could to discredit what Our Lady was saying in these apparitions (which were later church approved).
ReplyDeleteIt should also be noted that there was a dramatic shift starting from Our Lady appearing to religious to now appearing to innocent children. After Her apparitions in Rue du Bac, France, to Sr. Catherine Labouré, the shift was now to appear to children in La Salette, Lourdes (Bernadette Soubirous), Fatima, etc. Children became the recipients of the messages of The Blessed Virgin Mary.
There is also the numerology that is very interesting. The martyrdom of St. Peter was traditionally believed to have occurred on October 13th. On October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had his famous vision. 33 years later to the day on October 13, 1917 was the ‘Miracle of the Sun’ at Fatima. On October 13, 1958, Pope Pius XII was buried (and much of the church with him as the last true pope.) On October 13, 1962, the first session of Vatican II commenced, where Cardinal Ottaviani famously had the microphone seized from him. We can even add Akita’s last apparition on October 13, 1973 (true or false apparition doesn’t matter since there is no true pope to declare it one way or the other). Akita could be false. The point is –there is the October 13th date again. Again, God does nothing arbitrarily (even if He allows something by His permissive will when He permits something to happen). Everything He does has purpose.
May Our Lady under Her titles of La Salette and Fatima keep us safe in these dark times in which we live.
-TradWarrior
Akita...apparition to novus ordo nun? Who never converted?
DeleteSo much information has been distorted by freemasons etc. I wonder about the deaths of the seers of Spanish flu?, which was also a hoax like convid, caused by "vaccines"...so did the seers get shots? I am tired of all the "secrets"...and the manipulation of all information. God help us!
touch grass, then come back to your research. God bless.
DeleteAnon 11pm...like the comment. I try to ground (bare feet on earth or sand) every day, even in cold. A penance hopefully accepted by Heaven. God bless you too!
Deletecool.
DeleteStill no sacraments. I have been trying for years. I can't afford to go to a chapel where I am unknown, to receive Confession and Communion.
ReplyDelete@anon2:41
Delete"You can't afford"? How about saving up for six months to get an Uber each way to a Chapel? Why must you be unknown?
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo
DeleteThat sound's somewhat strange .It is like the other person in other comments the last few weeks saying they can't get a traditional priest to give them baptism.God bless
Because I have already been rejected. And I do have good behavior. I am just unwanted. So I have to go to a chapel where I have not been seen before. And I have hardly any money.
DeleteAmon 7:30: I am the same person. Some people think that I need conditional Baptism, some don't.
DeleteI just wanted to note that the apparitions at Lourdes took place in 1858, not 1856
ReplyDelete@anon9:08
DeleteThank you! I miss copied from theologian Volken. It’s hard when you have to proofread yourself!
I made the correction. Thanks again!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Um…”miscopied” !
DeleteSee what I mean!!
—-Introibo
Hello Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for all you do. Would you be willing (or able) to post a link to the R&R website where the letter making the assertions against Fatima and La Salette was posted? It sounds like it could have been penned by someone I crossed paths with before.
@anon10:18
DeleteMy friend sent a "copy and paste" of what was written. I don't know if it is still up. I'll see if it's there and put the link here if I find it.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, what do you mean when you wrote, "the letter was so blasphemous..." What was blasphemous? We are not bound to believe in Fatima and LaSalette, therefore, we're permitted by the Church to believe it's either a fraud or from the devil, right?
ReplyDelete@anon11:55
DeleteThat we are allowed to believe it is not supernatural, CONCEDED. That we are allowed to believe it is of demonic origin, DENIED. When the pope gives approval to an apparition, he is saying that there is nothing contrary to faith and morals, and it is a positive good thing to believe.
The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from ever giving evil and error to the Church. If the seers were deluded (or even fraudulent), papal approbation is an absolute guarantee that the messages are free of error and evil, and Catholics can get some positive good from them. Could a pious, yet deluded mind of a "seer" do such? It is possible. Satan never does anything "just because." He is the roaring lion going around seeking the ruin of souls.
If the apparition was demonic, it must have something evil or erroneous as part of it, or something evil that would come about from those who get taken in by it.
It is impossible that Pope Pius XII, a true pope, could declare such as "worthy of belief." As I explained in the post, the protection of the Holy Ghost over a true pope would prevent that from happening. To assert otherwise is to blasphemously assert that Satan can triumph over the protection of God the Holy Ghost. That is impossible.
God Bless,
---Introibo
If we are free not to believe it, then why not believe it? It would be because it's either a fraud or a deception, right? Therefore, since the Church is saying we don't have to believe it, then the only reason for this is the Church is allowing us to believe it's a fraud or a deception. It seems that your argument is falsely reasoned.
Delete@anon
DeleteWe are allowed not to believe it because it might not be supernatural. That it is wrong because it is DEMONIC is ruled out by the protection of the Holy Ghost. The Church is Indefectible and CANNOT give error or evil to the Church. Approving a demonic manifestation as “good” and worthy of belief would be giving evil to the Church and an implicit denial of the dogma of Indefectibility.
—-Introibo
If it is not supernatural, then what else could it be? I don't think your logic follows. It's either a fraud or a deception. There's nothing else it could be for one to reject it. A fraud or a deception is evil and the Church is permitting you to believe in a potentially fraud or deception. There's no way around it!
Delete@anon10:27
DeleteNo. A fraud or deception need not be evil in human origin. For example, what if the children suffered from some mental problem? Even if one did, he or she could influence the others' imaginations to believing something was real. The children, in their innocence, say things that would make one a better Catholic. Pray the Rosary, wear the Scapular, make the First Five Saturdays, make reparations to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
To approve such would make better Catholics. Nothing goes against Faith or morals. No evil or error has been given to the Faithful by the Church. In the case of the devil, he will ALWAYS SEEK TO DAMN SOULS. In this case, error or evil will be intrinsic to the apparition or will somehow cause evil and error for those who follow it.
That's the way around it---the Church cannot give error or evil. If you think she can, you are a heretic.
---Introibo
You partly proved my point. Fatima has "somehow cause evil and error for those who follow it." They stay in the Novus Ordo waiting for the consecration of Russia, they look to every other apparition that similar like Medjugoria because of the same type of sun miracle and others, then they cause division in the Church over following it, etc. etc.
DeleteAs for what else you stated, all 3 claimed to hear and see her. You're suggesting they all could have repeatedly lied about it. They all were tested by the government and lied again. They lied to the priest, parents, and the world and kept up the lie. I wouldn't even suggest they did any such thing. That's not even plausible in my mind. A lie of this magnitude is a fraud and deception that comes from the same source, hell! The Church is saying it was a possible deception from the devil and this applies to all private revelations where saints were involved. If you would like, I will try to dig up some theologians that will tell you the same thing. Fatima, even with nothing wrong it morally, could be a set up from the devil for other apparitions or problems that wouldn't exist if it didn't exist. There are problems however, and you have to make one excuse after another to make everything fit nicely.
@anon7:53
DeleteFar from it. All apparitions are subject to abuse on the part of those Catholics who make more of them than they should. The same was true even of Lourdes. Is that "demonic" too? There are people who think they can wear the Brown Scapular and live like a heathen, yet be saved. Is it the Brown Scapular leading to evil ideas, or those who give it a false meaning contrary to Church teaching?
A true example of an apparition leading to evil is Bayside "Our Lady of the Roses"--that leads to all kinds of crazy devotions. THAT is the type of "leading to evil" to which I refer. Our Lady of the Roses is FALSE and yes, I do believe demonic in origin. Same with Medjugorje.
Please read what I wrote to you. I NEVER STATED THE SEERS WERE LYING. I said one could have a MENTAL ILLNESS. Those with mental illness actually believe the auditory and visual hallucinations to be true. The other young children can become convinced they "see and hear the same." This is due to type of auto-suggestion to which very young children are susceptible. A prominent NYC psychiatrist I know spoke to me about this phenomena once. Therefore, it is not the product of a LIE.
