Posted on 05/12/2017 3:12:01 PM PDT by ebb tide
Tomorrow, at Fatima, Pope Francis will canonize Jacinta and Francisco, further enshrining the Fatima event in the life of the Church by raising two of three Fatima seers to the altars. In yet another twist to the labyrinthine mystery of the Third Secret, however, the prayer he will recite at the Fatima shrine contains this astonishing declaration:
"Hail Mother of Mercy, Lady of the white robe! At this place where one hundred years ago you showed all the designs of our God's mercy, I look upon your robe of light and, as bishop dressed in white [como bispo vestido de branco], I remember all those who, robed in baptismal white, want to live in God and pray the mysteries of Christ to attain peace."
Pope Bergoglio's self-description as a "bishop dressed in white" clearly evokes the vision pertaining to the Third Secret, published on June 26, 2000, whose textual description, recorded by Sister Lucia, includes the following: "And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'."
This is surely no coincidence, but rather an intended allusion. For Pope Bergoglio's reference to white baptismal robes is not particularly relevant to the occasion tomorrow. Rather, it seems designed to set up a reference to himself as a bishop dressed in white.
This raises a curious point concerning what Sister Lucia recorded. Why did she write concerning the mysterious "Bishop dressed in White" that "we had the impression that it was the Holy Father"? Why only an "impression"? Did not Our Lady inform the seers exactly who the white-clad bishop was? After all, She was perfectly clear about every other detail of the Message of Fatima, including the very name of the Pope (Pius XI) who would be reigning when World War II began. Why would Our Lady identify by name the Pope who would reign at the outset of World War II, but fail to identify the white-clad bishop executed by a band of soldiers outside the devastated city, leaving the seers with only an "impression" that it is the Holy Father?
Or is it the Holy Father? Are the white-clad bishop and the Holy Father one and the same person or are they two different people? Bear in mind that, for the first time in Church history, there are indeed two "bishops dressed in white" living in the Vatican enclave, both of whom are known by papal names, one of whom refers to himself, and is referred to by Pope Bergoglio, as "Pope Emeritus."
What are we to make of the fact that Pope Bergoglio has apparently placed himself into the post-apocalyptic scenario depicted in the vision, there being no other plausible explanation for why, at Fatima of all places, he would describe himself with the exact phrase employed in the Third Secret vision? Moreover, if Pope Bergoglio sees himself as the "Bishop dressed in White," has he not in his own way joined Pope Benedict in discarding Cardinal Sodano's ridiculous "interpretation" that the white-clad bishop being executed by soldiers is John Paul II not being executed by a lone assassin? Does he have reason to believe that he is the white-clad bishop who meets with death on one of the hills outside a devastated city of Rome?
Yet again we see why there simply must be a text in which the Virgin Herself explains the meaning and significance of each detail of the enigmatic vision, just as She did with the rest of the Message of Fatima. Among other things, She would of course have clarified the "impression" that the bishop executed in the vision is the Pope.
As things now stand, the "Third Secret" the Vatican has presented to the world — the vision standing alone — has produced nothing but dueling interpretations rather than the certain guidance the Mother of God surely wanted to provide the Church and the world. No, something is missing. And sooner or later it will be revealed.
More like Saruman the White
We have a heretic as a pope.
We have a heretic as a pope.
You know this is a caucus thread, right?
So anything after Deut 4:2 is invalid?
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. Deut 4:2
Still doesn’t count.
“Commands” is not “The Scriptures,” but we all know who plays so fast and loose with how they “follow” Scriptures.
Silly response. Where do the commands come from if not from the Scriptures?
What does Deut 4:2 mean?
So if dogs are mammals, mammals are dogs?
I watched Pope Francis make remarks at Fatima today prior to the recitation of the rosary. HIs words were beautiful and spoke of God’s mercy through Christ. I don’t always agree with him, but today his words reflected God’s desire for his children to be with him eternally. God reveals what he wants to whom he wants, I personally have no desire to know the third secret of Fatima unless God wills it.
You can't answer a simple question, can you?
What does Deut 4:2 mean?
It means don’t add or take away from His “Commands.”
Now how about answering MY simple question?
So you are saying there are no "Commands" in Scripture after Deut 4:2????
You make no sense whatsoever. A stupid question. Put it into context.
OMG!
You really are that obtuse!
Okay, let me spell it out for you. In the same way a dog is a mammal, but a mammal doesn’t have to be a dog, God telling us not to add or detract from something he commanded in Scriptures does not mean He’s telling you all Scripture is the same as the command.
How can you be a student of Scripture, yet be so clueless about analogies...of which one of its subclasses are PARABLES!
bumpus ad summum
“It means don’t add or take away from His “Commands.”
Deut 4:2 told us to add no commands. Yes or No?
Christ said, Follow me—Matthew 4:19 Was that a Command? Was that added?
I’m sorry I hijacked your thread. I didn’t realize it was a Catholic Caucus thread
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.