What People Are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
FSSP Compromise & Ambiguous Final Battle
Is the Final Battle about the Clergy or Marriage?
My daughter and I had a discussion about this and thought it might be interesting to Catholics who know that there are two Sister Lucys.
There are many interesting differences in Sister Lucy 1 and Sister Lucy 2 including their appearance. They talk differently. What they say is different. For instance: Many people believe that the final battle will be about marriage and the family. Not according to Sister Lucy 1. If we place the two Lucys statements side by side, we can see the differences regarding the subject of the final battle.
From the Fr. Fuentes interview with Lucia in 1957 (later approved by the Bishop of Leiria- Fatima)
Decisive battle between Mary & Satan
“Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that most offends God, and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus, the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God because in this way, the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them. Religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell...”
Then a couple of decades later we have Cardinal Cafarra’s letter from ‘Sister Lucy’, sometime during the pontificate of John Paul II.
In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don't be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue."
The battle for marriage and the family is very important and certainly key. It even relates to this issue. But is it the "final battle"? We've battled marriage and the family issues for decades. Seems there is some obfuscation going on, especially in light of the epic scandal going on in the priesthood.
Was this intended by those who put Sister Lucy 2 into business? Were they trying to steer the minds of Catholics away from considering a worse evil? We already know what offends God the most: Homosexuality. But in the interest of keeping that nightmare on the down-low, we have Lucy 2 saying marriage and family is the final battle, unaware that we were told years earlier by the real Sister Lucy that the final battle is over CONSECRATED SOULS (and homosexuality).
God bless you in keeping and spreading the Faith!
Sincerely,
E.C.
______________________
Ruthenian Rite Hosting Romanian Rite
Re: Byzantine churches with pews
My name is C.L. I was looking through your site today and found your response to a letter from B.B. about whether or not Byzantine (Eastern Catholic) churches have pews.
You posted several photos of different Byzantine churches with pews, and I was delighted to see among them (2nd from the top, left) a photo of my own church, St. Mary's Byzantine Catholic Church in Sherman Oaks, CA! However, I noted you only had it identified as "second row left, Romanian Catholic Rite".
I thought I'd let you know a little more about our beautiful church. We are actually of the Ruthenian rite. However, for the past several years we have shared our church with a Romanian parish that did not have its own church. Our Divine Liturgy is held at 9:30 AM on Sundays, and theirs follows at 11:30. While there are a few small differences in our traditions, we have much in common, and from time to time will celebrate holy days and other parish events together.
I did want to add, in defense of the writer B.B., that while it's true most Byzantine/Eastern Catholic parishes I've attended do have pews, or at least chairs, many smaller chapels, especially at monasteries, do not have them (though they will put chairs along the walls for those who are unable to stand). This is considered to be closer to the Eastern Orthodox style (although it's amusing to me when people say that, because every E.O. church I've ever visited does have pews!!).
I'm attaching a photo of Holy Theophany for you. Also, here's a link to St. Mary's website, specifically the photos page!
Anyway, thanks again for your informative website! I'm enjoying reading your past articles and letters!
C.L.
Posted September 25, 2018
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |
Can I assume you are sedevacantist?
The reason I ask is I recently used information you published and I was accused that I was consulting the wrong people. So if you can clear it up for me. I would much appreciate your opinions on the FSSP and how they are compromised.
In Christ Jesus
E.J.W.
TIA responds:
E.J.W.,
We are not sede-vacantist. You may read our answers to similar questions here.
The proof that FSSP compromised is indirect but a quite convincing one. The Ecclesia Dei Commission of the Vatican demands from any traditionalist priest or institution that asks for permission to say the traditional Mass according to the 1962 Missal the following compromises:
- To not publicly criticize the Pope;
- To not publicly criticize Vatican II;
- To not publicly criticize the Novus Ordo Mass;
- To submit to the local Bishop.
The Commission is open to receive objections on these points, but they need to be addressed in private, never in public. The Commission answers each particular case. The answers, however, are all in favor of Vatican II, the New Mass and the conciliar reforms in the Church. So, there is no possibility to have a return process from the Conciliar Revolution. This "dialogue" is a one-way road.Now then, members of the FSSP certainly act as if the heads of their organization would have signed the four points demanded by the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They never do anything that is opposed to those four points. Therefore, it is an obvious de facto acceptance, even though we don’t have a photocopy of a document with their signatures.
To these four points of compromise, Pope Benedict XVI in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum added another demand: that those who want to say the “Old Rite Mass” must also make clear that they do not have any objection to the “New Rite Mass.” This last requirement has normally been understood as a requisite that the candidate saying the “Old Rite” must be willing, if asked, to say the “New Rite” at times in order to prove that he has no objection to the latter
This last demand is the only point that seems to be open to discussion. We do not know whether every priest of the FSSP has had to say a Novus Ordo Mass to show he has no objection against it, or only some of them have done so.
Now, when we argue showing that there is a de facto compromise, the maneuver used by the members of the FSSP is to divert the attention of the inquirer by saying: “These people are sede-vacantist. Don't listen to what they say.” This tactic is not so different from throwing sand in one’s eyes; it is far from being fair.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk