Why Ignore Our Lady of Good Success?

Why Ignore Our Lady of Good Success?

OLGSOn February 2, 1611 Our Lady of Good Success stated:

“Woe to those of the 20th Century … great calamities will befall the people of this epoch.” (Our Lady, 2nd February, 1611)

In 1582, at the age of eighteen, the Blessed Mother appeared to Mariana and asked her if she would be willing to offer her life for the sins of the Twentieth Century particularly for the sins of blasphemy, heresy and impurity.  In this apparition, Mariana was given to know all that was to happen during this time and died from the knowledge of it.  She was put before the Divine Tribunal to be given a choice of either staying in heaven or going back to earth to suffer for us.  Mariana agreed to go back to earth at the request of the Blessed Mother.  Thus she became a victim soul for our times.  Mariana had much to suffer and she did so willingly with patience and resignation…

Years later, Mother Mariana was given yet another vision pertaining to the 20th Century.  The date of that apparition was February 2, 1634, Feast of the Purification, the 40th anniversary of the first appearance of Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana.   This was to be the last time Our Lady of Good Success was to appear to Mother Mariana on this particular Feast Day (which is now also considered the Feast Day of Our Lady of Good Success) for January of that next year, 1635, Mother Mariana would go to her eternal reward.  As Mother Mariana was praying in the upper choir loft before the Blessed Sacrament, as she often did, the Sanctuary lamp went out.  Mother Mariana was left in complete darkness. The extinguishing of the Sanctuary Light signified the dire straits the Church would be in during these times.

Our Lady of Good Success was quite clear on what would be the demise of the Catholic Church—the general theme–a lax and perverse clergy.  Certain members of the Catholic clergy would become as thieves stealing that Tabernacle light…thieves that would steal what is rightfully ours by virtue of our baptism in the Catholic Church—our Faith.  They would rob us of Doctrine, Dogma and Tradition—ransacking the Church as it were leaving us in total darkness without even as much as the light of the Sanctuary Lamp (which signifies the presence of the Holy Eucharist—Jesus Christ, Himself).  Our Lady of Good Success went into great detail to explain what the five reasons were for the extinguishing of the light.

The first reason why the lamp was snuffed out was because in the end of the 19th Century and the 20th Century, heresies would prevail not only in Ecuador but universally.  “As these heresies spread and dominate, the precious light of Faith will be extinguished in souls by the almost total corruption of customs.” (8)

The second reason was that in these times the Conceptionist Community would shrink and even be infected with bad attitudes and false charity as a result of the pervading situation of the Church at the time.  Many vocations would be lost as a direct result. “The faithful souls would suffer a continuous and slow martyrdom, weeping in secret and imploring that such dire times be shortened.” (9)

 The third reason the lamp failed was due to the fact that during this century a worldwide campaign against the virtues of chastity, and purity would succeed in ruining the youth.  Our Lady of Good Success affirmed, “There will be almost no virgin souls in the world”(10) 

The fourth reason the lamp was put out was to demonstrate how the Masonic and other secret sects would have so much influence on society and even the Church. “During these unfortunate times,” she foretold, “evil will invade childhood innocence.  In this way, vocations to the priesthood will be lost, resulting in a true calamity.” (11)  

Our Lady of Good Success could foresee that there would still be some good, faithful religious that would be willing to suffer all for the salvation of souls and sustenance of the Holy Catholic Church.   “The secular clergy will leave much to be desired because priests will become careless in their sacred duties.  Lacking the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry, and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly strive to attain. How the Church will suffer during this dark night! Lacking a prelate and a father to guide them …many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger.” (12)

The poor priestly souls that would be left to uphold the Church would suffer greatly.

“Against them the impious will rage a cruel war, overwhelming them with vituperations, calumnies and vexations in order to stop them from fulfilling their ministry.  But they, like firm columns, will remain unswerving and will confront everything with a spirit of humility and sacrifice with which they will be vested, by virtue of the infinite merits of my most Holy Son, Who will love them in the innermost fibers of His Most Holy and Tender Heart.(13)

Our Lady of Good Success implored that the people of this time should “clamor insistently” to the Heavenly Father for an end to ‘these ominous times’ sending to the Church a prelate and father who would restore the spirit to the priests”. (14)

The fifth reason the lamp went out was due to those who have the financial means to help the Church but do nothing.  Because of their uncaring attitude toward God and His Church, they would have allowed evil to seemingly triumph.

To read more about this Church approved apparition, click here


The astonishing thing is that, despite the detailed prophecies about Church and society made at Quito centuries ago, which are coming true before our very eyes, nobody seems to take them seriously.  Why IS Our Lady of Good Success being ignored? People quote unapproved apparitions as if they were gospel truth but it’s very seldom I’ve heard anyone mention Quito. Tell us your thoughts. 

Comments (127)

  • westminsterfly

    In Ecuador and Spain, the feast day of Our Lady of Good Success is celebrated on February 2 because it was the day She appeared to Ven. Mother Mariana along with the Archangels and St. Francis of Assisi (thus coinciding with the Feast of the Purification), but it doesn’t seem to be celebrated outside of those two countries. In Quito, they have the Rosary of the Dawn procession at 5am, to start the day. A free magazine on Our Lady of Good Success can be downloaded here:-
    In English: http://www.chiesaviva.com/413%20en.pdf
    In Italian: http://www.chiesaviva.com/413%20it.pdf
    In French: http://www.chiesaviva.com/413%20fr.pdf
    In Spanish: http://www.chiesaviva.com/413%20sp.pdf
    For further, more in-depth reading on Our Lady of Good Success, I highly recommend ‘The Admirable Life of Mother Mariana: Volumes I and II’ by Fr Manuel Sousa Pereira. Also there is a good 50 minute long DVD by Pro Multis Media called: Our Lady of Good Success: History, Miracles, Prophecies

    February 2, 2015 at 11:41 am
    • Lily

      Westminster Fly,

      Thanks for those links and all that information. I didn’t know OLGS was only recognised as a Feast Day in Ecuador and Spain. That will probably change after the Consecration of Russia when Our Lady’s key role in this crisis and putting it right will be recognised by the Church officially.

      February 2, 2015 at 2:25 pm
      • Common Sense

        But The Church hasn’t consecrated Russia to Our Lady because private revelations are not he basis of Church Teaching, or action. They may have some value, but not as a mandate for The Church.

        February 2, 2015 at 2:54 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Fatima was not in the category of normal private revelations, even the Popes recognise this. The Message and Secret of Fatima were backed up with a public miracle that was witnessed by more than 70,000 people, including the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon. It was the first public miracle predicted beforehand since Apostolic times, and it was given again personally to Pope Pius XII in the Vatican gardens. It was this Pope who said: “the time for doubting Fatima is over. It is now time to act”.

        So please, do not attempt to write off Fatima as though it were some unimportant private vision. It was much, much more than that.

        Our Lady predicted 1960 as the year when the chastisement would kick in, if by that time the consecration of Russia had not been accomplished. And what was happening in 1960? Preparations for Vatican II were happening. And what does the Third Secret contain? It contains a clear message of universal apostasy “beginning that the highest level in the Church,” according to Archbishop Capovilla.

        Even Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of it as a great loss of faith in Europe, and we know that John Paul II wanted to consecrate Russia but was advised not to as this would have a negative effect on ecumenical relations with the Russian Orthodox. Sadly, the Pope backed down, as has every Pope since to the greater detriment of the universal Church and the Faith. They all prefer the myth that ecumenism is good and wholesome. They can’t see the diabolical spirit behind it. No wonder Our Lady of Fatima spoke of the chastisement of the Third Secret as “a diabolical disorientation” in the Church.

        February 2, 2015 at 4:05 pm
      • Common Sense

        Fatima remains a “private” revelation.

        February 2, 2015 at 4:11 pm
      • Athanasius

        What you mean to say is that Fatima was a private apparition, not revelation. As regards being private, it’s pretty difficult to call it that given that it was authenticated by public miracle witnessed by 70,000 people. It’s also difficult to put in the class of private apparitions by the fact that every Pope from then till now has made reference to it, and, as I stated previously, Pius XII was granted the vision in the Vatican gardens. I would like you to point out any other private apparition in history that has these very public attributes.

        As for revelation. Well, Fatima has no new one, just confirmation that we are now living through the last times of the world revealed in Apocalypse. In fact, Chapters 8 to 13 were specifically mentioned as relating to the Third Secret.

        February 2, 2015 at 7:01 pm
      • Common Sense

        Supernatural signs and messages are two different things. The messages were “private” regardless of any other physical signs others may, or may not, have witnessed.

        February 2, 2015 at 9:42 pm
      • monk johanan

        Once Holy Church through the Holy Popes of Rome have made official approval of Fatima – which they all have – then what took place at Fatima is no longer just a ‘private revelation’, but you do directly disrespect and insult the Holy Spirit of God and His working. Fatima has had official approval by the devotion of ALL the Popes of Rome. IT is therefore not only a private revelation but has become part of the Holy Magisterium, and to pretend it is ‘only private’ is to be in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit!

        February 3, 2015 at 5:25 am
      • editor

        Monk Johanan,

        Father Gruner explains very clearly that Fatima is a public prophetic revelation – with quotes from Scripture to substantiate this claim. A public miracle, witnessed by 70,000 people with messages for the entire world, can hardly be included in the category of private revelation – you are right.

        February 3, 2015 at 10:30 am
      • westminsterfly

        So then why would Our Lady ask the Holy Father to consecrate Russia – the first request being made to Sr Lucia in 1917, and then reinforce the request to Sr Lucia in a vision at Tuy in Spain in 1929? Sister Lucia describes the second request and the vision accompanying it:-

        June 13, 1929. I had requested and obtained permission from my superiors and my confessor to make a holy hour from 11:00 p.m. to midnight, from Thursday to Friday of each week.

        Finding myself alone one night, I knelt down near the Communion rail, in the middle of the chapel, to recite the prayers of the Angel, lying prostrate … Feeling tired, I got up and continued to recite them with my arms in the form of a cross. The only light was that of the [sanctuary] lamp.

        Suddenly, the whole chapel lit up with a supernatural light and on the altar appeared a cross of light which reached the ceiling. In a clearer light, on the upper part of the cross, could be seen the face of a man with His body to the waist, on His chest a dove, equally luminous; and nailed to the cross, the body of another man. A little below the waist [of Christ on the cross], suspended in the air, could be seen a Chalice and a large Host, onto which some drops of Blood were falling, which flowed from the face of the Crucified One and from the wound in His breast. Running down over the Host, these drops fell into the Chalice.

        Under the right arm of the cross was Our Lady with Her Immaculate Heart in Her hand … (She appeared as Our Lady of Fatima, with Her Immaculate Heart in Her left hand, without sword or roses, but with a crown of thorns and flames) under the left arm [of the cross], in large letters, like crystalline water which flowed over the altar, forming these words: “Grace and Mercy”. I understood that the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity was shown to me, and I received lights about this mystery which I am not permitted to reveal.

        Then Our Lady said to me: ‘The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me, that I come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.’

        February 2, 2015 at 4:15 pm
      • Common Sense

        Private Revelations, even if they happen every day for decades, remain that, and do not bind the Church, or become a command or a mandate.

        February 2, 2015 at 4:20 pm
      • westminsterfly

        Then why would Our Lady ask for such things to be done? What would be the point if these things are to be dismissed as ‘private revelations?’

        February 2, 2015 at 4:24 pm
      • Common Sense

        What Our Lady, does, says, or thinks, in private, is I imagine, up to her. Jesus is the Fullness of Revelation, and he left us The Church, under the stewardship of His Vicar on Earth, and The wider Magisterium. The Church does not ascribe any teaching role to the B.V.M except that handed down in Holy Scripture and Tradition. She is not, as far as I know, running The Church.

        February 2, 2015 at 4:28 pm
      • jobstears


        I agree with your comment about Our Lady, that ,She is not “running the Church”- it would NOT be in the shambles it is in, if She were running it! As it is, look who followed Our Lord along Calvary (no mention of the Pope or bishops), who stood by the Cross (again no mention of the Pope or bishops).

