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.”

[vladimir998]

“Guess not everyone is on the same page!”

Thanks for pointing out I was right again just like I said in several posts now. It’s so awesome to see anti-Catholics - who apparently don’t even know what they’re posting about - proving me right! :)

Here it is again:

1) Jesus was sacrificed (CCC 1367) I have said the same thing (Post #339)

2) Jesus cannot be sacrificed again (CCC 1353). I have said the same thing (Post #339).

3) The Eucharist is a re-presentation of that sacrifice (CCC 1365-1366). I have said the same thing (Post #343)

[HossB86]

Uh...no.

“YOU SAID the eucharist was NOT a SACRIFICE.”

I never once said that

Actually you DID say it. And here's the quote from post 339:
No one could and no one wants to either.

Yet, the CCC says the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE. So, you either want and do it, or as you stated, you said "no one could and no one wants to [sacrifice Christ again] either."

Again, I ask you: who's right? You or Rome? You said "no one could," and "no one wants to," but Rome says the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE. Every time a Mass is said, Christ is sacrificed. Again. And again. And again.

Who is right? You....or Rome?

Hoss

[vladimir998]

I have always said the Eucharist is a sacrifice. I have said it here at FR over the years. I used google and found these old posts in a matter of seconds. Thus, we all can see now who was right all along on this point. Hint: I am.

To: imardmd1
“Jesus instituted this as a memorial in the imperative sense as an ordinance. Since His body and blood were not quite yet offered up as a sacrifice, it was not sacramental.”

Yes, it was sacramental. Christ’s sacrifice was so momentous that it is beyond time and space. Hence, the bread really did become His flesh – just as He said.

“On another account, the ordinance was not first observed in the Roman language, as far as we know it was said in the Aramaic, Hebrew, and/or Koine Greek, not in Latin.”

What has that got to do with anything?

“Deny not that the main European religion of the first 1500 years attempted to obscure the reading of the Holy Scriptures…”

I’ll deny all that isn’t true – like the statement you just made there.

“…and of the spoken ritualosity by keeping the details from its congregants.”

No details were kept from anyone.

6 posted on 11/18/2013, 3:38:44 PM by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

and

To: imardmd1
“Then some of His body and blood, miraculously extending himsel into components separated from his usual frame contents, was eaten, digested, and eliminated before they were given/spilled on the cross? No, I don’t and never will accept that silly idea.”

It’s no more silly than the virgin birth, the Incarnation of our Lord, the resurrection, Jesus walking on water, etc.

“I can and will accept that He was speakin figuratively, and that the blood of the grapes should symbolize the blood slated through His foreknowledge but yet to be shed.”

If he was speaking figuratively, then He was speaking nonsense. To devour someone’s flesh is to hate him, to slander him. That is the metaphoric content of a phrase like that. See Psalm 27:2 if you want confirmation on that.

“The symbolism of the supper, with its symbols reminding participants, as symbols, of His Passion, the whole tableau to be engaged in often; yes, of course, certainly. “Do this in remembrance of me.” In remembrance.”

Anamnesis is the word for “remembrance” in Luke. Ever look up “anamnesis”? Here’s how Robert Sungenis describes it:

In support of this perpetual sacrifice, the word translated “memorial” or “remembrance” used at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.11:24-25) is the Greek word “anamnesis.” It is also used in the Septuagint in connection with sacrifice (Lev.24:7). “Anamnesis” translates the Hebrew word “azkarah,” which is used seven times in the OT in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). It is also significant that “anamnesis” is only used four times in the NT, the fourth time appearing in Hebrews 10:3 also in reference to a memorial sacrifice. Hence, Jesus’ use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 specifies the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. In effect, Jesus would be saying, “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me.” The use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 is even more significant in denoting sacrifice since there was another Greek word Luke could have used for a non-sacrificial memorial (“mnemosunon,” cf., Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4).

“That’s all for you today and on this topic.”

In other words, you’ve got nothing.

14 posted on 11/19/2013, 6:39:56 AM by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

and

To: imardmd1
“” , , , with its symbols reminding participants, as tokens of His Passion . . . “

St. Paul seems to think it is more than a token - or else he wouldn’t have been worried about people being harmed by receiving it unworthily (read 1 Cor. 11).

15 posted on 11/19/2013, 6:41:22 AM by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

and

To: Old Yeller
You wrote:

“Christ is not re-sacrificed every time Catholics have a mass.”

Of course not. The one sacrifice was enough and it is exactly that sacrifice which is re-presented to the Father at every Mass.

13 posted on 5/26/2013, 8:55:58 PM by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

and

To: Old Yeller
Re-presentation. Not representation. And the fact that it is Christ’s body does not mean it is a re-sacrificing of Christ.

15 posted on 5/26/2013, 9:01:43 PM by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

and

To: CynicalBear
“No it’s not.”