Finally, you write: " The Church is saying it was a possible deception from the devil and this applies to all private revelations where saints were involved. If you would like, I will try to dig up some theologians that will tell you the same thing"
Reply: Go ahead. Find me JUST ONE approved pre-V2 theologian--with exact citation so I can look it up-- who teaches that "apparitions approved by the Church may nevertheless be of demonic origin."
I won't be holding my breath.
---Introibo
Before I try to dig some theologian for you, think about what you're saying. One might have a mental illness as a possible reason why it didn't really happen? You got a so-called miracle of the sun witness by quite a few people on the day they said it was going to happen. It's either from God or the devil. The only reasons why anyone would not believe it is precisely because it was from the devil or as the atheist would argue; it was the greatest coincidence of mass hysteria in the history of the world over an apparition of our Lady. I don't see any other conclusion than the Church permits you to believe it's possibly from the devil since there no other reason not believe under the circumstances of the numbers who witnessed the sun miracle at that specific time predicted.
Delete@anon12:25
DeleteTranslation: Before I go on a wild goose chase, looking for a teaching from a theologian that does not exist, I will try and justify that which cannot be justified.
Here is the short answer: The Church cannot compel belief on matters not in the Deposit of Revelation, and the approval of apparitions is not protected as a secondary object of the Church's infallibility as are e.g., canonizations.
Indefectibility will ensure it is not of Satan.
You are a fool NOT to believe in Fatima. However, it is equally foolish to argue over "true meanings" and build your spirituality around apparitions approved by the Church.
Come back when you have an exact citation that approved apparitions can be demonic taught by a pre-V2 approved theologian.
---Introibo
I never said I didn't believe in Fatima. I'm only pointing out your apparent error on the matter. I see you have no answer as to how it's possible to be anything else but God or the devil. Since the Church permits you to reject it, then the implication is you're permitted to think it's from the devil. Can you come up with a good reason why not to believe in Fatima outside of believing it's a big lie, since the Church permits one to reject it? As of now, I haven't found any source to say one way or the other. Perhaps you have theologian that confirms what you say? Would that be a wild-goose chase, too?
DeleteYou write, “I see you have no answer as to how it's possible to be anything else but God or the devil.”
DeleteReply: I answered you above that it could be the product of mental illness. The Miracle of the Sun need not be believed either; mass hysteria has been given as an explanation.
You write: “Since the Church permits you to reject it, then the implication is you're permitted to think it's from the devil.”
Reply: Wrong. You may refuse to believe but you cannot ascribe to the devil that which has papal approbation.
You write: “Can you come up with a good reason why not to believe in Fatima outside of believing it's a big lie, since the Church permits one to reject it?”
Reply: I believe in Fatima, but one could say “mental illness and mass hysteria.” Also, the church cannot compel belief on something not contained in the Deposit of Revelation and not a secondary object of infallibility.
You write: “As of now, I haven't found any source to say one way or the other. Perhaps you have theologian that confirms what you say? Would that be a wild-goose chase, too?”
Reply: No goose chase on that score! Notice how your “I can dig up some theologians..” now becomes “I haven’t found any source to say one way or another.”
Nevertheless, the pope cannot give heresy and evil to the Church even when not teaching infallibly; the Holy Ghost will not permit it.
Premise 1: The pope is the rule of faith for Catholics. The Holy Ghost will not permit him to give evil or heresy to the Church.
Premise 2: Pope Pius XII gave approval to Fatima and encouraged Catholics to go on pilgrimages there, and to act on its devotions. It was deemed “worthy of belief.” It is WORTH believing.
Premise 3: Anything that comes from Satan is tied to error and evil in some way. He seeks the damnation of humanity. He will NOT do anything that is purely geared towards human salvation, helping God.
Conclusion drawn from premises 1-3: The approval of Pope Pius XII of Fatima in 1940 assures Catholics that the apparition cannot be of demonic origin.
Proof of the certainty of following papal approval given to the Church regarding a matter worthy of belief:
According to theologian Benard: “We also assent unconditionally, with no fear of error, to the fact that the opinion the Pope sets forth is well founded and safe and is the opinion that we as Catholics are to act upon and follow. This two-fold view of the act of assent safeguards both the psychological reality involved and the docility due to the Teaching Authority of the Holy Father.”
(See Fr. Benard, Edmond D. (June 25-27, 1951) “The Doctrinal Value of the Ordinary Teaching of the Holy Father in View of Humani Generis.” Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. pp. 94, 96-98.).
Query: Can diabolical manifestations be taught as “safe” and Catholics can “act upon and follow” them?
From the popes themselves:
Pope Gregory XVI: “The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth — all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?” (Encyclical “Quo Graviora, para. #10)
Query: Wouldn’t a demonic manifestation “tend towards the destruction of souls”?
Pope Leo XIII: “This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate.”
(Allocution for the 25th Anniversary of his Election, Feb. 20, 1903).
Query: Can “the strong and effective instrument of salvation” approve as “worthy of belief” a demonic manifestation, which has the damnation of souls as its goal?
I think that should settle it.
---Introibo
It settles nothing. Your argument about how it’s possible that Fatima is false doesn’t work. All three children claimed to see and hear the apparitions. All of them repeated and affirmed and were willing to die for what they saw. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe or suspect even one of them was mentally ill or the others influenced by the mental one. Your argument that one could influence the others is nonsense! Mass hysteria is the excuse given by atheists and it doesn’t work either, because the sun miracle was witnessed by others outside the town and the wet ground and clothes were dried out in 10 min. That’s not mass hysteria. No, there’s only one reasonable explanation (which yours is clearly not) apart from God.
DeletePremise 1. Agreed.
Premise 2. “Worthy of belief” means that it may be believed because nothing was found that contradicted faith and morals.
Premise 3. Agreed.
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. The approval of Pope Pius XII merely assures premise 2. That’s it. It does not mean that it’s not of demonic origin.
You could not point to a theologian that supports your argument. Theologian Benard merely supports premise 2. Your quotes from Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII’s don’t apply because your queries are flawed to begin with. I’ll explain it a minute.
You couldn’t find a theologian that actually supports your argument, but I did find one that actually says something about it. Pope Benedict XIV said of approved apparitions: “It’s possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior.” (De Serv. Dei Beatif)
How could “good reasons” outweigh Church approval? The Church can be mistaken on an apparition. Even if, the children were nuts, everyone has mass hysteria, and an unexplained phenomena dried everything out in 10 min (as stupid as that possibility maybe) it would still mean the Church approved a fake apparition from Heaven.
This is how manifestations of the devil could be safe and worthy of belief. In trying to kill and destroy man, he gives us some truth and hides his errors. The devil could have given us Fatima, which has good things and truth, in order to hide his errors in other apparitions. Has Fatima influenced apparitionists? Yes. People see how awesome Fatima is and are ready to jump at the next one. In other words, the devil gives us a box of chocolates but not all of the chocolates are poison. The Church gives permission to eat the safe chocolates not knowing for sure where they came from AND SHE’S not absolutely sure if it’s a legit apparition, which is why we’re free to reject it. I can think of other reasons for the devil to manifest as coming from Heaven without spreading error…pride, temptations, fear, etc.
@anon10:31
DeleteHere we go again:
You write:
"Premise 1. Agreed.
Premise 2. “Worthy of belief” means that it may be believed because nothing was found that contradicted faith and morals.
Premise 3. Agreed."
My conclusion is necessary from premises 1-3. If Satan only works for the damnation of souls, and Fatima (or any approved apparition) is from Satan, Church approval of same would inflict injury upon souls and help Satan in his conquest of souls. THE HOLY GHOST WILL NEVER PERMIT A TRUE POPE TO DO THAT.
My citations more than adequately show this is the case.
What you attribute to Satan can be said of any apparition from those who make them a focus of spirituality. There were claims that Lourdes was "of the devil" due to human frailty in ascribing various things to the apparition-- NOT SATAN.
