Fake Monk Bianchi Declares That Fatima Is a Fake

Fatima Perspectives ^ | December 17, 2015 | Christopher A. Ferrara

[ebb tide]

When Pope Francis was elected, I was entirely positive about the new pontificate, focusing in my commentary on the new Pope’s apparent devotion to the Blessed Virgin and his respect for the Fatima event, as shown by his request to the Patriarch of Portugal to consecrate his entire pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima. But I confess that at the time I knew next to nothing about the former Cardinal Mario Bergoglio. I did not know, for example, that he was “famous for his inconsistency.”

After two-and-a-half years of experience with this pontificate, however, I was not the least surprised to learn that Francis had named the fulminating, anti-Fatima, anti-Marian heretic Enzo Bianchi as a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. This phony “monk,” a layman who calls himself “Prior” of the phony interdenominational “monastery” of the “Bose Community,” was rightly denounced by Monsignor Antonio Livi, former dean of the faculty of philosophy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, as “substantially atheist” and a “prophet of the end of Catholicism” whose speeches are “a rhetorical device for his propaganda in favour of a humanism that is nominally Christian but substantially atheist.”

The heretic Francis has appointed to a pontifical council detests Marian devotion and despises the Message of Fatima. Mary, says the phony monk, “can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the Church.” As for Fatima, Bianchi pronounces Our Lady’s apparitions there a “swindle.” Why? Because according to him, any God “who talks about the persecuted Christians, but forgets the six million Jews annihilated in Germany is not a credible God.”

So, Francis has elevated to Vatican prominence a layman in a monk’s costume who dares to declare what God would had to have included in the Fatima prophecies in order to maintain the divine credibility. But as Vito Messori has observed: “Bianchi should remember that Communism (Lenin seized power in 1917) has at least 100 million deaths on its conscience, and there would not have been Hitler, if there had not previously been Lenin.” In fact, Nazism — that is, National Socialism — is precisely the outcome of the spread of the “errors of Russia” that Our Lady predicted, it having arisen in pre-World War II Germany as a rival to Marxism-Leninism. And during WWII the Hitler-Stalin Pact, pledging mutual non-aggression, ended only when Hitler invaded Poland.

For Bianchi, notes Msgr. Nicola Bux, a Consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “the deconstruction of the papacy in its present form is an especially important concern…” That being so, Bianchi’s appointment to a pontifical council is entirely in keeping with the ongoing deconstruction of the Church by its diabolically disorientated leadership, which seems intent (if it were possible) on committing ecclesial suicide.

Put the rise of this enemy of Our Lady of Fatima — by the Pope’s own hand — into the file marked “Third Secret.”

[ealgeone]

Reading is fundamental!

[vladimir998]

“Nice try;”

No try at all - just success. You did it. All I did was post YOUR TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. Enjoy!

“yet you’re still failing.”

No, you guaranteed my success. YOU posted two different definitions - which exactly proved my point. I appreciate it.

“Keep trying!”

Again, no try. You did it for me. You posted two different definitions which proved my point.

[ealgeone]

Jello time again!

[caww]

The ground has been covered many many times on many threads for years........attempting to disuade opinions is just another tactic to stop the discussion....which by the way anyone on FR is free to share their opinion at any time...and do.

[Mark17]

I've heard Catholics answer the question of *Are you a Christian* with *No, I'm a Catholic.*

I know I certainly answered it that way, in another life.

:-)

[metmom]

It’s ironic.

Catholics tell us that more is needed that is contained in Scripture, and yet a person could spend a lifetime of study and living according to Scripture and barely scratch the surface of it.

If we don’t and can’t even live up to what has been revealed to us in the Bible, then why add more to it? Isn’t there enough in there to work on? Or isn’t the Bible long enough for some people? They want to add to it for what reason exactly?

God didn’t do a good enough job the first time around getting His word to us?

And if the Catholic church did indeed write the Bible as many claim, and it’s not sufficient, then the error lies with them in not doing an adequate job in the first place.

And then they expect us to trust them to do a better job the second, third, fourth, etc time around?

We should trust their passed down by word of mouth *sacred tradition* when we can’t even be sure of what was written and persevered for thousands of years?

And we should trust them to interpret it correctly when they’re telling us they didn’t even do an adequate job of putting it down in the first place?

Do they EVER think through what comes out of their mouths before speaking it?

[metmom]

Provide sources to verify that the traditions the RCC teaches are what the apostles taught, that the apostles were indeed the source of those traditions, and that they were passed down faithfully and without corruption for some 2,000 years.

[metmom]

I did too and I was proud of that.

I *knew* that it meant I was part of the *TRUE* religion and better than them.

I felt sorry for them, actually.

I know better now, praise God.

[kinsman redeemer]

God's Word is true. Nothing more is needed to understand what He wants for us and what He has done for us.

When I was a Roman Catholic, I needed God's Word more than anything and the church hid it from me using its traditions, rulers, and authorities.

I am very thankful for those who exposed me to the Truth and for the Holy Spirit who revealed my need for a personal Savior.

I love Jesus Christ - the Word of God made flesh - whose birth we celebrate this week.

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

(Col 2:13-16)

[Mark17]

Thanks for that post bro. It pretty much describes me to a T. I had a holier than thou type attitude as well. When I was exposed to the truth, it kind of knocked me off my high horse. Notice my tagline.

:-)

[Mark17]

Anyway, it is getting late in my little fiefdom, so good night.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Were you there?

70,000 witnesses can be wrong. ;-)

,/a>

[ealgeone]

One billion plus muslims.....they got it wrong also. We know numbers do not impress God.

