sister Lucia of Fatima accepted the V2 Popes

I was at one time on the fence, leaning towards sedevacantism based on what the Dimonds claim to be true teachings of the Church, but now I am no longer on the fence. I made the case in favor of sedevacantism numerous times in this FORUM. However, I now reject sedevacantism.

The reason I now reject sedevacantism is because I called sister Lucia's convent in Coimbra, Portugal and spoke to a nun who knew her. The nun said that sister Lucia was obedient to the post Vatican II Popes and accepted their teachings. So that settled the matter for me. If sister Lucia of Fatima accepted Vatican II and the Vatican II Popes, then I must do so as well. After all, the blessed virgin Mary told sister Lucia that she would go to Heaven. So sister Lucia is a Saint.

Oh, and please don't respond to what I just said by claiming she wasn't the real sister Lucia, because that will only make you look like a nut case.

Hello Simple Truth,

God Bless you. Besides Sister Lucia, Saint Padre Pio remained subject to Pope John XXIII. That is our duty which we should do out of love and unquestionable free will NOT just out of obligation which would make it shallow at best. We must pray for our Pope daily.

I can only say in very humble, earthly language as a sinner, I wander what Jesus is saying to his Father and Blessed Mother about our current crisis of Faith and pain we find ourselves in over the last many decades. Help the poor, daily Rosary and light candles instead of cursing or being preoccupied with darkness. I can clearly see the light and love our One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church.

JMJ,

George

Great to hear! Welcome to the world of Novus Ordo Feeneyism

Catholic_Truth wrote:The reason I now reject sedevacantism is because I called sister Lucia's convent in Coimbra, Portugal and spoke to a nun who knew her. The nun said that sister Lucia was obedient to the post Vatican II Popes and accepted their teachings. So that settled the matter for me. If sister Lucia of Fatima accepted Vatican II and the Vatican II Popes, then I must do so as well. After all, the blessed virgin Mary told sister Lucia that she would go to Heaven. So sister Lucia is a Saint.

Don't take this wrong way, but I'm curious about one thing....

You didn't know that she did (accept the recent popes, that is) before you called?

Also, this in itself doesn't seem like the best reason to reject sedevacantism.

Sr. Lucia was not infallible. So it matters little to me if she accepted the Pope or not or if there was an impostor or not. Even Fatima in itself is not dogmatic. (I believe it, but we have to make proper distinctions here).

I'm not a sede because no sedevacantist has been able to provide an ex cathedra infallible statement that says that a heretic cannot be Pope. Really the closest they can get is Cantate Domino which says the church is "not of heretics" but even that is not clear if they are misapplying that quote.

Even in Vin Lewis's debate with the Dimonds, the Dimonds almost immediately begin rattling off quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine on how a heretic cannot be Pope. Um, excuse me, if we were talking about baptism of desire the Dimonds would say that he was a fallible theologian, yet when we talk of sedevacantism they just rattle off quotes from him, not making the distinction between that and Dogma.

Additionally, sedevacantism is a position that goes nowhere. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Sedes are not One, they are not universal (Catholic), and they are not Apostolic (there are some sede bishops but the Dimonds would consider them as "outside the Church" because they accept baptism of desire), the Dimonds are not even priests let alone Bishops.

Additionally, if the Dimonds were to be consistent they would have to reject Pius XII as an antipope because he taught baptism of desire. They give him the benefit of the doubt, by why is no benefit of the doubt given to the post-Vatican II Popes? If only ONE manifest heresy is enough to put you outside the Church (and the Dimonds hold that baptism of desire is heretical) than by that logic he was outside the Church as well. The reason the benefit of the doubt is not given is because Pius XII did not kiss the Koran. This was a much more shocking move, so they reject JPII. That is because fundamentally sedevacantism is an emotional reaction to this crisis in the Church.

RashaLampa said "That is because fundamentally sedevacantism is an emotional reaction to this crisis in the Church."

Very true, I have great empathy for sedevacanist for the hurt they feel and have to bear. I pray that they remain within the Ark of Our One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and fight to resolve the crisis of Faith we are in.