Your argument against the human deception just goes to show the legitimacy of Fatima! I agree! Yet, if we can reject Fatima, you assert, then the reason must be attributable to the forces of Hell! NO!
The citation from Pope Benedict XIV works directly against you---“It’s possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior.” (De Serv. Dei Beatif)
You ask, "What good reasons?" would outweigh Church approval? Pope Benedict XIV reigned from 1740-1758.
Do you really think investigations as to a person's mental state, medical conditions, and plots of human deception were anywhere near as sophisticated as in the 20th century?? Please. There could be many things unknown to the Holy Father that might change his mind as to the supernatural character of the apparition and would serve as good reasons for those who know the seer to reject it.
It IN NO WAY IMPLIES THE WORK OF THE DEVIL.
Over and out,
---Introibo
And let me repeat my queries:
DeleteQuery: Can diabolical manifestations be taught as “safe” and Catholics can “act upon and follow” them? The Holy Ghost would allow a pope to permit something as safe which if followed will ultimately be not safe because of his approval?
Query: Wouldn’t a demonic manifestation “tend towards the destruction of souls”?
Query: Can “the strong and effective instrument of salvation” approve as “worthy of belief” a demonic manifestation, which has the damnation of souls as its goal?
Hint: The answer on all counts is NO!!
Finally, you write: "...the devil gives us a box of chocolates but not all of the chocolates are poison. The Church gives permission to eat the safe chocolates not knowing for sure where they came from AND SHE’S not absolutely sure if it’s a legit apparition, which is why we’re free to reject it."
Where did you get this "teaching"? Theologian Gump?
Thankfully papal approval is not like a box of chocolates...we know exactly what we are going to get, and it can't be demonic.
---Introibo
Hello Introibo, I usually agree with you but I think Anonymous January 1, 2025 at 10:03 PM is correct on this issue. I also believe you're wrong for saying he's a fool for rejecting Fatima since the Church allows one not to believe in private revelations. You're actually arguing against the Church at this point. Lastly, you've become uncharitable in mocking his explanation. Regardless how much you disagree, your attitude tends to be prideful!
Delete@anon1:19
DeleteWell, I run this blog and I need to defend Church teaching.
As you are aware, I let those who disagree with me comment freely as long as a few simple rules are kept (no blasphemy, no vile language, no attacks on my guest posters). However, if I just keep repeating myself with someone who repeats himself, I have to cut it off at some point. He had come back with more of the same, and I'm not continuing that.
I stand by my statement that --although free to do so without sinning---any person is a fool to reject an approved apparition. Just because something is permissible doesn't make it wise. I see no good reasons to reject the heavenly supernatural character of either Fatima or La Salette. Church approval doesn't come lightly, and they are approved for a reason. So, I am not "arguing against the Church." It is settled doctrine that you can disbelieve any apparition--even those approved by the Church---but I need not think that it is a WISE decision even if one that can be made without sinning.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not becoming an "apparitionist." I am not going to build my spiritual practices around one or more approved apparitions, no will I argue over alleged "true meanings" of statements and secrets.
Yes, I can get sarcastic at times. I guess it comes with the territory when you're an attorney in NYC, and even here from battling Feeneyites (they are the ultimate in being uncharitable!). Prideful? Maybe so. I will try to be more charitable in tone.
Thank you for the fraternal correction!
God Bless,
---Introibo
That is not true. Woke people and Nazis are meaner.
DeleteIntroibo, I understand that you must defend Church teaching, but the Church doesn’t teach that absolutely everything the devil does is evil. You posted an article on Sister Magdalena of the Cross where so-called healings were performed. Nothing was seen contrary to the faith until later. There are numerous stories of demonic activity where not everything was evil. Anonymous January 1, 2025 at 10:03 PM is arguing this point. The devil uses these types of prodigies to springboard his errors later, perhaps with later apparitions with Lucia that have not been approved and yet accepted because it was Lucia of Fatima. Surely, you can see how such a thing is possible with approved private revelations. The Church is not approving evil because nothing was against faith and morals in the initial message and Anonymous January 1, 2025 at 10:03 PM made this distinction...you know, the chocolates. The argument then boils down to what the devil can and can't do.
DeleteAs for wise decision or not to accept approved private revelation, you just argued that because Pope Benedict XIV’s teaching came in the 1700’s, his teaching is not relevant anymore because our advancements in the 20th century. You’re now arguing that there’s no such a thing as “good reasons” to reject an approved apparition. Wow!!! Only fools reject approved apparitions? Wow!!! What’s ironic is that you gave possible “good reasons” with mental illness, mass hysteria, etc. but in our “sophisticated" 20th century understanding of things, "good reasons" don't exist now, hence, "any person is a fool to reject an approved apparition." What you seem to miss is that you just argued on behalf of Anonymous January 1, 2025 at 10:03 PM because he already admitted that your explanations weren't good. No natural explanation even works, yet we're free to reject it. Hence, the only real possibility is the devil at work, which is the only reason an intelligent Catholic would reject it and there are quite a few that do. In fact, it looks like Lucia's Bishop da Silva and Pope Pius XII didn't believe it 100% since neither did what was asked of them.
@anon8:51
DeleteI must disagree.
You write, "...the Church doesn’t teach that absolutely everything the devil does is evil."
According to theologian Sagues, "Their [demons and Satan] will because of sin is perfectly obstinate in evil. Hence based on a teaching that is at least certain, the devil cannot do salutary repentance, since he is deprived of all grace; nor can he have even natural repentance, according to the common teaching. Likewise, IN EVERY ACT HE ACTS IN A MORALLY EVIL WAY. For since he is irrevocably turned away from God and turned toward an evil end, he CANNOT (even though he may do something good in itself) DO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR THAT END. (See "Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB," [1955], pg. 196; Emphasis mine).
Yes, the Church teaches that everything the devil does is either evil per se, or something good that works towards an evil end.
Sister Magdalena is apples to oranges. It was not the subject of formal papal approval.
It should be obvious that since the devil can ONLY do evil or something good for an evil end, the Holy Ghost would prevent the Holy Father from giving such to the Church as an approved apparition which will damn souls.
You write, "As for wise decision or not to accept approved private revelation, you just argued that because Pope Benedict XIV’s teaching came in the 1700’s, his teaching is not relevant anymore because our advancements in the 20th century. You’re now arguing that there’s no such a thing as “good reasons” to reject an approved apparition."
Reply: Here is what I wrote: "The citation from Pope Benedict XIV works directly against you---“It’s possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior.” (De Serv. Dei Beatif)
You ask, "What good reasons?" would outweigh Church approval? Pope Benedict XIV reigned from 1740-1758.
Do you really think investigations as to a person's mental state, medical conditions, and plots of human deception were anywhere near as sophisticated as in the 20th century?? Please. There could be many things unknown to the Holy Father that might change his mind as to the supernatural character of the apparition and would serve as good reasons for those who know the seer to reject it.
It IN NO WAY IMPLIES THE WORK OF THE DEVIL."
It should be obvious that a "good reason" was more available in the 1700s as opposed to the 1900s but in any case the DEMONIC IS PRECLUDED.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write: "Only fools reject approved apparitions? Wow!!! What’s ironic is that you gave possible “good reasons” with mental illness, mass hysteria, etc. but in our “sophisticated" 20th century understanding of things, "good reasons" don't exist now, hence, "any person is a fool to reject an approved apparition." What you seem to miss is that you just argued on behalf of Anonymous January 1, 2025 at 10:03 PM because he already admitted that your explanations weren't good."
DeleteReply: I gave good natural explanations, but if they are not tenable (they are not) there is no good reason to reject an approved apparition!
You write: "No natural explanation even works, yet we're free to reject it. Hence, the only real possibility is the devil at work, which is the only reason an intelligent Catholic would reject it and there are quite a few that do."