Quoting a compiled source:

Robert Sungenis, in his Book, Not By Bread Alone gives us some clue that there are eight other words that Jesus could have used if only he wanted to say “Remember”. He writes:
The connection between sacrifice and anamnesis is made even stronger by taking into account that the neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke (nor Paul actually) use any of the words which refer to some type of remembrance, but only the one with an exclusively sacrificial connotation is used at the Last Supper, that is anamnesis. [44]
He then spells out the words that Jesus could have used to say in the Eucharist, to “remember”, where it does not mean sacrifice. He does that in the footnotes. Unfortunately, he spells it out in Greek which I am unable to read. Therefore, using a Strong’s Concordance and the Biblical verses he points in his footnotes, which shows the other rendering of these words, and the English translation of those words, we can identify the words in Greek so we can read them with the translation given us, with the verses that are given. The starting point in this analysis are the verses he points to in footnote 105 on page 123 of his excellent book on the Eucharist.

: The Greek word found in the Strongs Concordance is also given with the English rendering of it. Since I have been using the Revised Standard Version in this article, if I see any discrepancy between the English rendering of the word in the King James Version as opposed to the RSV, I will give the RSV version of the verse, but if the word for remembrance is different in the KJV, I will give the KJV version of that specific Greek word in parenthesis. I will bold the English translation, italicize the Greek rendering of that word, and only if there is a discrepancy between the English translation of the King James Version and the RSV, I will put the King James Version of the English word in parenthesis. I will give thanks to Sungenis for the use of the verses that he points out which shows the use of these other words that could have been used instead of anamnesis:
#1 Another word that could have been used by Jesus if he did not want to say that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice is:
Mark 11:21
And Peter remembered anamimnesko (Strongs, #363) (KJV - calling to remembrance) and said to him, “Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered.”
This word that that is used four times in the New Testament besides Mark 11:21 (Mark 14:72; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor. 7:15; 2 Tim. 1:6) that means remembered that Jesus could have used if he only wanted to ‘recall’ his death.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/sacrifice.html

In other words, you were wrong. Again.

79 posted on 02/08/2015 6:53:37 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[ealgeone]

Your apologetics website differs with your opinion.

[ealgeone]

Jello time again I see.

[vladimir998]

“Actually you DID say it. And here’s the quote from post 339:”

Ha! That’s ridiculous. What we’ll see now is an attempt by you to prove that and it will utterly fail.

You quoted me as saying: “No one could and no one wants to either.”

First of all, note that that sentence doesn’t even mention anything about the Eucharist by word. For the sake of context, let’s put the whole quote here. Antecedent sentences are important.

“What’s false is clearly your understanding if you think anyone could sacrifice Jesus over and over again. *****No one could and no one wants to either.***** So which is it that you are getting wrong there? Are you wrong about someone being able to sacrifice Jesus over and over again or are you wrong on believing Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over again? It has to be one or the other OR BOTH according to your own words. The correct answer is - BOTH - since both are impossible.”

Thus, we see that I said EXACTLY WHAT THE CCC says. Jesus was sacrificed. He could only be sacrificed once. His sacrifice is re-presented. Thus, I never denied the Eucharist is a sacrifice. I clearly affirm that it is in posts in this thread. I merely denied that any “one could ... wants to [sacrifice Jesus over and over again] either”.

The CCC makes clear that the sacrifice is once and for all on the cross and re-presented in the Eucharist. I said so too - repeatedly over the years - here at FR. I also said the Eucharist is a sacrifice.

“Yet, the CCC says the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”

So have I - including in posts going back several years as I posted minutes ago. Why do you deny what is on your own computer screen in front of you?

In 2013 I wrote: “The one sacrifice was enough and it is exactly that sacrifice which is re-presented to the Father at every Mass.”

Did you see that? SACRIFICE.

“Again, I ask you: who’s right? You or Rome?”

Since both of us affirm that the Eucharist is a sacrifice then the problem is your premise.

“You said “no one could,” and “no one wants to,” but Rome says the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”

No. I said no one could and no one wants to SACRIFICE Jesus AGAIN. But the Church can and does RE-PRESENT that SAME SACRIFICE in a non-bloody way just as it says in the paragraph YOU post and in which you highlighted the word “re-presented”. You have been wrong all along.

“Every time a Mass is said, Christ is sacrificed. Again. And again. And again.”

Nope. His sacrifice is RE-PRESENTED. You yourself posted this:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...[he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

Thus, you see it right there: sacrifice re-presented - it’s in the passage twice and you were the one who posted it.

“Who is right? You....or Rome?”

Since both of us affirm that the Eucharist is a sacrifice then the problem is your premise. I’ve been saying it at FR for years and the CCC was published in 1992/93 and the text has always said it. Thus, the problem is entirely yours.

