Posted on 05/11/2010 8:01:55 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Typical post Vatican II speak, where words are used to confuse rather than communicate. Seems like God has chosen these Vatican II popes who are reluctant to teach clearly for fear of being rejected so that the world will not be further condemned for rejecting clear teachings:
"To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them"
Everyone is "without".
I doubt that you know anything about Fatima, or you would not make such a selfish statement. Fatima involved the most significant life changing event for all the 200+ million persons killed by the communists in the Europe, USSR, Asia, and South America and Africa. AND all the enslaved by the communists throughout the world to this day. It will be significant for the rest of the world when they come for them too.
Sister Lucia of Fatima in 1946 said that the whole world would become communist:
"While he was the pastor of Our Lady of Fatima Church in Ludlow, Massachusetts, I spent some time with Fr. Manuel Rocha, the interpreter selected for Mr. William Thomas Walsh, who wrote perhaps the most popular book on Fatima. Fr. Rocha told me that one of the questions Mr. Walsh asked him to translate to Sister Lucia during a three hour interview on the afternoon of July 15, 1946, while she was still Sister Maria das Dores, a Dorothean Sister at Vilar near Porto, Portugal, was ‘In your opinion, will every country, without exception, be overcome by communism?’ Her pale brown eyes staring into his, a ‘little dimple on each cheek,’ she answered, ‘Yes.’
"Fr. Rocha related to me that Mr. Walsh wanted to be positive about the answer and therefore repeated the question adding, ‘And does that mean the United States of America too?’ Sister Lucia answered, ‘Yes.’ Unbelievable in 1946, not so far fetched today is it?
For Portugal, Fatima was the most significant event in the last 100 years, if not in all it's history. By consecrating their country as the Blessed Mother asked, the undefeatable anti-Catholic government was toppled almost overnight, Portugal avoided the communist civil war just across the border, which decimated Spain, AND Portugal altogether avoided the Second World War.
Leoni: “Seems like God has chosen these Vatican II popes who are reluctant to teach clearly for fear of being rejected so that the world will not be further condemned for rejecting clear teachings.”
I don’t know how you can make this statement without being able to support it with positive evidence.
And that would be quite impossible to do since there is no way that one can say whether or not they were “reluctant to teach clearly for fear of rejection.” That is simply a conjecture for which you provide no factual evidence.
“Seems like” is not sufficient proof for reading the minds of popes.
BTW, of course they were popes who came in the time after Vatican II. Does that fact alone (time sequence) put a scarlet letter on them? I think not.
There are many societal and cultural realities that can be factored in to the rejection of the clear teachings of the Church (such teachings including Pope Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae”).It hardly needs pointing out that such realities are an important factor in the flow of social trends and events. The assumption that the blame for rejection of Church teachings lies with 3 popes is just that—an assumption, and one that can’t be made as proven fact.
Leoni: “I doubt that you know anything about Fatima, or you would not make such a selfish statement.”
None of us has any way of knowing what mockingbyrd knows about Fatima. And even less so does her post need to be called a “selfish statement”.
After all, even though Fatima is recognized by the Church, it still isn’t an article of faith. It can be called, as the Church teaches, “worthy of belief”, but it is not creedal.
I doubt that you know anything about Fatima, for if you really knew "quite a bit about Fatima" you would not make such a naive statement......
How's that, is that better? Our Lady told us what would happen in the future and how to stop it. Her requests were not granted and Russia spread her errors, resulting in 200 million persons death, and even more millions enslaved. That is no "apparition to increase devotion", that one can pick and choose. Her prophecy of sufferings to come, and her request, still remains current and ignored by the popes.
You should avoid making things personal and mind reading as both those violate the rules of the Religion forum.
Do they write clear? NOT! Is Vatican II clear? NOT! No conjecture there. God allowed them to be popes for our times as a punishment to those who would not listen even if they spoke clear.
Read any and all documents from Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, Pius XII. Then read any and all from Vatican II, JPII, and B16. Even Humanae Vitae has birth control loopholes written ambiguously into it. Read Pius XI on the same subject, it's clear. It's all there for anyone to see, before John XXIII and after John XXIII, two different objectives in writing. One is up front teaching clear truths, the other is, unclear and verbose.
