Catholicism

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by TrainingForUtopia, Apr 2, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Note that 77% of the "children" were males, and most of them were adolescents. That doesn't sound like rape. It sounds like old-fashioned homosexual sex (man and a male adolescent) to me.

    I'm not sure where you get your info from, but that's blatantly false. I can recall plenty of stories of children under the age of 13 who were molested.

    Regardless of the age of the people who were molested, it was clearly and terribly wrong in each case.

    I have not heard of a single traditionalist priest committing these sins.

    That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't know why people get the iea that if they haven't heard of something, it must be true or untrue (depending on the case).
  2. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    B_S,

    I don't disagree that Vatican II might have contributed greatly to the decline of the Catholic Church, I just have a more, shall we say, idealistic view of how many Catholics will respond if Vatican II is reversed.

    Here's my view:

    Vatican II allowed services to be conducted in native languages, which made it much easier for the average Joe to understand what was going on. The greater comprehension diminished the mystical aura that the religion had. This understanding of what the church was actually saying, combined with the increased prevalence of secular reasoning in society, is what I think caused the decrease in church memebership. As I see it, if someone is educated and reasonable enough, they will see through the folly of religion.

    Keeping the mass in Latin is a way of keeping the common man uninformed and ignorant, which seems to be the best way to keep religious enrollment high.
  3. Darth_Overlord Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Wow, a lot has been going on in the last few hours.

    First of all, the Tridentine (1962) Mass. The Tridentine Mass is alive and well (though perhaps not in all areas) and John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei has a lot to do with that. There is a church here that has a latin Mass every Sunday morning and on holy days. One of my friends serves at this mass regularly and is seriously considering joining the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter). There's also a group pilgrimage to World Youth Day called Juventutem that celebrates the Tridentine Rite daily (with the Pope's encouragement, at that). I've been to latin Mass several times and I love how the ritual gives proper reverence and mystery to the Eucharist. However I disagree that the Novus Ordo Rite can't do this IF it is done according to the provisions set out in the G.I.R.M. (General Instruction of he Roman Missal). My ideal would be to see both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Rites exist side by side, perhaps even in every Roman Catholic Church in the world. Don't forget that the Church already had multiple Rites (Byzantine, Chaldean, etc.) pre-Vatican II. It also isn't possible to simply dispose of the Novus Ordo rite as if it never existed. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said, "If by ?restoration? is meant a turning back, no restoration of such a kind is possible. The Church moves forward toward the consummation of history, she looks ahead to the Lord who is coming. No, there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back." (Spirit of the Liturgy)

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon, I doubt the introduction of the vernacular had such a direct impact as you suggest. The Tridentine Rite was readily available in multiple translations in the form of missals. Anyone could simply read what the priest was saying. I have a couple of these myself, one is dated 1961 the other 1942.

    Also, might I suggest, Binary_Sunset, that your problems with Vatican II are not against the Council itself, but the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" (what I like to call the "Poltergeist of Vatican II"). A lot of things are done in the name of Vatican II that are contrary to it or simply not there. For example, "The use of Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). Nowhere does it say that the Tabernacle should be removed from the center of the church, placed in a broom closet, and locked up in something that could be mistaken for minimalist sculpture rather than the Dwellingplace of the Lord. It also forbids "creativity" on the part of anyone when it comes to the liturgy, "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop[...]Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (Ibid.) If I were under the impression that what people claim Vatican II said to do Vatican II said to do, I'd be right with you. But if you actually read the documents, you may be pleasantly surprised. Again, quoting the Pope,"Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has been clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-called ?progressivism,? at least in its extreme forms?It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I and against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation" (Ratzinger Report) Now, wherever orthodoxy exists, that's where the Church prospers most.

    As to your list, #1 and #3: Great! #2: fine, though I don't understand why what John Paul II did isn't sasifactory. #4: See above #5: There's really nothing invalid about it, so fine by me.

    No, it wasn't. Instead, it was a bad move by the Church, pushed on Paul by church hardliners. At one poin
  4. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    Just google Ratzenger and Catholic sex scandal, Binary. He was the guy MOST responsible for the disinformation concerning Catholic priests molesting children.
  5. Binary_Sunset Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 5
    My statistics were from memory. I just looked up the actual statistics in A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States.