[MHGinTN]

You poor thing, the actual reason was so alien to your twisted catholic mind that you couldn’t even conceive of the fourth possibility: I saw material I don n’t agree with yet was not going to throw out the Historically accurate material over the objectionable points. You? You appear to need to accuse, so keep it up. Use your magic twanger, froggie. Leap to your imaginary truths ... but be careful when you get to close to the magicsteeringthem assertions, the Catechisms are available to any. And Hoss is serving your pootery up on a funny platter for all to see. You who have such a needy ego to always imagine yourself flawless.

[vladimir998]

“Your apologetics website differs with your opinion.”

I don’t have an apologetics website.

[HossB86]

You, or Rome?

Hoss

[terycarl]

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

Did you actually write that???????????LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL

You make totally asinine statements concerning Catholic teachings which you, yourself, couldn't handle and then accuse a 2,000 year old institution of 1.3 billion people, guilty of not being serious about what they say and teach........O.K. I guess (chortle)

[vladimir998]

“Jello time again I see.”

Nope. Think about what’s happening here: someone claimed I said something I never said. I was accused of saying the Eucharist was not a sacrifice. I never said that and anyone - ANYONE AT ALL - can see in Post #339 that all I did was correct his error about believing Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over again. Remember, the following paragraph is the one he falsely claims I said the Eucharist is not a sacrifice:

“What’s false is clearly your understanding if you think anyone could sacrifice Jesus over and over again. No one could and no one wants to either. So which is it that you are getting wrong there? Are you wrong about someone being able to sacrifice Jesus over and over again or are you wrong on believing Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over again? It has to be one or the other OR BOTH according to your own words. The correct answer is - BOTH - since both are impossible.”

I never once in that paragraph denied the Eucharist is a sacrifice. I did deny that Jesus could be sacrificed over and over. He can’t. But His sacrifice can be re-presented and that’s exactly how the CCC 1366 says the Eucharist IS a sacrifice.

[vladimir998]

“You, or Rome?”

The CCC says the Eucharist is a sacrifice (CCC 1366) as you posted yourself in that post in which you said you thought the Bible passages were drivel.

And I said it not only in this thread but over the years here at FR:

To: Old Yeller
You wrote:

“Christ is not re-sacrificed every time Catholics have a mass.”

Of course not. The one sacrifice was enough and it is exactly that sacrifice which is re-presented to the Father at every Mass.

13 posted on 5/26/2013, 8:55:58 PM by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Thus, the real question is, since I and the CCC are saying the same thing why are you repeatedly making the same error?

[ealgeone]

Catholicism is very Climtonian in a lot of ways with there terminology.

[terycarl]

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.

History of Christianity is the source for all of tradition....from earliest times the church and all Christians accepted these truths and studied them thoroughly. The early doctors of the church spent their entire lives researching, studying everything that concerned Christianity.....they had been doing so in monasteries, schools, libraries etc for 1,600 years (a long time) before the first protestant came along and challenged them. Nice try, but I'll stick with world renowned scholars and people of deep faith rather than Wesley or Luther, or Zwingley.

[MHGinTN]

Laugh it up, fuzzball. The Mooselimbs can make the same appeal to numbers. Are they worshipping the same god as catholiciism? Your Vatican thinks so.

[terycarl]

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.

When you get to use your very vivid imagination, when you get to deny reality, then you think that you are always right.......you are wrong.

[vladimir998]

“Catholicism is very Climtonian in a lot of ways with there terminology.”

No. Here I’ll demonstrate. You say it is very “Climtonian”. I think you meant “Clintonian”. It is not “Clintonian” to point out that Clintonian is a relateable idea while Climtonian is simply nonsensical gibberish. There’s a difference. There’s only one letter difference, but it can mean all the difference in the world in terms of understanding and precision and accuracy. We just make the proper distinctions. You just proved why that’s necessary.

[MHGinTN]

It is impossible to chip through the blindness of catholic assertions on the Eucharist. But here's a simple way to expose the heresy therein:

Jesus speaks of the Brass serpent lifted up prefigures His being lifted up on the Cross.[John 3:14 & 15 ] The brass serpent did not give eternal life it did not even prevent death from an asp bite. BUT the faith in, believing it delivered from death in the desert healed the believers. They didn't eat the Serpent, they just believed the promise of God.

Jesus speaks of manna in the desert as prefigure of Him as the Bread of Life. These are prefigurings, metaphorical connections, not literal means to being saved. The serpent of brass did not save anyone bitten by the asps. It was their faith in the propitiatory offering that saved them.

[terycarl]

es, LOTS of people believing the same thing can be wrong.

yeah, 20,000 or so "denominations have it right, every one of them.....whatever their right is!!!

[ealgeone]

Good grief.