BEST PRINTED IN "SMALLEST" SETTING ON YOUR BROWSER
Dialogue With An Academic Ecclesiastic
On The Alleged Statement by The
Virgin Mary that
"Rome Will Lose The Faith And Become The Seat Of Antichrist"
CLARIFICATION: To circumvent any misunderstanding - I wish to
advise that I concur with the Bishop of Grenoble's decision regarding the apparition of the Blessed
Virgin Mary at La Salette in 1846, that the apparition is "worthy of belief." The intent of these
articles is to demonstrate that a) the "message" and/or "secret" of La Salette does NOT form an
integral part of the Bishop's (and Church's) approval, and b) that the "message" and/or "secret" (which
has the BVM say that "Rome will lose the Faith...etc.") is an 1879 corruption of the recorded 1851
"message", and c) that the corrupted 1879 "message" and/or "secret" has been condemned by the
Church - culminating with being placed on the Index of Forbidden Books - the Imprimatur in 1879
of the Bishop of Lecce notwithstanding!
F. John Loughnan
From: xx.xxxxxx,
31 Jan 2002
Thank you for this.
I was particularly interested in your article on La Salette; are you aware that "the
Remanant" published a few years ago a refution of the position you hold, namely that such a
statement did not pertain to the authentic revelation; it quoted various document to show
that the condemnation you refer to of 1923 was of another book, and that the revelation of
Melanie was never condemned, even though notable clerics, including the Cardinal sought
this. You may want to write to "the Remnant" for a reprint. The article was accompanied
by numerous references and documents and was written by a french author, who claimed to
have studied the history of La Salette extentively.
From: John Loughnan
Feb. 1, 2002
Greetings from sunny Australia. I am told that there is plenty of snow in the Chicago area at
the moment; I hope you are keeping warm?
No, I have not seen the Remnant article, and would be interested in seeing it.
Do you believe that "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of anti-Christ"?
From: xx.xxxxxx
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2002
From the facts I have seen, I do believe that Our Lady did say that to Melanie; however I
interpret the statement in the way I believe Our Lady intended it: you see Rome had been
under the dominion of the Vicars of Christ from about the 7th century; and in 1871 with the
reunification of Italy it came under the dominion of the masonic Repubblican government. I
believe that is what Our Lady is refering to. I personally do not think Our Blessed Mother
would use the vulgar metaphor of Rome for the Vatican; we often forget that according to
European custom, the actions of government are attributed to their capitals: e.g. Washington
said yesterday that . . .. The custom among westerners of saying, Rome decided this or
that, is a left over from the era of the Papal States. It would be more correct to say, after
1871, that the Vatican decided this or that.
And so I do not find the statement of Our Lady any reason for worry. But rather see in it
much truth. We ought to warn catholics about this though; for the fundamental belief of
all protestants is that Rome as the seat of the Antichrist is the Catholic Church. I would
recommend reading the apologetic writings of St. Francis de Sales, who discussed this point.
There is also a long discussion of this in Cornelius a Lapide on Apoc. 17.
Anyhow, Rome being the seat of the Antichrist, is already the teaching of St. John in the
Apocalypse. It is also the common interpretation of the Apocalypse by the Fathers (Jerome,
Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, Victorinus) and Saints (Bellarmine, Mallachy) and other
authors (Cassiodorus, Bozius, Suarez),. St. John lived in Our Lady's household, so it is no
suprise to me that She would speak of this.
If Our Lady did say it, we ought not deny it; therefore I would recommend you investigate
this matter, for if you err, you might be calling the Mother of God, or her servant Melanie,
a liar.
I do also believe, that given the accepted longstanding catholic interpretation of the
Apocalypse on this point, that this statement of which you speak, may very well refer to
those part of the clergy who, though remaining in power, have lost the faith, for as unbelievers
they pertain rather to the city of Rome than to the Church of Rome.
From: John Loughnan
Feb. 2, 2002
Many thanks for your reply - which I will certainly study.
Can you please advise me where in Revelation St John teaches of Rome being the seat of
the Antichrist?
From: xx.xxxxxx
Feb. 2, 2002
If you believe that Scripture in of itself has a meaning other than that which is had in the
Church, then I suppose you did not find the passage from reading my last letter, wherein I
quoted it. But then you'd be reading scripture in a other-than-catholic manner. Catholics
have always read the Scriptures in the Church and with the Fathers, whom I quoted. If you
do not accept the traditional reading, then I would suggest you speak to your confessor.
From: John Loughnan
Feb. 4, 2002
Thank you for your response of Feb. 1, 2002
.
When I asked the question of you, "Can you please advise me where in Revelation St John
teaches of Rome being the seat of the Antichrist?", I wrote with the knowledge and conviction
that, compared to you, I consider myself to be equivalent, say, to a dog's flea; one who is
intellectually, spiritually - in all virtuous ways your inferior.
I had already indicated my willingness to learn more on the matter of Melanie. I still am. You
had expressed your belief that Our Lady HAD "said that to Melanie" - that "Rome will lose
the Faith and become the seat of antichrist - but two sentences later, you disbelieved that
"Our Blessed Mother would use the vulgar metaphor of Rome for the Vatican"!
The fact is that it is not only the Protestants who make the statement. Hardened Integrists
also make use of it to "prove" their point in relation to the Vatican and, especially, the
post-conciliar popes; this has been going on for years - I used it myself almost twenty-five
years ago!
You also express your personal belief that the alleged statement of Our Lady to Melanie
"may very well refer to those part of the clergy who, though remaining in power, have lost
the faith..."
I did not ask, nor question the "common interpretation of the Apocalypse by the Fathers...and
Saints...and other authors..." I simply asked for confirmation of YOUR statement that, "Rome
being the seat of the Antichrist is already the teaching of St John in the Apocalypse." Cutting
to the heart of it, I conclude that you acknowledge your statement, "Rome being the seat
of the Antichrist is already the teaching of St John in the Apocalypse," is not one that may
be quoted to others with confidence.
You write: "If you do not accept the traditional reading (i.e., of the "Fathers...and Saints...and
other authors...[such as yourself?])", then I suggest you speak to your confessor." I try to
seek the truth, to tell the truth insofar as I know and understand it, and to avoid untruth. I
am always willing to amend any error of fact that I make. I have made a public pledge on
my website (see the "Fidelity" link) to remove ANY item - indeed the WHOLE website -
immediately on the request of my superior, Archbishop Denis Hart, Archbishop of Melbourne.
If you feel aggrieved in any way with any part of my site, I urge you to make your complaint
to Archbishop Hart at commmelb@ozemail.com.au
Is it not true that it is the magisterium, not any of the fathers writings which is controlling in
Catholic theology, for only the Church can interpret and mediate tradition?
"The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does
so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise,
when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It
is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present
thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final
criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the
often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are
explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme
independence towards those writings--she judges them more than she is judged by
them." ----- From Catholic Encyclopedia, Tradition and Living Magisterium, 1912
Note "...and her supreme independence towards those writings"
The Saints are held up to us more for their lives than their opinions which often contradict
each other. The Jansenists were greatly offended when the Church pronounced St. Augustine's
errors on predestination wrong.
In the meantime, I will certainly refer the "Rome will lose the Faith..." file and our
correspondence to my Parish Priest (Pastor), Fr. Roger Ryan for spiritual direction. I fear,
however, that you have rashly judged me. Fortunately, I am your superior in age, and can
take it :-)
Finally, and on the matter of reading the "Fathers...and Saints...and other authors...", I
could include here a quarter of a million byte file of hatred towards the Jews - a file culled
from the Sacred Heart forum - which I sent to the former Archbishop of Melbourne, Archbishop
George Pell. The author (and he is by no means the only one) utilizes writings from the
said "Fathers...and Saints...and other authors..." to justify hatred towards the Jews.
Here are some alleged quotations from St John Chrysostom:
"How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jews, those most miserable of all
men. They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits -- pests of the universe! Indeed,
an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of
the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers,
men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house
of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as
is also the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil: their rites are
criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a
den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are Jews degenerate? Because
of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation
and woes. The rejection and dispersion of the Jews was the work of God, not of emperors.
It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jews.
Thus, the Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews, and on
Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them., "Depart from Me, for you
have had intercourse with My murderers!" Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their
houses, and, far from venerating the synagogue, hold it in hatred and aversion.
The Once-Chosen People Are
Now The Accursed Race, by Mike Malone
"Jews are the most worthless of men - they are lecherous, greedy, rapacious . . . they
worship the devil. It is incumbent on all Christians to hate Jews."
How Anti-Semitism in the Church, turned
Yeshua into the Anti-Messiah to the Jewish people.
But, "Pope John XXIII prayed the following prayer of repentance, shortly before his death
June 3, 1961:
'We now recognize that many, many centuries of blindness have covered our eyes so that we
no longer see the beauty of Your Chosen People and in their face no longer recognize the
features of our first-born brother.
'We realize that the sign of Cain is marked on our forehead. For centuries, Abel was lying in
blood and tears because we forgot Your love. Forgive us the damnation we pronounced
unjustly upon the name of the Jews.
'Forgive us for having crucified You a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we
were doing.' "
The Jews & Jesus
Do you really believe, xx.xxxxxx, that I - as a Catholic - should not only believe the Dogmas
of the Catholic Church, but also uncritically believe every opinion or speculation of every one
of the "Fathers...and Saints...and other authors...", and actually follow their guidance - by
expressing hatred for the Jews? - or of every other opinion or speculation?
PS If you should come across a copy of "The REMNANT" article on Melanie, I would be
grateful to receive it.
According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole
Church and for all time. (De fide.)
The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide.)
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation,
ounded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.)
The Church founded by Christ is an external visible commonwealth. (Sent. certa.)
Not only those members who are holy but the sinners also belong to the Church. (Sent. certa.)
The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism
and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity
of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. certa.)
From xx.xxxxxx
Feb. 4, 2002
Pardon me, then, if by your question I understood it as sarcasm, since I quoted Apoc
Chapter 17 in the letter in question. If it was not sarcasm, I do not understand what it could
be, since I gave you extensive quotes and references. No, you are not obliged to hold as
the best opinion every common opinion of the Fathers, Saints and other approved authors
(of which I have never claimed to be one -- for the record); but if you disbelieve them and
say that their interpretation is wrong, then I do believe that you are not reading Scripture
in a Catholic manner; for One is the Divine Author of Scripture and the Cause of holiness and
wisdom in the Saints.
This is the Catholic Faith, and I would see no other as plausible. [As for the Anti-Semitic
Charge against Chrysostom and the other Saintly writers, it is patently false, for a theological
reason, that you might want to ask of someone you still trust; can I suggest Roman
Theological Forum? But I am not interested in discussing this matter with one to whom
I am unable of expressing myself coherently -- Regarding Rome, It may help to read a
Catholic Commentary on Apocalypse first, before asking the question.]
Where there is charity there is respect and understanding; if you no longer consider me
trustworthy or competent, then why write me? I have no desire to entertain the spirit of
contentiousness with you Mr. Loughnan; but I ask pardon if my impatience with
modernists has inadvertently taken you in its sights.
Please read my letter wherein I explain the point again, carefully and with the understanding
that I may not be using words in the same sense you use them; most often, laymen accuse
clergy and religious of error and heresy, because they haven't studied theology and do
not understand that theological words and argument can move on different levels of
meaning, sometimes without denying other levels of meaning. Please do not understand
my affirmations as denials, when I do not explilcity deny other things.
Am I being uncharitable; or have you set out on a self-imposed witch-hunt for "integrists",
and caught me in your sights unjustly?
Let us both ponder this misunderstanding, and if there is a common ground of a desire for
the Truth, start over, forgetting it occured; otherwise, let us remain silent, for charity
sake.
From: John Loughnan
Feb. 10, 2002
A trip to Yarra Theological College - formerly a Franciscan seminary at Box Hill - produced
the files below from the Acts of the Apostolic See. My Latin is only of the school-boy
variety, and over 50 years ago at that. Would you like to do a translation for me?
There are many who cast doubt on the lawfulness of documents signed "only" by a Notary.
Such doubt was actualized by Solange Hertz in
the Appendix
to her book - the appendix only appearing to be on the internet
The fact is that there are many such documents published in the AAS under the name only
of a notary. One such was in respect of the excommunication of Fr. Feeney.
See Was Fr.
Feeney's Excommunication Doubtful, by Rev. Anthony Cekada.
Another related to the 15
Prayers of St Bridget
Again, The Roman Catholic
Church Interdicts Michel Collin 1951.
Immediately above the Decretum of 8 May 1923, there is a further Decretum by the same
Notary regarding "Damnantur Opera Quaedam M. Mir et I. De Recalde."
I have not yet been able to come across documentation on the 1880 condemnation.
Page 594 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale
SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII
DECRETUM
CIRCA VULGO DICTUM «SECRET DE LA SALETTE»
<snipped>
Page 175 Suprema S. Congregatio S. Officii
ACTA SS. CONGREGATIONUM
SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII
I
DECLARATIO
CIRCA OPUS QUODDAM
Feria IV, die 12 aprilis 1916
<snipped>
Pages 178/9 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale
SACRA CONGREGATIO INDICIS
I
DECRETUM
Feria II, die 5 iunii 1916
<snipped>
Pages 287/8 Suprema S. Congregatio S. Officii
ACTA SS. CONGREGATIONUM
SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII
<snipped>
II
DAMNATUR OPUSCULUM: «L'APPARITION DE LA TRES SAINTE VIERGE DE LA SALETTE»
DECRETUM
Feria IV, die 9 maii 1923
<snipped>
TO VIEW THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS IN LATIN AND ENGLISH, CLICK HERE
From: xx.xxxxxx
Feb. 11, 2002
At 02:24 AM 2/10/02, you wrote:
>A trip to Yarra Theological College - formerly a Franciscan seminary at Box
Hill - produced the files below from the Acts of the Apostolic See.
My Latin is only of the school-boy variety, and over 50 years ago at that.
Would you like to do a translation for me?>
Unfortunately without a copy of the books or publications refered to, such
notifications will not solve the case of the disputed quote; for if you can
find just one publication, not condemned, then there would remain the
possibility that the quote is authentic. I guess one has to tract down the
exact source of this quote, as regard publications, before refering to the
notifications you sent, so see whether it is condemend.
Also, these condemnations do not refer to the text approved by the Bishop
of Lecce, and according to the norms of canon law, no condemnation is to be
interpreted broadly; indeed it seems from the texts you have just sent me
that the notifications refer only to publications that do not bear
imprimaturs or nihil obstats, which of course the publication with the
permission of the Bishop of Lecce does do.
So if you are claiming the quote is false, you still have much more
research to do. Mrs. Hertz's thesis seems to me more probable, since she
cites a source with an imprimatur not included in any of the decrees you
sent. And she certainly does not discount the authority of the curia, only
that the decrees refer to the original authentic text.
From: John Loughnan
Feb. 12, 2002
Thank you for your comments. I would still like a translation of the documents. I would be
grateful should you have the time to do so.
As the documents (at least some of them) appear to refer to the "Secret of La
Salette", and "by" Melanie, I fail to see why the Bishop of Lecce's imprimatur should
come into the matter. There have been publications in the past, I believe, which have
even carried papal imprimaturs, but still have been were deficient in some way - or even
on the Index.
Perhaps Mrs Hertz's thesis IS more probable. But it is also possible that it is not. Is the
work that I cited the same as that mentioned by you earlier:
"...are you aware that the Remanant published a few years ago a refution of the position
you hold, namely that such a statement did not pertain to the authentic revelation; it
quoted various document to show that the condemnation you refer to of 1923 was of
another book, and that the revelation of Melanie was never condemned, even though
notable clerics, including the Cardinal sought this. You may want to write to the Remnant
for a reprint. The article was accompanied by numerous references and documents and
was written by a french author, who claimed to have studied the history of La
Salette extentively."
As I am an old-age pensioner (entirely dependent on the Social Service pension, and
whose personal possessions consist in a 1988 4 cylinder car, a computer and associated
equipment, a library gleaned from seminary and convent garage sales, clothing from the
Opportunity shops, and penurious four days after the fortnightly pension day - I do not
even own the home I live in!), I am not in a position to request any "Remnant" reprints.
Therefore, I depend for my information on being directed to the appropriate resources.
If the above quoted paragraph was not in reference to the Solange Hertz Appendix which
I supplied to you, I would appreciate being advised as to where it might be viewable on
the internet. I might add that I have looked at the "Remnant" website and not seen the
article there - although it does a reference to Solange Hertz there.
If it is the reference to which you referred, I would ask you what degree of trust do you
place in Solange Hertz' accuracy in detail? Is she to be trusted in all that she reports and
writes about?
From xx.xxxxxx
Feb. 12, 2002
At 03:07 AM 2/12/02, you wrote:
>If it is the reference to which you referred, I would ask you what degree of
trust do you place in Solange Hertz' accuracy in detail? Is she to be
trusted in all that she reports and writes about?>
May the Lord give you peace!
Here's the core of the problem: when judging the argument of an author it
is normal practice, in both academic and eccelsiastical circles to presume
the truthfulness of the writer and to critique his reasoning out of the
facts he presents as to the value of his conclusion(s); if you discount the
facts presented by an author, a priori, simply because you presmue the
author is not trustworthy, while having no evidence to adduce this, then
you are not pursuing truth, but rather disagreement. And I see no reason to
share such a quest, which is contrary to evangelical charity.
As to the facts, she quotes a book on the question by a member of the
Congregation of the Index; I'd read that book before publishing documents
on the Web that would call her or Melanie a liar, if I had a conscience.
Yes, tomorrow is Ash Wednesday; and this letter of mine is a rebuke in the
Lord.
|
|