Reply: No. As I explained numerous times now, demonic activity is precluded by papal approbation. The Church CANNOT propose for belief something that is not part of the Deposit of Revelation, and not protected as a secondary object of the Church's infallibility, like apparitions. Someone could simply refuse to believe because "I feel apparitions are a distraction from learning the Faith, and lead to unnecessary arguments over what was meant. We need to know the Faith and practice tried and true means of enhancing our spiritual life. Therefore, I will not accept or think about this apparition." A good reason without invoking demonic manifestations.
My questions remain:
Query: Can diabolical manifestations be taught as “safe” and Catholics can “act upon and follow” them? The Holy Ghost would allow a pope to permit something as safe which if followed will ultimately be not safe because of his approval?
Query: Wouldn’t a demonic manifestation “tend towards the destruction of souls”?
Query: Can “the strong and effective instrument of salvation” approve as “worthy of belief” a demonic manifestation, which has the damnation of souls as its goal?
Unless one is willing to reply "yes" and explain how/why, I stand by what I wrote.
The idea that a papally approved apparition can be demonically influenced and "lead to evil" is no different from those who reject the Pian Holy Week of 1955 claiming "it was good in itself but led to the Novus Bogus of 1969." Please.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I believe you have a yes and an explanation. You have just chosen to ignore it.
Delete@anon11:36
DeleteThat’s not a rebuttal or defeater. Papal approval removes any doubt about demonic involvement. I will make this my last word on the topic for this post.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Can you cite a theologian that says what you just said?
Delete"Something good for an evil end" as you just stated is exactly the argument I'm making. The end could be a future apparition to Lucia not approved that people will accept just because Fatima was approved. A great trick of the devil is to use our ignorance of Catholic teaching against us. This is theoretically possible. Again, Fatima is "worthy of belief" which simply means we are free to believe it even if everything doesn't add up very well. Nothing is contrary to faith and morals at Fatima. That doesn't prove absolutely that it didn't have a demonic origin.
Delete@anon4:30 and 4:40
DeleteI have already given proof in the post and in these comments that (1) the pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving heresy and evil; (2) anything that comes from Satan and his demons can ONLY be evil, erroneous per se or lead to such; (3) Pope Pius XII approved Fatima as worthy of belief. From these three premises, the conclusion necessarily follows that Fatima (or any papally approved apparition) CANNOT be demonic in origin for the Holy Ghost would prevent the pope from approving it.
You write, " A great trick of the devil is to use our ignorance of Catholic teaching against us."
Reply: Yes, and I'm afraid he's using it against you; a case in point.
Your argument is indistinguishable from the late Fr. Cekada and the SSPV who refuse to use the Pian Holy Week Rites. They argue:
1. The Holy Week Rites of Pope Pius cannot contain heresy or evil because of the protection of the Holy Ghost.
2. However, Bugnini (a Freemason who follows Satan) had them approved so they would "lead to" the Novus Bogus bread and wine service of 1969.
3. Conclusion, we should not use them because they were crafted by a Freemason who wanted them to lead to evil and heresy in 1969.
I have written more than once against this fallacious argument. A papally approved Rite CANNOT be--or lead to---heresy and/or evil. The Holy Ghost would not permit it. To give but one example, if genuflecting for the Jews was correct in 1956, how did it "become evil" in 1969? It was either always wrong or never wrong. The Church CHOSE not to do so in the past, but that didn't make it wrong to genuflect per se. To read more see https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-bugnini-free-holy-week.html
Your argument:
1. Fatima cannot contain heresy or evil because it was approved by Pope Pius XII.
2. Nevertheless, Fatima can be of the devil because it will "lead to" acceptance of patently false apparitions like Bayside.
Just as with the rejection of the Pian Holy Week, it is WRONG. The "box of chocolates" doctrine is pure R&R: The pope says something is safe to follow yet some of it is erroneous and we must pick and choose the good from the bad. That's how Bp. Fellay and the SSPX treat Vatican II and Bergoglio--pick out the parts we like and reject the rest. That's not Catholic teaching!
If what you claim is true ALL apparitions should be rejected in whole. Why would a pope allow pilgrimages to the site of a Satanic manifestation? Bless the statue of the Blessed Mother under a title that is false and Satanic in origin? And if the pope WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE HOLY GHOST can't be sure what is and isn't of the devil, you trust YOURSELF as a layman to so decide??
That would be sheer arrogance and/or foolishness. I would STAY AWAY for fear of being taken in and losing my soul.
God Bless,
---Introibo
You already admitted that the devil can do good for an evil end. Therefore, "anything that comes from Satan and his demons can ONLY be evil, erroneous per se or lead to such" is false.
DeleteThe good is what the Church can approve as "worthy of belief" when it can't know for sure from whence it came. The problem is when Catholics accept that which is not approved based on the original. It's also possible that the seer is not holy, made a pact with satan in order to appear holy and favored by God with a "miraculous event." As long as nothing is contrary to faith and morals, the Church could approve the event. It's not approving of evil because the event itself was not evil. Cekada's argument is different in that the Pian changes leads to error by itself whereas Fatima does not. That's the difference.
You said to me I'm being tricked by the devil a case in point. However, I'm the one being cautious and reasonable about what's possible. We don't have to accept private revelations. Are you saying rejecting approved apparitions is a trick of the devil, the very thing the Church permits????
The Church could theoretically approve a private revelation of demonic origin as long as there's nothing contrary to faith and morals.
@anon6:54
DeleteYou write, "You already admitted that the devil can do good for an evil end. Therefore, "anything that comes from Satan and his demons can ONLY be evil, erroneous per se or lead to such" is false."
Reply: I hope you see the glaring faulty logic in what you wrote. Premise: the Church teaches that everything the devil does is either evil per se, or something good that works towards an evil end. (from theologian Sagues whom I cited in a comment above).
Therefore: If Fatima is of Satanic origin it is either evil/erroneous per se or leads to such. This is inescapable.
You write: " It's not approving of evil because the event itself was not evil."
Reply: False. What comes from Satan is evil or will lead soul to evil. The Holy Ghost does not and will not permit the pope to approve anything Satanic.
You write: "Cekada's argument is different in that the Pian changes leads to error by itself whereas Fatima does not. That's the difference."
Reply: Read what Fr. Cekada wrote. He doesn't say that the Pian reforms themselves lead to the Novus Bogus. He says (correctly) they are wholly Catholic. It's certain principles that can be twisted, he asserts. In that he's WRONG!
You write, "We don't have to accept private revelations. Are you saying rejecting approved apparitions is a trick of the devil, the very thing the Church permits????"
Reply: I never asserted this at all. I'm saying that we need to learn from approved apparitions while not making them the focus point of our Faith. THERE is where problems begin.
You write: "The Church could theoretically approve a private revelation of demonic origin as long as there's nothing contrary to faith and morals."
Reply: For all the reasons I've enumerated both in this post and in these comments; DENIED AS FALSE.
---Introibo
If the Church could approve a private revelation of human fraud, which is evil, She could most certainly do the same if it came from the devil, especially since human lies has Satan as the father. You can’t have one without the other. There’s no guarantee from the Church that private revelation is legit and admits as much. See CE and Pope Benedict XIV.
DeleteCekada said the Pian changes themselves became harmful after the novus bogus was invented.
You said that I was being tricked by the devil a case in point when I said, “A great trick of the devil is to use our ignorance of Catholic teaching against us.” I was referring to the fact that Catholic teaching doesn’t say that an approved apparition automatically approves future apparitions to the same person.” How am I being tricked by the devil?
@anon9:12
DeleteThere's no point in this anymore. You refuse to believe that the pope cannot approve as a true apparition what is demonic.
You write, "If the Church could approve a private revelation of human fraud, which is evil, She could most certainly do the same if it came from the devil, especially since human lies has Satan as the father."