"C"T: Wrote:

I was at one time on the fence, leaning towards sedevacantism based on what the Dimonds claim to be true teachings of the Church, but now I am no longer on the fence. I made the case in favor of sedevacantism numerous times in this FORUM. However, I now reject sedevacantism.

The reason I now reject sedevacantism is because I called sister Lucia's convent in Coimbra, Portugal and spoke to a nun who knew her. The nun said that sister Lucia was obedient to the post Vatican II Popes and accepted their teachings. So that settled the matter for me. If sister Lucia of Fatima accepted Vatican II and the Vatican II Popes, then I must do so as well. After all, the blessed virgin Mary told sister Lucia that she would go to Heaven. So sister Lucia is a Saint.

Oh, and please don't respond to what I just said by claiming she wasn't the real sister Lucia, because that will only make you look like a nut case.

That is very sad to hear "C"T, I must say, that is very sad to hear. Now you must accept all the rot heresy and rank modernism that goes along with your current position, I need not explain it, for you already know, or not.

I am literally shocked to hear, that after one phone call to a woman that has claimed to have known Sr. Lucia, you could completely change your beliefs, climb of your fence and embrace the false theology of the V2 counter church. That is shocking.

Fatima for our times wrote:

I am literally shocked to hear, that after one phone call to a woman that has claimed to have known Sr. Lucia, you could completely change your beliefs, ...

Its not just based on that phone call. I've also seen the video of sister Lucia kissing JP II's hand after receiving holy communion from him. I've seen videos and photos of her smiling with joy while looking at him. The phone call simply confirmed what the videos and photos tell us. Plus, saint Padre Pio also accepted the V2 Popes and apparently he never made the claim that V2 taught heresy. Shouldn't we follow their example since they were post V2 living saints? If God allowed them into Heaven, then obviously that means they were following the true catholic faith. Since they both accepted the V2 Popes and V2 Council, then logically that would mean V2 taught the true Catholic faith.

You are kind of "pounding of open doors," Catholic Truth. What does it mean to "accept a Pope?" Sister Lucia had an apparition from the Blessed Virgin Mary where she witnessed a vision of Hell, and was told by the Blessed Mother that most individuals will end this life only to pass into eternal and everlasting damnation. Is that what Vatican II taught? Is that what the post-Vatican II Popes are teaching, the damnation of most of humanity? We were, after all, created a "little lower than the angels," so the fact that most of us will end-up in Hell forever should not come as too much of a surprise. Such is certainly consistent with the words which our Lord spoke, as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

So, what's the point, ultimately? If the words in Cantate Domino are not infallible, pray tell, what is? To me, all of the theology of the Church for the past few centuries has been predicated upon this notion that there are "invincibly ignorant" persons? Let's consider this for a moment -- Do you doubt that I exist? Or, do you think that 'I' am some very sophisticated computer, and that this "conversation" is just between you and some online computer game? I don't think that you are a computer; you've convinced me that you are, in fact, a person and not some mindless machine, even though we have never met each other.

If I can convince you that I exist, and you can do the same for me, don't you think that the One and Triune God can do the same for those individuals who are truly worthy of salvation? Of course, Saint Thomas answered this question a long time ago to the satisfaction of everyone, including, those Fathers at the Council of Florence.

So, if the recent Popes are, in fact, true Popes, great; what's the point? Ultimately, what is, is, so there is "nothing" for Vatican II to change, because ultimately, Vatican II can change nothing.

Catholic_Truth said:

Its not just based on that phone call. I've also seen the video of sister Lucia kissing JP II's hand after receiving holy communion from him. I've seen videos and photos of her smiling with joy while looking at him. The phone call simply confirmed what the videos and photos tell us. Plus, saint Padre Pio also accepted the V2 Popes and apparently he never made the claim that V2 taught heresy. Shouldn't we follow their example since they were post V2 living saints? If God allowed them into Heaven, then obviously that means they were following the true catholic faith. Since they both accepted the V2 Popes and V2 Council, then logically that would mean V2 taught the true Catholic faith.

Catholic_Truth, be a defender for the Faith

We must love Our Catholic faith remain in the Church and be subject to Our Pope.

The fact that for many years, worthy people from all walks of life have lamented , written, prayed, commented etc on the Crisis in the Church over the last half century humbles one to understand and accept as fact the Crisis we find ourselves in today. This is not a personal crisis but indeed a world wide attack by Satan at the very foundations of our Faith. I think only a fool would not recognize the crisis. It is if the Emperor has no clothes. I do not mean the Pope but the direction the Church has taken in its duty to effectively TEACH the faith with clarity and truth as instructed by Jesus Himself. The Society of Pius V, St Pius X , Sedevacantism and a host of other groups are victims of Vatican II. Why leaders in the Church do not recognize this is beyond me. How much time does Satan really have for the ruin of souls? Almost every book that I have ever read on the lives of the Saints has a common theme on the fewness of those that are saved. The vision given to the children of Fatima of Hell, the origin of the prayer to Saint Michael, countless writings throughout history on the torments in hell are not to be minimized or reduced to mere fables as if in the past centuries Our Catholic Faith just did not get it right. Many saints died or were martyred thinking they were taking on the whole Church for what was morally and Faith based accurate in their eyes and in the defense of their Catholic Faith. Their Sainthood proves their thoughts and actions were warranted.

When Pope John XXXIII convened Vatican II, I am sure that it was not done with a conspiracy in mind by him to bring down the Church and cause the current crisis. Many had great reservations about the need for a council. Councils were generally called to combat current heresy{s}. The breath of fresh air and good that truly did occur from Vatican II was consumed in large by the ill fruits and factual historical outcome. Once many of the enemies of the Church, unfortunately some by invitation got their hooks into the very core , traditions , rubrics, customs, liturgy etc, our Faith took a severe yet not mortal blow to its very existence. The strength of the Priesthood and religious, lack of vocations and clerical abuses,fallen away Catholics have taken their toll. The fact that the gates of hell will not prevail, the guarantee by Jesus gives great cause for hope in our current trials.

If something is not nipped in the bud, the challenge to correct it becomes increasingly difficult. Our Popes of late suffered and do suffer under this challenge. Yes, we do need to reach out to our Christian brothers in Charity and love and recognize our common ground. But that can never mean the lack of holding to true Catholic Doctrine in this quest for unity. No compromise of Doctrine to appease or shake the very foundation of Our Faith is permitted. Devout Catholics are the goal not the ridicule for eternal happiness in Heaven. Many articles and homilies are written or given about being good Catholics and living and being an example for our Faith. Much more need be done and explained in the how's and why's of really living our Faith. Helping the poor, the spiritual and Corporal works of mercy, the Ten Commandments, Love of Blessed Mother, Our Glorious Saints. proper dress and morality etc need to be taught daily. Much more time needs to be spent on the collection of souls instead of money. Most who can help resolve the Crisis tragically remain silent. It will only be when some great Saint, enough Catholics cry out or Jesus Himself returns that we can truly correct the problems caused by many of the ill fruits of Vatican II. This will happen! We must pray for Our Pope, be subject to him and love Our Catholic Faith. Our Pope suffers much as Vicar of Christ.


Douay- Rheims Bible

Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."

If one comes down on one side or other of the sede v post-concilluiarism debate it doesn't automatically follow that one has chosen correctly. It's all a matter of personal opinion and how one weighs the pros and cons.
C.T's resolution surprizingly dosn't seem to be based on any new evidence being brought to bear. Bar a private revelation or inner locution, or some hitherto unknown information being revealed, I for one -sadly- will have to remain on the fence.

George Brenner wrote:Yes, we do need to reach out to our Christian brothers in Charity and love and recognize our common ground.

This is the problem, George; you want to "have your cake and eat it, too!" The above statement is a "cancer," which, having been left unchecked, has consumed virtually all of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. The "they" are not our Christian "brothers"; they are heretics and/or schismatics, since they, by the admission of their own free wills, are not Catholic (since they, by the admission of their own free wills, do not profess the Church's dogmas; indeed, they deny those dogmas), they are not Christian. To be a Christian is to be a Catholic, and vice-a-versa.