        February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm
      • Common Sense

        Ooops, St John was at the foot of the Cross. It was Peter who was called to feed his sheep, even after his betrayal, and all The Apostles, mandated to go to the ends of the earth proclaiming The Gospel, both events after The Resurrection.

        His Mother was entrusted to the care of St John, and not given a campaigning role either before, or after, The Resurrection.

        I think Jesus founded The Church, and modelled its future structure, including the role given to The Magisterium. As far as I see his Mother was to lead by example, but others were to do the preaching and teaching, including the men he chose, and who appeared, momentarily, to fail him.

        His promise to Peter, about The Rock and Keys, The Church, not me, but including me, was an eternal for him The Church, and his successors.

        February 2, 2015 at 4:55 pm
      • jobstears

        Yes, St. John stood by Our Lady!

        I agree with you, CS, that Our Lord founded the Church and modelled its future structure, including the role given to the Magisterium. But I’m sure the early Church would have listened to Our Lady, the Mother of their Founder, don’t you?

        What do you think of the Quito apparitions?

        February 2, 2015 at 5:48 pm
      • Common Sense

        I think if the BVM said those things, she is probably kicking herself now, and wishes she maintained the tradition she maintained in The Gospels. Say little, pray, and lead by example.

        The Church says the apparitions took place, She has not concerned with the “messages” except in so far as they do not contradict Holy Scripture, and Tradition.

        February 2, 2015 at 5:53 pm
      • Athanasius

        The Blessed Virgin is “Mother of the Church,” as declared by Pope Paul VI at the Second Vatican Council. She is also mediatrix of all Graces, Co-Redemptrix and Advocate, as declared by many Popes, including John Paul II.

        If you read “The Glories of Mary,” by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, all 800 pages, you will see just how privileged Our Lady is. It is consequently a great insult to the Holy Mother, not to mention Our Lord Himself, to downplay her role over the Church.

        When Our Lord ascended into Heaven He left His Mother behind to help the fledgling Church. When He gave her to St. John at the foot of the Cross with the words “behold thy mother,” He was first highlighting His Holy Mother as Mother of the celibate priesthood, but also as the Mother of all the Redeemed.

        Perhaps that will put the Fatima Message and Secret into context for you. What you may be perfectly sure of is that Our Lady was not making any demands. She made a request of the Pope and Bishops which, if fulfilled, would result in the triumph of her Immaculate Heart and would usher in a great period of holy peace for the Church and for the world. That’s why she pointed to chapters 8 to 13 of Apocalypse.

        Read Genesis where God promises that Mary will crush the head of the serpent, then read Apocalypse where Mary is first described as “the ark of the covenant” and then depicted in the last times of the world as entering into a final battle against Lucifer. That’s what Fatima heralded.

        It only requires the humble obedience of the Pope and his bishops to Our Lady’s request for a public and solemn consecration of Russia for her triumph to come. God does not force people against their will, however. The request was made, the consequences of failure to respond were made known and now we see them in all their terror. It will end when the Pope and the bishops finally obey heaven and stop trying to bring peace to the world with Vatican II and their own efforts, which has manifestly failed. We are in a supernatural war against very dark forces, way beyond anything that man can solve. Hence, the apostasy since Vatican II.

        February 2, 2015 at 9:33 pm
      • editor

        Logically, according to your way of thinking, Our Lady has taken it upon herself to come to earth with the Fatima message and for some reason known only to herself, or at least without God’s approval, has decided that world peace depends on the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

        Is that seriously what you think?

        February 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
  • Common Sense

    The Twentieth Century has proved to be one of the greatest epochs in the history of the Church.

    The majority of the occupants of the See of Rome in that century have been canonised, beatified, and soon to be canonised, or declared venerable.

    It produced one of The Greatest Council of The Church, and Pope Benedict in promulgating a Year of Faith just to mark the beginning of the Council, wrote: “In some respects, my venerable predecessor saw this Year as a “consequence and a necessity of the postconciliar period”,[8] fully conscious of the grave difficulties of the time, especially with regard to the profession of the true faith and its correct interpretation. It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”

    I am looking forward to whatever is planned to mark its successful conclusion, and the vision, and hope, it shared with the World in the name of Jesus.

    February 2, 2015 at 12:01 pm
    • Lily


      I am flabbergasted by your comment. You really must be living in some parish!

      I actually went to look for something I’d read which showed Pope Benedict said that V2 was open to criticism, not binding on us, but I found this link instead which is really very clear. I hope it helps you to revise your opinion.

      February 2, 2015 at 2:21 pm
      • Common Sense

        Most Catholics throughout the world are “living in some parish”. I am flabbergasted that such a possibility exists.

        As Cardinal Ratzinger, and Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger offered a critique of some aspects of the Second Vatican Council, and more especially some of the way in which some tried to apply that teaching, but in every statement as Bishop, and Head of The C.D.F., and Pope, and in every action, he upheld every teaching of The Council, and called a Year of Faith just to celebrate the beginning of this great, and Magisterial, Treasure of The Church.

        February 2, 2015 at 2:43 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Joseph Ratzinger, both as Cardinal Prefect of the CDF and as Pope, approves and advocates separation of Church and State. He holds this opinion as a private theologian, yet it is condemned by the Church’s Magisterium as heresy. How do you explain this? As I said earlier, Joseph Ratzinger was one of a number of liberal theologians whose names were inscribed in a Holy Office list of “those suspected of heresy” during the reign of Pius XII.

        He was at that time a collar & tie priest along with his friend Hans Kung. To his credit he has since modified his liberal views somewhat, to the great chagrin of Kung, but no one should doubt that he remains a dubious theologian with a past innovative history that’s very difficult to erase. Indeed, even as Pope he orchestrated one of those syncretist scandals begun by JPII at Assisi in 1982. He didn’t go so far as to permit chickens to be ritually slaughtered on a Catholic altar, as JPII did, or to allow an image of a false god (Buddha) to be placed upon a tabernacle and worshiped, but it was still an event that contradicts the infallible dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation.’

        It shows how bad things have become in the Church when Benedict XVI, because he did some good things in favour of Tradition, is suddenly viewed as a Traditionalist Pope. He was not a Traditionalist Pope, though I readily admit that he looks like St. Pius X in comparison with Pope Francis!

        February 2, 2015 at 9:54 pm
      • Common Sense

        Because Cardinal Ratzinger, a pre-eminent theologian, who later became Pope, infused with the Holy Spirit, and able to read the signs of the times, as Christ willed, recognised that God was in charge of The Church and he, and the Church, better listen, and overcome past prejudice, and ignorance.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:03 pm
    • Athanasius

      Common Sense,

      There are none so blind…!

      Read ‘The Rhine flows into the Tiber,’ by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, a priest in very good standing and a high press corespondent during your “great Council”. I think his revelations about what actually happened at your “great Council” will make you think again.

      And you may wish to read Hans Kung’s revelations about he and his fellow heretics coordinated Vatican II in such a way as to undermine and eradicate the Traditional beliefs and practices of the Church, a programme which he rightly claims was largely successful.

      Cardinal Suenens (of illicit Communion in the hand fame) gleefully called Vatican II “The French Revolution in the Church.” Do you know what he meant by that statement?

      Cardinal Ratzinger (once on Holy Office watch list of suspected heretics) called the Council an “anti-Syllabus”. Do you know what he meant by this?

      You haven’t got a clue, my friend. For those of us who have studied these matters in depth and over many years, you just sound ridiculous. Away and research the full story of Vatican II and perhaps offer up a number of rosaries for divine guidance while you’re at it. If you’re a genuine Catholic seeking truth, it will be made known to you.

      Just to elaborate a little on that pre-Vatican II Holy Office watch list: A good many of the priests and prelates you think were great men of the great Council actually had their names inscribed in that list during the reign of Pope Pius XII, the last of the orthodox Popes. The names of many of Vatican II’s most liberal theologians, in fact, appeared on it. And, I might add, these very theologians were the ones who became the leading lights at the Council, despite a Church law that forbade suspected heretics from participating in a General Council of the Church.

      Time for you to really do some digging instead of filling our blog threads with your happy ever after nonsense. The Church has never experienced so great a crisis as in this present era. Vatican II was a disaster for the Church. If you can’t see that then perhaps your faith isn’t really as informed and Catholic as you imagine.

      In the meantime, I’ll assume in charity that you really don’t mean to call Our Lady (of Quito & Fatima) a liar when you insist that the present era of the Church is a wonderful one, bearing in mind that she stated (very accurately) that it marks, in fact, a universal apostasy.

      February 2, 2015 at 2:41 pm
      • Common Sense

        Individuals may offer an opinion. The Magisteriium as a whole, under The Pope, authentically uphold and teach, and to a man they say it is one of the greatest treasures of The Church, and a brilliant exposition of the truths of our Faith.

        If you follow football Danny Mills criticised Stuart Pearce, and most commentators recognise he speaks as a result of sour grapes and not because he had insights into the realities on the grounds. Priests, Bishops and Bishops sometimes mis-speak, and often because of thwarted ambition and sour grapes. Thankfully, Pope Francis has diagnosed some of the ills besetting The Church.

        Rome has spoken…

        I shouldn’t a Traditional dictum should I, self-professed Traditionalists don’t like it.

        February 2, 2015 at 2:49 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        It is the sole duty of all Popes and bishops throughout the centuries to protect and hand down the deposit of faith unsullied and unaltered. They are not permitted to innovate in any way with what is doctrinally established. Are you saying that the conciliar Popes and bishops have been faithful in this regard?

        If so, would you please point me to any pre-Vatican II Magisterial document in which ecumenism, for example, is described as anything other than a heresy that threatens to undermine the true religion revealed by God. That’s all I ask. Thank you.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:02 pm
      • Common Sense

        I am not aware of any recent Pope who has innovated, I am aware of so called “Traditionalists” who are blind to truth even when it is clearly presented to them as God wills, and when he wills it.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:05 pm
      • Athanasius

        By the way,

        “Rome has spoken” applies only to infallibly defined dogma. Don’t use it out of context to justify any old decision of the Pope or the bishops.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:03 pm
      • Common Sense

        Btw the way I haven’t claimed that St Justin, Martyr, espoused Protestant theology when he wrote of the Eucharist or that the early Church had Latin as its Official Language, but not when that same Church wrote the New Testament. Exactly, why a 4th Century Saint had to translate Holy Scripture, as he did, into Latin is clearly a mystery, unless someone previously rewrote the texts, and hid the originals.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:08 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Common Sense: “The Twentieth Century has proved to be one of the greatest epochs in the history of the Church . . . ”

    Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth . . .

    It would appear you need to read the prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success – quickly!

    February 2, 2015 at 12:09 pm
    • editor


      Got it in one!

      February 2, 2015 at 1:02 pm
  • Attono

    Common Sense:
    With all due respect you definitely need to take off the blinkers. Where I am at the moment it’s freezing cat’s and dog’s. Now if I was to declare to one and all that we are in the middle of a heatwave, well….. I wouldn’t be using my common sense now would I?.

    February 2, 2015 at 1:43 pm
    • Common Sense

      No, but your judgement of the weather might have greater credence, and accuracy, than your myopic view of the Church, cut off from the very leaders, and physicians, Christ has called to lead and guide The Church.

      February 2, 2015 at 2:07 pm
      • Lily


        Following on from Jobstears’ excellent post, are you saying you don’t believe Our Lady’s prophecies at Quito? Did she get it wrong when she said that marriage would be seriously attacked in the twentieth century? Also that those who should speak out would remain silent, when the new pope told us not to obsess about prolife issues and so on?

        February 2, 2015 at 2:24 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Church doesn’t “believe” all the “prophesies”. It does believe nothing contrary to the faith is claimed. There is a major difference between the two positions.,

        The Church bases her teaching on Holy Scripture, and Tradition, and never on “private revelations”.

        February 2, 2015 at 2:52 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        What makes you imagine that those who state the truth about the Church at present are thereby cutting themselves off from the Church’s hierarchy?

