mercredi 30 octobre 2013

Fatima or Francis?

Notice: Not sure if I am under a curse or it was a prayer of mercy, but when I first wrote the following sentence I wrote it the wrong way - here is the right way:

I was thinking that Papacy on the one hand and Photian opposition to Filioque on the other hand were religious errors but neither of them grave enough to exclude from the Church.

But what I wrote wrong was "Filioque" instead of "Photian opposition to Filioque" as I should have done.* Unless you consider that by that fact (considering Photius wrong on that matter, in favour of Athanasian Creed being genuine) my communion with the Orthodox was already broken. As a Photian would do.
I see the beginning of this video:

Hetman Wojtek : Will Pope Francis Consecrate Russia?

And I just saw this one, note that it foretells evils that have not been committed yet - correctly or not according to if it is from God or not:

angel4jesusmary : Pope Francis Wicked Future Plans EXPOSED (Please pray hard for him)

Note it said to pray the Rosary, not to offer Holy Mass for Francis. I am not sure whether Padre Pio said the no priest must say Mass for the Antichrist or whether it was no one must say it for his intentions. Check the text if you have it, I read it years ago. Note also that if this message is from God, Benedict XVI was Pope and his abdication is not valid. He still is, if this is from God.

Here are some thoughts of mine own, for whatever they may be worth:

What Popes could have consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart? According to the Request at Fatima.

If he had had the courage to act while being prisoner in the Vatican, Benedict XV might have done so. Or he might have been misled by the bishop of ... was it Leiría?

But supposing he had done so, perhaps Denykin would have made some alliance with Petliura and even Makhnov. Perhaps he would have been victorious against Trotski and Lenin. As it was, Makhnov helped Trotski beat Denykin and was then himself slaughtered by Trotski.

Abortion and compulsory schools swept away much (not all) of the Christian faith and life in Russia.

After Benedict XV, we get PIus XI. Formally he is not any longer prisoner in the Vatican since 1929. He is a sovereign. Italy would be breaking international law by invading the Vatican. As Savoy-Italy was breaking the Ius Gentium by invading the Papal States in 1870. As Indian Union under Nehru was breaking Ius Gentium and international law by invading Goa. As Hitler broke international law by invading Austria.

He might have made the agreement about the Vatican in order to pull up courage to from a safe and sovereign status consecrate Russia. But if so, once he had the Vatican his courage failed him. What we do know is he did not consecrate Russia according to the warnings of Our Lady at Fatima.

Pius XII did not publically consecrate Russia according to the message of Fatima either. Two. (One named "peoples of Russia" but that was not the exact words of Our Lady).

John XXIII did not do so either. Three.

Paul VI did not do so either. Four.

John Paul I was too short in office. May not count and I am not counting him.

John Paul II did a consecration of the world. Not of Russia, but of the world. Five.

Benedict XVI asked permission of Alexis II and was denied it. Six.

Bergoglio did another consecration of the world, I have heard. Seven.

Or shall Benedict XV count as First? Then Bergoglio is the eighth. And by acting like John Paul II in this respect he is also "one of the seven"? Is he the one going to perdition?

If we count instead "Kings of the Vatican" (since 1929) Bergoglio is clearly eighth.

But if we count as I started, Bergoglio is seventh. And we do not know the second appearance of "one of the seven" yet.

Have these done other evils? I think yes. In Catholic Tradition the marital ages are for the husband 14th birthday of older, for the wife 12th birthday or older. In practise, not only has Canon Law (if such it be) raised the age two years for either sex, but also have governments not been opposed at all when exacting even higher ages than that. And when Alessandro Serenelli was young, this was not very much the Church's fault, since the Church in Italy was persecuted (and remained so until 1929 in certain ways) by a King who was excommunicated. And it did not ruin very many souls, perhaps, since if it pushed Alessandro Serenelli's passions to a point where he committed a sin, he was nevertheless pardoned. Through the intercession of his victim, St Maria Goretti. And since popular culture for the young was not so sexualised as now.

But perhaps I am wrong even here. Our Lady at Fatima said that the sins of the flesh or against the VI and IX commandments are those that bring - were already then bringing - more souls than any others to Hell.

But at the death of Alessandro Serenelli, a few weeks after my birth, popular culture had very much sexualised the activities (like dances and music) beyond what they were in his youth and it was getting very much worse in the decade or two following. At the same time many states had raised (and since certain others have raised) marital ages.

Sin had been made easier. Virtue had been made harder. Church had not opposed the process on either level, except on an individual or otherwise pastoral level. Not on a political one. Or not much.