Reply: False. I distinguish: a lie from humans does not need to contain error and/or evil. Some person could say, "God told me that people should pray the Rosary daily." This is a lie. He wants 15 minutes of fame. However, praying the Rosary daily will help people achieve salvation. Moreover, the person perpetrating the hoax may not want to give evil or heresy, just wanting attention. THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID OF THE DEVIL. Using his angelic power for evil, he will give good ONLY if it leads to evil. Furthermore, while the devil tempts people to sin, a person who sins is not "demonic." Therefore, a liar is not necessarily "an extension of Satan." The two are therefore wat different and you can have one without the other.
You write, "There’s no guarantee from the Church that private revelation is legit and admits as much. See CE and Pope Benedict XIV."
Reply: Being legitimate and coming from Satan are two different things.
You write, "Cekada said the Pian changes themselves became harmful after the novus bogus was invented."
Reply: He said principles were introduced which were good but became evil. Read what he wrote.
You write: "I was referring to the fact that Catholic teaching doesn’t say that an approved apparition automatically approves future apparitions to the same person."
Reply: If that is what you meant, I apologize. That is correct. Just because one apparition of a seer is approved by the pope is no guarantee future apparitions from the same seer will be approved.
---Introibo
You write: I distinguish: a lie from humans does not need to contain error and/or evil.
DeleteThe problem is that a lie like that is evil and it ultimately comes from the devil anyway! He’s the father of lies! The Church can approve such a lie. The devil could do the same for the same reason, his pride to have the Church approve of his hoax.
You write: Being legitimate and coming from Satan are two different things.
The problem is that the devil is the root of all lies and hoaxes. They ultimately come from him anyway.
Never has the Church declared that any private revelation was not or does not have demonic origin. It would be very easy for the Church just say what you have said but has not said it. Therefore, it leaves the possibility open.
@anon9:47
DeleteYou persist in your error. I am not publishing any more comments on this from you on this post after I respond for the umpteenth time.
You write: "The problem is that a lie like that is evil and it ultimately comes from the devil anyway! He’s the father of lies! "
Reply: WRONG. Sheer theological ignorance to which I already responded. "Father of lies" means he was "the first liar" in the Garden of Eden. It does NOT mean every time a person lies it was inspired by Satan or comes from Satan. The very idea is absurd. We struggle against the devil, THE FLESH, and THE WORLD. Someone who wants 15 minutes of fame can do so for want of human respect, not because "the devil made me do it."
You write: "The problem is that the devil is the root of all lies and hoaxes. They ultimately come from him anyway."
Reply: No, as explained above lies and hoaxes don't "ultimately come from him." Many sins come from the wounded human nature rebelling against God--no demonic influence required.
You write, "Never has the Church declared that any private revelation was not or does not have demonic origin. It would be very easy for the Church just say what you have said but has not said it. Therefore, it leaves the possibility open."
Reply: False. Can a private revelation come from Satan? Sure. Can a private revelation APPROVED BY THE POPE come from Satan? No, because of the protection of the Holy Ghost. The Church has taught (1) the pope cannot give heresy or evil to the Church. (2) Anything that comes from Satan would give evil per se or lead to such. Therefore, anything with papal approbation to the whole Church cannot come from Satan.
It is a logical and necessary corollary, the denial of which would be an implicit denial of Indefectibility.
End of story.
---Introibo
Why does everybody say the Fatima prayer during the Rosary wrong after the Glory Be and then when you tell them about it they act as they aren't doing it wrong nor change the way they pray it?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Thomas Walsh who interviewed Sr. Lucia back in the 1946 asks her "In many books about Fatima, the prayer Our Lady asked you to say after the decades of the Rosary is given in some such form as this 'O my Jesus, pardon us, save us from the fire of hell, have mercy on the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.' Is this correct?
NO, it is not she replied positively. The correct form is the one I have written in my account of the apparition on July 13th: 'O my Jesus, pardon us, and save us from the fire of hell; draw all souls to heaven, especially those in most need"
Everybody says it this way, 'O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven especially those in most need of thy mercy."
Some may say it's interchangeable language. Some may say it's the same meaning. The problem is that it is NOT the right way to pray it.
As far as Fatima goes I believe it because the Church says it's worthy of belief, but if people do not want to believe it then oh well. Catholics are only required to believe in the authority of the Church, sacred tradition, Holy Scripture, and the dogmas and certain doctrines defined by the Church. Just my thoughts.
Lee
Lee,
Deleteinteresting info re: the Fatima prayer! Happy New Year, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I never knew this info Lee .Thank you for sharing .Which book did you obtain it?
DeleteJames
James,
DeleteIt comes from this book Our Lady of Fatima by William Thomas Walsh - Link here: https://www.pucsp.br/sites/default/files/download/pastoral/our-lady-of-fatima-william-thomas-walsh.pdf
Pages 100,142, 228
Lee
Lee, I also knew long ago regarding the incorrect prayer. I thought it was Novus Ordo-ized. These types of contradictions/misinformations/manipulations had me questioning all. Then I noticed R&R groups using Fatima as a defense against Sedevacantism and they couldn't give me a good reason why they were using something that we don't have to believe as a defense. The freemasons, communists or whatever you want to call those who highacked the Church (buildings etc) have been at work long before V2 and Fatima so with information so manipulated in these days by the hijackers we may never know these answers this side of heaven. I know so many NO folks and semi traditionals who believe all the false apparitions and I think that keeps them stuck in the rut...and fighting on blogs like this, still truly attached to all the false teachings of NO they can't/won't let go of. So in that respect
Deleteisn't that confusion/distraction the work of demons? Didn't the author of this blog once not believe that the seer wasn't replaced with a fake? So much doesn't make sense so I think better to study the true faith instead of being wrapped up in matters that are not even part of the deposit of faith? Isn't it interesting that Fr Gommar DePauw chapel was near the Bayside false apparitions? God bless all here! St Basil, the Great Doctor, pray for us!
@anon5:04
DeleteI know your comment is for Lee, but I just wanted to interject. Yes, I agree that we should not battle over 'true meanings" and such of apparitions, and we should stick to learning the Faith. The confusion surrounding apparitions comes from lack of theological knowledge that demons can manipulate. It is not from demons.
Your write: "Then I noticed R&R groups using Fatima as a defense against Sedevacantism and they couldn't give me a good reason why they were using something that we don't have to believe as a defense. "
That results from thinking apparitions are central to faith and fighting over the "true meanings." At least one R&R told me belief in every jot and title of Fatima is OBLIGATORY. Theological ignorance.
This is by no means restricted to apparitions. When a person is theologically ignorant---especially culpably so---the devil can cause your damnation.
Case in point: There was a man who was with the SSPV and fell into an irregular marriage situation; one that was sinful. One of the bishops found a couple of solutions so he would not be living in a state of sin. The man was wearing a brown scapular, and told the bishop not to worry because as long as he wore the scapular, Mary would ensure he would die in the state of grace and he couldn't go to Hell. The good bishop explained to him that the scapular is not some magic amulet; you need to live a good Catholic life the best you could. treating the scapular as a license to sin is both wrong and superstitious.
The man would not be deterred. "No, as long as I wear the scapular, I'll be fine." He never fixed his sinful situation. Some time later, he died from a sudden heart attack. As the heart attack began, the paramedics were called. They arrived very quickly. As he lost consciousness, they came in to begin trying to revive him. They ripped off his shirt AND THE SCAPULAR, tossing them across the room. He died without it on. (Not that it would have mattered. The bishop told the story to show how God manifests the foolishness of those who know not the Faith).
Was the scapular "used by Satan" or rather was it a foolish man, trapped in sin, presuming on God's Mercy with a FALSE BELIEF about the scapular?
Yes, I once thought Sr. Lucy was not replaced. The evidence changed my mind, but I will not make apparitions a focus of my spirituality or the Faith.
One query: Why is it significant to you that the Ave Maria Chapel of Fr. DePauw was about an hour ride from the false Bayside apparitions? Father said they were fake and had NOTHING to do with them.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you for this comment! Yes, I know many who think they don't have to live the true faith and rely on the "promises" of certain devotions. Many promises of certain devotions are false too...leading folks into those superstitions you speak of!
DeleteI believe the Bayside false apparitions were a direct attack against Fr DePauw and his mission...close proximity in the Big Apple State! She is Star of the Sea, not of the Bay.. 😉 God bless you...I learn so much from you! Thank you!
@anon7:14
DeleteThank you for the kind words and the clarification, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Your argument that infants receiving Communion nullifies the necessity of knowing or understanding Communion when at the age of reason seems to contradict Pope St. Pius X. His teaching makes no sense if children of the age of reason don't have to know they're receiving Communion. Are you arguing that that children with reason don't have to know or understand they're receiving Communion?
ReplyDelete@anon12:54
DeleteThe ancient practice of the Eastern Rites has always been to give Fist Holy Communion, along with Confirmation, to newly baptized infants. This has the approbation of many popes. The legislation of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X only applies to the Latin Rite; the Eastern Rites were exempted.
Am I arguing that children with the use of reason don't have to know or understand they're receiving Communion? As a general rule, NO. However, there is nothing contrary to Faith and Morals in so doing, and God can make an exception for reasons known but to Him. The children were not totally bereft of knowledge that something special was happening to them. After all, they received from an angel, a rare supernatural occurrence. The grace of Holy Communion would still be bestowed on a child with reason and free from mortal sin. The idea "only Satan would do this" is absurd.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Most of the reasons you give are good and solid. However, there are few that can be argued against. For instance, the fasting law. The Church has been practicing fasting from Midnight from Apostolic times. Pope Pius XII was the first to change it so drastically as far as I know. When the Angel violates a deep-rooted practice for Catholics under the circumstances, you have to question if the angel is from heaven. Exceptions like this doesn't help validate a heavenly apparition since it goes against the norm of the Church, which is one way to test the spirit. In fact, everything in the apparition is one exception after another. Children are already easily deceived and the 2 young ones hadn't received First Communion yet. They didn't know what they were even receiving and they didn't know for sure from whom? How can we know the Angel is from God especially from the onset? We can't appeal to a future pope and the present-day parish priest tells you it's false. Forget the instruction of your good priest and follow your heart? Would God not operate in a way that corresponds to the laws of the Church in order that we can be more assured that His angel is indeed from Heaven. God wants us to just trust blindly even when it goes against every norm of Catholic practice?
ReplyDelete@anon1:24
DeleteI understand what you are saying, and where your concern lies. You write: "...everything in the apparition is one exception after another." yes, but isn't an apparition one big exception to the rule that Christ, angels, saints, and the Blessed Virgin Mary don't appear to Catholics during their lifetimes? It has happened only 17 times in nearly 2,000 years!
The Miracle of the Sun (like all miracles) is an exception to the laws of physics. If this is the case, why be surprised that God can make exceptions to His own ecclesiastical laws?
Trust me, I'm no "apparitionist" and I will never argue over "true meanings" of messages and base my Faith around them as many (unfortunately) do. However, when a true pope has used due diligence in investigating an apparition and declares it "worthy of belief," that settles it for me. He knew of all the circumstances regarding the parish priest and found the children not to be disobedient. I don't know all the circumstances and did not read all the reports given the pope, so I won't second guess him.
When the Vicar of Christ tells me I SHOULD believe something is from God, I do.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Pope Pius XII said we "should" believe in Fatima?
Delete@anon10:48
DeleteWhy does the Church approve an apparition? Answer: The manifest weight of the credible evidence clearly falls on the side that it is true. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error or evil. Pope Pius XII said he witnessed the Miracle of the Sun. Was he lying? Why would he promote devotion to Fatima?
We SHOULD believe in Fatima and approved apparitions (the few there are) because the Church has held them up as WORTHY of belief. They are WORTH believing.
---Introibo
Should we also believe John XXIII was a true Cardinal since Pope Pius XII made him one and believed he was one?
DeleteYay, another doofus who dislikes his religion
Delete@anon1:38
DeleteApples and oranges. The Holy Ghost does not prevent the pope from making bad choices for ecclesiastical purposes. Bea had convinced the Holy Father he had reformed. A cardinal or bishop is not a teaching given to the Church. Christ showed this would be the case when He knowingly (as God He had to know) picked an evil traitor as an Apostle.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Fatima is important to believe in for several reasons.
ReplyDelete1. In order to save many souls from going to hell, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
2. God wants reparation to be made for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
"There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray." (Our Lady of Fatima, 1929; Examples: Protestants and even many Catholic disbelieving in Mary's Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Divine Motherhood; Queenship; not honoring and thanking Her as God wills)
3. The REAL Third Secret of Fatima, as opposed to what the enemy colonized Vatican revealed in 2000, foretells the long prophesied Great Apostasy in the Church, including overthrow of a rightful pope, leading to a false Church Council, & an invalid Mass. Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, who read the Secret, wrote that "In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." That means the papacy.
More on the Third Secret here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg&t=4s (3 min, 40 sec) & www.whitesmoke1958.com
The enemy colonizers of the Vatican knew that it exposed their plans, which is why they "disappeared" Sr Lucia, replaced her with a proven impostor, & then hijacked the Message.
Proof of this & more at my Twitter/X page, @rosaryknight
Yes, yes, yes and again, yes.
DeleteDo you have any knowledge of the French priest (probably N.O., I don't know) who, when listening to a C.D. of Gregorian chant experienced a fading out of the music and a most sweet female voice telling him all these terrible prophecies that were to occur, concluding with "This is the Third Secret of Fatima." The chanting then resumed.
He passed on recently I think.
No one knows what the 3rd secret says. Devotion to the Immaculate Heart was already established long before Fatima, etc. etc. The Church permits you to reject the apparitions entirely. End of story.
DeleteNo one? Besides my YT link above re- the widespread loss of the Holy Sacrifice, we have Cardinal Ciappi's statement above. And both those necessarily imply that V2 was a false Council. That was also what evidence shows Ratzinger confided to a close priest friend: onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima
DeletePut it all together & you have a series of false popes, a false council & an invalid Mass.
I am convinced that ai is demonic. I was watching this YouTube video about this ai saying that it was a demon and then a chatgpt ad came up with this demon looking thing with reindeer horns and orange eyes saying it could “chat anything to me”. That. Was my confirmation. I have never used ai since .
ReplyDelete@anon2:39
DeletePerhaps some of it is demonic, I don't have a fully formed opinion on that yet. I certainly agree it poses huge threats to society even if not demonic.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Maybe cardinal siri was the pope. At least until he signed Vatican 2. Then he would have immediately lost office.
ReplyDeleteSiri was definitely pope, as articles & interviews at whitesmoke1958.com show. We don't know that he signed to the V2 documents, only that he said the new mass. We can't know if he lost the papacy. We don't know what the enemy did to him. He was certainly under great duress.
DeleteSiri was definitely not pope! He recognized the Vatican 2 popes as popes. The doubtful pope thesis alone proves Siri was not pope.
Deletedarrell,
DeleteYou can believe the so-called "Siri Thesis" if you like. Fr. DePauw, who was at V2, rejected it, as do I. Here are my thoughts:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Darrell are you affiliated with Jim condit jr by any chance?
DeleteThe only affiliation I have with Jim Condit Jr is that I've read everything & seen the 4 video interviews more than once at whitesmoke1958.com. I do, however, occasionally communicate with the principal researcher for the site, Gary Giuffre.
DeleteCardinal Siri was not The Pope! This is the kind of false thinking that is somewhat pervasive in “traditionalist” circles, that leads people away from the truths and doctrines of The Church in order to believe in unproven theories about the 1958 conclave and to follow all sorts of private revelations as their guide for The Faith. Cardinal Siri did not function as The Pope, there is no evidence he ever accepted The Papacy, The Vicar of Christ on earth must be universally recognized by The Church. The Catholic Church cannot have a secret Pope, and even if Siri received enough votes, he never was publicly acknowledged as The Pope. The Pope elect also has to accept the election. I hear this argument that he was under duress. If Siri was The Pope and had courage he would have spoke out, and even risked death and accepted death to let the truth be known. Siri was no traditionalist either. He accepted all the V2 Antipopes as legitimate, and he offered the new mass. Cardinal Siri was not a staunch defender of Catholicism and was a modernist. He was very much a member of the V2 sect and went along with the changes, and just stayed silent. A true Pope would have died a martyr if he was under threat from the cabal of modernists surrounding him in order for The Truth to be told.
ReplyDeleteWhy then, is a forced renunciation of the papacy viewed as invalid?
ReplyDeleteI think Siri was indeed validly elected, validly accepted and invalidly renounced the papacy, which is how the line of false popes came into effect.
I further think Siri lacked the courage & faith required and, at some subsequent point accepted Modernism; however this is irrelevant. This is not about Siri the man or Siri the pope; it is about how the VII anti-popes came into existence. Nothing else about out Siri matters.
You have no concrete proof that any of this ever happened, it’s based on a few facts and opinions that are then loosely tied together in order to say the “Siri Thesis” is to be believed without question. People can believe it, but we need some more supporting evidence on the matter. Also, Siri was certainly not the first choice or ideal pick for the modernists to get V2 pushed through, they knew it was a sure thing with Roncalli and Montini. But we now all know that Siri would have at least approved of V2, and might have even called The Council. We will never know. What’s important is just to follow the truths of the faith and build virtue, and not get so caught up in things you will never know. V2 was inevitable, and it was allowed to happen as a punishment for all the horrific sins of this world, and especially because so many Catholics had already abandoned their faith for Liberal values and to serve the material world. Just trust in Divine Providence.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct in that "it is based on a few facts" with opinions (i.e. deductions and reasoning) based there-upon. How do you think detective work works? I'm not aware of any murderers presenting themselves to Inspector Morse, throwing up their hands and saying "I'd like to confess, if you've got the time, sir."
ReplyDeleteOf course no one knows for sure - it was a conclave, bound to secrecy - we can only ruminate.
What you seem to miss, with most people who are unaware of the Siri Theory, is that the Masons wanted - indeed, explicitly required - a 'patsy' pope, hidden from view and who did not - I repeat did not - ever exercise or assume his office, and I think I had to spell this out to you a week or two ago.
They recognised that the grace of the office - indeed, the Holy Ghost Himself - would prevent any valid pope from implementing a heretical Modernist agenda; and so, cunning as they were, they concocted the sinister plan of ensuring that a hidden 'patsy' pope - validly elected, validly accepting and invalidly rescinding (all within the confines of the conclaves) - would leave the conclave carrying the graces of the office; whilst an invalidly elected 'pope', suggested as a 'compromise candidate' to the authentic victor when the duress to resign was forced upon him, would emerge in the white cassock: thus, 1x hidden and useless pope never to exercise office + 1x false 'pope' who would indeed exercise, invalidly, the office. This is plausible and the only way a line of false anti-popes could be established.
You mention Roncali* and Montini. They wanted these men as the false popes and ONLY as false popes (so that they would not be operating under the grace of the office; see my previous comments re Pius IX and how he morphed from liberal to staunch orthodox warrior under the valid graces of the office). They EXPLICITLY did not want either of these men actually elevated to the papacy. This would have thwarted their Masonic agenda.
* It is said that very shortly after the menacing of Siri, Roncali presented himself to all present as a "compromise candidate".
JR
What you have written is mostly conjecture and speculation with a few facts sprinkled in to try and strengthen your theory. Are the claims you are making about The Siri election possible? Certainly they are. I think there is a good possibility Siri was elected. I also think that there could have been a stalemate or impasse between Ottaviani and Siri and then that’s when a transitional “Pope” elect was put forward, known as Roncalli. Perhaps Siri was elected and never accepted the election. We don’t know if he was under duress or not. And if he was and he was forced to resign , he would be The Pope, but then he should have said something. And let’s say he was The Pope, you can’t have a secret Pope that I’m aware of in Church teaching, but if he was a Pope in hiding, how long did he remain Pope? Not very long because of his own modernism and acceptance of V2 and the new mass. The main point I want to make is that we should be concerned about these things. I want to know how the modernists carried out their nefarious operations as well, but we have to come to accept that we won’t ever know the full story. Some false narratives and ahistorical accounts and conspiracies can be exposed and called for what they are, since there is a mountain of evidence to refute many of the official stories of historical events. This particular case is a difficult one and still remains open. I would say Siri was never The Pope. If I’m wrong, then he didn’t remain one very long. We will likely never know. This was part of God’s plan to allow this to happen. It’s a chastisement for the sins of humanity and it’s especially a punishment against Catholics who stopped fighting for their faith and who went along with many errors and embraced horribly immoral lives. Stop trying to always look for man made solutions and men to follow. We love The Papacy and all true Popes, but trust in God’s plan!
ReplyDeleteCardinal Siri was not elected pope. The whole story about that is just an urban legend. There was a French traditional Catholic writer named Remy who even managed to get an interview with Cardinal Siri shortly before his death, and Siri told him that no, he hadn't been elected pope. Siri said the same thing to Fr. Khoat, who asked him the same thing in the late 1980s. Cardinal Siri told both of them that no, he hadn't been elected, and also that no one left the conclave to communicate with the outside (such as the B'Nai B'Rith). If his own words cannot be taken as true, then there is little further to say on the matter.
DeleteThe whole Siri Theory rests on numerous false assertions. Siriists claim that white smoke followed by black smoke indicates that someone was elected pope. But this is false, and was explained by the head of the master of the conclave on the same day the smoke signals got confused. He said that the white smoke by itself does not signal a papal election, but only white smoke that never has any black smoke along with it. The reason for this is that the ballots are always burned, whether someone is elected or not, and they always produce white smoke. If no one is elected, then once they start burning (and producing white smoke) then wet straw can be added to the fire to make the smoke black. Thus, a null result is always white smoke followed by black smoke, and a positive result is only white smoke with no black smoke. But the smoke that Siriists claim signified Siri's election was white smoke followed by black smoke. Therefore it signified that no one had been elected in that ballot.
The reason we're talking about it at all is that the announcer incorrectly announced the result as being positive before waiting for the smoke to stop pouring out. He just made a mistake. This is a very common occurrence at papal elections (which is something the Siriists will never tell you), and actually occurred at the majority of papal conclaves in the 20th century (including anti-pope elections). The smoke of the ballots was incorrectly announced as being a positive result in 1939, 1958, 1962, and 1978. It is a very common occurrence, and does not indicate that someone was elected pope and that someone is putting the cardinal at the stove in a half-nelson and forcing him to put wet straw into the stove, or whatever the Siriists claim went down in the Sistine Chapel. Actually, they never propose any plausible scenario for how the white smoke could have been changed by force, or how a true pope can be forced to resign, or any other aspect of their theory, which by itself should tell you it's nonsense.
All of that being said, I absolutely agree with you that it is a very interesting question how the modernists were able to hijack the 1958 conclave. I hope to know how they managed to get a modernist like Roncalli elected as well, but I agree that we will likely not know this side of the grave. And yes, 100% strongly agree that all of this was a punishment for sin and unbelief. I think God basically said, "You people won't listen to the popes I'm sending you to warn you about your sins and heresies? Fine, see how long you can survive without a pope." We must do penance.
Thank you for this very interesting post, Introibo, especially your re-iteration of the fact that the so-called secret of La Salette was in fact condemned by the Church. A lot of traditional Catholics don't accept this, but we must always accept the judgment of the Church.
ReplyDeleteCan I make a suggestion? I have come across a lot of traditional Catholics who believe in a strange man named Alois Irlmaier, who claims to have been a prophet around the World War 2 era. He made numerous and extensive predictions, which have not been fulfilled. I don't believe he enjoys any ecclesiastical approval, but a lot of traditional Catholics believe he is a true mystic and prophet. Would you consider doing a post on him? He strikes me as either a con artist or some sort of warlock, but I'm curious about your opinion.
@anon11:04
DeleteI have never heard of Alois Irlmaier, but I will research him, and he might provide material for a post. Thank you for the information and suggestion!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I'd never heard of him either, though having looked him up, do recognise the photos
DeleteThis seems to give a good run down:
http://www.jesusmariasite.org/5631-prophetic-sequence-of-events-of-alois-irlmaier/
Introibo, I don’t really care all that much for Fatima. But I do believe it happened and I accept that it is approved by the Church. I do the First Saturday devotion and I believe there was a replacement for Sister Lucia (the real one). However despite it all, it really doesn’t impact my faith. I used to be very obsessed with Fatima and the consecration of Russia when I was R&R. I was basically a “Fatimaniac” you could say.
ReplyDeleteWhen I finally embraced the true faith and left the Novus Ordo. I slowly lost all that. I became more devoted to Our Lady of Good Success. But I am much more devoted to Our Lady of the Rosary and lately Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
This post was very informative, thank you for all the work you do.
Jeremy Van Auker (Br. Albert Aloysius T.O.S.D)
Br. Albert Aloysius,
Delete"Fatamaniac"--love that term you made! Glad you're no longer an "apparitionist."
Please keep me in your prayers.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Br. Albert Aloyisus -
DeleteWho received you into the third order? Do you knew whether there are any rememants of the first order after Bp. McKenna’s RIP death
Well… I was received by a priest of the company of Jesus and Mary. It’s very complicated as Bishop McKenna more or less passed the order over to Bishop Morello, the former superior general of the Company of Jesus and Mary. To answer your question, there are none. Except for maybe the Dominicans with SSPX, but they are another topic.
DeleteWe originally were going to have a First Order Dominican, he entered his novitiate and then during his novitiate Bishop Morello RIP had a heart attack. After that, we reached out to Bishop McGuire to see if would help us. However, his intention was to simply allow for the Third Order to continue as I believe it was merely Bishop McKenna RIP intention to simply have third order living in community. He never intended to keep the first order going I guess.
Bishop McGuire at this point, is letting the third order operate and continue here at Sacred Heart. But he doesn’t seem to have the intention letting the first order continue.
On that note, I am not Third Order Regular, I am Third Order Secular. So I wear only the scapular. I hope this helped.
Jeremy Van Auker (Br. Albert Aloysius T.O.S.D)
Also, as a clarification, because I forgot to proof read. The individual who was going to be first order, was in his novitiate and then during this individuals novitiate. Bishop Morello passed.
DeleteGreetings and happy new year to Introibo and all the readers of the blog. I guess I'm the only blog reader who isn't a believer - although I was for a while. With the permission of the blogger, and I hope not to bother any readers, I am going to raise my doubts about Sedevacantism from the most complete ignorance. I am writing to you as a person with a poor religious background and whose knowledge is not extensive, so I hope you take that into account.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with the basics: as I understand it, the sedevacantists do not recognize any of the popes elected since Roncalli's election. Here my first doubt arises, which is why what Sedevacantism sees so clearly today was then said by almost no one. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I believe that the vast majority of the faithful and no bishop or cardinal at that time said they did not recognize Roncalli's election. The first Sedevacantists, coming out of Lefebvrism I think, emerged in the seventies. However, nowadays and to my surprise every sedevacantist is sure of everything. We just saw it in the comments: some are sure that Siri was chosen, others are sure that it was not...
The only thing that is known with certainty is that Roncalli appeared on the balcony of St. Peter's Square and that no bishop or cardinal said that he was not pope, nor that, as was said in the blog, no heretic could be elected pope. Well, no one prevented Roncalli from participating in the conclave, nor did anyone take away his legitimacy for being an infiltrated modernist. The attitude of many sedevacantists seems to be that of "all those cardinals and bishops who recognized Roncalli were wrong, I would have done everything better." It does not seem very serious to me that certain people believe they have all the answers, clinging to the smoke or whether Roncalli was a heretic, insinuating, although they do not say it, that the cardinals who elected him or who recognized him as pope were, or were, ignorant people who did not know that He was and they didn't know his history, or some modernists. I'm not saying this for people on this blog, I'm speaking in general.
ReplyDeleteThe other question that raises doubts in my mind is that of the visible Church. The objective fact, even for an ignorant person like me, is that if the current Church is in the desert as some say, or that the Church is NOT a false Church as you and others point out, many will be those who will not come to know the true . Catholicism. A practical example: Somalia. In Somalia, the situation in the country means that there is no bishop in Mogadishu, but there is a presence of priests and religious missionaries of the "official" Church. There are also faithful NO. But how many Sedevacantist priests are there? If it turns out that Catholics will only be those who are part of Sedevacantist groups there are no Catholics there because I doubt there will be many Sedevacantist priests in that country. I know that in Nigeria yes. But in how many countries will there be sedevacantist missions? The truth is that sedevacantist groups, there are not many in most countries. If the Church is those groups, which have the reach that they have, this means that the majority will not come to know the Catholic Faith, since the majority believe that the official Church is the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteI do not intend to offend anyone with these doubts. If Introibo doesn't want to publish my messages I will understand.
I'm Marcos, young reader from Spain
During the 17th century there were no priests for the Japanese faithful.
DeleteThese people must persevere. Clearly we are in the great apostasy
Marcos,
DeletePlease read the following two posts. If you still have these (or other) questions, comment on tomorrow's post.
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/a-sedevacantist-primer.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Roncalli is the easiest. He was a Freemason and legally pertinacious (he was declared suspicious of heresy twice and did not prove himself to be orthodox)
DeleteThe reason (the actual good pope not like his phony successor ) Pope Pius XII made him a cardinal was because of his confessor bea
DeleteThose who are sincere but in invincible ignorance will be instructed by divine inspiration
DeleteThanks for responding. With the permission of the blogger, some observations. I insist, if something I say is not correct, you can correct me. One answer refers to the situation in Japan a few centuries ago and another to divine inspiration. The first thing I would tell you is that the reality of the Japanese faithful of that period would have to be extrapolated today to many countries and many more people, who, as I said, do not have any sedevacantist priest - or any sedevacantist in general - to help them. warned that what they believe to be the Catholic religion is not, so the number of people/faithful people affected by this would be much greater than that of Japan in those years. But, and I don't know if I expressed myself correctly, I am not referring to access to the sacraments alone, but to knowledge of the Catholic Faith. To convert people and make them know the True Faith and the True Church, one must proselytize - something that Francis/Bergoglio detests - and evangelize. Sedevacantist groups reach very few people, unlike the "official" Church. If divine inspiration were sufficient, the figure of the missionary would not have existed. Yes, as they say, the false Church is spreading a false Faith, but there are many who believe that being Catholic is what the false Church says, and they do not have access like we do to means that allow us to know what is Catholic and what is not - many faithful from poor countries who follow their bishop NO- how can those people know that being Catholic is not that damaged merchandise? Because a sedevacantist priest or bishop who is not there is not going to instruct them.
DeleteIf a bishop arrives, as you say, from the NO and tells them that being Catholic means doing what Francis says, they will obey him, and they will believe that this is Catholic in the absence of a sedevacantist priest who tells them otherwise. This reality affects many people. I ask you to keep it in mind, thank you for reading me.
DeleteMarcos
Marcos,
DeleteThe link is to "A Sedevacantist Primer" my post of February 19, 2024. Look back to it. This link should work:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/a-sedevacantist-primer.html
If not, go back to 2/19/24 on the blog.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Anon
DeleteI am assuming that you are in the novus ordo and not an atheist or Protestant or something.
Well you should be pleased to know that it is the teaching of st Thomas that those in invincible ignorance who are sincere will be instructed in the things nessecary for salvation (God, Divine retribution, The Trinity, The Incarnation). He gave the example of a person raised in the woods with no human contact
If there are several commenters named "Anonymous," I think it might be helpful to give them each a number.
Delete