Translated from
May 19, 2017
To reclassify land use has for some time been aa most rewarding occasion for politicians of all colors to get rich. If a zone once classified as rural would be reclassified conveniently as ‘touristic’, the price of the land would rise, and in the process, abracadabra! – millions to be distributed among the on-duty rascals, commission-takers, local officials, assorted intermediaries. That was common in Spain during all those years of the tourist boom (1960s-1990s) though one must acknowledge that these days, this racket continues more shamelessly but more stylishly and to greater profit. In each case, land reclassification allows conferring new use much different from the old with lucrative rewards for all concerned.
Today, in the church of Bergoglio (to all appearances, he has taken possession), everything is being reclassified, without haste but without pause, either - following the Bergoglian calendar and the statutes of the Sankt-Gallen ‘mafia’, brokers of all deals apparently, probably with Jewish capital and other varicolored acquiescences.
Indeed, the demythification proposed by Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976, Lutheran theologian often cited negatively by Joseph Ratzinger, since Bultmann argued that nothing in the Gospels matters except that Jesus existed, preached and died by crucifixion (nothing about his resurrection however), and that only faith in this proclamation was necessary for Christian faith, not any particulars regarding the historical Jesus] was kid stuff compared to this. The Protestant Bultmann dazzled quite a lot of Catholic theologians and hierarchs of the time with his concept of demythifying the miracles and everything else in the Gospels that cannto be considered strictly historical. In this way, all the Gospels could be discredited because it could be shown ‘scientifically’ that what they contained was all myth.
Thanks to Bultmann and his Catholic acolytes, choirboys and slavish imitators at the time, it was possible for them to ‘interpret existentially’ everything that had now become mere mythological belief, exaggerated by the intellectual credulity of the day and sustained by interested power groups.
Now we are in different times. Bultmann gone, Christian demythification proceeds in different ways – by reclassifying, redefinining, redirecting, rearranging – in short, by what a post-modern would call ‘changing the paradigm’. Only this way, it is said, can the faithful be shaken awake from their dogmatic dream world and make them see that things in the Church are no longer what Catholics were taught before Vatican II. But since there are still residual chinks, atavisms and beliefs, then it is necessary to continue to reclassify, re-interpret and otherwise destroy Catholic faith.
One must consider that the apparitions in Fatima took place a century ago. At that time, the Church had not thought to peddle mercy at the expense of justified punishment of sin, so it was not surprising that the three shepherd children of Fatima could speak about hell and souls falling into its fiery abyss and punishments for an atheist and unbelieving world.
Of course, they were good children. Thus, a papal trip was made to canonize two of them. But they surely studied their catechism from Astete [1537-1601, Spanish Jesuit who wrote a Doctrine of the Christian Faith which was a simple catechism that was in popular use throughout the Hispanic world in the succeeding centuries] , which resembles in no way the catechisms issued by progressivist post-Vatican II bishops’ conferences.
One can be sure Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta prepared for their First Communion with some reactionary priest who only taught them about sin and its punishment and nothing about mercy. Moreover, one can be sure that these poor children were taught to believe ‘rigidly’ in the faith they were drilled on - judging from their apparent ‘obsession’ with hell, with eternal salvation, penitence and prayer for the conversion of sinners.
So, yes, let’s canonize Francisco and Jacinta, but forget that Mary ever came to bring messages about punishment nor to show visions of hell or of terrible world wars. Much less to predict apostasy at the very summit of the Church!
The message of Fatima has been systematically forgotten and diminished by the popes, in one form or other. Thus, John XXIII decided to ignore Our Lady’s wish that the Third Secret be revealed in 1960 and, presumably, to withhold information he thought would not be salutary for the Church. Papa Roncalli probably believed that Our Lady in 1917 could not have possibly understood the problems of the world in 1960 and therefore she would not mind that he decided it was most inconvenient to publish message at the time she recommended. Our poor Lady exaggerated somewhat and it would be better to wait.
And even if John Paul II did decide to publish the Third Secret, although, as many researchers have shown, in the form of a pious prayer-card scam. Because once more, it was thought necessary to re-interret Mary who could not have foreseen in 1917 that it would have been insufficient, inconvenient and most highly inadvisable to publish everything she had said ‘as is’.
And so John Paul II, in 2000, with the aid of Ratzinger, Bertone, Sodano et alia, elaborated a strange de-dramatization as if the Third Secret was really centered on John Paul II and the assassination attempt on him.
[Just to get the facts straight: Cardinal Sodano’s words in his formal announcement at Fatima that John Paul II had decided to release the text of the Third Secret said: “After the assassination attempt of 13 May 1981, it appeared evident that it was “a mother's hand that guided the bullet's path”, enabling “the Pope in his throes” to halt “at the threshold of death”, citing from John Paul II’s address to some Italian bishops at the Policlinica Gemelli in May 1994). Cardinal Ratzinger’s relevant remarks in his Theological Commmentary to the Third Secret were:
“In his [the bishop in white] arduous ascent of the mountain we can undoubtedly see a convergence of different Popes. Beginning from Pius X up to the present Pope, they all shared the sufferings of the century and strove to go forward through all the anguish along the path which leads to the Cross. In the vision, the Pope too is killed along with the martyrs.
In the following lines, he clearly appears to be providing a rationale for John Paul II’s attribution to himself of the ‘bishop in white’ described in the Third Secret, rather than Ratzinger affirming it as a necessary inference from the text of the Secret:
When, after the attempted assassination on 13 May 1981, the Holy Father had the text of the third part of the “secret” brought to him, was it not inevitable that he should see in it his own fate?He had been very close to death, and he himself explained his survival in the following words: “... it was a mother's hand that guided the bullet's path and in his throes the Pope halted at the threshold of death” (13 May 1994). That here “a mother's hand” had deflected the fateful bullet only shows once more that there is no immutable destiny, that faith and prayer are forces which can influence history and that in the end prayer is more powerful than bullets and faith more powerful than armies.”
End of my insert.]
Much can be said about this particular ‘reference’ to John Paul II, but the Internet teems with commentaries on this subject.
Pope Francis, going one step further but in his characteristically destructive way, has now reclassified and changed the paradigm on everything that Fatima represents. Not only has he maintained the line of his predecessors – “Who is really interested in the Third Secret?” or whether the Sor Lucia who died in 2005 was the real Lucia [or a ‘strategic’ impostor]” [It really is most improper and wrong of Fray Gerundio to interpose these sarcastic questions as part of the ‘line followed by the popes’ preceding Bergoglio, especially since in no way have they ever raised those questions] – but he has reclassified and re-interpreted the Message of Fatima in general. Even those which were never kept secret.
The Virgin Mary, this pope tells us, cannot possibly come to bring us warnings of punishment or peril because “she is a mother who loves us”.
Pilgrims with Mary… But which Mary? A teacher of the spiritual life, the first to follow Jesus on the “narrow way” of the cross by giving us an example, or a Lady “unapproachable” and impossible to imitate? A woman “blessed because she believed” always and everywhere in God’s words (cf. Lk 1:42.45), or a “plaster statue” from whom we beg favours at little cost? The Virgin Mary of the Gospel, venerated by the Church at prayer, or a Mary of our own making: one who restrains the arm of a vengeful God; one sweeter than Jesus the ruthless judge; one more merciful than the Lamb slain for us?”
Observe carefully the disjunctive expressions. Forget about a Mary depicted by ‘subjective sensibilities’! Poor little shepherd children, who related the Virgin’s messages through their own subjective sensibilities of hell, punishment and penitence!
And here I always thought that a true mother also warns her children against dangers, and that the greater the danger, the greater her warning. And the more insistent the warning, it must be because the danger is truly great and imminent. I cannot imagine a mother patting her child on the cheek while he is sinking in quicksand! But well, we all know that Bergoglio’s thinking is not exactly that of an intellectual of consequence. And yet his thoughts carry a destructive charge. In this case, he is implying that the vision of Hell described by the children in Fatima were provoked by a Catholicism which has by now been outmoded. Which no longer speaks about hell or punishment.
Or if hell exists at all, it would be populated by rigid hypocrites, by those who disapprove of indiscriminate acceptance of immigrants, by those engaged in the arms trade, by those who do not believe in climate catastrophism, by those who wish to have power at any cost, by those who promote the throw-away culture, and many more etceteras.
But, come to think of it, Our Lady of Fatima also advocated the throwaway culture in her own way. Because while she allowed Lucia and Jacinta to hear her words, Francisco could only see her. [A very weak analogy, that!] But since this happened in 1917, then she can be forgiven.
Today, however, instead of appearing to three white Portuguese children as she did in Fatima, she would appear instead to a random play group consisting of a white Portuguese child, a black child from the former Portuguese colony of Mozambique, and a Muslim immigrant child (after all, Fatima is a very Muslim name).
The image of Bergoglio at an altar that seems Masonic, within a temple that seems Masonic, raising a monstrance
that seems to have come from a masonic Guggenheim museum, is emblematic of the new paradigm he has given to
our time, 100 years since the apparitions in Fatima. That is the reason he went to Fatima.
Of course, the pope cannot be blamed for the 'Masonic' starkness of this particular altar in the Fatima Shrine, but most probably, he likes
this starkness - very Lutheran, very anti-baroque, very anti-Catholic tradition![Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/05/2017 22:22]