I don’t have any common ground with you, because I can’t believe that God came down from heaven to tell you that He allowed them “to be popes for our times as a punishment....”.
Yes, I believe that there is conjecture there.
Please don’t attribute to me what was not my post.
"Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. (and other magisterial documents)?
Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years. (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)
(1) In fact, the bad shepherds may be a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).
Vatican II is a punishment from God. It is a snare, a siren song to RUN AWAY FROM! Do not seek any answers about the Faith from Vatican II or any theologian that refers to it.
You can post to me all you want, as that is your freedom on this forum.
I have no common ground with your position, such as the statement that you know what God allows or uses as a means of punishment.
I won’t be answering any of your posts from now on, since I believe it would be an exercise in futility.
You have also made recent comments about the last three popes being “modernists” and that “modernists are pernicious heretics”.
This speaks volumes. It almost sounds sedavacantist.
There is no mind reading, you wrote "it hasn’t played a significant role in my spiritual life"
I responded that you must not know about Fatima, and proceeded to show how it has been the most significant event to billions who have suffered from communism. To say Fatima "is not significant in my life", like it's some kind of a chaplet of Divine Mercy or other such devotion among thousands, tells me that you know nothing about Fatima.
What else do you want me to conclude from your OWN WORDS, that you don't believe in Fatima at all, or that you don't care about all those dead and enslaved by communism? I was being charitable in saying you don't know about Fatima and are naive.
I cannot for the life of me follow your train of thought.
But, should you want to convice people of the significance of private revelation, I would take a less pugnacious track. Insulting fellow Catholics’ spiritual lives and making assumptions about their personal devotions isn’t the best way to spread Our Lady’s message.
HERESY! If the Holy Spirit was not present at Vatican II, you need to put up some proof outside of the mal-application of its constitution by liberal bishops who took great liberties that were not theirs to take. To call it a punishment from God is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, end of story.
And Robert Sungenis went off the deep end long ago. Another apostate.
Straw man! Neither Sungenis nor I said the Holy Spirit was not present at Vatican II.,/p>
It was precisely because the Holy Spirit was at Vatican II, that the heretical wishes of the progressives were not allowed to be declared as infallible doctrine. Vatican II is a punishment from God because He allowed the ambiguous language (the time bombs) to be entered into the documents, so that the false Catholics would manifest themselves, and the sooner amputate their gangrene, themselves from the body.
By the way, I'd advise you to rethink this knee-jerk tactic of calling people heretics and apostates, you have no authority to make it stick. Only Rome has the authority to declare someone an apostate and heretic.
“I’d advise you to rethink this knee-jerk reaction of calling people heretics....you have no authority to make it stick”
Follow your own advice.
You seem to be stalking my every word. That's OK with me. Is there a way of seeing everything someone else has posted? I had to go back a long way to find where I mentioned those descriptions.
To answer you:
Do everyone on FR a favor and copy and paste EXACTLY what a person said, or don't write anything. To do otherwise, can only lead to no good.
It is Pope Pius X who said that “modernists are pernicious heretics”. It is also Pius X who defined in great detail (an entire encyclical and then some) what a modernist is. It is Pope Pius X who made the clergy take the anti-modernist oath. If a person writes enough, manifests himself, over many years, teaching what Pius X has showed us is modernism, then the person is a modernist.
Not just the last three popes, John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, B16 are all modernists and progressives. As are like all the bishops.
In 359 A.D, St. Jerome wrote : "the whole (Catholic Church)world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian".
Where are the Arians today? The Church is not changed by man for very long.
In case any of you had not noticed The Church Militant, since Vatican II, has been living in a great falling away from the Faith by it's leaders and laity, worse than the Arian heresy.
The Church will still be around long after the progressives are a forgotten blip in history.
I am not a Catholic....and I have never known about ‘Fatima’ before until a few days ago and have done some research. Fascinating stuff. I’m ‘all eyes and ears’.
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.