tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post6914995160223818770..comments2024-03-19T07:26:30.440-04:00Comments on southern orders: COOKING YOUR OPPONENTS IN THE CROCK POT OF CONVERSATION UNTIL YOU GET THINGS YOUR WAY--IT HAPPENS WITH CHILDREN AND ADULTS TOOFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-5638106872791331152013-01-28T14:50:23.899-05:002013-01-28T14:50:23.899-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
Sadly, I must respond directly to ...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />Sadly, I must respond directly to you. This is the exception and not the rule going forward, but I must comment on your indignant pride in finding the 1st Monday of Lent's collect.<br /><br />As you know already, this is a very controversial collect to use, because it is not Roman in origin, but Gelasian. Interestingly enough, it was not part of the 1962 Missal, but is only found in the 1970 and it's revisions.<br /><br />That being said, when we look at the Latin (Because the use of the English is too varied and dynamic), we find that converto is "to turn or whirl round, to wheel about, to cause to turn, to turn back, reverse; and with the designation of the terminus in quem, to turn or direct somewhere, to direct to or towards, to move or turn to." (Kudos to Fr. Zuhlsdorf for that explanation)<br /><br />So, rather than it meaning exactly what you think it does, dear Father; it in actuality means something a bit different. It has a much more military feel, as opposed to a feel of opening one's heart to the salvific mystery in a wholly new way. This is borne out in the rest of the translation, which I shall not bore you with, as I know that your use of Latin is limited and most likely will not apply in daily life.<br /><br />As it is though Father, your "re: Conversion" is as most things with you not what it seems through the mere use of English. And in and of itself reason #604992939492343929292 and 1 why we should abandon the vernacular in favor of the universal Latin.<br /><br />I now resume my self-imposed ban. It was necessary to point out your inconsistency for the sake of those who read the comboxes here on a regular basis.<br /><br />May God Keep You Close. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-12660585785418774432013-01-27T18:02:13.455-05:002013-01-27T18:02:13.455-05:00Re: Conversion - "Convert us, O God our Savio...Re: Conversion - "Convert us, O God our Savior, and instruct our minds by heavenly teaching, that we may benefit from the works of Lent."<br /><br />From the Collect, Monday of the First Week of Lent.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-16540284467083216612013-01-27T11:56:21.381-05:002013-01-27T11:56:21.381-05:00Anon 5;
"I merely ask whether it amounts to ...Anon 5;<br /><br />"I merely ask whether it amounts to a failure to profess the faith in a way required to meet the definition of "Catholic.""<br /><br />I don't think so. If everyone who sins or in a fleeting moment of despair or sin is separated from the faith, we wouldn't have any Catholics.<br /><br />I know that asking a question to get an answer is not generally a good thing, but...<br /><br />Did Peter cease to be Catholic when he denied Christ at the gate to the Praetorium? No. He didn't, it is much the same thing, as what you're asking.<br /><br />Unless one repudiates the faith, obstiantly, he remains Catholic. Even then he remains Catholic, but is an apostate. So, while it may be a failure to profess Catholicism, it doesn't eliminate one from being Catholic, nor does it separate one from being Catholic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81999962896528335292013-01-26T15:30:33.008-05:002013-01-26T15:30:33.008-05:00Well, Anon 5, I would not classify my lust after K...Well, Anon 5, I would not classify my lust after Kate Beckinsale under either option in your first paragraph. No, there is no renunciation or attempt to deny Church teaching. Perhaps it could be described more as a certain desultory lust, the pitfall of idleness or "brown study." I suppose my rationalization might be, "the Church is right but, damn, she is pretty!" I am sometimes able to sublimate this process and attain a level at which I appreciate her from a merely aesthetic viewpoint, as I might appreciate, say, Raphael's "Madonna of the Rocks." You believe me, right?\<br />So, perhaps my lust is merely venial...I mean, I'm not going to call her up, for heaven's sake...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45228550795739498622013-01-26T14:46:29.481-05:002013-01-26T14:46:29.481-05:00Andy; Same answer as the one I gave regarding &quo...Andy; Same answer as the one I gave regarding "obstinacy." I've never argued that my hypothetical amounts to heresy, or at any rate that it _must_ amount to heresy. I merely ask whether it amounts to a failure to profess the faith in a way required to meet the definition of "Catholic."<br /><br />I understand that in practice much of this would be met at a pastoral level. But here I'm talking at a theoretical/definitional level.Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-38608325193484230062013-01-26T11:26:18.577-05:002013-01-26T11:26:18.577-05:00Anon 5;