Pius XII had as Cardinal Pacelli recommended a system of Canon Law which Benedict XV promulgated. It was not just an evening out of previous irregularities, but in a way incorporated "new insights". One of them was making it easier to take interest on money loans. Another of them was making it easier for people to stamp someone as mentally deficient.

Both of these "developments" were worsened in 1983. Under John Paul II. Reserves against interest were lowered. And it was made easier to stop someone from marrying, by saying he was not mentally capable of consent. In code of 1917 one had to be compos sui, of course. But in 1983 code one could also be considered as having not been psychologically capable of consent.

In the last days people will heed wicked doctrines of evil spirits and prohibit men from marrying, said St Paul. And if we look at psychiatry now, it is doing that and Catholics are not opposing it as they should. Especially among Catholics where - since code of 1983 - psychiatric diagnoses may block you from marriage in Church even if they would not in themselves block you from Civil Marriage in clearly calm and clear moments. Even if shrinks would call other moments darker than they really were.

I was for a few years in Communion with the Orthodox rather than with the Catholics. First of all, I wish to state that I was not thinking and will not think that all religions are the same. I was thinking that Papacy on the one hand and Photian opposition to Filioque on the other hand were religious errors but neither of them grave enough to exclude from the Church. But I thought also and still think now that Protestant errors are in themselves grave enough to exclude from the Church of Christ, both souls wilfully clinging to them and all Church structures affected by its lack of Apostolic Succession. And even back those days I was for Fatima and for the Consecration of Russia. Here is why - according to wikipedia - some Orthodox are against:

Members of the Russian Orthodox Church object to the concept of the Consecration of Russia for two reasons: (1) Russia has already been Christian for over one thousand years, and has a great devotion to the Theotokos, and (2) the concept contains what appears to be an implicit proselytism of Russian Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Faith. Orthodox apologists point out that Russia was still an Orthodox nation at the time, and was not yet under the control of the atheist Bolsheviks. Thus the phrase "Russia will be converted" can imply conversion from Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Yet, another possibility is that it means a conversion of the heart, which conforms to the theological commentary written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) on the Fatima secret. The atemporal nature of divine revelation, which has made interpretation of the visions by the Catholic Church difficult, also works against the temporal argumentation of the Orthodox apologists.

However, the conception of Theotokos Derzhavnaya Orthodox icon points out that Virgin Mary is considered actual Tsarina of Russia by the religious appeal of Nicholas II thus Consecration of Russia may refer to return of Russian monarchy.

Wiki cited these sources:

The Message of Fatima.

(Russian) — Alexander Prokhanov's "Zavtra" newspaper, 13.09.2013 (reprint at

I was for. Fatima, final appearance, was the eve of a feast celebrated according to Julian Calendar on 1st of October which in 20th and 21st C. falls on October 14 in the Gregorian Calendar. It was the memory of Our Lady appearing to the Russian or other Slavonic Pagans who laid siege on Constantinople. They fled, and so did not sack the Town. And later, when they became Christian, they celebrated this feast with fervor. Last time that Czar Nicolas II celebrated it was October 1 or 14 1917. The day after the Sun miracle of Fatima.

Does Russia need conversion? Obviously Atheism and New Age or Blavatskyism are two things to convert from. So is neo-paganism which some have reverted to. So is anti-Latinism (and anti-Austrianism) of some and Modernism of other Orthodox. Even if one could hope (as I did hope) that Orthodox were still in the Catholic Church, therein unlike Protestants or Jews, or Moslems or Modernists or Freemasons.

Back to the men in Rome. Is the one from Argentina in good faith? I suppose he endorses Evolution, if not as compulsory at least as thinking it personally true. But being Argentinian he drinks Maté, presume. And drinking Yerba Maté he should reflect that Xanthines - caffeine/teine, theophylline and theobromine - are present in plants that have no common ancestor in evolutionary thinking. Like Yerba Maté and Coffee and Tea. So, common traits do not show common ancestry. Similarily with the radar systems of dolphins and bats - an example I found on

I also asked what he had meant when saying about the Maccabees that they became worldly. When? Which ones of them? How? Does he accept that I and II Maccabees are Sacred Scripture? They are so. And they do not condemn - as I remember - the Maccabees up to the time of their writing as having become worldly.

I do not think bishup Wulff in Germany was a worldly man. And if the man whom most "accept as Pope" wants priests and religious to save up money and give it to the poor, I wonder how this fits with the ideal of clerical hospitality.

I do not trust that man. I do trust the message of Our Lady of Fatima.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
Sts Zenobius, Bishop
and his sister Zenobia, Martyrs

*I was woken up too early this morning, twice. And excuses for not correcting earlier, but there was a queue before Georges Pompidou library which took a lot of time.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire