Why Is The Remnant Promoting “Controversial” Akita Apparition?editor
At one time, I was convinced of the truth of the Akita apparitions. The “Cardinals against Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops” did it for me. I didn’t join up the dots at all. It didn’t occur to me that Cardinals and Bishops had been opposing one another since before the Second Vatican Council and even publicly during the Council – click here to read an account of the microphone being switched off during Cardinal Ottaviani’s challenge to the liberals on the floor, on the third day of the Council – and how those Enemies of the Church openly laughed at him.
Then there was the public dissent throughout the Church which followed the publication of Humanae vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI affirming the Church’s teaching on Birth Control, dated 25 July 1968 and released at a Vatican press conference on 29 July, 1968. So, well before the alleged Akita apparitions, we had cardinals and bishops openly opposing one another. To be “prophesied” in 1973, doesn’t make sense. As I say, I was an “Akita believer” because I failed to join up the dots.
Indeed, as recently as February, 2021, I posted a thread on the topic, under the title “Akita Confirms Fatima Message” – click here to read that discussion. I was so convinced of the truth of Akita that I posted a video without prior scrutiny, to launch the discussion. Hence my surprise when I read the following comment from blogger, Athanasius:
I watched the introductory video for this thread and I have to say that a few things left me a little concerned about Akita.
The first of these was Sister Agnes’ twin reference to an accompanying angel in prayer as “she”. I have never heard of an angel being referred to as “she”. The other thing that struck me was how modernist the chapel and nuns look, and how unbecoming the image of Our Lady is. There was no hint of a restoration of Tradition there, as I would have expected given the warnings of Our Lady about the apostasy taking place in the Church. It’s almost as if the post-conciliar reform is not seen as the principal cause of this apostasy.
Fatima indicates the truth of things in the opening line of the text of the Third Secret: “In Portugal the dogmas of the Faith will be preserved…etc.”, indicating that the chastisement is primarily spiritual in nature. Akita mentions apostasy but seems to focus more on a terrible material chastisement of the world by God, to the extent that few will be left and the living will envy the dead. This seems at odds with Our Lady’s Fatima promise that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph and a time of peace will be granted to the world. I’m not saying that a Third World War will not happen when there is every likelihood at this time that such a catastrophe may well happen soon. But even if that comes about, the punishment of wars and other natural disasters belongs properly to the Second part of the Fatima Secret, not the Third part. The Third Secret of Fatima is exclusively a supernatural chastisement afflicting the Church and the world, there is no WWIII in there.
The fall of many consecrated Catholic souls and billions of other souls worldwide, the result of the present universal apostasy from God, is by far a greater chastisement than any mere material annihilation. So why is emphasis placed more on material rather than spiritual loss at Akita? I was also a bit concerned by the claim that if the sins of men continue there will be no more forgiveness. But isn’t God infinitely merciful, always desiring to forgive?
[Ed: in the comments following, another blogger linked to a sermon of St Alphonsus Ligouri on this subject On the Number of Sins Beyond Which God Pardons No More )
Other things that made me a little uncomfortable were 1. The local Ordinary’s apparent belief in the apparitions before his investigation even began. Bishops normally start out with the opposite view. 2. The three different blood groups identified by scientists from three separate examinations of the tears. 3. The mark of the Cross appearing on only one hand of Sister Agnes, the left hand. This is not the usual manifestation of the stigmata. 4. Sister Agnes said at one point that people should pay less attention to the “form” of prayers and concentrate more on content. Content is of course very important, but the form of our Catholic prayers is also essential. We all see the bitter fruits of changes to the form of the sacred liturgy, the Church’s highest and most perfect prayer, the Sacrifice of Our Lord. There were one or two other anomalies that I’ll pass on right now.
Suffice it to say I have been left very uncertain about Akita. The people interviewed, including Sister Agnes, seemed sincere enough, and nothing was said that was obviously contradictory of Catholic doctrine, yet I have problems believing it. I have no such problems with Fatima and Quito, but Akita troubles me. I think the Vatican should investigate Akita and give a definitive decision on it. Ends.
Now, if there is one thing that I don’t want to do is to appear to be criticising The Remnant – I mean, the Pope, yes, that’s fine, but The Remnant? American Catholic Truth readers will never forgive me! Regular visitors to this site will know that I frequently post Remnant TV videos here to kick-start our discussions – and they are always excellent. I am just a tad concerned to find a certain preoccupation with Akita, placing it almost on the same level of importance as Fatima. Interviews with key traditional leaning prelates (such as Archbishop Viganò) have been published in The Remnant where the prelate has identified the Consecration of Russia as the key to ending our ongoing misery, so it puzzles me that Michael Matt would choose to promote Akita rather than use his impressive resources to campaign for the Consecration of Russia.
We are very small fry, and although we do highlight the need for the Consecration on a regular basis we don’t have the means by which to take a campaign to the Vatican. Maybe I’m wrong on this but it seems to me that such a campaign would be much more likely to be Heaven-blessed and fruitful than the promotion of an alleged apparition which Michael Matt himself describes as “incredibly controversial”.
Am I wrong on this? Speak your mind – nobody gets “cancelled” here!