Hi Jehanne,

Welcome back.


Jehanne said:

This is the problem, George; you want to "have your cake and eat it, too!" The above statement is a "cancer," which, having been left unchecked, has consumed virtually all of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. The "they" are not our Christian "brothers"; they are heretics and/or schismatics, since they, by the admission of their own free wills, are not Catholic (since they, by the admission of their own free wills, do not profess the Church's dogmas; indeed, they deny those dogmas), they are not Christian. To be a Christian is to be a Catholic, and vice-a-versa.

It is a shame you did not quote my two sentences that followed what you did quote to
show my complete thought. I have no way of knowing if you have ever had a part or been responsible for the conversion of someone to the Catholic faith. By the grace of God I have. You do not start the process by saying Yo heretic or Schismatic come here so I can convert you. Where is your love and charity. Catholic Truth is rock solid and there can be no compromise. The very process of conversion must include the grace of God interacting with free will to hopefully make proper choices. Jehanne , you have a great passion for what you believe in and I could not really get angry with you. I consider you a Christian brother{ some common ground, yet sadly divided from being a Catholic} who is outside the faith because you will not subject yourself to the authority Of Pope Benedict XVI. And yes I probably have already read all your reasons on this forum. You must know in your heart of hearts that these discussions do get resolved in our eternal judgement.

JMJ,

George

Sure, and if the Pope asked me to murder someone and I refused, I would guilty of schism; is that what you are saying? It is Jesus Christ who is the Head of His Church and not the Pope, who is his Vicar. I agree that Pope Benedict can correct things, perhaps on his deathbed, for he alone holds the Keys, at least on earth. In any case, I will not be following him to Hell. But, yes, I agree; this issue, like an multitude of others, will be settled at the Last Judgment. You and I may no longer care at that point, but the One and Triune God, a Perfect Being, will almost certainly care.

Hello everyone and a belated Merry Christmas.

While I have no intention of entering into these disputes again, mainly because, after years of discussing these things in Catholic forums, it is finally evident (to me at least) that one will not resolve the issue "online," and that the time spent engaging in such forums is not profitably spent - and my opinion may hurt more than help. In any event, my opinion means nothing.

However, I do stop by and read (which is quickly and easily done), and will continue to do so. I only want to therefore highlight what I think is the crux of the matter, and perhaps one of you might have something to say on it which will be helpful to me and the rest of us.

From a review of Father Cekada's book, "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul Vi" by Dr. Alquin Reid:

However the meat of Cekada’s work is found not in his history, but in his theological analysis of the Mass of Paul VI.

Two chapters are devoted to an analysis of the different versions of the General Instruction of the Missal that appeared in 1969 and 1970. Cekada rightly points out that the 1969 text confidently outlined the prevailing theological principles that underpinned the reformed rite of Mass, which was published with it. Cekada demonstrates well (but with a bit too much rhetoric) that these principles leave traditional Catholic theology behind: “sacrifice” is replaced with “assembly”, “the Lord’s supper” moves in to displace “the Sacrifice of the Cross”, etc.

This provoked an unholy Roman row and the “Ottaviani Intervention”, which declared that the new Order of Mass “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated [at] the Council of Trent.” Note that Cardinal Ottaviani speaks about the rites, not the Instruction. As Cekada ably demonstrates, the theological principles so boldly outlined in the 1969 Instruction guided the decisions about what went, remained, or was invented for the rites of the Mass of Paul VI (just look the offertory).

This row led to the appearance of a revision of the General Instruction in 1970, with, as J.D. Crichton quipped, a more “Tridentine” phrase put beside each incriminated expression, in order to shore up its doctrinal integrity. However, as Cekada deftly observes, the prayers and rites of the 1969 Order of Mass are identical to those of 1970: a defective building is not rectified by scribbling a few changes on the blueprints. The Mass of Paul VI remains, in its Latin original (before any Episcopal Conference gets to mistranslate it), intentionally theologically different to what came before.

http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/work-of-human-hands-a-theological-critique-of-the-mass-of-paul-vi-anthony-cekada/

It amounts to what does one make of an "intentional theological[] differn[ce]" inserted into the most Holy of Holies, the sacrifice of the Mass itself. How can one have a "different theology" of the Mass come in 1969 or so, after almost two millenia of the Church? The Mass constituting the essence of our faith, what does a "theological" change in it mean? It is not simply a change in externals.

I am somewhat "on the fence,' as Columba. But I have come to conclude that it is the Mass that matters, and the "theology" behind it," and that, as with George, I believe one can be committed to the "old" theology and faith and remain subject to the pope.

Of course, that might mean a level of "disobedience" and rejection to some things (like the NO) that is incompatible with a proper obedience to the supreme pontiff. Which is why I think a sede, using for example the reasoning I have read from Father Cekada, can, in my opinion, reject the current pope and still be fully Catholic and not have the pertinacity of a schismatic, and hence remain a fellow Catholic to whom the gate of Heaven is not foreclosed.

For my part, I prefer to deal with and struggle with the issue of "obedience" privately, and do not think it appropriate (or necessary) for me to throw my "opinion" into the matter. My opinion should result in my rise or fall, and not contribute to anyone else's.

But I have said, and continue to believe, that one might in good faith take any of the various positions on this (neocon, sedevacantist, SSPX, Feeneyite) and still be among those who will undeservedly benefit from the application of the merits of the Precious Blood of Christ, and therefore blessed for all eternity with the bliss of Heaven.

God Bless all of you!

Hello Tornpage,

God Bless you and welcome back even if it is only from time to time. As always one post as yours just did always seems to open another line of thought. All of our posts are part of the proof of the great crisis of Faith that we all find ourselves in since Vatican II. This Forum would not even exist except for the Crisis.

I have spent much time researching and reading about some of the invitees to Vatican II. I mean you can even go to wikipedia to read a secular account of their lives, thoughts, writings, backgrounds etc and it is no wonder how and why some of the changes came about. Just plain sickening ! Quite simply, my life goal is to be part of the restoration of Our Church to pre Vatican II. I know that sounds impossible but with God all things are possible. I choose to do that from within the Church where many live, pray and set examples much better than me a lowly sinner.

JMJ,

George

To all the Sedevacantists in this Forum,.... here is an official letter from Padre Pio in which he expressed his firm adherence to the Magisterium and its teachings under Pope Paul VI,

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PIOPOPE.HTM

Here are photos of sister Lucia and Pope John Paul II together,

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/fatima/article01.html

http://thecalltofatima.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/our-lady-of-fatima-in-award-winning-film-the-call-to-fatima/the-call-to-fatima-pope-john-paul-ii-and-sister-lucia/

http://thedivinemercy.org/library/article.php?NID=2937


http://www.semperaltius.com/october_14.htm



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gulf-goans/message/5339


http://www.sister-lucia.excerptsofinri.com/

http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.net/messaggero/pagina_stampa.asp?R=&ID=274

We should all follow the example of these 2 great Saints

Go right ahead; I'm not. To follow them would be to betray countless other Saints, including, what the Blessed Virgin Mary herself revealed to Saint Lucia. How can you accept the late Pope John Paul II as being a wholly orthodox Pope after he appointed Hans Urs von Balthasar to be a Cardinal, a theologian who openly believed in universal salvation? Do you believe in the First Secret of Fatima, that is, that most human beings are destined for Hell?

Can't have one without the other. Maybe Padre Pio and Sister Lucia decided not to be public about their dissent over Vatican II, unless, of course, Sister Lucia was just some oaf who had "delusions of grandeur," in which case we should not believe anything that she says. According to your view, she was a "woman of contradictions" who accepted both what the Blessed Mother had revealed to her as well as the teachings of John Paul II. Perhaps there is some "deeper truth" here that we are all missing. In any case, both individuals are now dead, and since neither of them is speaking to me from "beyond the grave," I am going to stick with the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.