What People Are Commenting
Gaudi’s ‘Cathedral’ & a Mystical Portugal
Benedict XVI Consecrated Gaudi's ‘Cathedral’
Dear TIA staff,
In a recent book published by a Spanish Journalist (Jose María Zavala,
The Secret Best Kept of Fatima
, ed. Planeta), the following third message is reported:
I may not be the only one, but when I read Marian Horvat's recent TIA article titled "
Our 'Third Secret' Was Written by Sister Lucy, Handwriting Expert Affirms"
, the presented text of what could be the authentic Third Secret of Fatima immediately let me think of Pope Benedict XVI's questionable consecration of Antonio Gaudí's weird "cathedral"-in-the-making, the
[Holy Family Church] in Barcelona, on November 7, 2010 (the 93rd anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution). Here is that sequence:
"Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the
Church of hel
l; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; in the roof of the building it had a beak."
Although certainly the text speaks of the state of the Church figuratively, the description still seems to fit that sinister design of
La Sagrada Familia
, as well as the Pope being there. A "church of hell" fits Gaudí's architecture well, "ugliness" does so too. "A gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes" indeed seems to me like a perfect depiction of the interior of that "church". Even the "beak" in the roof, it seems, can be related.
Attached are some pictures that, I think, are rather self-explaining in this regard.
3rd Secret Handwriting Analysis
All due respect to your Handwriting Expert, the writing examples look similar to me but not the same. No amount of analysis will make me accept this as the third secret. In the passage Our Lady says that it is to be revealed after Pius XII
but before 1960
. That would put it squarely in the Pontificate of John XXIII. John XXIII, when having read the secret said words to the effect that it did not apply to his Pontificate. Clearly he was reading some other document than yours.
Why would Our Lady want it revealed before 1960? In my mind it is to warn about the disaster that the Council will bring about in the Church and in the faith of Catholics. But your secret says nothing about a council. This secret, whose origin you cannot or will not explain, really says nothing at all of any aid to Catholics for our situation. The real Third Secret will be, I believe, much more direct and pointed in its warnings.
A Mystical Portugal
Our Lady of Fatima said that, “In Portugal, the dogma of faith will always be preserved.” This statement implies that there will be a dogma of the faith that will be almost universally undermined elsewhere.
There is no dogma in our times that has been more universally undermined than the dogma of the necessity of Church membership for salvation. A significant percentage of Catholics have never even heard of this dogma, and of those who have, the overwhelming majority have heard it explained with qualifications that make the dogma seem almost meaningless and inapplicable to most people who are outside the Church.
Only a very small percentage of Catholics believe the dogma in the sense that it has been infallibly defined:
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved
.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council)
The above dogmatic definition refers to the Church as being “of the faithful.” No one can be considered a member of the Catholic Church unless they profess the Catholic faith. This seems so obvious, but how many times do we hear today that non-Catholics can be “anonymous Christians” and members of the Church without even knowing that they are members!
Also excluded from being considered “of the faithful” are catechumens. This is evident in the distinction made in the Missal between the “Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful.” I once told a friend of mine who goes to a
parish that the reason the Church only prays for the repose of the “faithful departed” is because no one who dies outside the Church can even make it to Purgatory. He was very surprised. This dogma of the faith is not being “preserved” in most places.
The dogmatic definition teaches that “no one at all” is saved outside the Church. The 1949 Holy Office Letter to Archbishop Cushing condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney’s courageous defense of
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
(EENS) undermined the universality of this dogma by teaching that “no one will be saved who,
knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ
, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church.” There is a huge difference between teaching that “no one at all” is saved outside the Church and teaching that those who cannot be saved are only ones who “know the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, but refuse to enter.”
This liberal 1949 Holy Office Letter was included by Fr. Karl Rahner in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s
Sources of Catholic Dogma
and was referenced in a footnote in the Vatican II document,
. By teaching that non-Catholics can be implicit members of the Church without believing the Catholic faith or being baptized, the 1949 Letter supports the idea that the Church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic Church and includes non-Catholics as members.
The First Vatican Council taught that “the sense of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth” (
Constitutio de Fide Catholica
, Chapter IV). Pope St. Pius X quoted this teaching from Vatican I in
to refute the error of the Modernists who think that “dogmas can evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.” Pope Leo XIII also quoted Vatican I’s teaching on the sense of the sacred dogmas in his encyclical on Americanism.
Pope Paul VI said, “Differing from other Councils, this one [Vatican II] was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” He also said, “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.” By saying these things, Paul VI was implicitly acknowledging that other Councils have proclaimed in an extraordinary manner dogmas that are of themselves infallible. The first thing Catholics who are confused about EENS should do is look to the dogmatic Councils that have defined what we must believe on the matter.
When Our Lady of Fatima said that the dogma of the faith will always be preserved in “Portugal,” I think that “Portugal” signifies those who have a true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have noticed that those who have a devotion to Our Lady of Fatima tend to be more traditional and orthodox in their beliefs.
Thanks for all the good work,
Urrutigoity & the Society of St. John
Urrutigoity can no longer act as a priest. It is unclear if he has been officially laicized. He has a civilian job. And the new bishop has shut down the SSJ for good.
I still worry about him coming in contact with young boys and young men.
Spanish copy of article on clerical sex abuser
Translation of the above by my ‘In Christo Rege’ friend.
2014 article on SSJ
Should I Be Re-confirmed?
Where I live there are only 2 choices for Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) - the rich and beautiful church of the Motu proprio and the somewhat dumpy chapel of the sedevacantists.
The Motu proprio church has TLM daily but includes the Novus Ordo on Saturdays. I recently asked the main priest there if they keep the consecrated hosts separate in the tabernacle and this upset him, but I found out they do not. It seems I crossed a forbidden line by asking. I think if I’m to resist progressivism there, I will not be welcome and there may be thugs who may have it out for me. The way I see it these priests fear to admit the truth, reject the truth, therefore reject God who is the truth.
They go by the 1962 missal rather than the original unstripped authentic TLM. Also I do not desire to give scandal assisting at their TLM impressing to others I go along with their acceptance of the new Church.
At the other TLM which is sedevacantist, they go by the original missal, the chapel is much smaller and in a much worse neighborhood. Here, again, I do not want to impress others that I accept sedevacantism.
1. So of course, vigilance is required of me at either TLM. My conscience tells me to attend to the lesser of the two evils. Which would you recommend?
2. My other question is: What are your thoughts on the reconfirmation offered at the sede-vacantist TLM? Perhaps mine was still valid in the early ‘70s yet I really never took it seriously.
Would you recommend I be reconfirmed?
Thank you so much for your time and attention.
We normally give the criteria and leave the decision to the interested person. In these times of great confusion the responsibility falls to each one standing before God.
So, regarding your first question, we think both are valid; you decide.
Regarding your second question, we believe you do not need to be reconfirmed. The sacraments of the Post-Conciliar Church, generally speaking, are valid.
TIA correspondence desk
The Bombing of Tokyo 1942
Here is something you should disseminate to help our youth to know and admire our past.
Posted March 28, 2017
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
Our ‘Third Secret’ Was Written by Sr. Lucy
Third Secret of Fatima
‘Third Secret’ of Fatima Discussion
Is There Proof the Secret Was to Be Released in 1960?
Questions on the N.O. Mass & Sacraments
The Missal Crisis of '62
Related Works of Interest