    Here is the report in PDF: http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/johnjayreport.pdf

    Here is the same report in HTML:
    http://www.nccbuscc.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm

    Here are the relevant statistics from page 26 of the PDF report:
    81% of the victims were male.
    78% of the victims were between the ages of 11 and 17

    The footnote on that page reads: 'The crisis has often been referred to in as one of "pedophile priests," which is an inaccurate, or incomplete, appellation. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (IV) classifies pedophilia as a psychiatric disorder and defines it as the sexual attraction of an adult to pre-pubescent children. According to the John Jay College researchers, although it is difficult to make generalizations about whether a particular act of sexual abuse of a minor qualifies as an act of pedophilia, and the age at which puberty begins varies for each child, molestation that begins when the child is under the age of eleven is generally accepted as indicative of pedophilia.'

    The footnote on page 27 (PDF) notes that the correct term for the majority of these priests is "ephebophiles", defined there as "adult men who are sexually attracted primarily to adolescent males".

    The typical priestly abuser, then, is not preying on little kids. He is a homosexual lusting after "fresh flesh", in the same way that heterosexuals lust after adolescent girls in cheerleader uniforms.

    I haven't seen statistics on it, but it seems obvious that most of the abusers are priests who are the modernist, "sexually-liberated" type. The type that wants the Church to OK contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce, and all the rest. A faithful Catholic would not become a priest if he had homosexual desires, since canon law forbids homosexuals (whether active or not) to be priests. Again, common sense tells one that a typical abuser reads trendy things about sexuality. It is almost impossible to imagine a priest devoted to and consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (for example) to be doing this stuff. And if such a traditionalist priest were caught abusing minors, you can bet your last dollar that the secular press as well as the modernist Catholics would put that on the front page.
  6. Binary_Sunset Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 5
    This, I think, is nearly the reverse of the truth. The Catholic Church has long had a reputation for encouraging scholarship. The Church, for example, invented the modern university system in Europe. The various religious orders ran schools. Entire generations of Catholics were raised in Catholic schools in which they learned, in detail, the teachings of the Church. And during Mass, the typical missal had Latin on the left-hand page and English on the right-hand page. Further, most of the children in Catholic schools had at least some knowledge of Latin, so they at least knew enough to be able to follow along in the Latin/English missals.

    With the advent of Vatican II, most Catholic schools closed their doors. The remaining ones downplayed the theology and replaced nuns and priests with laymen, often not even Catholic. Further, the level of religious instruction at Catholic Sunday schools today is appalling. "Is God more like a radio or a soap bubble?" "If you could be any superhero you liked, which would it be and why?" "How does X make you feel?" Etc. Ad nauseum. In the U. S. at least, Catholics (as a whole) are more abyssmally ignorant of the Faith than they ever have been. So of course people stop going to Church. The services are ugly and the parishioners are ignorant. Who'd want to put up with that?
  7. Binary_Sunset Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 5
    I disagree with Ratzinger there. It is certainly possible to go back. The Pope could make that change in a day. He could simply order all Latin Rite bishops and priests to perform the Tridentine Mass exclusively. I don't expect Benedict XVI to do that, though, for obvious reasons. But perhaps the next Pope. (This reminds me of a comment written by G. K. Chesterton: He said that we certainly can and do "turn back the clock". We do it every year when Daylight Savings Time ends.)

    Granted that the implementation of Vatican II is worse than the Vatican II documents themselves. But the Vatican II documents are full of inexact phraseology and ambiguous passages. Nonsense and heresy flourish in the presence of ambiguity. Compare the wordy and effusive Vatican II documents with the concise precision of most of the previous Ecumenical Councils.

    Ratzinger wrote: "It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I and against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation."

    My response: Vatican II has the same infallibility as the other 20 Ecumenical Councils: It was prevented from dogmatically teaching theological or moral error. That's it. A council (like a Pope) is not guaranteed to teach the truth. Neither is it guaranteed to be wise. There are a multitude of Popes who made no dogmatic pronouncements during their pontificates. In their cases, papal infallibility operated by essentially "shut
  8. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    The Catholic Church has long had a reputation for encouraging scholarship.

    The Jesuits, yes. The rest of the Church, not so much.

    Until the Renaissance, the Church's main function was simply to keep the aristocracy in power. Peasants could accept the horrible living conditions of feudalism as long as the Church had them convinced of a heavenly afterlife that awaited them in return for keeping their noses in the dirt and following the commands of their "betters". Any good history book will give you a fair account of the political wranglings that dealt with the whole issue of the "Holy Roman Emperor" and other such nonsense.

    If people have a good comprehension of the reality of their religion, then they can go ahead and claim their faith. But the majority of people obey religion simply because that is what they have been raised to say they believe, and their ignorance keeps the Church in power.
  9. Darth_Overlord Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    I disagree with Ratzinger there. It is certainly possible to go back. The Pope could make that change in a day. He could simply order all Latin Rite bishops and priests to perform the Tridentine Mass exclusively. I don't expect Benedict XVI to do that, though, for obvious reasons. But perhaps the next Pope. (This reminds me of a comment written by G. K. Chesterton: He said that we certainly can and do "turn back the clock". We do it every year when Daylight Savings Time ends.)

    Gotta love Chesterton! [face_laugh]

    I probably should have continued a bit longer with his quote, "But if by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after the exaggerations of an indiscriminate opening to the world, after the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world, well, then a restoration understood in this sense (a newly found balance of orientations and values within the Catholic totality) is altogether desirable and, for that matter, is already in operation in the Church. In this sense it can be said that the first phase after Vatican II has come to a close." The thing is Vatican II must have in some way Providentially moved the Church forward. Now this very well could be said about the Reformation, in that it was necessary to bring about the Counter-Reformation, so it may not always be in itself a positive thing. The reformers said, "The church has become corrupt, so we must go back," while the counter-reformers said, "the church has become corrupt, so we must move forward." My concern is that the mentality that "we must go back to pre-Vatican II" is a form of the same mentality that the reformers had, what Ratzinger later in the book calls "the romantic archaeologism of certain professors of liturgy who would throw out everything done after Gregory the Great as being an excrescence and a sign of decadence. For them, the criterion of liturgical renewal was not "What ought to be done today?" but "What was it like then?" They forget that the Church is living and that her liturgy cannot be frozen at the stage reached in the city of Rome prior to the onset of the Middle Ages." Since you mention Chesterton, I am reminded of another quote of his, "The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."

    Granted that the implementation of Vatican II is worse than the Vatican II documents themselves. But the Vatican II documents are full of inexact phraseology and ambiguous passages. Nonsense and heresy flourish in the presence of ambiguity. Compare the wordy and effusive Vatican II documents with the concise precision of most of the previous Ecumenical Councils.

    Ratzinger wrote: "It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I and against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation."

    My response: Vatican II has the same infallibility as the other 20 Ecumenical Councils: It was prevented from dogmatically teaching theological or moral error. That's it. A council (like a Pope) is not guaranteed to teach the truth. Neither is it guaranteed to be wise. There are a multitude of Popes who made no dogmatic pronouncements during their pontificates. In their cases, papal infallibility operated by essentially "shutting them up". The same thing with Vatican II. In the hundreds and hundreds of pages of the Vatican II documents, not a single new dogmatic definition was made. Not a single new anathema was pronounced. All Vatican II did was to restate some of the Church's teachings in vague terminology, plus it gave pastoral advice. The last 40 years have shown how bad that advice was. The Church would do well to simply ignore Vatican II. Indeed, Pope St. Gregory the Great said that the 5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) should be ignored since it accomplished nothing other than to introduce confusion into the Church.

    In short, the Catholic Church has had some bad infallible Popes and some bad infallible Ecumenical Councils. J
  10. Binary_Sunset Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 5
    If you look at the development of the Tridentine Liturgy from the earliest centuries up through the 20th, you'll notice that it was always a gradual, harmonious change. Nobody went to Mass one Sunday only to be confronted by a liturgy radically different from last Sunday's Mass. But that is what happened in the late 1960s with the Novus Ordo. In one of his letters in 1967, J. R. R. Tolkien mentioned that the Mass used to be a "refuge" but now felt like a "trap". In fact, since the Tridentine Mass has never been abolished and has continued in use through today, a more widespread use of the Tridentine Mass is not an example of "going back". I'd simply like to see its use so widespread in the Latin Rite that nobody performs a Novus Ordo Mass. If anything, I think the Novus Ordo Mass is more the example of liturgical archaeology. If you remember, the early 20th century was the hey-day of liturgical studies, and many such students of the liturgy condescendingly described many developments of the liturgy as "corruptions". The Novus Ordo feels like a stripped-down liturgy, "purified" of its "corruptions", based on the studies of the liturgical commissions, then utterly ruined in practice by air-headed morons. The Tridentine Liturgy, however, joyfully has a multitude of "excrescences" picked-up through the centuries.

    I'm pretty sure I read about this in The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods. IIRC, it was indeed in private correspondence that St. Gregory the Great counselled some to pretend that Constantinople II never happened. Granted that Constantinople II did issue some anathemas, which have been of lasting value. But Vatican II issued precisely nothing in the way of new dogmatic definitions or anathemas. After each previous Ecumenical Council, a Catholic had a bit more precision in his faith than before the council. But Vatican II did not say anything new. It simply talked a lot. Perhaps, as you say, this was Providence's way of preventing the council from teaching error.

  11. missydawg319 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2005
    star 1
    I am overjoyed that the World Youth Day was so successful. I believe that set a great example for all religions to follow, The Pope showed respect, dignity, integrety, humor, concern, and most importantly his upmost appreciation to God and the youth of the world. Hurray for a job well done!
  12. missydawg319 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2005
    star 1
    I can't believe some of the posts above. How insulting and rude it is to put down a whole faith community based on the actions of a few. For starters, unless you are Catholic and involved with the church you have no idea how much action has been taken to prevent further child issues, to help families of the injured, etc. The church has started the "Protecting God's Children" program, etc. I think all of the negative comments can be sumed up by saying foe every Ying there is a Yang. Also, think about this. Look at what the other religions do. God said in his word that following him would not be easy.
  13. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    Often we assume acts occur more than they really do because they are given more publicity.
  14. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    How insulting and rude it is to put down a whole faith community based on the actions of a few.

    You should have seen the repeat episode of South Park that aired last night!

  15. Ton_G Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2002
    star 4
    This weekend I went to a Ukrainian Orthodox Mass, (what they call the Divine Liturgy [and also fulfilled my Catholic Sunday obligation of course]). It was wonderful and absolutely trancendant. It was in Ukrainian for the most part, a little english here and there.
    I couldn't understand what was being said without the translation book, and I didn't use it too much. What I could understand was what was happening. The language difference was inconcequential, in fact, the language barrier was not a barrier at all, rather, it added to the liturgy, moving from the focus from the words which are spoken to the actual events which are taking place. The liturgy is a language in itself, the Iconostasis, the icons, the complete reverence for the Real Presence.

    I've always been a supporter of the Tridentine Mass and other traditional rites, (though I cannot recall the last time I went to a Tridentine Mass, they are not availible in my area), not simply for their aesthetics, but also their depth of symbolism, theological consistancy and the trancendance of the liturgy.

    Attending this Mass completely put the nail in the coffin for the Novus Ordo. Where I go (the local Basilica), the Novus Ordo is done very well, in fact, my father is the director of music and organist and I sing in the choir. We have chant, polyphony, an excellent organist and quite possibly the best Roman Catholic choir in Canada. Yet even at this, the Novus Ordo is lacking in a very huge way. My father and I both attended this Byzantine Mass and agreed that the Novus Ordo, even as far as we go with good music, is, aside from the concecration, spiratually impotent.

    While some say that the church has a multiplicity of rites (which is true), the Novus Ordo is not decended from these rites. It is a fabrication, and lacks the spirit which all of the traditional hold dear.

    In brief, I'm absolutely sick of the Novus Ordo. There is so much more, and yet it is kept away. Not only in liturgy, but in philosophy/theology and parish life. It is as if there is a cloud trying to obsucre God's glory. We, as Catholics, have lost so much. It is truly heartbraking.

    End rant.

    EDIT: As to Ratzingers statement, yes, we must go forward- towards truth. We may not be able to restore 1962, but we can bring the church back to its truth. It will take time and maybe even cause a schism, but it will happen. As Paul VI said, the church is enagaged in a process of self-destruction, and quoting Benedict XVI, the ship is sinking. We have no choice if we are to move forward.

    There is no middle ground, as Newman said, either be a Catholic or an Athiest. We cannot be Christians and throw out Catholocism.

    End EDIT Rant.
  16. Binary_Sunset Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 5
    Very, very well put.
  17. GrandAdmiralThrawn66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2002
    star 1
    I cant agree more, I hate the Novus Ordo, God I pray that we can return to the Tridentine Mass, or at least have it included in all parishes. The Novus Ordo does not show the proper respect to god. I wish we could get the Tridentine Mass back.
  18. Ton_G Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2002
    star 4
    Be careful Thrawn, hate is a very strong word. You musn't let the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass become an occasion of sin. Which is difficuly sometimes, especially when the Mass is turned into a show, and it is nearly impossible to avoid laughing.

    At least we still have the Mass, and not a interfaith sing with God around the campfire. Actually sometimes we do. At least it can be done respectfully, even if stupidly.

    Never the less, I echo your sentiment [face_mischief].


  19. GrandAdmiralThrawn66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2002
    star 1
    lol no I hate that mass, It doesnt feel catholic at all, some cheap attempt at dumbing down the mass. They forget how intellegent we are.
  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    It's talk like this that makes me feel embarrassed to be Catholic.
  21. GrandAdmiralThrawn66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2002
    star 1
    Why? please explain (if you want)
  22. Ton_G Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2002
    star 4
    'Why'

    I can only presume that the reason why is that it sounds 'holier than thou' to use the 'Most Hply Sacrifice of the Mass' or 'occassion of sin'. We appear to be caught within our own 'enclosed' or 'immature' view of Catholicism, supposedly restricted to an archiac cruel faith, which we appear to idolize.

    We sound as if we live in our own ivory tower of traditionalist Catholicism, casting an image unprogressive in nature to the world.

    By presenting this image of Catholicism, 'progressive' Catholics feel embarassed to have any association to this archiach, holier than thou religion.
  23. Darth_Overlord Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    I can't be too harsh on Novus Ordo because 1. it is a valid Mass and 2. it can be done in an appropriate manner. If anyone gets EWTN, watch one of their Masses. Compare it to most Masses at local parishes and it's night and day. There's a quote by J.R.R. Tolkien that can really apply to today's liturgical situation: "I can recommend this as an exercise (alas! only too easy to find opportunity for): make your communion in circumstances that affront your taste. Choose a snuffling or gabbling priest or a proud and vulgar friar; and a church full of the usual bourgeois crowd, ill-behaved children - from those who yell to those products of Catholic schools who the moment the tabernacle is opened sit back and yawn - open necked and dirty youths, women in trousers and often with hair both unkempt and uncovered. Go to communion with them (and pray for them). It will be just the same (or better than that) as a mass said beautifully by a visibly holy man, and shared by a few devout and decorous people."


    That I can agree with. My concern was more with the sudden shift that would happen if the Pope simply abolishing Novus Ordo in one day. That, I would think, would cause the already confused to become even more confused. A more organic shift like the way you said would be better. Incidentally, I think this is already happening, as the GIRM is revised more and more towards the way things were. We members of the Ratzinger Fan Club are actually a little surprised Papa Benny hasn't moved on liturgical issues yet, but he just started basically, so we'll see.

    The introduction of the Novus Ordo was so abrupt like that, and it did lead to confusion. I'm not saying whether or not the introduction of Novus Ordo was a good thing; I'm simply dealing with it as things stand now.

    In context, it was those kinds of liturgists Ratzinger was referring to.

    When I was talking about obedience, I didn't mean the dogmatic things; that must be believed, not just obeyed. I was referring to things that are not dogmatic. These things must be followed just like one follows secular laws even the ones one might not be fond of. So, for example, you considering the Novus Ordo rite to be inferior to the Tridentine rite is a perfectly valid opinion for a Catholic to have. However, as it stands, Novus Ordo is allowed and the
  24. Binary_Sunset Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 5
    Thank you for the two links. I'm basically familiar with the distinction between general revelation and private revelation. I'm very familiar with that Vatican document on Fatima. It was precisely that document and the big news splash a few years ago surrounding the "releasing" of the Third Secret that got me interested in Fatima. I've done quite a bit of study of Fatima since then, and my amazement only grows.

    Personally, I think that the historical argument is equally strong for Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I can imagine studying history and being at an impasse between the two for the rest of my life. That's where Fatima comes in. Fatima is specifically Catholic. Our Lady of Fatima said that Russia--Orthodox Russia--must convert to Catholicism. The miracle of the sun astounds me. It's very, very difficult to explain that one away. I do have some niggling doubts, however. That's one reason that I want Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart (following the exact specifications given by Our Lady of Fatima). If a miraculous conversion of Russia followed, then that would nail it for me. Any and all of my uncertainties would be swept away. I'd convert right along with all those Russians.

    I hope to later post more on Fatima. Right now let me just say that there is some dispute as to the authenticity (or at least the completeness) of the released Third Secret as well as the authenticity of the letter in which Sister Lucia said that the Pope did the consecration in 1984. My favorite online source of information regarding Fatima is http://www.fatima.org , and my favorite Fatima books are the three volumes by Frere Michel De La Sainte Trinite entitled The Whole Truth about Fatima.
  25. GrandAdmiralThrawn66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2002
    star 1
    wow interesting read, I hope thatthe Eastern Orthedox and Catholic Faiths reunite in the near future, and that the third secret is revealed soon.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.