Story here. Scroll down.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003

Answers

Thank God

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), November 18, 2003.

I don't see a denial anywhere in there. There's some downplaying, some damage control, but no one explicitly denies what was reported and later reaffirmed by the Portugese press. It can be read two ways.

I've got my "surprised" face on right now.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

And even if there were an outright denial from the hierarchy in Rome and Portugal, I don't doubt it would not go forward. Interesting first hand account of the gathering here.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

A top Vatican official has quashed rumours that the world-famous Fatima shrine is to be turned into a multi-faith pilgrim centre.

sounds like a pretty clear denial to me, jake.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 18, 2003.

Kinda odd... the original TEMPLE, built by Solomon was also supposed to be an "inter-faith" pilgrimage destination...which is why it had a "court of the gentiles" and why Solomon asked the Lord to bless those non-Jews who would come to that place to pray. Since the original Holy of Holies, the original design of God included (quite naturally and logically) the idea that because it's true, all mankind should go up there to offer prayer and worship to God...it makes equal sense that later day shrines to Mary or saints should also be open sites for all people to seek God in prayer and pilgrimage.

But we are supposed to be angry and in high dungeon should pagans or Muslims or Jews or anyone else come to pay respect to a site where the Mother of God appeared... And somehow by saying "No, this is only for us" we somehow are making progress in the Lord's command to go make disciples of all the nations....?

I don't see it that way - how would openning any Catholic shrine to everyone who would visit undermine the Catholic faith? How does it somehow prove or even suggest that religious syncretism is even possible?

It's one thing to promote tours and tourism - in which a site is merely observed...yet even there, the site has purpose - and can move unbelievers to faith...

Who is Mary? If she appeared at all - what does that mean? How could it be taken out of its Catholic content? How could her message not bring non-Catholics to contemplate the faith in the resurrection of the body, life after death and a loving God so concerned for his children that He would allow Mary to visit us?

I also find it odd that while on the one hand a lot of "Fatima people" seem to believe in some super-sacrament called the "consecration of Russia" would instantly bring conversion to 300 million atheists and usher in a halcyon period of peace... the very shrine of Fatima couldn't be as powerful a motive of conversion for unbelievers.

I mean, what is more life changing to anyone? Knowledge that some religious figure once said a prayer or the experience of personally going on a pilgrimage to some place where Mary appeared and gave a message of hope and conversion to the world?

I must admit being baffled by all this.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

sounds like a pretty clear denial to me, jake.

Scroll past the headline.

Archbishop Fitzgerald said he was present at the meeting and the reports which have caused the alarm had been misconstrued.

He said that the meeting, which he pointed out was organised by the sanctuary itself and not by the Vatican as had been suggested in some quarters, was “part of an ongoing reflection” on the sanctuary’s “inter-religious dimension” in the Church and the modern world.

Archbishop Fitzgerald said “there were no practical conclusions” arising from the meeting. “It’s not going to change the nature of the sanctuary,” he insisted.

The shrine is about to undergo a complete reconstruction with a new stadium-like basilica being erected close by the existing one built in 1921.

Still clear?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

A classic case of damage control.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 18, 2003.

I wonder very often why you fellows speculate on the likes of this; as if you could draw some immediate conclusion. There have recently been some threads here on subjects I'm quite frankly not familiar with. Looking in, I do the practical thing, I read them and leave. I could post some inane thing like ''classic damage control'', just for my own gratification. But would I be any the wiser? No The Fatima shrine, from what little I know, is a holy shrine. But where is my authority or insight, to judge something going on over there, without the information? One news media outlet is the extent of our investigation? Not even very intelligible or complete?

Which is why I make no pretense of understanding. But that doesn't matter to you two.

If my opinion needed just THIS source; Jake and Bubald would lead me to believe Fatima is a disaster now! They aren't unbiased. Should I let them influence my opinion?

I could, but I won't. I'll stay in the dark about this item until we get the real scoop. Maybe EWTN, who knows? It'll turn up.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

At a certain moment I said to her: "Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be. But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you ... Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?" — "No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia ... In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia). See, Russia, not the world etc, Nope! Russia.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 18, 2003.

I see you have it now Fatima is about to ''consecrate the world''--? How do you figure?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

There is no question that the luminaries of neo-Catholicism have a special loathing for us traditionalists. Nothing¾not heresy, not priestly or episcopal scandal, not profanation of the sacred liturgy throughout the world¾excites their outrage as much as our presentation of the case for Roman Catholic traditionalism, by which we mean nothing more than a return to the constant practice and understanding of the Faith before 1965.

The leaders of the neo-Catholicism despise us, I am convinced, simply because we are what they themselves were a scant 35 years ago. If we remain Catholics in good standingand no competent Church authority has said otherwise!¾what does that say about them? I believe the neo- Catholics understand precisely what it says: it says that they have performed the role of useful idiots in the post-conciliar revolution, who failed in their moral duty to object to innovations which have caused grave damage to the Church. [1] When we shoot live ammunition at you, you return with large soounding blanks. No lead, just blanks. Chech your messages, have you ever said anything of substance? No, just name calling, and "we obey the pope". But no facts!

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 18, 2003.

Neo-conservatives have fallen into this way of thinking i.e. the only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current magisterium. Traditionalists, as a general rule, tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about some aspects of current magisterial teachings which seem to contradict the previous magisterium (e.g. the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current magisterium as their norm but Scripture(41), intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neo-conservatives i.e. their perspectives regarding the role of ecclesiastical tradition and how the current magisterium relates to it.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 18, 2003.

Thanks for your garbled editorial, Bubblet. Now we know the basis for your alienation from the Church. It's stupidity.

''We obey the pope". But no facts!'' What can I say? You disobey the Pope, and --no facts.

Is it a fact you're ''loathed'' or anyone ''excites their outrage'' or, Catholics are in favor of ''profanation of the sacred liturgy''-- Or have ''failed in their moral duty to object to innovations,'' (Of all YOU hate and loathe and are outraged about? Including our Holy Father?) Have WE ever said anything of substance? To you-- ? ? ? Yes we have. You reject it out of false pride. Did YOU, Bubble-- ever said anything of substance? Not on this forum. Try and say something of substance, Bubble. Just try harder, Man!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

Quo Primum, Cantate Domino, Unum Sanctum, and on and on. And You, What? Give one. Of course these are all just 'disciplines", or misunderstood. The modernists will decipher them for us, right?

The Church was awfully stupid before V2. Glad you all helped out. Don't know what we'd do without you.

Maybe you need some help in closing all those churches.

Don't mean to b harsh, but that is the only language you understand. You do OK on that score , yourself.

We want to do something to help, while the Church keeps bleeding away, but you just watch, and say "What bleeding"?

-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 18, 2003.

Deo annuit coeptus in saecula saeculorum, -- Just one.

''The Church was awfully stupid before V2 --?'' We're thrilled you admit here that it's the same Church. If it's the same one, how come you rats are abandoning ship? Christ promised us she wouldn't ever sink, so you have no faith. Oh, but you want to save her! How many churches have you ever saved in the past? What's your track record, Bubbles?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

Watch your blood pesure Eugene. Trying to save one Mass that glorifies God. You offer the lesser of the two. thats something!

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 19, 2003.

Bubbles, Cant you see how esteemed we are here. Look at the lovely names that our fellow Catholics have given us "schismatic traditionalist muck rakers" (thanks Mateo), protestants (various posters) now "rats"(thanks Eugene). I think that this is a fine example of Christian Charity. One must wonder, did they learn this from a preist? a Bishop? the Pope? †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 19, 2003.

On a scale of 10-- you get a 1. My ''blood pesure,'' Bubble??? What is that?

And when have you ever saved a mass? Bubbles saves the Mass! Ha!

Jeff is all busted up about the negative tug of war. He spells poorly too. Preist. -- No matter; His own brand of theology is what we're disputing here. The evil of disobedience and of second guessing the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit is GOD, Jeff! Since when are Catholics beating up on Him?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

Slinging mud at each other is not going to help, although I can see the catharsis value.

I would like to suggest that the traditionalists supply the orthodox Catholics with a list of grievances. Let's get down to the real issues (unless they've been dealt with already on the forum), supply the list and let the orthodox guys respond.

I will certainly respond, I look forward to it.

Waiting for the list...

-- Franc (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 19, 2003.

The really traditional and orthodox have no actual grievances, Franc. It's the elite who insist THEY have the only claim to ''traditional'' and we the equally orthodox & traditional are cut off from the Catholic Church.

Mud-slinging is better than quitting. This is all just a tempest in a teapot really. No one wins these kinds of contests.

I only fight because we shouldn't allow innocent Catholics to be deceived by slanderers.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

"Bubbles, Cant you see how esteemed we are here. Look at the lovely names that our fellow Catholics have given us "schismatic traditionalist muck rakers" (thanks Mateo)"

Dear Jeff, it's not a name, it's a description. If a person is not able to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, he is in schism. If he tries to defend that schism by slinging mud at the Catholic Church, its pope, bishops, priests, and faithful, then he is a muckraker.

Just calling a spade a spade...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscsape.net), November 19, 2003.

Dear Jeff its perhaps for the best if you asked yourself if your OWN conduct is appropriate. Your previous posts thus far on the forum are quickly forgettable and only highlight your total lack of education in Dogmatic Theology. You have NO IDEA of the FULL extent to which the Magisterium is endowed with infallibility, nor do you even begin to understand the intentions of Vatican I. The true emptiness and self-delusion of your theology and your fellow participants can be glimpsed beneath the superficial nature of your one dimensional self indulgent offerings.

Hi Franc the mere fact men like Mateo and Eugene converse with such delusional people is a testament to their Christian goodwill, charity and love. WE most certainly doesn’t need accolades or brickbats from the likes of Jeff . We forgive them though. Its often hard and unpleasant work having to deal with such closed negative minds, if I fall occasionally please forgive me.

These people will just keep regurgitating the same recycled reheated, retreated garbage. Oh Mercy! Prepare to be stupefied beyond your wildest dreams Franc. Good Luck though, you will need it.

Take poor Bubbles our latest schismatic, fits the usual profile like a glove. Sincere and stupid as a slab of stone. Its not arrogantto say such things, its a fact, read anything she/he or any of the other so called traditionalists have offered us. Pure stupidity, theres no other word for it.

Bubbles latest "thoughts" are copied directly "Father” (sic)Chad Ripperger, I don’t think he’s excommunicated but judging from the essay I just read from him he’s not far away , a distinction without difference.

Mateo or someone clever with links (I forget)could you be so kind as to make these links for Bubbles. Bubbles I hope you read these two links carefully and with an open heart. If you would like a copy of essays from real traditional Catholic scholars dealing with “Father Chads” errors Ill happily e-mail them to you. In the meantime please just do us all a favour and read some real traditional Catholic theology

1.The Second Vatican Council: To Whose Competence Does It Belong to Interpret Vatican II?

By Stephen Hand

http://www.tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html

2. Tradition and Living Magisterium Catholic Encyclopedia 1912

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.

If it's links you want, it's links you'll get.

1.The Second Vatican Council: To Whose Competence Does It Belong to Interpret Vatican II?

By Stephen Hand

Link1

2. Tradition and Living Magisterium Catholic Encyclopedia 1912

Link2

-- noone (noone@nowhere.com), November 19, 2003.

In a recent article in Our Sunday Visitor, Russell Shaw draws attention to a serious problem: Mass attendance has halved in the last four decades since Vatican II. (1) How can this be, he asks, when all changes in the Church were made in the name of making the Mass more appealing to the people – changing it from Latin to English, turning the altars around, involving the laity with dialogue and activities, permitting popular songs and guitars?

People don’t attend Mass because they don’t know what it really is. A 1992 Gallup poll showed that 70 % of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass do not believe they are receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, at Holy Communion. That is to say, only 30% believe in the Real Presence. Is this what you want traditionals to join. Arent we schismatic enough, without joining these Novus Ordo's. We would only speed up our loss of faith? I can assure you of one thing. One hundred percent of we schismatics, believe in the Real Presence, and behave accordingly in Church. I have read Stephen Hand's work in the Wanderer, and he is just another fellow excusing the problem. By the way, are you going to deny your own publication?

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 19, 2003.

You're wasting your time bubbles. The church has had troubles before (heard of the Protestants) and will have them again, but the Holy Spirit still guides her. No matter how well meaning you think you are, trading your judgement for the Holy Spirit's is wrong.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 19, 2003.

We are confronted with clueless dark clouds like you who have no idea what a Church even IS. If you had faith, nothing would shake it, not if attendence dropped to ten faithful Catholics. The Catholic Church will have NO end, while she teaches the faith of the apostles, which is FOREVER!

You glory in the ''significance'' of ''schimatics all believe in the True Presence''-- as if this was more than anyone could expect. We're SUPPOSED to believe. Both you and I. Believing is no license for elitism.

Gallup polls don't determine who is a Catholic. Even those who confess to doubting in a doctrine remain Catholic. In the last hour of their lives they can repent just as I can and YOU will.

The post-Vatican Mass is not directly related as you suppose, with a loss of faith. Loss of faith is a personal discretion. Christ said, many are called but few are chosen. Catholics can risk damnation DAILY under pressure of SIN and Gallup polls don't come to a single conclusion about it. The Church, meanwhile, carries on with her holy work in this world, saving souls. The Pope is in our vanguard; not yesterday's Gallup poll. YOU, a silly reactionary, believe you've pointed to the ONLY possible cause: Vatican II! ! ! This is the heighth of presumption. God is our Judge, not you, ''Bubbles''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

When it is down to 15%, I expect more platitudes. The Church is indeed a remnant, and the traditional Church IS that remnant.

It must be frustating coming up, with the nothing that you can defend Just more and more platitudes. That has been the pattern since I found this site. The trads swamp you with Papal Bulls, encyclicals, councils and more, but back comes the pltitudes. What a waste of time defending the indefensible.Your loyalty is not deserved, by men like Mahoney, Weakland and others. Saw a picture of the "Rog Mahal" today. What a monstrosity.

-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 19, 2003.

In 1984 Cardinal Ratzinger said publicly that, on balance, the period since the Council had been a decidedly negative one for the Catholic Church. In so doing, he was only echoing what Pope Paul had said on 23 November 1973: "The opening to the world [he means the whole policy of aggiornamento or updating] became a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking" and concludes, "We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent."

Great religious orders such as those of the Jesuits and Dominicans, which were growing, and growing at an increasing rate, in the hundred years prior to Vatican II, stopped growing in 1965 and went immediately into rapid decline, often falling by between one-third and one-quarter in numbers. In rough figures, the Dominicans fell from ten thousand to six thousand, the Capuchins from sixteen to twelve thousand, the Salesians from twenty-two to seventeen thousand and the Jesuits, the largest order in the Church, from thirty-six to twenty-six thousand.

At exactly the same point, 1965, when the piecemeal demolition of the Mass of the Roman Rite began, Mass attendance in the Western world began to go into sharp and sudden decline. About 60 per cent of nominal Catholics in Australia, for example, attended Mass weekly in 1962; less than 20 per cent do so today. The drop is therefore of the order of seventy per cent on the 1965 figure.

It is unnecessary to multiply quotations from Popes or citations of figures in order to prove the obvious. The hoped for renewal of the Church simply has not occurred. Surely simple honesty demands that everyone abandon the game of the Emperor's new clothes, and join the honest but "ecclesiastically incorrect" little boy who proclaims that the Emperor is naked and that the marvellous new clothes are simply a fraud.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 19, 2003.

"The trads swamp you with Papal Bulls, encyclicals, councils and more, but back comes the pltitudes."

This is just so cute, Bubbles. And the protestants swamp us with Bible verses?

You sound so triumphant; especially when you give us so many platitudes.

Well, maybe I'll quote a Church council in the next day or two.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 19, 2003.

Pretty Bubbles is copying/pasting from his cache of anti- Vatican II literature. He could hardly write two intelligible sentences yesterday; now he hits us with a 10,000 word think-piece! He wants substance, so he borrows somebody else's to pretend he knows what he's talking about. The article is nothing but a large puddle anyway. No real truth for dissemination. This poor guy could plagiarise Crime & Punishment and confuse the entire Moscow Police Bureau with his prose.

Dear Bubbles: Would you like a job? My company needs a parking lot attendent. Perfect for you, and you'll get fresh air outside. OK?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 20, 2003.

Your loyalty is not deserved, by men like Mahoney, Weakland and others. Saw a picture of the "Rog Mahal" today. What a monstrosity.

Bubbles, typical of an anti-Catholic misses a couple of big points per sentence:

1: Out loyalty is NOT given to men, but to the church

2: It doesn't bother him to call a Catholic church a "monstrosity"

Another lost sheep

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 20, 2003.

Bubbles' Cute-and-paste arguing is so much fun. Next time, Bubbles, it would be nice for you to give credit to the author.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

"Cute-and-paste." I like that!

L@L!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Kiwi, You may be right, Though I doubt it. You, I assume must have a degree in Dogmatic Theology, or at least that is the way that you make it sound. I really don't care what you tink of my posts. I don't care what anyone thinks of them except God. You seem to forget that there is a pleasing way to worship God and a displeasing way to worship God. It just so happens that you are on the wrong side in that argument. †

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 20, 2003.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Holy God, we praise Thy Name; Lord of all, we bow before Thee! Infinite Thy vast domain, Everlasting is Thy reign. All on earth Thy scepter claim, All in heaven above adore Thee; Infinite Thy vast domain, Everlasting is Thy reign.

Hark! the loud celestial hymn Angel choirs above are raising, Cherubim and seraphim, In unceasing chorus praising; Fill the heavens with sweet accord: Holy, holy, holy, Lord. Infinite Thy vast domain, Everlasting is Thy reign.

Then we can break into a chorus or two of Kum by ya {or however you spell it}. I want to be Catholic You know. Paste this song into your hat , and cut the baloney from your responses. Try being a Catholic for a couple of weeks. It feels great. Get the emphasis off of me, me, me, in your songs of praise and try, you, you, you.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 20, 2003.

Bubbles,

I like you.

Love (and all that stuff),

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.