What you are describing is despair. That...Anon 5;<br /><br />What you are describing is despair. That doesn't equate to heresy or aspostasy. I would argue that If the despair persists (a longer period of time) then it becomes an issue of faith.<br /><br />However, what you are describing is nothing more than one of the effects of sin. I believe that John of the Cross as well as the Cure D'Ars speak about this.<br /><br />You're looking to Ott to give an answer, I don't think it's there, because what you're describing isn't a dogmatic or a doctrinal issue, but a faith and pastoral one. Look to the Spiritual Fathers and I think you'll find the answer you're looking for.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-14300250195727611802013-01-26T02:26:26.779-05:002013-01-26T02:26:26.779-05:00
Gene, you may be on safer ground if you attend th...<br />Gene, you may be on safer ground if you attend the cake baking sale instead.<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1635790661281430642013-01-25T22:36:59.315-05:002013-01-25T22:36:59.315-05:00Gene;
I am saying that here is one possible scena...Gene;<br /><br />I am saying that here is one possible scenario that involves lusting after Kate Beckinsale: You intentionally lust after her, knowing it's grave matter, thus meeting the definition of mortal sin. You know the Church says it's a mortal sin, but at that moment you don't care. The way your rationalize your not caring is to tell yourself that the Church is in error about lust being a sin because the Church doesn't really understand human sexuality, or it's asking for an impossibly high standard of behavior, or whatever. In this circumstance, haven't you denied the faith, even if for just a few moments?<br /><br />I'm not saying that all mortal sins _must_ involve this momentary--renunciation, for lack of a better word. For instance, you may have a different rationalization, such as "The Church is right, but I'm too weak," or "The Church is right, but I love Kate Beckinsale more than I love God," or no rationalization at all. But I think it's a possibility.Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74668775668698897202013-01-25T19:29:05.240-05:002013-01-25T19:29:05.240-05:00Anon 5, So, let me get this straight...if I am lus...Anon 5, So, let me get this straight...if I am lusting after Kate Beckinsale, am I no longer professing the Catholic faith during those lustful moments? Or, may I lust after her with no serious intention and that be merely a venality? What if I only lust after her to keep from wishing the Inquisition upon Ignotus? Is this not a more acceptable use of lust? Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56986041023278359552013-01-25T15:46:59.419-05:002013-01-25T15:46:59.419-05:00Andy,
The humoring goes both ways so consider you...Andy,<br /><br />The humoring goes both ways so consider yourself thanked in turn. :-)<br /><br />You do make a strong case that calling post-baptismal changes "conversion" is more than nominally wrong. As I said before, I'm certainly not wedded to the term conversion in that case. As I stated in my previous, I think we're in fundamental agreement.<br /><br />One thing, though, regarding failure/refusal to profess the Catholic faith. I think you and I are looking at different things. Regarding heresy, the "obstinate" component you mention is certainly needed. But for the definition of Catholic, I don't think that Otto et al. require obstinacy. Simple refusal to profess the faith is sufficient. Thus my hypothetical of the otherwise faithful Catholic sporadically and briefly but definitely refusing to profess the faith; he may not be a heretic, since he isn't being obstinate about it, but he may nevertheless not be Catholic during those periods.Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-67006086475686627952013-01-25T14:10:12.737-05:002013-01-25T14:10:12.737-05:00Anon 5;
I think that this exercise is good for me...Anon 5;<br /><br />I think that this exercise is good for me, due to the fact that I need to be able to clearly state my view. Thank you for continuing to humor me.<br /><br />You state, "I do think that from a subjective perspective the catechumen and the penitent may very well both go through the same emotional/psychological changes for each (e.g., a catechumen may be moved to Baotism by his contrition and repentance just as a baptized penitent may be moved to reconciliation), especially when someone has been away from the Church and the sacraments for a long period."<br /><br />Certainly that person who has lapsed must reintegrate himself into the life of the Church, but that isn't done through conversion, but rather it is done through catechesis. I think that nomenclature in this instance is very important and should be concise. What one must do to reconcile from being lapse isn't to convert to Catholicism, but rather to re-educate himself on what it means to be that which he already is. Catholic.<br /><br />I think that the problem arises, when we move away from the objective understandings of these words and actions and into the subjective. The subjective should always be subordinate to the objective. So, if there is an interior conversion, it isn't as though one is becoming Catholic all over again, as the liberals would like it (a la pre-conciliar/post-conciliar), but rather it is through coming to understand in a more complete and concrete way, Catholic thought and then applying it to the self.<br /><br />You go on to ask, "Let's say I'm tempted to commit a mortal sin. In that moment I may attempt to justify my sin by deciding that the Church is unreasonable to call such behavior a sin, and thus wrong to do so. By making this fleeting justification to myself (and maybe orally to the people around me), have I not ceased to profess the faith? Or, as long as I'm saying the right words formally in Mass or at a baptism, am I still professing the faith even though my minions are, at that moment, executing my business rivals on my orders?"