        You don’t seem to know the distinction between true and false obedience to superiors. Perhaps you should read the Church’s own teaching in the matter. We Catholics are free children of the Church, not slaves to the whims of individual Popes and bishops. Truth for us lies in antiquity, what has been handed down and taught for nearly 20 centuries by the authentic Magisterium. For you and your like, the people who are prolonging this crisis by a false notion of subservience to the person of the Pope, truth is only what the reigning Pontiff says it is. That’s a heresy!

        February 2, 2015 at 2:52 pm
      • Common Sense

        We are bound by Holy Scripture and Tradition, and The Magisterium, for all time remains the authentic interpreters, and guardians, and proclaimers, of those things. It is not me that chooses to ignore that which is part of The Divine Plan, and integral to the promise of the Church from error, namely that The Church, holds the keys, and neither you, nor I, are the locksmith or the ones sent to repair it.

        I do not believe said individual Catholics like you. or me, can decide whether a reigning Pope, and his collegiate colleagues, are correct or not at any particular time, but he did give them, not you or me, a mandate.

        February 2, 2015 at 3:19 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        You’re wrong, big time!

        Read St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and a good many of the Church’s other holy theologians, including many Popes, who say that every Catholic must be prepared to resist Popes and prelates who try to institute novel teachings into the Church. These even speak of the possibility of having to resist a Pope who, by personal heresy, is destroying the Church.

        You are clearly not informed in any of these matters, hence your own heresy that Popes cannot err and must therefore be blindly obeyed. That has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church, thank God!

        Maybe you should read a little more on the difference between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. And while your at it, read about St. Paul resisting Peter to His face in public “because he was to be blamed”.

        By the way, it is not me or anyone else on this blog or in the Church who decides what we will and will not obey in regard to Popes and bishops. Rather, it is sacred tradition, the unchanged teaching of the Popes and saints handed down for nearly 2000 years that dictates our actions in respect to these modern innovations.

        Hence, when Pope Francis, for example, says something that is in line with what has always been taught, we are bound to obey him under pain of schism. However, when he says something contrary to the traditional teaching, a danger to our faith, we are equally obliged before God to correct His Holiness to his face, in public if needs be, and refuse to obey him. That’s the true teaching of the Church. It seems you really are lacking the most fundamental grasp of this teaching.

        February 2, 2015 at 3:42 pm
      • Concerned Catholic

        Dear Athanasius,

        One disobeys the Magisterium at their own peril. Lay people do not get to supplant their amateur theological opinions in place of those of the Magiesterium. You quote Aquinas yet disregard his target audience. He was writing that for priests, bishops and the Popes not for lay people. Lay people in that time could not read let alone comprehend and apply complex theological ideas.

        The interpretation and authentication of Our Lady of Quito and Fatima is given to Pope. I would look carefully and what the Popes have said regarding Fatima especially what Pope Benedict has said. Even Father Gruner downplays statements made by Pope Benedict regarding the Fatima prophecy. Who among you has read Sister Lucia’s letters and really know what they contain? Why do you think there is some big conspiracy? Sad to say but it is a flaw of human nature to suspect conspiracy and prideful to think you know better.

        If the Pope does not act as you would have him act, then do you have the authority to contradict him as a lay person? Where does it end? The difference between the Catholic Church and many failed Churches is that there is one authority. Disregard it at your own peril. Critique it at your own peril. Many who have disagreed with Church councils or how they have been applied to the practice of the Faith end up in schism. This started with the Orthodox Churches in the 11th century and continues with many groups. Although SSPX is not technically in schism their priests have no canonical status in the Church and Catholics cannot receive valid Sacraments at their masses. Please review March 2009 letter from Pope Benedict to the Bishops of the World.

        There is one Traditional view that most Traditionalists cast aside, when they choose to disagree with the Pope. The Pope is selected by God (as was Peter) to lead his Church, the Bride of Christ. Does God abandon his bride? Never. If God stopped selecting the Pope, then I missed the memo. The idea that God would select a bad Pope is heretical, yet the self-appointed Traditionalist critics seem to think God made a mistake each time He selected the last 6 Popes.

        If God wants someone of your mindset leading the Church, then He would select someone like you to be Pope. Does not that make more sense than your self righteous interpretation of Church Tradition?

        Many times throughout history, the Church does not incorporate the self-proclaimed, self-righteous as leaders, this began with Christ judging the Pharisees.

        The teaching of the Popes has not been unchanged for 2000 years. Councils have modified the means by which we practice the faith. Ideas and practices central to the Faith have been accruing over the past 2000 years. One example is Pope Gregory instituting the Latin Mass in the Seventh century. There are many others. It is more accurate to say that the Truths of the Catholic Faith are at least 2000 years old and the repository of Faith has been accruing for that time. The repository of Faith, in part, consists of the Truths and the methods to practice the faith. The repository is not static, never has and never will. The Truths remain the same but the way the Faith is practiced will change in accord with Magisterial Authority.

        If you do not like what the Pope says or does, then pray to God and ask why did You make this man Pope?

        February 6, 2015 at 4:07 am
      • editor

        Concerned Catholic,

        Nobody here disobeys “the Magisterium” – the inability of so many, the majority even, of Catholics to grasp the difference between “the Magisterium” and the latest papal conversation with a passing journalist, is the subject of chapter 3 of Father Gruner’s latest, terrific book. Allow me to heartily recommend that you purchase a copy of ‘Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul’ because chapter 3 answers all the questions raised by your post. Father lists 5 examples from history where popes and Councils have had to be corrected by others, including the laity: under the heading “Lessons for Our Times” we read:

        “So, yes, it is an historical fact that bishops and even Popes and Councils can make errors which are potentially disastrous for the Church and which the faithful are bound to resist. Popes as well as bishops can and too often have failed in their sacred duty to defend the dogmas of the Faith, and a Pope can even teach heresy in non-binding ways. But the Church’s dogmatic definitions can never fail. That is why God has provided us with these definitions through the infallible Magisterium of His Church, so that in times of crisis we will always be able to find the truth…

        There has been no lack of examples in our own time of false teachings being advanced by high ranking Church authorities, and undermining the faith of vast numbers of Catholics. The faithful need to understand, for their own safety, that it is the definitions that carry the Church’s timeless and authoritative guarantee of infallibility, not the latest utterances of those who happen to hold positions of authority in the Church. What the Holy Ghost has guaranteed through the Church’s infallible definitions to be the true Christian teaching will always be true, regardless of whether or not future generations of Catholics – even churchmen – persevere in professing that true Faith. As St Paul tells us,

        “What if some of them have not believed? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid.” (Romans 3:3)

        Father Gruner concludes:

        “The failure of so many Catholics to grasp this distinction (between the Church’s true authoritative teachings, as opposed to mere persons in positions of authority) is what has given such impetus to the confusion and divisions within the Church today. And this, in a few words, is what the Third Secret [of Fatima] is about – the need to adhere to the defined dogmas of Catholic Faith, in spite of a growing apostasy having its roots in the bad example of many of the Church’s upper hierarchy. Catholics must know and understand the dogmas of Faith (to the extent that we are able), and to live and defend them, in order not to be deceived by blind leaders in the Church who deny and undermine these dogmas.” (p. 96-97 – all emphases in the original).

        As for your suggestion that God chooses the pope, God “made this man Pope”… There’s no claim by the Church and never has been, that God picks the pope. It may well be that the Holy Spirit has the final say, but that is not guaranteed anywhere. Otherwise, we’d never have had bad popes.

        I urge you to buy a copy of Father Gruner’s “Crucial Truths To save Your Soul” as it is a gem, full of thoroughly Catholic teaching, notably on the correct Catholic attitude to popes and Councils. He lists 5 extremely interesting examples of errors in popes and Councils, thoroughly documented and calculated to cure even the hardened papolatrist. Click here to order and read customer reviews… I’m sure you can also order from the Fatima Shoppe or via the Cork office and Northern Ireland office of the Fatima Center.

        I’d truly love to learn your opinion of it, so please do treat yourself to a copy – like, yesterday 😀

        February 6, 2015 at 11:54 pm
      • Concerned Catholic

        Dear Editor,

        Thank you for your reply.

        Someone in my family already purchase multiple copies of Father Gruner’s latest book. I have read many of his Fatima letters over the past 5 years and his email notices. At first I was supportive of Father Gruner despite his suspension a divinis in accord with canon 1333 because I was interested in the Fatima prophecy. However, his latest book is more of a biased diatribe against the Magesterium of the Church; this book has factual errors and consists of unbalanced arguments. Fr. Gruner only takes those quotes from Popes that support his position but not the numerous quotes and documents that contradict his position. I will mention a few problems.

        Since this website is called Catholic Truth I would hope that all publications recommended by this site would carry an Imprimatur from a Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope of the Catholic Church. There is no chance Fr. Gruner’s books will receive that approval.

        Fr. Gruner insinuates in the preface p19 book that the Latin Mass is a dogma of the Church and the Pope JP2 and Paul 6 cannot institute a ‘new’ Mass in place of the old. If so, how could Pope Gregory institute the Latin Mass in the seventh century of the other forms of the Mass used since the beginning of the Church. How can a form of the Mass be a Dogma especially if there was no concept of it at the formation of the Church. Later in the book he mentions the True Dogmas of the Faith but the Latin Mass is not listed. Parts of the book seem like an undisciplined flow of ideas.

        Father Gruner cites Padre Pio numerous times in the book and bashes PJP2. This is very odd given that Padre Pio prophesied that PJP2 would be a good Pope. You cannot pick what Padre Pio statements you like and disregard those you do not like. It is intellectual dishonesty and shows disrespect to Padre Pio.

        Athanasius and the Arian heresy are noted in the book but what is not acknowledged is the mechanism by which the Arian heresy was eliminated. It was an ongoing debate within the Magisterium that was ultimately settled when the Pope sided with Athanasius and the majority of other Bishops to define the proper nature of God. The struggle was amongst the bishops and Pope not lay people. Somehow today we have lay people and a priest suspended in divinis placing their judgment above that of the Popes (the last 6 to be more precise) and their God-given authority to apply the pastoral tenets of V2 to the practice of the Catholic Faith.

        One major reason I have become disillusioned by Fr. Gruner is that he consistently has used world crises over the past decades to alarm people that WW3 is about to imminently begin. He has be wrong every time. He couples these mistaken views with requests for money. Do us a favor and review the publications from the The Fatima Center and determine how many world crises/skirmishes have been labeled a potential cause of WW3 by Fr Gruner. The latest being the fighting between the Russian rebels and Ukrainians. After this fighting settles down what will be the next potential cause of WW3? Fr. Gruner has fooled me before but not anymore.

        Even the Wanderer recognized Fr. Gruner’s suspension in divinis in 2003, stop endorsing this guy.

        February 8, 2015 at 2:22 am
      • Concerned Catholic

        One more point.

        God the Father inspired Peter regarding who Jesus was. This could have been mediated by the Holy Spirit.
        This historic event set the precedent for how the leaders of the Church would be selected through inspiration by the Holy Spirit, which last time I checked is still considered God. The Church does not have to guarantee this. It is clearly described in Matthew’s Gospel. Your point about bad Popes is confusing because the infallibility of Popes to promulgate bad teaching that contradicts dogmas covers this. We do not get bad Popes that lead the Church astray. God does not abandon His Bride the Church to Leader’s that would lead the Church in a way that contradicts his Will.

        February 8, 2015 at 2:41 am
      • Athanasius

        Concerned Catholic

        I will take at least some of your ideas and propositions and answer them in a way that is less my opinion than the teaching of the Church.

        “One disobeys the Magisterium at their own peril.”

        Exactly so! The liberal theologians at Vatican II took the Church down that very road of folly to the extent that Cardinal Suenens, no friend of Traditional Catholicism, felt able to describe the Council as “the French Revolution in the Church.” Cardinal Ratzinger, if I am not mistaken, referred to the event as “a counter-Syllabus”. St. Pius X warned of this impending danger in his Magisterial Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, but the Modernists still gained control of the Council and its implementation with minimal Papal intervention.

        As regards the Magisterium itself, you err greatly if you think that each Pope is his own Magisterium who must be blindly obeyed in everything he says, does or puts his signature to. The principle duty of the Supreme Pontiff is to uphold and transmit faithfully that which has been handed down by all his predecessors as the deposit of faith. On that point, how do you justify Vatican II’s ecumenism, inter-religious initiatives and religious liberty, which doctrines are clearly condemned and proscribed by the authentic Magisterium of the ages? I would challenge you to produce just one pre-Vatican II Magisterial document that even remotely favours such dangerous doctrines.

        “Lay people do not get to supplant their amateur theological opinions in place of those of the Magiesterium.”

        I agree. But neither do Modernist theologians get to supplant their condemned theological opinions in place of those of the Magisterium, as happened at Vatican II and beyond. I think if you review the names of the principle theologians involved in this Conciliar upheaval, you will discover that many of them were on the Holy Office watch list of “those suspect of heresy” during the reign of Pius XII.

        As regards the lay people on this blog, we merely echo the Church’s Magisterial teaching of almost two thousand years. Nothing we write here about the perennial teaching of the Church is novel, unlike our pro-reform counterparts. There’s safety in antiquity!

        “You quote Aquinas yet disregard his target audience. He was writing that for priests, bishops and the Popes not for lay people. Lay people in that time could not read let alone comprehend and apply complex theological ideas.”

        Given that every heresy to afflict the Church for two thousand years has been the work of a perverse cleric or prelate, I very much doubt that St. Thomas Aquinas was aiming his advice solely at the ordained. On that score, I think you’ll find that St. Athanasius, for example, had more lay Catholic support in his fight against Arianism than clerical. A similar theme is found throughout Catholic history, right down to the Protestant Reformation.

        You do the Catholic faithful a great injustice by suggesting that they were/are ignorant peasants bound to servile obedience under their clerical masters. If that were so, then why does the Church call them free children of God? Or are you saying that they are really slaves to the whims of individuals, even Popes? God is a higher authority than the Pope. So if a Pope teaches contrary to his predecessors, whose consistent and unanimous teaching bears the hallmark of divine Magisterial teaching, we must choose obedience to them and to God over a contradictory Pontiff.

        At any rate, here’s what St.Thomas Aquinas actually said. Note how he refers to “subjects,” not “clerical subjects”.

        “There being an imminent danger to the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith…” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4).

        And if doubt should remain, here’s the advice of St. Robert Bellarmine:

        “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418.

        “The interpretation and authentication of Our Lady of Quito and Fatima is given to the Pope.”

        Again, I agree. Both have been authenticated by the Popes, so no issue there!

        “I would look carefully and what the Popes have said regarding Fatima especially what Pope Benedict has said.”

        Perhaps you should look more carefully at what the Popes have said in this regard, you’ll find their occasional statements on the Third Secret align very closely with what Fr. Gruner has said and what we say here on this blog. Indeed, what’s happening in Russia right now, accompanied by “the loss of faith in Europe” (Cardinal Ratzinger), should put the issue beyond debate for all Catholics. As Pope Benedict said “The chastisement of the Third Secret of Fatima is yet unfolding in the Church and the world”.

        “Sad to say but it is a flaw of human nature to suspect conspiracy and prideful to think you know better.”

        If you close your mind entirely to conspiracies then you deny the existence of the devil (the deceiver) and ignore the lessons of history. That’s worse than prideful, it’s insanity. Alas, the Church’s enemies, both within and without, are thriving today on such widespread insanity. Our Lord stated clearly that His enemies were conspiring to kill Him. The Popes throughout the ages have stated likewise in relation to the enemies of the Mystical Body, the Church. Only since Vatican II has conspiracy gone off the menu in favour of embracing the world. It’s not prideful, then, to state the obvious, which is that the sheep seem to have gone blind.

        “If the Pope does not act as you would have him act, then do you have the authority to contradict him as a lay person? Where does it end?”

        Not as we would have him act, but as the consistent doctrinal teaching of his predecessors constrain him to act. Everything begins and ends with the two thousand year authentic Magisterial teaching of the Church. If any Pope, prelate, priest of lay person contradicts that then we are bound in duty before God to resist his error firmly and respectfully.

        “Many who have disagreed with Church councils or how they have been applied to the practice of the Faith end up in schism.”

        You omit to mention that Vatican II, unlike any previous Council of the Church, was pastoral, not doctrinal, in nature. Pope John XXIII stated this clearly at the outset, thereby setting very strict limits to the aim and authority of Vatican II. This crucial fact seems to have been lost somewhere along the line.

        Besides that, Vatican II did not order a new Mass in the vernacular, did not order Communion in the hand, did not recommend extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, did not call for a removal of high altars and altar rails, altar girls, banal music, removal of tabernacles from Sanctuaries, etc., etc. In fact, there is not even a hint in the Council documents that such things were countenanced by the Fathers of Vatican II. So please, let’s not hear anything more about the authority of Vatican II.

        “Although SSPX is not technically in schism their priests have no canonical status in the Church and Catholics cannot receive valid Sacraments at their masses. Please review March 2009 letter from Pope Benedict to the Bishops of the World.”

        The question I would like to ask you is this: Don’t you find it even remotely suspicious that the only organisation within the Church not to change a single iota of the Traditional faith handed down is the one which is said to be “not in full communion”? Think about that.

        As to Pope Benedict’s 2009 letter, there is not the slightest hint in that letter suggesting that SSPX sacraments are invalid. On the contrary, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, speaking presumably with the Pope’s authority, has several times approved lay fulfillment of Sunday and Holy day obligation at SSPX Masses, something it could not have done had it considered SSPX sacraments to be invalid. Ecclesia Dei also issued a statement to the German Episcopacy declaring SSPX marriages to be valid Catholic marriages. This business of invalid sacraments, then, is a lie made up by the enemies of Tradition, a ruse to frighten the faithful. The Church has never declared negatively in this matter.

        “There is one Traditional view that most Traditionalists cast aside, when they choose to disagree with the Pope. The Pope is selected by God (as was Peter) to lead his Church, the Bride of Christ.”

        This is not strictly true, as evidenced by some appalling Popes in the history of the Church. The Cardinals in conclave are certainly obliged to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit when choosing a Pontiff, but there is no Church teaching that says God overrides their free will in making their choice. I would challenge you to provide any Church teaching that upholds your view.

        “Does God abandon his bride? Never. If God stopped selecting the Pope, then I missed the memo.”

        God does not need to select the Pope. Rather, he confirms the choice made by the Cardinals and keeps His promise by showering particular graces on His new Vicar, who may or may not make use of them. The promise of God regarding His Church is that whatever kind of man the new Pope may be, he will never be permitted by God to formally teach heresy to the universal Church. That’s not to say he won’t be a material heretic who holds to heretical positions as a private theologian and spreads them around in that capacity.

        “The idea that God would select a bad Pope is heretical”

        Sorry, but it’s your belief that’s closer to heresy in this regard. Read up on Pope Honorius I, Pope Liberius and the Borgia Popes. That should alter your misguided opinion. It has never been the teaching of the Church that a Pontiff, upon accession to the Papal Throne, becomes personally immune to sin and error.

        “If God wants someone of your mindset leading the Church, then He would select someone like you to be Pope.”

        The Popes, from Peter to Pius XII, were all of “our mindset,” since all upheld exactly the same truths and passed them on without alteration. It was only with Pope John XXIII that things began to alter very seriously with a knock on effect that has plunged the Church into the worst crisis in her history. I think those who support Conciliar reform are the ones whose mindset is questionable then, not ours. We haven’t altered a thing of ancient faith.

        “The teaching of the Popes has not been unchanged for 2000 years.”

        I beg to differ! The teaching of the Popes on the essential dogmas and doctrines of the Church has remained exactly the same throughout history. The ancient Mass has also remained the same in its essentials all the way back to St. Peter. Indeed the Canon contains a prayer of St. Augustine from the 4th century, a prayer removed by the Modernists after Vatican II.

        The New Mass of 1969 was not a natural Pontifical alteration of that ancient liturgy, as you would have us believe. Rather, it was an obliteration of much of the ancient Mass in favour of the changes Martin Luther introduced to undermine both the Sacrifice and Transubstantiation. Read what Mgr. Annibale Bugnini, the chief architect of the New Mass announced as his intention in a March 19, 1965 interview with L’Osservatore Romano. You can Google it. Suffice it to say in respect to the Mass that prior to Vatican II, not a single prayer was subtracted from the liturgy in 2000 years. Prayers were added but never subtracted. So the New Mass is definitely not in line with what went legitimately before.

        The rest of your comment would take up too much space to answer here. But believe me, I can destroy your argument utterly with historical evidence.

        “The repository is not static, never has and never will. The Truths remain the same but the way the Faith is practiced will change in accord with Magisterial Authority.”

        The repository, better known as the deposit of faith, is always static. You seem to be confusing it with disciplinary aspects of the Church’s governance, thereby coming very close to the error of doctrinal evolution which is a condemned heresy.

        I think you mean well, Concerned Catholic, but I’m afraid you are very seriously misguided and ill-informed. Maybe you should research more what the Popes and saints have taught in these matters you’ve raised.

        February 7, 2015 at 3:12 am
      • Concerned Catholic

        Dear Athanasius,

        Let me clarify some points now. Some clarification will have to wait. By the way you interpret and misinterpret my statements you seem to be a presumptuous and somewhat contemptuous person. Try not to read more than that which is there and ask for clarification if something is not clear.

        Regarding obedience to the Magisterium I never said blind obedience but you must respect their teaching authority when it comes to applying how the tenets of Vatican 2 are applied to the practice of the faith. Is it not their God-given responsibility? Or is it yours? Vatican 2 is a pastoral council yet you would not let the Magisterium apply it to the practice of the faith as they see fit.

        Regarding Ecumenism I will say that it is an attempt to reconcile the fragments of the Catholic Church back into the Catholic Church. This process tries to get back to a Church that was unified before the Great Schism. The Church does not give change any dogmas in doing so. Having said this it must be done in way that brings wayward branches of Christianity back to the Church that restores unity in the Catholic Church. If communication is not attempted it will not happen.

        The mechanism of how a Pope was revealed in Matthew’s Gospel through Divine inspiration of Peter. Through Church history the Bishops and Cardinals have received the same inspiration in selecting the Pope. Do you deny this? Do you also deny that the Church is the Bride of Christ and that God’s will for his Church will be manifested by those he permits to lead it?

        Regarding SSPX you refuse to acknowledge what is in the 2009 letter. This is the most recent Papal statement to the Bishops of the World regarding the status of SSPX clerics in the Church. The letter unambiguously states that SSPX clerics “have no canonical status in the Church”. Do you suggest that clerics with no canonical status can offer valid sacraments in the Church? Also the Bishop of Pittsburgh issued a letter to the Faithful stating that Sunday obligations cannot be fulfilled by attending SSPX masses. Even some traditionalists realize this and will not receive confession from SSPX priests. I am sorry it does not conform to your view of how you think things should be.

        Dogmas are the Truths that do not change. The form of the Mass has changed many times through Church history in accord with the teachings of the Magisterium. Including the implementation of the Latin Mass in the Seventh century.

        I attend both Latin and Novous Ordo Masses. I only attend Latin masses when said by a Priest who has canonical status and faculties in the Church. The prayers are very similar and the structure is very similar. The fact that one prayer is removed and another added is a decision to be made by the Bishops and Pope. The presence of the St Augustine prayer in the Mass is not a Dogma of the Church. Does it matter if we say the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. The latter is much more detailed and has statements the Apostle’s Creed lacks.

        God’s will for his Bride, the Church, is manifested by how he guides it, from the beginning till now. Beginning with the selection of Peter as Pope. Do you disagree?

        February 8, 2015 at 3:51 am
      • Common Sense

        It seems, like anyone who takes a contrary view here, I am banned.

        February 2, 2015 at 3:50 pm
      • editor


        You were not, as I explained, banned when your posts inexplicably went into SPAM. However, I’m not convinced that you are a serious debater and I am horrified at some of the things you have said about Our Lady. So, your status as an un-moderated contributor is very likely to change soon. Like tomorrow.

        Your ignorance about the nature and purpose of the Church and the extent and limitations of papal authority, coupled with your amazingly flawed (lack of) understanding of the role of prophecy in the Church, and the difference between private revelations and public prophetic revelations, leads me to suggest that you desist from posting here, unless you wish to ask a question. Your knowledge is on the same level as the contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire who needs the audience to help him get to the first rung on the ladder and win the base line £100.

        If you persist in insulting Our Lady (I presume you are a “convert” – while not always the case, I’ve found that it is often the case that converts just do not love Our Lady) then you WILL be placed into moderation.

        I would really prefer if our bloggers ignored your posts but I won’t obviously stipulate that they do – I won’t be responding to any more of your nonsense, and my final word to you is this: if you are here to disrupt, get lost. With respect, of course. Do, get, please, lost.

        February 3, 2015 at 12:54 am
  • jobstears


    Thank you for this excellent thread!

    I too, have heard of apparitions of Our Lady here, there and everywhere, except at Quito. However, I am not surprised- like the Third Secret of Fatima, the prophesy of Our Lady at Quito, talks of a massive corruption in the Church, and the sins of blasphemy, heresy and impurity- not popular topics today. The Church is in denial.

    We don’t want to hear that things aren’t flourishing in the Church, let alone living in the time when the ‘light of Faith is all but extinguished’. Our Lady has asked us to “clamor insistently” to the Heavenly Father for an end to ‘these ominous times’ sending to the Church a prelate and father who would restore the spirit to the priests”.

    Now, whom do we believe: the Mother of God who warned that in the twentieth century, “As these heresies spread and dominate, the precious light of Faith will be extinguished in souls by the almost total corruption of customs.”, or the popes after Vatican II who assure us we are witnessing the ‘spring time of the Church’?

    February 2, 2015 at 2:15 pm
    • Lily


      That is it exactly – who do we believe, Our Lady or the post-V2 popes. I know who I believe!

      February 2, 2015 at 2:22 pm
      • Jobstears



        February 2, 2015 at 2:37 pm
      • Common Sense

        It is, of course, The Pope and The Magisterium that helps The Church discern if every word attributed to Our Lady is the truth. And much of that attributed to her is not a Divine Revelation binding on The Church, but the teaching of The Pope, and Conciliar Councils are.

        Like The Queen of England, I suspect she doesn’t like off the record briefings, so to speak.

        February 2, 2015 at 4:37 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Vatican II was the Church’s first Pastoral Council. It was therefore determinedly NOT INFALLIBLE, nor binding. Research your subject before making daft statements. Start with Pope John XXIII.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm
      • Common Sense

        You are making a false distinction. It did not define anything new, but applied Holy Scripture and Tradition to the modern world, and helped define a pastoral response, based on unchanging eternal truths, to the complex problems facing humanity. It is the only distinction to between that, and previous Councils, it defined nothing new, but drew on its store of old and new, to proclaim The Gospel.

        Every Pope from St John XXlll to Pope Francis has declared the Teaching of The Second Vatican Council is part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church, and is binding on the Church for that very same reason.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:20 pm
  • Common Sense

    May I quote from a website randomly found, namely Theokotos, which seems to sum up the correct position:

    “The various Marian apparitions are classed as “private” revelations, in that the Public revelation of the Church was completed during Apostolic times, and is now closed. All that the Church has done since then is to develop and clarify those public truths, and Catholics are bound to believe them as truths of the Faith.

    Private revelations though, including the approved Marian apparitions, are given to an individual or group for their own good or that of others; Catholics are not obliged to believe in them and they do not add to the sum total of Public revelation.

    On this point Fr. Frederick Jelly says: ‘According to Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, the Magisterium of the Church has the charism of infallibility only when Scripture and Tradition, in mutual interdependence, form the foundation for a dogma – whether solemnly defined by an ecumenical council, by an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope, or by the universal ordinary Magisterium, that is the constant preaching and teaching (sensus fidelium) of the Church as a whole. The certitude that can be reached as a result of investigating apparitions and private revelations can never be the certitude of divine faith ..’ ”

    The Church in endorsing an apparition says nothing contrary to the faith has been spoken of, and it does not endorse the whole of “the message”. That is why, for example. some of the “demands” of Our Lady at Fatima have not been met.

    Nothing claimed to be spoken by Our Lady can add to or detract from the fullness of Revelation, himself, Our Lord, and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and it is The College of Bishops, individually and in Council, and united with The Supreme Successor of St Peter, who always, and everywhere, proclaim the authentic expression of the faith.

    I can find no Church Document, or example in the life of the Church where She has acted on the basis of these private revelations, with Our Lady taking on a prophetic role previously ascribed for her, except in her recognition of how God would work in, and through her, and accepting to become the Mother of Jesus, and recorded in scripture in the prayer we know as The Magnificat. She is the Mother of God, and not a prophet of doom, or Mystic Meg.

    No Church document ascribes Mary a role in The Magisterium of The Church.

    February 2, 2015 at 2:37 pm
    • Athanasius

      Common Sense,

      I’m glad you mentioned divine revelation! Now we know that the Vatican II revolutionaries have acted in such a way as to suppress rather than outrightly deny divinely revealed truth. For example, when was the last time you heard a Pope, Cardinal, bishop or priest speak of the infallible dogma ‘outside the Church no salvation’?

      You see, it’s not very conducive to ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue to go around insisting that one must generally be a Catholic in order to be saved. So what do they do? They just don’t speak of the dogma at all; that way all their non-Catholic and non-Christian interlocutors will not inconvenienced by divine truth. Now you should know that according to the moral law silence in matters pertaining to supernatural truth equates to denial, since it has the same effect on the poor unfortunates whose souls are left in darkness for the sake of human respect.

      Hence, ecumenical and inter-religious initiatives as practiced post-Council, rather than representing true divine charity in regard to our neighbour, represent just about the worst sin against charity, since they deprive our non-Catholic neighbour of the truth he needs to hear for the salvation of his immortal soul. Nice wee cosy friendships with heretics and pagans won’t get them to heaven.

      And while on divine revelation, you may wish to ask yourself what Cardinal Walter Kasper and Pope Francis are trying to do, in a roundabout, yet still scandalous, manner with the divinely revealed truth that divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion. You’ll have a very hard time trying to justify that outrage against infallible Catholic teaching (which, as you should know, can never be up for discussion or reassessment under any pretext whatsoever).

      And maybe you could explain why they no longer refer to the Mass as “the Holy Sacrifice”, which, as we all know, is offensive to Protestant ears, but rather as a “celebration of the Eucharist”, which, as we all know, is much more pleasing to Protestant ears.

      Right, over to you!

      February 2, 2015 at 3:20 pm
      • Common Sense

        The wider Magisterium, and every Pope since the Council, and the majority of theologians, and Catholics, attuned to The Church, rather then fed on dark propaganda from the SSPX and other groups, disagree with you on every point you make.

        I am sure you are a good person, but I am happier with the company I am in.

        February 2, 2015 at 3:25 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Then perhaps you will good enough to support your claim with sound traditional teaching that shows the “dark propaganda from the SSPX” to be contrary in any way to what the Church has always taught. That’s what serious debaters do, they back their claims up with fact. One liners upholding blind obedience simply will not do, especially if you love truth and souls.

        So let’s have the evidence demonstrating that the Vatican II reformation is good and consistent with 2000 years of Church teaching, as opposed to SSPX Catholicism, which has not changed a thing of the faith handed down, but which you say is false and “dark”! Good luck with that one!

        February 2, 2015 at 3:53 pm
      • Common Sense

        I am banned from replying. I don’t need good luck to reply, but to be a personal friend of The Editor.

        February 2, 2015 at 3:55 pm
      • editor


        You are not “banned”. Your latest posts – like one from Jobstears – inexplicably went into moderation. I’ve just released them. Please presume the best rather than jumping to uncharitable conclusions. Unlike just about every other blog out there, we do not “ban” people and those who are placed in moderation are usually given prior notice of the danger, and asked to desist from whatever it is that is likely to get them placed into moderation.

        Don’t worry about apologising, however. As if…

        February 2, 2015 at 4:26 pm
      • Common Sense

        You are clearly a very dear Lady, even if we see some things differently.

        February 2, 2015 at 4:32 pm
      • Common Sense


        So St Justin, Martyr, who lived in the second century, and clearly, read Scripture in Latin, which according to you was “the then language of The Church, centuries before Jerome translated it, was also a Protestant, some many centuries before they are known to have existed.

        For he wrote” No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

        We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.”

        I can’t wait to find out just what you would choose a specialist subject on Mastermind. Holy Scripture. (authentic) Tradition or Church History?

        February 2, 2015 at 3:48 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Your common sense should have revealed to you that since there was no such thing as Protestantism in the 2nd century, St. Justin was referring exclusively to Catholics, who were the only Christians. Had Protestantism with all its errors been around at the time, then he would most certainly have phrased his words in a way that was unmistakably Catholic and Catholic only.

        As regards the language of the Scriptures he read: again, your common sense should have told you that he would have read them in their original language, not Latin. The translation of Scriptures into Latin was a later development in the Church. But what point were you making with this? I can’t see any logic in your comments.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:26 pm
      • Common Sense

        My point:

        1. You cannot say a term used by The Early Church is Protestant and alien to The Catholic Church. It is nonsense to do so.

        2. In more than one place, you have, wrongly, claimed Latin was the Official Language of the Early Church, and yet the early Church did not write what became The New Testament in Latin, nor exclusively, or most probably not at all, in Latin.

        It is you, not I, that is rewriting history, and theology, not I

        I remember the inconsistency of your claims, when compared to known facts, and other scholars, I am being entirely consistent and logical. You, Dr Who like, are re-visiting past centuries, and unlike the good Dr, trying to change actual history.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:35 pm
  • jobstears

    Common Sense,

    I don’t know what it is you are trying to say. Please, can you just come right out and say what you think about the apparition of Our Lady to Mother Mariana?

    I don’t know whether you have noticed it or not, but the ‘regular’ bloggers on CT, are not uninformed Catholics. We know Our Lady did not come to reveal the Truths of Faith, She did more than that- She brought Truth into the world!

    Do you think a mother would stand by passively and watch her children engage in increasingly self-destructive behavior, without intervening? The prophecies of Our Lady are a warning to those who will listen; God is being offended -whether we believe it or not- and His mercy will give way to justice. Prayer and penance are the means by which God has always called the people to repentance. In Quito as in Fatima, Our Lady foretold certain events, which came to pass, that we might believe and make reparation. It’s that simple.

    By the way, Our Lady did not make ‘demands’ at Fatima, She requested! Her requests have been ignored, presumably because the popes at the time knew better, and still do know better than the Mother of God. After all, how can the Mother of God know what is in store for us? It’s not as if our salvation depended on Her Fiat!!

    If we had a fraction of Our Lord’s love for His Mother, we’d know whether to listen to Her or not.

    February 2, 2015 at 4:12 pm
    • Common Sense

      I am saying in recognising an apparition The Church does not endorse all that is claimed of it, but it says nothing contrary to The Faith is recorded there.

      February 2, 2015 at 4:15 pm
      • jobstears


        It was my understanding (and maybe, I am wrong) that in recognizing an apparition, i) the Church believes Our Lady did indeed, appear ii) there is nothing in the message that is contrary to the Faith.

        It doesn’t make sense to think we can pick and choose bits from the message that appeal to us and disregard the rest as of no consequence, not if we actually believe it is Our Lady who speaks/requests something from us.

        February 2, 2015 at 5:34 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Church in recognising the apparition is saying she believes it took place, but not that anything claimed as part of the private revelation is for, or binding on, the whole Church. Our Lady supposedly predicting bad times in the 20th Century could of appeared in every century, including the one the apparition took place, since then.

        I do not believe the Church says that The B.V.M. is omniscient, and therefore, her “opinions” about future events, if she indeed expressed them with such certainty and clarity, is, too, not claim supported by any Church teaching.

        I imagine if The Church pre-twentieth century took those claims seriously we would have prepared better, and indeed heard more about them; As our editor says, they are mostly never mentioned!

        February 2, 2015 at 5:47 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        The Church and the Popes take Fatima very seriously indeed, and still do; that’s well recorded particularly in the Pontificates of Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It wasn’t so long a go that Pope Benedict XVI warned that the chastisement mentioned in the Third Secret of Fatima is still unfolding in the Church. He made particular reference to the clerical abuse of children as just one terrible aspect of that chastisement.

        What you need to do is read about Fr. Eduard Dhanis SJ, that very influential priest in Rome who, while not a Mariologist, still managed to silence the voices of prominent clerical Fatima experts with his theory of Fatima I and Fatima II.

        You don’t know about that? Well, it’s time you read up on it and discovered just exactly what kind of diabolical pressure has been brought to bear on the Popes to prevent them from making that consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.

        It was only to be expected that Lucifer would act in this way in order to defer his inevitable defeat at the hands of Our Lady. Fatima. He is very pleased when Catholics say that Fatima is just another private revelation that should be taken with a pinch of salt!

        Perhaps now that Russia is back in Cold War mode the final terrible outcome is just around the corner. As Our Lady said: “Russia will be the instrument of chastisement on the world.”

        I suggest you also read that message of Our Lady of Quito again, very similar to Fatima, and ask yourself if what she said 400 years ago isn’t exactly what you see today in the Church and in the world. It’s pretty difficult not to see things exactly as she predicted.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:42 pm
      • Common Sense

        I think recent Popes have visited many Marian shrines, but have never endorsed the specific so called “messages” of any shrine. They have consistently said do prayer and penance, and follow the example of the B.V.M. but never specifically endorsed on apparition or messge.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:45 pm
      • Common Sense

        Pope Benedict made no link whatsoever with Fatima, and chastisement for child abuse, but he did say “”I also acknowledge, with you, the shame and humiliation which all of us have suffered because of these sins”, is a chastisement i.e a public humiliation, and a correction.

        You help no one is making links with messages, and shrines, that do not exist.

        Russia, is once gain experiencing political, and economic, difficulties, but even without any consecration Christians in Russia have experienced a re-birth, and enjoy much greater freedoms, and prominence.

        Instead of looking for fulfilment of private messages., listen to the actual Church.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:55 pm
  • Bernadette Milliken

    Thanks for this treasure!!!!!!!!

    Sent from my iPad

    February 2, 2015 at 5:55 pm
  • Atton

    Common Sense
    In your reply to me you mentioned my myopic view of the Church cut off from it’s leaders and physicians, Christ has called to guide and lead the Church. Since I expressed no opinion whatever on the Church or it’s leaders I presume you might have physic powers, and if so, I’m afraid they are not very reliable. You know the old saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we all presume the obvious ie, what our senses tell us, that it’s actually an aeroplane.

    February 2, 2015 at 6:54 pm
    • editor


      I cannot explain it, but every one of your comments today has gone into moderation. Should only be the first comment of a new blogger, so I apologise. Blame WordPress and its inexplicable mood swings!

      February 2, 2015 at 7:14 pm
    • Common Sense


      If you want to say your comment thus: “With all due respect you definitely need to take off the blinkers. Where I am at the moment it’s freezing cat’s and dog’s. Now if I was to declare to one and all that we are in the middle of a heatwave, well….. I wouldn’t be using my common sense now would I?.” On a thread criticising the Church of recent decades was not correctly interpreted then that is your right, but Catholics are meant to be honest!

      February 2, 2015 at 9:27 pm
  • Alex F

    I have quite a few problems with Vatican II because I remain to be convinced that V2 and what came after is consistent with what the Church said and did before. That said, however, I am uncomfortable with the way many traditionalists hold to Marian apparitions as if they were articles of faith. As Common Sense says, they fall into the category of private revelation so cannot be confused with the deposit of the faith. If the Mother of God came down from Heaven to warn us about our sins then we should sit up and take notice, however it should be remembered that Catholics are free to dispute apparitions and I can’t see how that would be a lack of faith.

    February 2, 2015 at 8:15 pm
    • jobstears

      Alex F,

      I don’t think there is a single post on this blog that says Catholics are obliged to believe in Marian apparitions.

      This thread was meant to talk about Our Lady of Good Success- the story of the monks finding the statue is my favorite part! The life of Mother Mariana is exemplary. Our Lady did talk about the sins of blasphemy, heresy and impurity. If you choose not to believe it, nobody will accuse you of a lack of faith. Our Lady also mentioned the corruption of youth, if you don’t think we are witnessing a widespread destruction of innocence in children, then, this shouldn’t disturb you.

      February 2, 2015 at 9:16 pm
      • Common Sense

        This thread was used to re-hash the story of an apparition to reignite a well worn, false, critique of the Church in recent times. Today, the majority of the Universal Church were celebrating Candlemass or The Purification of Our Lady, and not OL of Good Success.

        February 2, 2015 at 9:45 pm
      • jobstears


        If you don’t like this thread, you don’t have to read it!

        February 2, 2015 at 10:01 pm
      • editor


        You forgetting about diversity? C’mon…. !

        February 3, 2015 at 12:24 am
    • Margaret Mary

      Alex F,

      I have read on this blog many times that Fatima is not a private revelation and I think you will find this article helpful about that

      I don’t think it is a good idea to dismiss something like Quito, when it took place centuries ago and yet foretold what is actually happening now, things which nobody would have dreamt would happen. Even at the start of the 20th century, who would have thought we’d be having same sex marriage and people changing genders?

      I can’t see why anyone would think it surprising that God would send his mother to earth to warn us of our danger. He used prophets in the old testament – why not his mother in modern times?

      February 2, 2015 at 9:26 pm
      • Common Sense

        Because The Church believes that Jesus Christ himself is The Fullness of God’s Revelation, and nothing, or no-one, including his Mother, can add, or detract, one iota from His Message, and his Saving Work.

        February 2, 2015 at 9:48 pm
      • Alex F

        Thank you for posting that. I’ll read the article you link tomorrow because I’m going to bed soon.
        I agree with what you say about the deterioration in morality in modern society. I’m just not sure about a lot of the prophecies that people are reading about. It adds nothing to the deposit of faith and are open to interpretation. I’m just concerned they can be a distraction.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:27 pm
      • Athanasius

        Alex F,

        Perhaps you can look at Quito and Fatima not so much as revealing something new, which they don’t, as announcing the commencement of things recorded in Sacred Scripture, which they do.

        Hence, Fatima is extremely important from the point of view that Our Lady, to whom the saints say Our Lord has reserved the final triumph over Lucifer in the last times, the price of his pride and the reward of her humility, is merely declaring that what is Scripturally recorded concerning the last times (Apocalypse) has begun.

        That’s what Our Lady was telling us at Quito and that’s what she announced as imminent at Fatima. She is, in fact, confirming divine revelation, not adding to it. Does that help you to see the importance of these Marian apparitions?

        The reason Our Lady warned us of this is that she wants to help as many souls as possible avoid damnation. She has promised to help if only we will turn to her, the Blessed Mother, and humbly obey her requests, not just for the consecration of Russia but also to devote ourselves personally to her Rosary.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:52 pm
      • Common Sense

        I think Jesus warned people not to listen to rumours about wars and revolutions, etc, and yet still scandal mongers, and false prophets, seek to delude the faithful. Its is very sad, to abandon Tradition for private messages, and prophecies that show no sign of being fulfilled.

        February 2, 2015 at 11:00 pm
      • Common Sense

        Secular Society has legislated for same sex marriages, and offers gender reassignment, The Church does not. The so called prophecies, which are no such thing, are untrue, and claim to be speaking of what The Church, and not secular society, will do. It was, in the 20th Century, led, in large measure by Saints, and has faithfully, in every respect, handed on The Faith.

        February 2, 2015 at 10:40 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Then how come a majority of young Catholics today have no Catechetical knowledge of their faith, don’t practice the faith and would look at you with a blank stare if you asked them to recite the Ten Commandments?

        And how come tens of thousands of priests and religious since Vatican II have abandoned their vocations while new vocations have almost disappeared in Europe and the U.S., thousands of seminaries and religious houses have closed and dioceses everywhere are shrinking fast as churches close for want of congregations?

        And how come all this has happened since a New Mass, bearing a striking resemblance to the Protestant meal service, was imposed on the Church and Catholics were told no longer to receive their Lord on the tongue while kneeling, but rather to receive Him in their hands while standing. To make sure of this, all altar rails and kneelers were removed, as also were many Sanctuary tabernacles?

        You don’t see a common thread here? Are you living in the real world?

        February 2, 2015 at 11:09 pm
      • Common Sense

        The only Common Thread is a wilful disregard of what is evidenced by the Universal Church, and an over reliance on favoured writers, self selected, and an undue attention to private revelations, and a high regard for your own scholarship which wouldn’t withstand peer scrutiny.

        February 2, 2015 at 11:17 pm
      • editor

        “Led by saints in the 20th century” – interesting… You seem to have forgotten that one of these “saints” beatified the Fatima seers, Jacinta and Francisco.

        Could it be that we have two little liars among the beatified in Heaven? Beatified by one of the “saints” who led the Church in the 20th century? Surely not?

        February 2, 2015 at 11:33 pm
      • Common Sense

        No one is disputing, as is common with visionaries, that the two are canonised. The church in recognising an apparition does not say what is claimed is to believed by all, but that nothing contrary to the faith took place.

        I believe Mother Mariana has not been canonised, whereas the two were, and speedily.

        February 3, 2015 at 6:51 am
      • editor


        Pope Benedict said that “Fatima places an obligation on the whole Church”. He could hardly say that if it were a “private” revelation that we can take or leave.

        Your ignorance about the matter of revelation, various categories and the specifics of Fatima, really beggars belief.

        February 3, 2015 at 10:28 am
      • Common Sense

        And of what obligations did Pope Benedict speak?: “The important thing is that the message, the response of Fatima, in substance is not directed to particular devotions, but precisely to the fundamental response, that is, to ongoing conversion, penance, prayer, and the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity. ”

        Such obligations are common to all Marian Shrines, and modelled on the discipleship of The B.V.M.

        February 3, 2015 at 11:34 am
      • editor


        Well, what do you think Pope Benedict meant by “Fatima places an obligation on the whole Church”? Obviously the penance, prayer etc are “routine Catholicism” so to speak – if he’d just meant that, he would have said so, surely.

        And a key request at Fatima was the Consecration of Russia and the publication of the third part of the Message, commonly known as the Third Secret. These have not been fulfilled.

        Thus, of particular interest is the Akita in Japan (approved by Pope Benedict) apparition in 1973, regarded by many of us as actually revealing the suppressed third part of the Fatima message.

        Something’s going on – Pope Benedict, it seems to me, was keen to put right his failure (and the failure of his predecessors) to obey Our Lady but those “wolves” from whom he tried not to “flee” but who got him in the end, prevented him. As St Paul said, we are dealing here with “principalities and powers”, CS. Pity you don’t see it.

        February 3, 2015 at 11:48 am
      • Common Sense

        If he said what you wanted him to say, he would of been more explicit.

        By tradition a Pope now visits the National, or major, Marian Shrine in any country he visits. He clearly had to say something, but not anything about messages, prophecies or warnings.

        By the way, The Catechism of The Catholic Church, of which Cardinal Ratzinger was the primary Editor, states:

        # 66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [DV 4; cf. 1Tim 6:1; Titus 2:13] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”
        # 67 “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.”

        “Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain non Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

        Anything said about any Marian apparition would need to be consistent with that teaching. The time of prophecy ended with Jesus Christ. He is The First, and Last Word.

        February 3, 2015 at 12:01 pm
      • editor

        Nobody has claimed any new revelation at Fatima or Akita. Nothing. Indeed, Sr Lucia explicitly pointed to Scripture, Book of Revelation, chapters 8-12, if my memory serves me correctly.

        However, if you think the Church is thriving right now, as your initial comments indicated, then it’s no wonder you don’t accept Fatima, Akita or Quito. You’d be better off just reading this blog, because you are definitely never going to convince us that your take on the contemporary Church and apparitions about our times, is correct. You just won’t and you will waste a lot of time and energy trying to do so.