[HossB86]

Do they EVER think through what comes out of their mouths before speaking it?

Obviously, no.

Very well stated, Met. Their position shows not the first hint of logic. But, it seems Cathlocism is better suited to be a type of governmental control than a religion.

Hoss

[vladimir998]

But my question was: Why then would you post four paragraphs about which no one is really arguing?

[HossB86]

No, you guaranteed my success. YOU posted two different definitions - which exactly proved my point. I appreciate it.

One last time, hopefully for your edification here...and I'll type this slowly so you can keep up:

Salvation and spiritual matters are interrelated. Beyond that, I didn't offer a "definition" upon which you seem to be fixated, until I quoted from Ligonier.org.

Besides, if there was ever a chance that you could be honest with yourself, what I said is true: Scripture alone provides all anyone needs to know about salvation. And salvation, along with other topics does constitute "spiritual things" -- but, I don't expect that honesty despite hoping and praying for you to see it.

Hoss

[HossB86]

Does the concept of spiritual matters qualify as “salvation” or does it not?

Simple question.

If you can’t say yes to that question, then that means you posted TWO different definitions. It’s just that simple.

Sorry, just read this and found it funny--you do realize that you've just logically outwitted yourself? I never posted two definitions....because, obviously ther ARE INTERRELATED.

Thanks for pulling the plug on this one yourself.

Hoss

[HossB86]

You know it!

Hoss

[MHGinTN]

Have you noticed how twisted/twisting the responses from that one become the more fundamental the issue? Salvation is a very different 'thing' to the catholic mind because the foundational concepts are different in the religion of catholiciism than in Christianity.

Jesus made it so simple even a child can comprehend it. The striving process in catholiciism is complex and 'ism' empowering BEFORE the salvation dangled before the sincere heart of God-fearing catholics. This is not Christianity as Jesus established the building of His Church. It is another gospel.

When Hoss asked a simple question, "Is salvation a spiritual matter, the catholic mind must not look directly at that question but instead flip the question around to make room for all manner of magicsteeringthem 'traditions' of catholic spirituality.

The fundamental hallmark of Christianity, of the Church Jesus established, is that God calls us, God 'borns' us from above, and GOD then puts the spark of His Holy Spirit in us, in out human spirit and then raises us up in the Way that we should go as His family members, to the extent that we allow Him to do it based upon our submission to His Holy Spirit leadership. Any growing/maturing Christian knows this by living the process. God is working in them.

Sadly, for catholics, they each are working for worthiness, striving to be 'good enough' to warrant God saving their immortal souls. Mormons are stuck in the same blindness to the Gospel of God's Grace in Christ.

It is the devious lie of satan that Grace must be earned. And this 'jello' junk is the manifestation of how the human mind avoids seeing what God is offering. By turning Hoss's simple question around, the poster avoided seeing the simplicity of THE GOSPEL. The sad reality is, it takes a sharp mind, a level of intellect, to anticipate the direction the discussion is taking along the simple lines of the Gospel of God's Grace in Christ. And this anticipation of what is coming is then marshaled to twist the message to no effect!

Salvation IS a spiritual matter. As such it is happening on a level of reality not readily sensed by the human senses. When the spirit of man is pricked by the prick of Truth, stirring on a spiritual level happens. This is uncomfortable for the soul which believes it is striving to achieve some worthiness, because the vacuousness of the working is immediately apparent to the prideful side of man. ONLY God can get through to such an one.

[vladimir998]

“because, obviously ther ARE INTERRELATED.”

You are confusing “INTERRELATED” with “sameness”. This is a logic error on your part.

“salvation” and “spiritual matters” are not the same thing. I have no doubt that “salvation” is a “spiritual matter”. But “spiritual matters” are not limited to “salvation”. To claim the two are exactly the same is intellectually dishonest. Horses are mammals. Not all mammals are horses. Salvation is a spiritual matter. Not all spiritual matters are salvation. This isn’t hard. Inspiration of scripture could be called a “spiritual matter” but it isn’t “salvation”. Prayer is a spiritual matter, but it isn’t salvation. The Ten Commandments are a spiritual matter. They are not salvation.

What I am saying here is irrefutable. If not all spiritual matters = salvation, then you stated two different definitions of sola scriptura. That is simply irrefutable.

“Thanks for pulling the plug on this one yourself.”

No, you did that to yourself. After all here’s what you did:

1) Then in 264, after I showed the obvious flaw in your postings, you wrote: “The statement I made is true — as is the definition I posted.” But you posted TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.

2) You then went on to make this claim: “In fact, the necessaries for Salvation being contained in Sola Scriptura is in fact a sub-set of “all spiritual matters.””

But not all spiritual matters are salvation matters and thus you posted TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. That’s just irrefutable.

3) Then in post 273 you wrote, “Does the concept of salvation qualify as a “spiritual matter” or does it not?” The problem there is that it doesn’t work in the reverse and it would have to in order for the two things to be the same. And if the two things are not the same then the definitions are different. That’s irrefutable.

4) Then in post 297 you said your different definitions for sola scriptura are actually the same “because, obviously ther ARE INTERRELATED.” Interrelated ideas or words does not mean the ideas or words are the same.

After all your attempts to make two different things seem like the same thing we’re left with the original problem: You posted two different definitions:

Definition 1: “Sola Scriptura, as you’ve been told, means that Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation.”

Definition 2: “The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters.”

Thus, in the first definition you stated that all anyone needs for salvation is scripture. By the way, please note, you’re claiming grace is not necessary for salvation, only Scripture. That’s literally what you wrote. Then you said sola scriptura is about “the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters.” That’s two entirely different definitions. Nothing you say can change that.