<br /><br />Yes, you have ceased to profess the faith, but is that cessation obstinate? The answer is most likely not, because it is in that moement. Now, if you were to continually deny this over and over and over and over, then yes, it becomes apostasy or heresy, depending on the circumstance, but it does not remove the Sacramental character you took on at Baptism. So, conversion is not necessary. Reconciliation and catechesis is, though.<br /><br />I am a big one for making distinctions too, but if we look at what Biden, Pelosi and the rest of the nutburgers are doing, it is heresy. And that doesn't remove the Sacramental character of Baptism, it is just an obstinate denial of a truth which must be adhered to, with Catholic Faith. And that requires Reconciliation, not conversion.<br /><br />This is about terms and properly applying them. Surely you can understand that. One of the biggest issues that traditionalists faces is overcoming the hi-jacking of terms. Nouns are turned to verbs, certain actions are replaced by something altogether different and it goes on an on.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-72280894130983536302013-01-25T12:22:32.617-05:002013-01-25T12:22:32.617-05:00One more point, Andy: I think that my hypothetical...One more point, Andy: I think that my hypothetical regarding mortal sin implicating a rejection of some portion of the Catholic faith may be much more widespread than the examples you have in mind.<br /><br />Let's say I'm tempted to commit a mortal sin. In that moment I may attempt to justify my sin by deciding that the Church is unreasonable to call such behavior a sin, and thus wrong to do so. By making this fleeting justification to myself (and maybe orally to the people around me), have I not ceased to profess the faith? Or, as long as I'm saying the right words formally in Mass or at a baptism, am I still professing the faith even though my minions are, at that moment, executing my business rivals on my orders?<br /><br />I'm a big one for making distinctions between the formal and the material, but I would also say that essence trumps form. Hence my disdain for all the people who formally and vigorously profess to be Catholics while adamantly engaging in anti-catholic activities (read: Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius, etc.).Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-39273387764763939292013-01-25T12:15:25.840-05:002013-01-25T12:15:25.840-05:00Andy,
We're in agreement regarding everything...Andy,<br /><br />We're in agreement regarding everything but nomenclature--and since it sounds like you've done more research on the applicability of the term "conversion" than I have, I'll defer to you in that regard also. But here are some thoughts nevertheless.<br /><br />While "conversion" may be a term of art specifically describing the process leading up to and including Baptism, I do think that from a subjective perspective the catechumen and the penitent may very well both go through the same emotional/psychological changes for each (e.g., a catechumen may be moved to Baotism by his contrition and repentance just as a baptized penitent may be moved to reconciliation), especially when someone has been away from the Church and the sacraments for a long period. Given that, and the fact that the results of Baptism and absolution are fairly similar, I'm not especially troubled by the labels, though you could perhaps give me some examples in which the labels do matter. <br /><br />But if labels are used to argue against the need for conversion (in the sense in which you mean it) to the Catholic faith or against the need for regular/frequent sacramental confession, I obviously don't condone that. It's just that I haven't encountered their use in that sense. In fact, by using the term "conversion" to liken Baptism to Reconciliation and thus encourage more frequent use of the latter, it might be a good thing.<br /><br />Thoughts?Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-71729639929765973872013-01-25T11:49:04.032-05:002013-01-25T11:49:04.032-05:00Anon 5;
"Yet I do believe in the need for a ...Anon 5;<br /><br />"Yet I do believe in the need for a continual or at least a repeated _something_, which may be improperly labeled conversion, precisely because of the sort of continual separation you mention."<br /><br />That "something," you mention isn't conversion, it is contrition and repentance. How is one reconciled from mortal sin? Through the Sacrament of Penance, one is continually "renewed" in the manner which the "ecumenists" now call "conversion."<br /><br />So, to answer your question yes it is possible that who commits a mortal sin may be heretical or in a state of apostasy, but not always so. I would argue that even then, confessing to the Ordinary will restore his position within the Church.<br /><br />The Church has always had a mechanism for doing what the liberals are trying to redefine, namely the Sacrament of Penance. But, when the Sacrament is knowingly brushed under the rug, it then becomes a major issue insofar because the Sacramental act is abandoned in favor of inner "conversion." And another sacrament is compromised.<br /><br />Baptism only happens once. So, conversion only happens once. I would argue though that reconciliation happens continually and to varying degrees. Now we just need to get the liberals to understand that their conversion isn't re-inventing the wheel, but rather distorting the Sacramental ideal of Penance and reconciliation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-16654015929102399532013-01-25T11:29:19.954-05:002013-01-25T11:29:19.954-05:00Andy,
My fault. I suspect the thing that confused...Andy,<br /><br />My fault. I suspect the thing that confused you was the fact that I'd had an exceptionally long day looking after parents when I read and wrote in this thread. I actually don't even recall seeing the middle statement in my quoting of PI: "Not the need for their conversion to us, . . ." <br /><br />I think it clear from my post that I obviously _don't_ agree with that particular snippet. They do in fact need conversion to us if they are to be fully converted to Christ, for--and this is whre 'ecumenism" just doesn't get it (or refuses to get it and thus falls into heresy)--<i>without embracing Catholic teaching in its entirety, non-Catholics are failing to understand who Christ is. Their very notion of Christ is wrong, or at the very least materially deficient</i>. My fault for indicating agreement with that snippet.<br /><br />Yet I do believe in the need for a continual or at least a repeated _something_, which may be improperly labeled conversion, precisely because of the sort of continual separation you mention. If by mortal sin a Catholic cuts himself off from the Church, he must turn back to the Church through the sacrament of reconciliation. There are parallels between baptism and reconcilation that are visible even in the early Church--reconciliation as a "second chance" to return to the immediate post-baptismal state, the heavy penance required, and such.<br /><br />This does raise a definitional question. If the definition of Catholic is one who 1)has been validly baptised AND 2) professes the true faith (see Otto, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma), then is it possible that when one sins mortally, he may be refusing to profess some essential aspect of the true faith? If so, then he _isn't_Catholic, and in order to be absolved and return to communion with the Church and a state of grace, he must be converted (or whatever) back to the true faith in much the same way as he was originally converted through Baptism.Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-57274185204187563632013-01-25T11:06:37.815-05:002013-01-25T11:06:37.815-05:00Father, I agree with you. I do not subscribe to th...Father, I agree with you. I do not subscribe to the ideas I just set out. I was simply answering your question. <br /><br />The superstition surrounding Fatima and its subsequent interpretation by "Traditionalists" has led me away from "Traditional" Catholicism. Frankly, I think the whole "Third Secret" thing and the Consecration of Russia "issue" are ridiculous. <br /><br />I'm merely letting you know that many people take this stuff very seriously and base a lot of their thinking about the Church and the modern world on it. Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-8775958862375338992013-01-25T10:48:59.552-05:002013-01-25T10:48:59.552-05:00But Marc, Catholics are not required to believe in...But Marc, Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations, even those endorsed by the Church even when the Holy Father might take it quite seriously. It is not to be placed on the same level as Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law. What the Blessed Mother is purported to have said cannot be on the same level as Revelation, except if she is quoting Scripture or defined Church teaching. Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-85323755467552246912013-01-25T10:44:17.114-05:002013-01-25T10:44:17.114-05:00Father, many Traditionalists lay the cause for all...Father, many Traditionalists lay the cause for all the things going wrong in the world and in the Church at the feet if those who obstinately refuse to Consecrate Russia as requested at Fatima. They do not believe the consecration to have adequately taken place despite the things posted by Fr. Kavanaugh. They believe the Mother of God revealed this tribulation and the apostasy of the Roman Pontiff at Fatima. <br /><br />So, everything we are discussing in terms of liturgical and doctrinal chaos has its roots in the message of Fatima and the failure of the "Vatican" to act on the message.Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-4854883410870078272013-01-25T09:43:04.306-05:002013-01-25T09:43:04.306-05:00Can someone remind me how this post got to Fatima ...Can someone remind me how this post got to Fatima and consecrating Russia and Fr. Grunner? Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-84805492030843182152013-01-25T09:37:40.142-05:002013-01-25T09:37:40.142-05:00Anon 5;
I have a big problem with the idea of &qu...Anon 5;<br /><br />I have a big problem with the idea of "ecumenical sensibilities" leading us to a conversion, as another poster writes and to which you seemingly agree, to a point.<br /><br />I don't see how this view leads anyone to conversion. What are we talking about? What kind of conversion? Interior? What does that mean? Has it been successful? Is there a way to quantify this so-called interior conversion through "ecumenical sensibilities?"<br /><br />To me, this doesn't follow the Church's model for conversion. It doesn't follow how one is formed nor does it have a concrete application. With the Church, there is always something quantifiable regarding conversion and it really only happens once. To constantly talk about conversion is to assume that we are constantly separating ourselves from the Church and needing to be reuinted with her. That simply isn't true. Once we are baptized and recognized as Catholic, we are members, at that time, it isn't a matter of conversion any longer, but rather it is a matter of catechetics.<br /><br />So, color me confused. I don't see how one can be "ecumenical" within the Church to which one already belongs. Perhaps I am missing something in translation.<br /><br />Ciao.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-30467881635165548142013-01-25T09:02:47.700-05:002013-01-25T09:02:47.700-05:00From the (shudder) "Wanderer" -(6.3.2003...From the (shudder) "Wanderer" -(6.3.2003) "Many Wanderer readers will recall that not too many years ago, the Apostolic Signatura upheld Father Nicholas Gruner’s suspension from his priestly faculties. The Signatura is the Church’s highest court of appeal, short of the Holy Father himself. News of this suspension was made public in an official press release which in part stated: ‘The Congregation for the Clergy, upon the mandate from a higher authority, wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under a divinis suspension, which has been confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura’."<br /><br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-59594802526390504892013-01-25T00:33:54.649-05:002013-01-25T00:33:54.649-05:00BTW, the popular lie that Fr. Gruner is "susp...BTW, the popular lie that Fr. Gruner is "suspended" is just that, a lie. <br /><br />http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.aspAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70279407362600793962013-01-24T22:56:50.664-05:002013-01-24T22:56:50.664-05:00"Third, ecumenical sensibility has helped us ..."Third, ecumenical sensibility has helped us understand the need for conversion. Not the need for their conversion to us, but the need we all have for continual conversion to Christ."<br /><br />I don't deny this. But underlying it is the fact that one must know who Christ is and what He teaches if this is to be a true conversion. Protestants and all other non-Catholics have erroneous ideas in this regard, and thus they must become Catholic if their conversion is to be complete. (Individual Catholics may have erroneous ideas, too, but the remedy in that case certainly isn't for them to become non-Catholics). Only the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth. This is not me talking, but what the Church has taught for centuries.<br /><br />"What they despise the most about Vatican II apart from the liturgical changes is "ecumenism" and more charitable approach to the Jews and other religions and even to non believers all of which Vatican II suggested, not in a dogmatic way but in a pastoral way."<br /><br />If by "ecumenism" you mean "indifferentism," then yes, I despise it, because it is a heresy that can lead to the damnation of souls, which is in no way a charitable approach to anyone. <br /><br />If all this sounds a bit too pre-Vatican II for y'all, my response is "Good!" As the hierarchy never tires of declaring (although never seems to cogently explain), VII didn't change this prior teaching. The thing that I'm waiting for is to see how the hierarchy squares VII "ecumenism" with the above statements doctrinally. But <i>in practice</i> they seem very often to be ignoring pre-VII teaching in favor of false ecuminism, i.e., acting indifferentist. This should alarm everyone who professes the Catholic faith.<br /><br />Really, now; should we rejoice in whatever elements of the Catholic faith that Baptists or Pentecostals or whomever happen to hold in common with us? Or should we be be truly, fraternally, concerned with the state of their souls, since many of them haven't received a valid Baptism or made a good confession and been absolved of their mortal sins or received any other sacrament?Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-353289604659693842013-01-24T22:26:09.347-05:002013-01-24T22:26:09.347-05:00No disrespect intended Fr. Ignotus, but you have o...No disrespect intended Fr. Ignotus, but you have only managed to parrot the "party line" of Cardinal Bertone, which has been shot to pieces. <br /><br />Bertone walked out of Sister Lucia's convent with a dubious "admission" that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Instead of detailing it all here, suffice to say others have done a much more efficient job than I could, especially Antonio Socci, author of The Fourth Secret of Fatima and Christopher Ferrara, author of The Secret Still Hidden.<br /><br />Better yet, I'll quote Pope Benedict himself:<br /><br />“We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic message is complete." <br /><br />There are some serious deceptions going on in the Vatican and we would be mistaken to believe that the Curia is one big happy family in unanimous support of the pope. The Vatican has its factions and they never stop maneuvering for position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-78049688397083591582013-01-24T20:42:45.900-05:002013-01-24T20:42:45.900-05:00The commentary Father does seem snide without havi...The commentary Father does seem snide without having intimate personal knowledge of each member of the SSPX's thoughts. One not knowing your position or the position of the SSPX would conclude from reading this that they are one of the most damaging threats to the Church. I don't think that is the message you WANT to get across but it is the one that comes across.Gregorian Massnoreply@blogger.com