It would be clearer back then because the people and clergy were not so brainwashed. People were more inclined to believe the message, pray the Rosary, attend the true Tridintine Mass.
I am torn between two: to accept the Second Vatican Council or to completely reject it. I have my problems with the Second Vatican Council. However, I do not believe that everything that the council taught is wrong. If the council is regarded as an ecumenical council of the Church yet there are also serious errors, this appears to me that the Holy Ghost has not solemnly closed it through the actions of the Pope. I truly believe that a future Pope needs to reconvene the council and correct any errors once and for all. Only then can the council be truly ecumenical. Am I crazy to think this? God bless Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center! 🙏
Thank you for your comment. We would simply point out that, as Pope Paul VI himself confirmed, the Second Vatican Council refrained from issuing any definitive teachings binding upon the faithful: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility..." (General Audience of 12 January 1966) Thus the holy and solid teachings to be found within its documents, as you mention, can be found expressed with proper force, certainty, and clarity in prior dogmatic sources, which would also naturally be the safer sources for your study. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter Does this mean we reject Vatican II completely or is it ok to accept whatever good is from the council and reject whatever is erroneous?
@@rubenzapata3927 The latter, but the safe course for discovering and clarifying those true elements of Catholic Faith is in prior trustworthy sources. One should simply ignore the documents of the Second Vatican Council and carry on with the Faith of our Fathers. God bless you.
Sister Lúcia wanted the Third Secret revealed by 1960 because it would make things seem clearer. Instead John XXIII pigeonholed the 3rd Secret and the Vatican kept it secret for 40 years until “revealing” a phony version of it in 2000 with the impostor Sr. Lucia. Why did the real Sr. Lucia want it revealed by 1960? It’s obvious: in 1959 John XXIII announces his intention to summon an ecumenical council just 3 months after his fraudulent “election” in the 1958 conclave filled with irregularities, and by the year 1960, the preparatory commissions for Vatican II were launched and by 1961, the Apostolic Constitution Humanæ Salutis officially summoned Vatican II before John XXIII opened the council’s first sessions in 1962. Those who claimed to have read the actual 3rd Secret tell us that it was about a Great Apostasy occurring from the top, that was what Cardinal Silvio Oddi & Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi claimed. Don’t forget that according to Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, a Vatican exorcist who knew Padre Pio, claim that Padre Pio told him in 1960 that “Satan would come to rule a false church” within a few years. It all points to the Vatican II Apostasy. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee and embrace the Traditional Catholic Faith.
Used to think like this until I researched the messages of Our Lady of All Nations, which ended in 1958/59, having started pretty much at the end of WW2. During these 15 years, nations were becoming a lot more diplomatic, but the war between socialism and capitalism was in full force; the cold war struggle had dominated the future of the world at that time. In the messages of Our Lady of All Nations, she admitted that Vatican II had to be done, calling the traditional church a "black dove" and the prospective new church a white dove. Why can't it be true? Traditions can change: Jesus changed the Jewish traditions and defied the Law of Moses, and 1960 was a crux in history where mankind was finally able to destroy the world with its weaponry. She said in that vision, "THIS IS OUR TIME". It was up to John XXIII to affect good changes, so what happened? Our Lady of All Nations specifically admitted, "All of the churches must join onto one", but the problem is that ecumenical doctrine does not unite all the churches, it builds walls between them. Vatican II was supposed to encourage dialogue between religions, not say that "religion doesn't matter". Our Lady of All Nations visionary in close commune with someone in the Vatican who spoke with the Pope (Pius XII for most the appearances, also predicting his death) and then John XXIII... so John XXIII, having seen the message of Our Lady of All Nations, which was to instruct the goals of the council, would have opened the Fatima document in 1960 as, perhaps, something that reinforces and authenticates both apparitions and what was supposed to take place at the council. The proper consecration of Russia was likely scheduled at this time. The Lady of All Nations might have wanted to use her triumph over Russia to build a Catholic dialogue in the world. The ultimatum was not met, so we got option B, "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will Triumph". As the result, the Vatican II ministry has been somewhat fruitless and, as spoken by the visions of Garabandal and Akita (61-65, 73), the fruitlessness of the council was warned against, as well as, likely in that third secret, the secret of Fatima. Vatican II ended up being, as he said, "evil", but looking at the evidence here, it could be that Vatican II was "supposed to be good" but the guys executing it either committed a colossal error in the Lumen Gentium and the other documents, or the council got sabotaged by the Free Masonic influence in the church, who spread ecumenical doctrine themselves. Vatican II has been somewhat fruitless in it being "OUR TIME" and the secret stayed hidden; Akita and Garabandal are also scathing criticisms of the state of the Church (priests going to perdition). Essentially, the Church took a left when it should have taken a right. Evangelizing other religions was always a Christian goal, despite what the Popes may tell you. Christ himself said, in John 4, "One sows, another reaps". (Other religions sow spirituality, Christ reaps the spirit). He didn't say to the Samaritan: "Your religion will take you to heaven, too"; he said to her, "There will come a day where people will neither worship in Jerusalem nor on the mountain". This should give you a clue as to where Vatican II should have gone.
Richard Martyn very confusing message here....a few questions. Why was the traditional church a "black dove?" Why can Traditions change? Jesus Himself said, "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill." Private revelation was over after the death of St John. It's specifically stated in doctrine and council's that the deposit of faith is passed on by the Apostles and Christ, so saying that traditions can change is heresy. Christ is the Faith. No Pope can change the Faith. Are these apparitions approved by the Church?
@@rob7800 Interesting how Our Lady at Rue du Bac in Paris 1830, stood on a half globe( the earth is flat as described in the bible,and the firmament is like a Dome a half globe), and now, Our Lady of All Nations stands on a globe. (The earth is NOT A GLOBE,so you can tell what is Real and what is not)
Why did NOT the Vatican revealed the entire third secret of Fatima in 2000? Common sense will tell us" In Portugal, the Faith will be preserved",etc...This phrase never was spoken about.
It would be clearer back then because the people and clergy were not so brainwashed. People were more inclined to believe
the message, pray the Rosary, attend the true Tridintine Mass.
Mother Mary at the Garabandal Apparition, told about a ' wicked council"
Thank you very much
I am torn between two: to accept the Second Vatican Council or to completely reject it. I have my problems with the Second Vatican Council. However, I do not believe that everything that the council taught is wrong. If the council is regarded as an ecumenical council of the Church yet there are also serious errors, this appears to me that the Holy Ghost has not solemnly closed it through the actions of the Pope. I truly believe that a future Pope needs to reconvene the council and correct any errors once and for all. Only then can the council be truly ecumenical.
Am I crazy to think this?
God bless Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center! 🙏
Thank you for your comment. We would simply point out that, as Pope Paul VI himself confirmed, the Second Vatican Council refrained from issuing any definitive teachings binding upon the faithful: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility..." (General Audience of 12 January 1966) Thus the holy and solid teachings to be found within its documents, as you mention, can be found expressed with proper force, certainty, and clarity in prior dogmatic sources, which would also naturally be the safer sources for your study. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter Does this mean we reject Vatican II completely or is it ok to accept whatever good is from the council and reject whatever is erroneous?
@@rubenzapata3927 The latter, but the safe course for discovering and clarifying those true elements of Catholic Faith is in prior trustworthy sources. One should simply ignore the documents of the Second Vatican Council and carry on with the Faith of our Fathers. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you
Sister Lúcia wanted the Third Secret revealed by 1960 because it would make things seem clearer. Instead John XXIII pigeonholed the 3rd Secret and the Vatican kept it secret for 40 years until “revealing” a phony version of it in 2000 with the impostor Sr. Lucia. Why did the real Sr. Lucia want it revealed by 1960? It’s obvious: in 1959 John XXIII announces his intention to summon an ecumenical council just 3 months after his fraudulent “election” in the 1958 conclave filled with irregularities, and by the year 1960, the preparatory commissions for Vatican II were launched and by 1961, the Apostolic Constitution Humanæ Salutis officially summoned Vatican II before John XXIII opened the council’s first sessions in 1962. Those who claimed to have read the actual 3rd Secret tell us that it was about a Great Apostasy occurring from the top, that was what Cardinal Silvio Oddi & Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi claimed. Don’t forget that according to Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, a Vatican exorcist who knew Padre Pio, claim that Padre Pio told him in 1960 that “Satan would come to rule a false church” within a few years. It all points to the Vatican II Apostasy. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee and embrace the Traditional Catholic Faith.
A GREAT VIDEO.
Used to think like this until I researched the messages of Our Lady of All Nations, which ended in 1958/59, having started pretty much at the end of WW2.
During these 15 years, nations were becoming a lot more diplomatic, but the war between socialism and capitalism was in full force; the cold war struggle had dominated the future of the world at that time.
In the messages of Our Lady of All Nations, she admitted that Vatican II had to be done, calling the traditional church a "black dove" and the prospective new church a white dove. Why can't it be true? Traditions can change: Jesus changed the Jewish traditions and defied the Law of Moses, and 1960 was a crux in history where mankind was finally able to destroy the world with its weaponry. She said in that vision, "THIS IS OUR TIME".
It was up to John XXIII to affect good changes, so what happened?
Our Lady of All Nations specifically admitted, "All of the churches must join onto one", but the problem is that ecumenical doctrine does not unite all the churches, it builds walls between them. Vatican II was supposed to encourage dialogue between religions, not say that "religion doesn't matter". Our Lady of All Nations visionary in close commune with someone in the Vatican who spoke with the Pope (Pius XII for most the appearances, also predicting his death) and then John XXIII... so John XXIII, having seen the message of Our Lady of All Nations, which was to instruct the goals of the council, would have opened the Fatima document in 1960 as, perhaps, something that reinforces and authenticates both apparitions and what was supposed to take place at the council.
The proper consecration of Russia was likely scheduled at this time. The Lady of All Nations might have wanted to use her triumph over Russia to build a Catholic dialogue in the world. The ultimatum was not met, so we got option B, "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will Triumph".
As the result, the Vatican II ministry has been somewhat fruitless and, as spoken by the visions of Garabandal and Akita (61-65, 73), the fruitlessness of the council was warned against, as well as, likely in that third secret, the secret of Fatima.
Vatican II ended up being, as he said, "evil", but looking at the evidence here, it could be that Vatican II was "supposed to be good" but the guys executing it either committed a colossal error in the Lumen Gentium and the other documents, or the council got sabotaged by the Free Masonic influence in the church, who spread ecumenical doctrine themselves. Vatican II has been somewhat fruitless in it being "OUR TIME" and the secret stayed hidden; Akita and Garabandal are also scathing criticisms of the state of the Church (priests going to perdition). Essentially, the Church took a left when it should have taken a right.
Evangelizing other religions was always a Christian goal, despite what the Popes may tell you. Christ himself said, in John 4, "One sows, another reaps". (Other religions sow spirituality, Christ reaps the spirit). He didn't say to the Samaritan: "Your religion will take you to heaven, too"; he said to her, "There will come a day where people will neither worship in Jerusalem nor on the mountain". This should give you a clue as to where Vatican II should have gone.
Richard Martyn very confusing message here....a few questions.
Why was the traditional church a "black dove?"
Why can Traditions change? Jesus Himself said, "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill." Private revelation was over after the death of St John. It's specifically stated in doctrine and council's that the deposit of faith is passed on by the Apostles and Christ, so saying that traditions can change is heresy. Christ is the Faith. No Pope can change the Faith.
Are these apparitions approved by the Church?
@@rob7800 Interesting how Our Lady at Rue du Bac in Paris 1830, stood on a half globe( the earth is flat as described in the bible,and the firmament is like a Dome a half globe), and now, Our Lady of All Nations stands on a globe. (The earth is NOT A GLOBE,so you can tell what is Real and what is not)
Why did NOT the Vatican revealed the entire third secret of Fatima in 2000? Common sense will tell us" In Portugal, the Faith will be preserved",etc...This phrase never was spoken about.
I seen her
When I was an infant in RI ....in 1960