If Fatima is true - how could Paul VI and JPII be canonized???

[Markie Boy]

I just had this revelation as I have been thinking on Fatima.

Fatima foretold out times, of deep corruption and evil, even entering the Church. Part of the message was supposed to be released in 1960, because per Sister Lucy "It would be clearer then".

Paul VI did not release it and 1960 came and went. I don't think any following popes, including JPII did either. How could they be canonized if what they did was deprive the Catholic world of a great warning of huge apostasy??? That is not saintly behavior in any way.

Does this make sense to anyone but me?

 

[Gnarwhal]

Interesting to see this thread this morning. I follow Rorate Caeli on Twitter and they tweeted that "John Paul II was canonized too soon" because he allegedly knew about McCarrick as far back as 1988.

Granted, they were citing an NCReporter article, which I typically don't uphold as credible.

 

[Mountainmike]

I just had this revelation as I have been thinking on Fatima.

Fatima foretold out times, of deep corruption and evil, even entering the Church. Part of the message was supposed to be released in 1960, because per Sister Lucy "It would be clearer then".

Paul VI did not release it and 1960 came and went. I don't think any following popes, including JPII did either. How could they be canonized if what they did was deprive the Catholic world of a great warning of huge apostasy??? That is not saintly behavior in any way.

Does this make sense to anyone but me?

Sr Lucia was under obedience and released the secrets only under obedience. She would be the first to acknowledge the right of the papacy acting in loco christi, to decide when time is right, whatever her personal views of it. The preface of all of her memoirs (which I have only seen in portuguese not english versions) is a great reluctance to document any of it, except because of obedience!

I have an unusual view perhaps of tribulations in the church. Which is to say Our Lord is custodian of his church and he says he will not let the gates of hell prevail. He chose the popes, and motivates what they say and do, so much as there is turmoil in the church, I say trust in our Lord, to decide what is right.

He decided what our Lady could reveal, and how those revelations would propagate. Who should with hold them and who reveal them. It would be crazuy for Him to decide to make a revelation, that was barred by human frailty! It is also entirely compatible with what we know of the secret, that it was a message for the Holy Father not for mankind.

To consider otherwise is to believe our Lord either cannot or will not control what happens in his Church.

If He wills it, pope francis will prevail over any objectors. When He wills it the secret is was or will be revealed (depending on whose version you believe).

The events and revelations were also conditional, containing the word "unless"... Events and Akita also reinforced the fact that some aspects have been ignored so leading to the "worse war" . The fall of the soviet union implies also some were effective.

I say trust.

I speak as someone who is so drawn by fatima I own a house not far away and spend months of the year there!

 

[Markie Boy]

Yes - let's look at who's the pope that JPII and Paul VI are canonized under?

And I'd say if Sister Lucy said it was to be released in 1960, and they did not, they were no obedient to a divine message.

At some point if one goes down that path that the papacy and Vatican are the ultimate authority, and all they do is correct, you will go over the cliff with them.

Shall we follow them in their cover up of sex abuse because they were doing what was best for the Church?? I think not.

Was their cover up of the Fatima message what was best for people????

 

[Mountainmike]

If you go back to the original portuguese texts (which I have, and I can confirm) - in a big collection on fatima, here is the truth of what was said:

Sister Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria.

Archbishop Bertone asked her... “Why only after 1960? Was it Our Lady who fixed that date?”
Sister Lucia replied: “It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood. Now it can be better understood. I wrote down what I saw; however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope.

In "Os apelos da Mensagem de Fatima" (by herself) , It refers to a question in which se was asked if she would be happy to have it published, and she replied:
“If the Holy Father agrees, then I am happy, otherwise I obey whatever the Holy Father decides”.

There are too many misleading statements made on this.
The above from Sr Lucias own writings.

So it was not a demand to publish in 1960. And that was her date as a "might be better understood after date" , nobody else.

I get you have issues with the Catholic Church Markie,
but its best to focus on the facts as they are known.
There are alot of conspiracy/erroneous fatima sites out there.
Go back to Lucias own words.

Yes - let's look at who's the pope that JPII and Paul VI are canonized under?

And I'd say if Sister Lucy said it was to be released in 1960, and they did not, they were no obedient to a divine message.

At some point if one goes down that path that the papacy and Vatican are the ultimate authority, and all they do is correct, you will go over the cliff with them.

Shall we follow them in their cover up of sex abuse because they were doing what was best for the Church?? I think not.

Was their cover up of the Fatima message what was best for people????

 

[Markie Boy]

Good insight - thanks for sharing!