        February 3, 2015 at 12:18 pm
      • Common Sense


        I don’t doubt there is much in The Church that is not exactly as it should be, and, unless, I read or hear, different news to you so does Pope Francis.

        I think you have commented on his attempts to reform the Curia, and his criticism of “airport Bishops”, his rejection of clergy who are ambitious career wise. The list is endless.

        He has also called on The Church to recommit itself to Evangelisation – that is the proclamation that is it only through Jesus that people can be saved – and, of course,to the service of Poor, and to address the concrete pastoral needs of people.

        I am not going to share my own list, but I readily endorse The Francis Reforms.

        Individuals, and The Church, must constantly renew the call to mission, and service, and all must heed the call to overcome sin.

        In terms of the need for renewal, and reform, we can agree. We do, however, it seems, disagree as to exactly what issues need to be addressed.

        (I am not going to discuss my own personal piety, or practices, but suffice to say I, as do many others, frequent various Marian Shrines, and pilgrimage places. I might also add, before you come to the wrong conclusion, I would not visit such a place unless it is recognised by The Church, and I would seek to discourage those who do.)

        February 3, 2015 at 2:21 pm
      • editor


        Pope Francis has said (as reported in our current newsletter) that it is impossible to speak of Christ without the Church and that the Church is essential for salvation. However, juxtaposed with that correct proclamation of Catholic teaching is his assurance to a group of Evangelical Protestants that he doesn’t want or expect them to convert. He said early on in his pontificate that “proselytism was solemn nonsense.”

        There’s plenty more where that came from. Pope Francis is a Modernist – no question about it. He speaks the truth one minute and then says the opposite the next minute.

        His comments about the mother of 7 going on 8 and responsible parenthood were contradicted by a man who told the Pope he was a father of 8 and Papa Francis praised him and told him to keep going.

        Reminds me of the priest who told me some years ago that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor had the nickname “the cushion” among the clergy because “he belonged to the last person who sat on him.”

        That’s how Papa Francis comes across – he’ll say whatever the person(s) in front of him want him to say, and if they’re handing him a microphone, even more so.

        February 3, 2015 at 2:46 pm
      • Common Sense


        You, and others, have previously suggested I seem to endorse every Papal announcement as a dogmatic statement. I don’t! However, I personally doubt it is sensible to “air” dirty linen in public!

        There is no two ways about it: it is only through Jesus that people can be saved, and that any, and every person, would be better off if The Church assisted them in coming to knowledge of him. It might be that The Pope has a different approach to the issue, but I think there is no doubt what outcome he would wish to achieve, that all recognise what Jesus offers them, and that they freely accept that gift.

        February 3, 2015 at 2:58 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        On the subject of Fatima, as has been pointed out to you time and again, you are talking patent nonsense.

        Fatima, unlike any other Marian apparition in the history of the Church, contained a specific request to be addressed to the Pope and the Bishops of the Church. No one from the Pope down has every denied the veracity of this heavenly request. Indeed, Pope John Paul II wanted urgently to meet Our Lady’s request but was advised not to act and was too weak a man to go ahead anyway. Pope Benedict XVI said that the Fatima chastisement is still unfolding in the Church. So, this idea that Fatima can be pushed aside as nothing more than a private revelation is total rubbish.

        And another thing. Our Lady did not come to Fatima with a new revelation, she came to announce the commencement of Apocalyptic events as revealed in Sacred Scripture (Apocalypse 8-13), with a proviso that certain terrible events could be avoided if, obeying the will of God, the Pope and the bishops made a public and solemn consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

        The Popes chose not to obey Our Lady’s REQUEST, choosing instead to follow their own lights through a Pastoral Council which, rather than increase the spiritual health of the Church and bring peace to the world, has resulted in mass apostasy from the faith and the world’s moral compass disappearing, just as Our Lady of Quito predicted 400 years ago.

        So that’s it in a nutshell for you. Let’s not hear anymore nonsense about private revelations and the great and wonderful Council. Half the hierarchy, including Popes, have stated that Vatican II was at best a very big disappointment and at worst a disaster for the Church and the world. I personally favour the latter given the heresies that have come to flourish in the name of Vatican II.

        I’m quite certain now that the Church fell victim to a diabolical attack at Vatican II, hence Our Lady’s warning of a diabolical disorientation. She also said: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, she will be converted and the world will be granted a period of peace.” She also said: “but it will be late”.

        It’s late because of idiots who don’t know their faith and consequently think the Church is healthy when it’s actually grievously sick.

        It’s late because too many high Churchmen have lost simply Christian humility.

        It’s late because high clerics in the Church are moral cowards.

        It’s late because some think they know better than God how to solve the problems of the Church and the world.

        But at least we know it will infallibly happen. My only question is how great a calamity will it take to bring our Pope and his bishops to their knees in humble obedience to a request of the Blessed Mother.

        February 3, 2015 at 4:54 pm
      • Common Sense


        As on most topics you are being inconsistent.

        You earlier wrote of a Pope who himself had some “apparition” and spoke of his personal belief in Fatima, and then criticise other who, in your view, treat every Papal statement as always worthy of consideration. So a private apparition, and a personal view, of a Pope are enough if you agree with them, and not if you don’t.

        Then you regale us with conspiracy theories about Fatima, that have the same credence as those who believe that Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley are alive, and are living in married bliss on the moon.

        Pope Benedict, in Portugal, spoke of the child abuse crisis being a humiliation, and an act of chastisement, for the Church, but he in no way explicitly linked that thought with the message of Fatima. It was merely that he was asked about the topic of child abuse in that context.

        As I have also pointed out it has become a tradition that a Pope, on visiting a country, will try to visit their national, or major, Marian Shrine. Such visits are in honour of The B.V.M., and not an endorsement of particular aspect of a private revelation.

        Saint Pope John Paul made a personal visit to Fatima after surviving an assignation attempt on a particular feastday, but whether Lourdes, Fatima or wherever their is only one Mother of God. The titles, and the private revelations, are never, and could not be, the dominant issue.

        I note too, that Professor Haldane, who seemingly offered a major critique of your scholarship, on other topics, is serves on a Pontifical Council. I will leave it at that.

        February 3, 2015 at 5:19 pm
  • jobstears

    Common Sense,

    This is in reply to your offensive post of 5:53 pm. I asked you what you thought of the Quito apparition and this was your answer:

    “I think if the BVM said those things, she is probably kicking herself now, and wishes she maintained the tradition she maintained in The Gospels. Say little, pray, and lead by example” . I can’t believe you would speak so disrespectfully of Our Lady. But then again, maybe I can. You see, when it comes to Our Lady, Catholics and Protestants/Protestantized Catholics, never do see eye to eye.

    Obviously, the message of the Quito apparitions rubs you the wrong way, I wonder why?

    February 2, 2015 at 9:53 pm
    • Frankier


      I was willing to read and digest what Common Nonsense had to say but on reading that Our Blessed Lady is probably kicking herself now I think it`s about time to just ignore him. He has obviously ran out of nonsensical things to say.

      Maybe if he tried to justify his nom-de-plume by saying little, praying and leading by example he would be worth wasting a few minutes on but otherwise just skim by.

      He`ll probably be the type that refuses to walk under a ladder.

      February 2, 2015 at 11:31 pm
      • editor


        You won’t catch ME walking under ladders. Gerragrip!

        February 3, 2015 at 12:00 am
      • jobstears


        I agree. 😀

        February 3, 2015 at 12:12 am
  • Common Sense

    No-one is obliged to believe in any aspect of Quito. It is not part of our Faith. Further, the many 20th Century Popes who have been canonised, beatified or declared venerable, and the Great Council that took place, and the presence of people like Blessed Mother Teresa, and the growth in inter -faith, and Ecumenical dialogue, and many other pointers, suggest the “messages” were not prophecies, and were in every respect inaccurate if not totally untrue.

    February 2, 2015 at 10:00 pm
  • John

    Our lady of Good Success said the fourth reason. The Lamp was put out was to demonstrate how the masonic and other evil sects (communism) would have much influence on society & even the church.

    What happened at Vatican 2 the church entered into an immoral pact with Russia not to criticise communism in exchange for having Russian observers present, even though over 450 bishops signed a petition against it. What happened to that petition, why of course it got misplaced.

    What of the cardinals and bishops of that time, Carmine Pecorelli (a journalist) published a list of 120 Freemasons who were in the upper ranks of the Vatican 2 church included in the lists was the date they joined & their code names e.g Archbishop Bugnini codename Buan, Cardinal Casaroli codename Casa, Cardinal Villot codename Jeanni. The last 2 cardinals had the highest positions in the church, and what of Carmine Pecorelli he was murdered shortly after.

    Pope Leo XIII points out in his encyclicals against freemasonry & communism they have the same goals including the dissolution of the family & the overthrow of the rule Christ the King and to supplant it with a new world order of their making.

    Their plan has almost come to fruition, the effects of this revolution is all around us. That is why Our Lady of Good Success & Our Lady of Fatima came to warn us. The Pope will consecrate Russia to my Immaculate Heart but it will be late.

    Our Lady of Good Success

    Pray for Us

    February 2, 2015 at 10:44 pm
  • fryderykfranciszekchopin

    @Common Sense:

    “I think if the BVM said those things, she is probably kicking herself now, and wishes she maintained the tradition she maintained in The Gospels. Say little, pray, and lead by example”.
    1) How can you be so rude about the Mother of God!! Even the pagans did not speak disrespectfully of those they honored, and I have know non-Catholics with more respect for the Blessed Mother.
    2) Example. Our Lady most certainly did lead by example as long as She was on earth. Given the fact that She is now in Heaven, not on earth, I think it would be a little difficult for us to imitate what She does now. As it is, not many people follow the example She left us, or it would have been unnecessary for Her to come to us.
    3)Pray. Our Lady does pray for us, She never stops. Our Lady is the only reason that the world has not yet been destroyed- She has held back Her Son from meting out justice, as She said in Fatima, but, She cannot hold Him back much longer. And that is why Our Lady has appeared so often, to warn us to repent before it is too late.
    4) Say little. It takes some nerve to say that the Mother of God should say little, as though She were an equal! All that Our Lady has said, She has said out of love for Her sinful children.

    No matter how much you ignore Her warnings, it will not make them go away.

    And er…CS, do you remember what Pope Francis said about anyone who insulted his mother?

    February 2, 2015 at 11:03 pm
    • Common Sense

      I am not being rude about the B.V.M.. I am saying that she is not omniscient, and such “messages” are inconsistent with her role, as revealed in Holy Scripture, and Tradition, and with what The Church understand about Jesus Christ, and him being the fullness of truth, and the mission he entrusted to The Church, under the leadership of The Successor of St Peter.

      Not one word attributed to The B.V.M. at Quito is understood to be a Divinely revealed Truth, to be heard, or assented to, by any Catholic.

      February 2, 2015 at 11:10 pm
    • Common Sense


      If you read my post properly, you would see I said The B.V.M. said little, prays a lot, and leads by example. Hardly, a case of me being disrespectful, or dismissing her centrality in our Faith story.

      February 2, 2015 at 11:12 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Our Faith is not a story and Our Blessed Mother is not a sideshow to be admired but not listened to.

        She is the Mother of God, “the Garden of God’s delight,” as the saints put it. By her Fiat she brought the Divine Redeemer into the world. By her words at Cana she persuaded Him against His own wishes to perform His first public miracle, the miracle that made His disciples believe in Him. By her intercessory prayer in the Cenacle at the head of the Apostles she brought down the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I could go on and on with examples, but hundreds of great saints have put it so much better. It is clear that you know nothing of their teaching about Our Lady’s prerogatives.

        Suffice it to say that as our Heavenly Mother, the Blessed Virgin came to warn mankind, both at Quito and Fatima, about Apocalyptic events that were about to unfold in accordance with Sacred Scripture. She did this as a good mother who loves her children and wants to see them save their souls. And what has been the response? indifference has been the response, with a very large dose of irreverence thrown in.

        Our Blessed Saviour listened respectfully to every word His Mother spoke and obeyed her every request, as is clearly evidenced in the finding of the child Jesus in the temple. How displeased He must be, then, when mere mortals declare her words to be unimportant and her requests dismissible. You may wish to think about that, especially since we will all need that Holy Mother at our side as an advocate when her Divine Son judges us.

        February 2, 2015 at 11:45 pm
      • Common Sense

        Our Lady is many things, and, and rightly honoured as The Mother of Our Lord, and his true disciple, and an example for us to follow. However, none of these things alter how The Church judges apparitions, and the assent it says we must give them, or any purported messages. The Church in effect says, something of not happened here, but no one has to believe it, and that nothing contrary to the faith is recorded there.

        February 3, 2015 at 6:55 am
      • damselofthefaith

        Common Sense (I’ve been reading your posts and am wondering if you have any),

        You do know that the only reason that the Blessed Virgin comes to Earth is because Our Lord Jesus Christ, HER SON, sent Her here, right? He gives Her the messages He wishes the Church and world to know.

        And you dare to undermine this and pay no heed to it? Why?

        February 2, 2015 at 11:48 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Church doesn’t actually validate the message, and merely says that nothing contrary to the faith happened.

        May I refer you to The Catechism of The Catholic Church:

        “I BELIEVE” – “WE BELIEVE”


        50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

        ARTICLE 1


        51 “It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.”2

        Jesus has had the last word himself. People need to him, no new messengers, or prophets, will arise, or are you disputing his role in our Salvation?

        February 3, 2015 at 6:59 am
  • Lionel (Paris)

    We have got the explanation to what happen!… THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT ANYMORE

    February 2, 2015 at 11:32 pm
  • damselofthefaith

    When I first discovered the messages of Our Lady of Good Success, I was shocked. What I read was and has happened before our eyes. Our dear Mother appeared centuries before this diabolical crisis in the Church to warn us that our Faith and our souls would be in danger.

    WHEN are we going to finally listen and do what she has asked in ALL of her apparitions – pray and do penance for our crimes against Her Son?

    Of note on the Quito apparitions, I believe it is the only time when St. Michael, St. Gabriel and St. Raphael appeared together. I believe they finished the miraculous statue, if I’m not mistaken.

    February 2, 2015 at 11:43 pm
    • westminsterfly

      Yes, that’s correct Damsel, the Angels did finish the miraculous statue. It is just one of the many occurrences related in ‘The Admirable Life of Mother Mariana: Vols I and II’.

      Editor: Perhaps it’s time you did put ‘Common Sense’ into moderation – permanently. Having to wade through what he/she writes just puts one off visiting the blog – perhaps that is their intention. I know that sometimes it’s the grit which produces the pearl in the oyster (i.e. CS’s confused and narrow views, have produced excellent clarifications from several of the commenters, esp. Athanasius) but he/she has become a crashing bore.

      Why does Common Sense come onto a blog where he/she clearly disagrees with the editorial line and the majority of those who comment? Isn’t it sad that he/she apparently has nothing else to do but send constant irrelevant comments? Is he/she unemployed? Perhaps a trip to the jobcentre is in order. Past working age? I’m sure there are some nice clubs in his/her area. My mother joined one recently, she meets people and enjoys it very much.

      February 3, 2015 at 9:31 am
      • editor


        At around 1am I posted the following in response to CS above somewhere:


        You were not, as I explained, banned when your posts inexplicably went into SPAM. However, I’m not convinced that you are a serious debater and I am horrified at some of the things you have said about Our Lady. So, your status as an un-moderated contributor is very likely to change soon. Like tomorrow.

        Your ignorance about the nature and purpose of the Church and the extent and limitations of papal authority, coupled with your amazingly flawed (lack of) understanding of the role of prophecy in the Church, and the difference between private revelations and public prophetic revelations, leads me to suggest that you desist from posting here, unless you wish to ask a question. Your knowledge is on the same level as the contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire who needs the audience to help him get to the first rung on the ladder and win the base line £100.

        If you persist in insulting Our Lady (I presume you are a “convert” – while not always the case, I’ve found that it is often the case that converts just do not love Our Lady) then you WILL be placed into moderation.

        I would really prefer if our bloggers ignored your posts but I won’t obviously stipulate that they do – I won’t be responding to any more of your nonsense, and my final word to you is this: if you are here to disrupt, get lost. With respect, of course. Do, get, please, lost. END.

        I will, therefore, be watching for any comments from CS today and at the first sign of the kind of ignorance of revelation (not to say blasphemy against Our Lady) that we have already corrected several times, he will be placed in moderation. It’s easier, of course, if bloggers do not respond to his comments because they have to be deleted as well – otherwise visitors to the site can’t make sense of what they are reading.

        If you check our About Us section, though, WF, you will see that it is our policy for bloggers not to seek to administer the site by suggesting moderation – that can be misinterpreted. Privately, by email, if any blogger feels strongly about it, by all means suggest it, but it can be misinterpreted if bloggers advise that the administrator take action against a particular blogger and then I “toe the line”. I do keep a close eye on the likes of CS and – as indicated in my 1am post – had plans to moderate his posts as from today. I usually (although not always) like to give one more chance. While I understand the frustration of having someone like CS talking baloney over and over again, the best way to deal with him – once his determination to remain in the wrong, utterly confused and making an idiot of himself, is manifestly obvious to all and sundry – is to ignore his posts.

        February 3, 2015 at 10:24 am
      • Frankier


        I agree entirely.

        I wouldn`t moderate him if I was sure that no one would respond to his remarks. It would be good to see him chattering away to himself, but sometimes it is hard to ignore annoying creatures.

        He reminds me of a wee midgie that you try to ignore in the summer nights but can`t help swatting with a shovel.

        February 3, 2015 at 11:10 am
      • editor


        You’re being naughty again! 😀

        February 3, 2015 at 11:50 am
  • westminsterfly

    Has anyone seen this Fatima Network report from James Hanisch ?

    February 3, 2015 at 2:52 pm
  • Clotilde

    I guess you haven’t read the book “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” by Antonio Socci an Italian journalist who wanted to discredit the so-called prophecies around Our Lady’s apparitions.
    He soon discovered that there was a secret and a massive cover-up through the last century to keep it hidden by successive Popes.

    Did the young Saints Francisco and Jacinta who suffered so much die in vain?

    February 3, 2015 at 10:43 pm
  • westminsterfly

    On March 19, 1939, Sister Lucia said the following regarding the First Saturday devotion of reparation:-

    “Whether the world has war or peace depends on the practice of this devotion (the First Saturdays), along with the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is why I desire its propagation so ardently, especially because this is also the will of our dear Mother in Heaven”.

    if you haven’t already started, next Saturday (7th Feb) is a First Saturday. Please start and continue them !!

    February 4, 2015 at 11:08 am
    • Helen

      What does one have to do?

      February 4, 2015 at 1:20 pm
  • westminsterfly


    The conditions for the First Five Saturdays can be found here:- http://www.fatima.org/crusader/cr97/first_sat_card.pdf

    The following elaborates a bit on what is necessary:-


    The following is an explanation of the conditions contained in Our Lady’s request regarding the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays of the Month.

    1.Confess and receive Holy Communion
    On February 15, 1926 the Child Jesus alone came to visit Sr. Lucia and asked if the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was being propagated. Sr. Lucia spoke of a difficulty some people have in confessing on the first Saturday, and asked if they might be allowed eight days in order to fulfil Our Lady’s requests. Jesus answered: “Yes, even more time still, as long as they receive Me in the state of grace and have the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

    2.Recite the Rosary
    Five decades of the Rosary may be recited at any time or place; yet, since one will be attending Mass in order to receive Holy Communion, a very desirable time and place would be before or after Mass in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Meditation on the mysteries according to one’s capacity is an essential condition for praying the Rosary. Yet, involuntary distractions do not rob the Rosary of fruit if one is doing the best he can.

    3.”Keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary.”
    The question is often asked: Does the meditation while reciting the Rosary fulfil this condition, or is there required an additional fifteen minutes of meditation? That an additional 15 minutes of meditation is required was confirmed by Sr. Lucia of Fatima. It is clear too from a statement by the first Bishop of Fatima.

    The last entry in the chronology of Fatima, published in the official Calendar of the Sanctuary for the year of 1940, and signed by Dom Jose Correia da Silva, the first Bishop of Fatima, gave a summary of Our Lady’s requests concerning the Five First Saturdays. From that official statement in the Calendar of the Sanctuary, we read the Bishop’s enumeration of the various items that pertain to the devotion of the five Saturdays:

    It consists in going to Confession, receiving Communion, reciting five decades of the Rosary and meditating for a quarter of an hour on the mysteries of the Rosary on the first Saturday of five consecutive months. The Confession may be made during the eight days preceding or following the first Saturday of each month, provided that Holy Communion be received in the state of grace. Should one forget to form the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it may be formed at the next Confession, occasion to go to confession being taken at the first opportunity.

    The meditation embraces one or more mysteries; it may even include all, taken together or separately, according to individual attraction or devotion; but it is preferable to meditate on one mystery each month, which is what Sister Lucia used to do. Like the Rosary, this meditation may be made any time or place during the first Saturday. Yet again, like the Rosary, a very fitting time and place would be in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament before or after Mass. The question has been asked: “Would an extra Rosary, which would require about fifteen minutes, fulfil this request? It would seem, if fruitfully meditated, that it would. Or again, the time could be spent reading meditatively on one of the fifteen mysteries, which is a form of mental prayer that involves reading with frequent pauses to reflect on the matter read.

    4.With the intention of making reparation.
    All of the conditions mentioned above should be fulfilled with the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. On the occasion of the visit of the Child Jesus to Sr. Lucia (Feb. 16, 1926), she asked: “My Jesus, what about those who forget to make the intention?” Jesus answered: “They can do so at their next confession, taking advantage of their first opportunity to go to Confession.”

    The above are the minimum requirements for fulfilling the conditions of Our Lady’s promise to obtain for us “at the hour of death the graces necessary for salvation.” Yet, these Communions of reparation, as has been pointed out, are only a portion of the devotion of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These few pages are meant to help bring about a frame of mind and heart that will make us aware of the need of reparation all through the month, and not just on the first Saturday.


    It is sometimes asked why Our Lady asked for Communions of reparation on five first Saturdays, instead of some other number. Our Blessed Lord answered that question when He appeared to Sr. Lucia May 29, 1930. He explained that it was because of five kinds of offenses and blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, namely: blasphemies against her Immaculate Conception, against her perpetual virginity, against the divine and spiritual maternity of Mary, blasphemies involving the rejection and dishonouring of her images, and the neglect of implanting in the hearts of children a knowledge and love of this Immaculate Mother.

    February 4, 2015 at 1:57 pm
    • Helen

      Thank you. I did search the Fatima link on this site but couldn’t find it.

      February 4, 2015 at 7:50 pm
  • Clotilde

    I found this novena prayer in a wee book I was reading about Our Lady of Good Success.

    Novena Prayer to Our Lady of Good Success

    Hail Mary,Most beloved daughter of God the Father,
    Through the intercession of Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres,
    Grant Thy good success to this request (…).
    Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory be.
    St. Micheal, Pray for us.

    Hail Mary, Most admirable Mother of God the Son,
    Through the intercession of Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres,
    Grant Thy good success to this request, (…).
    Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be.
    St. Gabriel, pray for us.

    Hail Mary, Most holy Faithful spouse of the Holy Ghost,
    Through the intercession of Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres,
    Grant Thy good success to this request, (…).
    St. Rapheal, pray for us.

    Hail Mary, Most Holy, Temple and Sacrarium of the Most Holy Trinity,
    St. Micheal, St. Gabriel, St. Rapheal, pray for us.

    Our Lady of good Success, Thou who art the all powerful intercessor before the Most
    Holy Trinity, deign to hear and answer my request, so long as it contributes to the
    salvation of my soul and the glory and exaltation of Holy Mother Church.


    February 4, 2015 at 9:57 pm
    • editor


      Thank you for posting that novena prayer. Much appreciated.

      February 7, 2015 at 12:12 am
  • Clotilde

    Happy to keep in touch and thanks for all the great topics.

    February 9, 2015 at 9:56 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: