Posted on 02/13/2005 1:31:30 PM PST by lindsey_123
I just heard...Sister Lucia passed away! I can't find anything online yet, however...
Blessed Jacinta Marto, apostle of the reparation*, is found to be incorrupt from the shoulders up. It is interesting to note that her ear which was deformed and a very sensitive issue for her, a typically shy girl, is included in the incorruption. I wonder what her glorified body will have in the place of that ear.
Blessed Francisco Marto, apostle of the hidden Jesus*, is found to be corrupt in his body, however, his brown scapular, like the one found in the remains of St. John Bosco, is found to be unaffected by its environment. Similarly, when the remains of St. Padre Pio were examined, his scapular, habit and sandals were found in place as if his body had suddenly not existed. But nobody knows where his body is. There are no ashes or bones. This has not been made public by those who found it so or by any superiors thereof, because the news is too upsetting for political reasons.
* My own titles of affection, if you don't mind.
Not complaining, just stating the obvious impossibility of Our Lady ever telling Sister Lucy that the Rosary is, after the holy Eucharistic liturgy, the prayer most apt for preserving faith in souls. As such, it is obvious that it is not the *real* third secret at all, rather, it is a lie.
Do you expect that it would not be found in a particular issue of L?Osservatore Romano, or that they got it wrong - or even if I ask you to explain yourself - WOULD YOU? more the point - CAN YOU? What exactly is your complaint?
I have no complaint - I was done doing that some 35 years ago when the revolution was squeezing the faith out of the whole Church. These days, thanks to the revolution, people are too easily mis-lead by the likes of Fr. Gruner's half truths.
Do you believe that in the *real* third secret, Our Lady told Sister Lucy that the Eucharistic liturgy (novus ordo) was the best way for preserving the faith? - again, here is the snip: And since the Rosary is, after the holy Eucharistic liturgy, the prayer most apt for preserving faith in souls
Where's the thread? Where's the thread? Where's the thread?
I like the way you think LOL!
The threads tend to get deleted as soon as I post them, but here are some links to the quotes by the perps that I would have referenced and the photogrpahic evidence to refute claims to the contrary:
You Know Who Kissing You Know What
Photographs of This Pretender And The Former Pretender Apostasizing and Cavorting In General
Thanks, VCR. I saw them before they got poofed.
Sorry for the delay. I had to follow this one back to here. We seem to have a curious situation today with the Pope, who has done many things in contradiction to the Faith of Catholics. We cannot know what is in his heart, however, unless he tells us. We have not heard him say that he willingly rejects the Faith. He has never said something like, "I know the Church has always taught (some doctrine), but I now say this is no longer the Church's teaching" (or words to that effect). Therefore we do not have a clear heresy that would mean he is no longer Pope. But what we do have is things he and his immediate predecessors have done that no pope in history could have gotten away with. So it's not exactly all the pope's fault. Catholics have let it happen, and I have to admit that I am not faultless in this defection.
Excuse me but I had to comment on this. I do not know what your suggestion is that would qualify for being "after the holy Eucharistic liturgy, the prayer most apt for preserving faith in souls." Could you clarify that? Meaning, if you disagree so strongly that the Rosary qualifies, then you must have some other prayer, right? What you claim is "the obvious impossibility" is not so to me.
What "half truths" of this "Fr. Gruner" are you talking about? Do you have one or two real good examples?
The 3rd Secret was given in 1917, when there was no such thing as a Novus Ordo. If Our Lady refers to the Eucharistic liturgy in it, she would have to be talking about the Traditional Latin Mass (or equivalently one of the eastern Catholic rites then in existence -- note, the eastern rites have now started to follow the corruption of the Novus Ordo revolution, and so we have to distinguish between the eastern rites of 1917 and those of today).
Our Lady gave us the Rosary as a weapon and as one of the the most powerfull sources of grace that there is. The deception does not lie with the power of the Rosary to preserve the faith at all. It has nothing to do with the Rosary. The deception lies in the power of the "Eucharistic liturgy" to preserve the faith. That's the lie. The "Eucharistic liturgy" has for its fruits, the loss of faith, not its preservation.
What "half truths" of this "Fr. Gruner" are you talking about? Do you have one or two real good examples?
Aside from my reply above, this answer could easily take up more space than I am able to write, but Fr. Gruner's preaching that the Consecration of Russia will result in Russia's conversion is a half truth. Without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where will their conversion lead them - and us all too -........perhaps the Santa Mass where communion is a cookie instead of a host and is distributed by elves as is common place in todays happy Church?
The 3rd Secret was given in 1917, when there was no such thing as a Novus Ordo. If Our Lady refers to the Eucharistic liturgy in it, she would have to be talking about the Traditional Latin Mass
Eucharistic liturgy = novus ordo service = responsible for the unprecedented loss of faith, successfully (so far) instituted to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - or as you called it, the Traditional Latin Mass. Do not confuse the "Eucharistic liturgy" with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I assure you that Our Lady would not confuse them as they are complete opposites, promulgated by the enemy by design.
Our Lady could have said: the Rosary is, after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the prayer most apt for preserving faith in souls, but She could not have said: after the holy Eucharistic liturgy as the two are opposed to each other.
I suggest that the "Real" third secret warns of the devastation that the Church (and the world) would suffer at the hands of Russia when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was replaced with the Novus Ordo and its "Eucharistic liturgy".
I suggest you are making stuff up to coincide with your campaign against the Mass of Paul VI.
The Novus Ordo is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no matter how much you say it's not.
I object in the strongest terms to imply that the Pope might be a heretic, publicly or privately.
First of all, you should not spread scandal about the Holy Father. It weakens the Faith of Catholics who are only lukewarm when they read posts like yours. If you think that the Pope is a heretic (and I should say that you are endangering your own soul if you associate with sedevacanists or even the SSPX), you should pray for him, instead of spreading scandal.
Now I know what you will say about the Pope (but I will not repeat it here and you needn't either). In response I will say: yes, he has loosened some rules but he has also done many good things like grant the 1984 indult. Acknowledging that other religions share part of God's truth is not heresy. The Holy Father may have made a mistake with his diplomacy, but he has never even implied that all religions are equal or any other part of the modernist heresy.
You may be aware that Pope Liberius declined to attack the Arians when they were a grave threat to the Church. Was he wrong? Yes. Was he a heretic? Definitely not a public heretic and very doubtful that he was a private one. Some theologians think that it is impossible for the Pope to be even a private heretic.
I am fully aware that the Church is in full retreat in America and in Europe. But sometimes (and definitely not always) diplomacy and moderation is the best solution.
If you were to meet your average Catholic, would you tell them right away to start going to daily Mass in Latin, pray the Rosary everyday, start severe fasting and corporal mortifications, and other very pious practices right away? Of course not, you would help them to grow in holiness one step at a time. The current Pope is very conservative on the whole (people forget his hard-line stances on abortion, birth control, euthanasia, etc.). Just because he may not be as great in your eyes as St. Pius X or St. Gregory the Great does not mean he is a heretic in any way.
Which popes did not have such hard-line stances?
Which other popes have allowed altar girls, given Holy Communion in the hand and kissed a Koran?
Sorry sink, but the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was replaced by the Eucharistic liturgy, also known as the Clown Mass, Santa Mass, Easter Bunny Mass etc. and is, at best and on rare occasion, only an outline of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
You're wrong, Stubborn. But, you're stubborn, so you will remain obstinate.
To imply that the Mass of Paul VI is somehow less of a Mass in terms of its effects and graces than the Tridentine Mass is, frankly, heretical.
Well does doing any of these things make him a heretic? NO!!
Never said he was.
But I will say he is not a conservative, compared to his preconciliar predecessors.
Well I feel as you do that the Pope is not as conservative as I am. However, there are times that conservatism can too far as the Pharisees did. There are also times where being liberal is good, as St. Thomas More was in writing Utopia.
But conservative/liberalism, while very important in this day and age is not as important as the question of "are you in union with the Holy Father or are you in schism." From what I have read of you on this forum you have chosen the latter option. Did Sr. Lucia disobey orders that she thought or even knew were wrong? What about St. Margaret Mary or St. Faustina?
If the Holy Father allows altar girls then we must obey him, whether the decision is right or wrong. So then let us not waste time debating matters which are settled and we have zero (or about as close to zero as one can get) input over. We must show obedience even when it goes against our best instincts in the cases when the Pope is the final arbitrator.
I see you're another adherant to "blind obedience".
If the pope told you to abort your unborn child, would you do so, whether he was "right or wrong"?
But conservative/liberalism, while very important in this day and age is not as important as the question of "are you in union with the Holy Father or are you in schism." From what I have read of you on this forum you have chosen the latter option.
Didn't take you long to go "ad hominem". Your handlers have prepped you well.
Can you point to any particular circumstances in which I have disobeyed any Pope in any form?
I believe in "blind obedience" only when I am commanded by God or his Vicar to do so. Really then it is not blind as you say.
The answer to your question of what I would do if the Pope asked me to go abort an unborn child is a pointless one, as first he would never tell me to do so as a teaching of the Church because then Christ would be a liar. Then you probably mean that he would tell me to do so but not as a teaching of the Church. My answer then would be no, I would not abort the unborn child, because this is a matter that is not up for debate (I don't know how to formally describe this, as I read it before but can't put it in words), and thus I can (and must) disobey his authority and still be obeying God.
Let me ask you a question then. Would you disobey the Pope by joining or associating with a schismatic sect (the SSPX) if there were no indult Masses in your area? If you answer "yes" you have answered your own question in #238.
No, I did not attack your argument by attacking you. I asked a new set of questions with the goal of attacking the SSPX. You have indicated in the past that you agree with them by posting many things from them on this forum.
I don't know what you mean by "my handlers." If you think that I am a modernist then you are mistaken because I don't agree with anyone who celebrates an illicit Mass or anything else like that. I will be attending an indult Mass tomorrow morning in fact.
IF, as you say, The Novus Ordo is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass then what is there to be wrong about?
To imply that the Mass of Paul VI is somehow less of a Mass in terms of its effects and graces than the Tridentine Mass is, frankly, heretical.
Your opinion is rooted in your lex credendi, which is naturally the result of the novus ordo, i.e. the new lex orandi. IOW, the Mass of Paul VI and all that it came along with contradict your statement.
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.