Sister Lucia has died

Sister Lucia has died

Sister Lucia, the last of the three visionaries of Fatima, has died. A new saint enters heaven.

Lucia de Jesus dos Santos, the last of three children who claimed to see the Virgin at Fatima and who revealed a vision the Catholic Church said foretold the attempt to kill Pope John Paul, died on Sunday, the Church said.

Dos Santos, 97, who later became a nun, was the eldest of the shepherd children who in 1917 told of seeing apparitions of the Virgin Mary six times. She died at her Carmelite convent at Coimbra in central Portugal.

Share:FacebookX
30 comments
  • She isn’t Catholic.  I wonder if their marriage was annulled . . . which would mean she was never married.

  • If she was Catholic, not only would she not be able to be Queen but Charles and his sons would be barred from being King.  British (and therefore New Zealand, Australian and Canadian) law removes from royal succession anyone married to a Catholic and his or her descendants.

  • Yes, the Cardinal’s words struck a sour note with me also. Absent an annulment of Camilla’s marriage, I can’t see how this one would be valid.

    Or is there a reverse Pauline Privilege at work here…?

    Antipodean, even if Camilla were Catholic I doubt that the law would apply to Princes William and Harry – as they were not from a ‘marriage with a Catholic’. Barring some medical intervention, it’s unlikely Charles and Camilla will have any children.

  • Dom, the story of Camilla and Charles is one of beauty, of faithfulness; a love of 30 years.
    I heard that yesterday on the news (so it must be true) ;>.

    Here’s to all the Roman Catholic priests who care and love souls and the Church so much that they lay down their life for them……..often in the form of a dry martyrdom whereby they are deemed harsh or non-caring but in reality they are the most loving bc they dare to tell a soul that he/she is offending God.  I’ve run into many American Roman Catholic priests who preach the Gospel even when things look “unpleasant” as the Brits would say. I’d say they are “men with chests.” They often suffer in this life, but can you imagine their eternity?

    May God bless our priests.  Mary, form them and keep them in Christ Jesus.

     

     

  • I wonder why the AB felt compelled to say anything at all about this.  “No comment.” would have been enough.

  • I think Charles should be passed over for king.  He’s not up to it.  He’s got an aggravated case of elongated adolescence, quite apparently.  Maybe his eldest son would be a better choice.

    Until then, long live the queen.  (Not because I care about English politics, but simply so I don’t have to listen to all the King Charles drivel.)

  • Has the Catholic Church weakened its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? Looking at the annulment figures in the USA for 1930, it appears that there were about 10 annulments for that year, which contrasts rather sharply with the recent figures of aobut 40,000 (or more). Perhaps the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage is still officially on the books, but by introducing the concept of easy to obtain annulments, it appears that the Church has operationally given its blessing to divorce, although it is calling it an annulment. Rather than embracing the mystery of the Sacrament of Matrimony, the post Vatican II Catholic Church appears to be introducing trivial legalistic notions which enable a couple to weasel out of a marriage and remarry in the Church.

  • Cormac-Murphy’s ascension to Cardinal is so twisted and flawed that even the Vatican had to pull him back and force him to sign an oath to uphold Catholic teaching. Even beore he got his red hat he was promoting birth control and the like.

    His appointment shocked many especially in that there is a great Bishop up in Glasgow….I think there was a deal where the guy in Edinurgh Scotland got promoted even though all the Catholics are over in Glasgow.

    It really makes one wonder who is really doing the appointing these days…why would the Pope appoint someone who opposes what he and Church teach? Cormac-Murphy was a insta dissident.

    New OXford review quoted a Vatican insider who described Cormac-Murphy’s elevation as a “screw up.”

    I’ve heard a number on converts on EWTN talk of how as they attempted to join the Catholic Church , they were given the cold shoulder and were told that they were good “where they were at” in the despicable Church of England with Arch Druid of Canturbury Rowan Williams…aka “hairy liberal.”

  • Re:  Annulments.  About two years ago a deacon in my parish gave a sermon following the gospel where Jesus declare of marriage, “Let no man put asunder.”  He gave a brief nod to faithfulness and then launched into an explanation of how the church had changed and that if one had been divorced, one should not hesitate to seek an annulment.

    This man’s daughter had been married and divorced, had a second child out of wedlock, and then met and married a decent fellow in the Church.  Guess daddy let his heart get ahead of his head when preaching.

    The sermon certainly left me with my head spinning.

  • In Brit-Speak there may be a suttle dig in refering to her as “Mrs. Parker Bowles.”  The Brits can be picky about titles.  Does anybody have any insights?

    Also, neither Fisher nor More came out in public oposition to Henry VIII.  They lost their heads in private maneurverings that did not openly oppose “God’s Anointed on Earth.”

  • AB,
    If a dig is intended, maybe it is too subtle. I could buy it if the cardinal had left off that last congratulatory phrase, “wishing them every happiness,”  and simply asked us to pray for them.

  • To be Catholic—in the official sense—is to have appeared on the Church’s paperwork as a member at some point in time.  Instead of conjecturing, why doesn’t someone check that to determine official Catholic status?

    To be Catholic—in the religious sense—usually coincides with being Catholic in the official sense.  It’s supposed to. 

    To be Catholic in the official sense involves sacramental actions.  It is possible to be Catholic in the official sense but not in the religious sense.  We’ve all known members of the catholic church who don’t believe and practice.  Is she one of those? 

    I doubt that it’s possible to be Catholic—in the religious sense—without being Catholic in the official sense, because to be Catholic is to have received at least one sacrament—baptism.

    (Before you go off yelling about baptism of blood or desire, think to yourself if these aren’t rare occurrences, defined as forms of baptism, after all.  And only determinable after death.  While an unbaptised person is alive, he is unbaptised.  Period.)

  • Please don’t hassitate to pray for the repose of her soul……..If she doesn’t need them…….the prayers will go for some one else.

    Maybe, eventually, we will learn whether
    Russia has really been Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  I am still not convinced that it has been.

  • THANK YOU, Brian!

    No man knows the state of another man’s soul. It is imperative to pray for the souls of all departed rather than assume they’re in heaven.

    (Sorry for being so emphatic and please don’t think this is in any way a hint that Sister Lucia led anything other than an exemplar life…it’s just that I’ve got a real soft spot for the souls in Purgatory and hate the notion that some aren’t prayed for because it’s assumed they don’t need it. Besides, as Brian says, if they don’t need the supplications, God will apply them to other souls.)

  • Um, I would not doubt for a moment that Sr. Lucia is now St. Lucia, after all she was promised it by the Virgin Mary herself. Amazing that Lucia died on the 13th of the month. wink

    Am I to stay here alone? Not only is Lucia deprived of an early entry into the place where her heart is but she is to be separated from the two companions who have shared the divine experience. There could be no others, not if she searched every house in the world. In that sense she would be as alone as if she had been abandoned in a far galaxy. One is reminded of the trial of Joan of Arc when the belligerent Bishop Cauchon asked, diately because, as in May, the Lady – I think we can say Our Lady now – opened her hands and communicated to the children the rays of the same intense light. Again they saw themselves immersed in God. schel entitled “A Still Small Voice,” published by Ignatius. (A known promoter of unapproved apparitions has referred to Groeschel’s book as “dangerous to the Marian movement.” That should tell you something about some people in the Marian movement.)

  • Since Charles and Camillia were makin’ luuuhhhvvv while he was married to Diana (I don’t know if she was married at the time), it is reasonable to assume that neither of them, aside from the demands of proper appearances, gives a flying fig about either Catholicism or Anglicanism, or any other faith the good cardinal would care to expel empty pieties over.  Perhaps Hallmark can sponsor a really doltish television rendering of this glorious, undying romance NEXT Valentine’s Day. 

  • I read Browns implied as “pious opinion”?  Rather it was more official, in quotation, than what you’ve presented.  Please don’t try to spin what comes from Cardinal Ratzinger’s office.  Note the emphasis made by that office:

    events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.

    It is still ongoing and in need of further examination by the Church.  Seems simple enough for me.  Pamphlets, personal beliefs, messages distributed have not been forbidden – nor against the ruling since they are not officially blessed by the individual dioceses.  There are no “official”
    pilgrimages being offered as yet either.  I just don’t see the problem you do.  You may try as best you can to influence against private pilgrimages, or private dissemination of messages, but that is not what the Church advises, nor has it ever effected any grassroots groundswell for other historical sites in the Church’s history.

    P.S. re: Fatima, Lucia received a letter from the pope on the day she died – just presented by her relative in Portugal being interviewed.

  • I’m on the e-mailing list for a group that gives the messages from Medj.  I even used to read the messages faithfully.  One day it occurred to me that they are boring.  Very boring.  Mary has been saying the same thing nearly every month ever since AOL went to a basic plan in ‘97.  Why would the Mother of God spend all that effort to bore me to the point of not reading the messages?  She never did such a thing in the past.  My gut sense is that Medj. is not of God.

    Then I found this website recently, where you can read the following:

    In 1999 James Twyman had an experience on a hill in Medjugorje, Bosnia with a young woman named Maria, who he later came to believe was a physical manifestation of the Blessed Mother. (For more information on this experience you can read the book ct that the Franciscan priests who are involved in Medjugorje have had their faculties removed by the Holy Father himself. If all you read are Pro-Medjugorje websites then all you will read is their opinion which is contrary to the truth. After all, millions would be at stake if the scales fell from the eyes of those who believe in this.

    Matthew 24:24. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

    24:25. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

    Bishop Peric’s website address is:
    http://www.cbismo.hr/

  • Now for the facts!

    David et al, believe me, I understand that you wish not to believe in the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje.  Fine and dandy for you.  I do not find your reasonings as anything worthwhile for myself in making my own decision to choose to believe which I base on the facts as things currently stand, and not on wishful thinking.  I will try to explain:

    We can also consider the words of Pope Urban VIII:
    His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: “In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true.”(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)

    Now, I love John of the Cross.  His gifted spirituality is awesome, yet it is a personal spirituality and whatever opinions he has as asides, as a person of authority in the Church, a pope’s advice should be given more weight.

    As scripture says: “You will know them by their fruits”. There are thousands of documented physical healings and literally countless spiritual healings and conversions that have taken place in Medjugorje over the last 21+ years. Please refer to the following documents for the published results of the studies done on the visionaries. 1993 Study | 1998 Study

    Based on the fruit, therefore, I choose to believe since that is quite scriptural.  Others may choose not to, which only leaves more cake (graces from heaven through Mary’s hands) for the rest of us!  Blessed Mother has stated in approved apparition sites that she has so many graces which go to waste because her children refuse to accept them.

    Our Lady’s message in Medjugorje calls us to: “Daily prayer of the rosary, monthly Confession, daily reading of Scripture, fasting on Wednedays and Fridays on bread and water, and attending Holy Mass as often as possible. This is a simple message meant to help us in the lifelong process of conversion.”  It may be boring in that She chooses to repeat the plea until more unbelievers come to first act on Her requests.  The world today obviously is not as yet at that point.  Further messages to satisfy mere human curiosity or anything new won’t be forthcoming until people first get back to these basics.

    (cont’d)

  • (cont’d)

    After three years of study the former Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia on April 10, 1991 published their declaration in which among other things it states:

    “On the basis of investigations up till now it cannot be established that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.”

    This statement does not mean that there is no apparition, but only that it is not yet established or proven.

    After the commission findings were made public in 1991, Pope John Paul II retired Bishop Zanic of his duties and handed over the responsibility to investigate and render a final decision on Medjugorje to a hand picked commission of Bishops. It is the current belief that this commission will not issue a final decision or continue its investigation until the apparitions have ceased.

    Bishop Peric:
    “In 1993 the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia was dissolved, and was replaced by a number of episcopal conferences—of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina etc. The Commission of Inquiry into the events at Medjugorje of the Episcopal conference of Bosnia-Herzogovina (which is comprised of four bishops) has the authority to form a new commission eventually.”

    The important issue here is that Bishop Ratko Peric does not have authority over the final decision on Medjugorje. This responsibility still rests with the commission of Bishops. The local Bishop’s negative comments about Medjugorje were addressed directly in 1998 by the Holy See in a letter to his Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry, Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion. The letter states that Bishop Peric’s position on Medjugorje is his personal opinion, which he is entitled to as local Bishop, but his opinion does not reflect the official position of the Church. The URL for this letter is Newletter.htm

    And, BTW, Bishop Ratko does not believe in any apparitions of Our Lady including Fatima and Lourdes. With this information known, it would seem unlikely that he would believe in Our Lady’s apparitions in his own diocese.

    So, with the many bishops, cardinals, priests and the Holy Father himself on the side of Medjugorje I would find it difficult to believe that the truth about it is diabolical!

    Hope this helps explain from whence my point of view comes.

  • St John of the Cross is footnoted there. He advises that private visions are to be presumed to be of diabolical origin, unless proved otherwise.

    Wise man.  I read him many years ago, but don’t remember this recommendation.

    The Orthodox—especially Fr. Seraphim Rose—give the same caution.  Rose is one of the best sources for looking at the current explosion of supernatural (or praternatural) events we are witnessing. 

    Another interesting source for information on mysticism is Gershom Scholem, though his perspective is Jewish, not Catholic.  He offers the label “mystic nihilism” which is so useful in describing the New Age Movement.  Antinomianism is such a bad idea.

  • If we are currently engaged in a spiritual warfare, and there is every evidence that we are, it is certainly reasonable that the opposition would use mystical experiences to tempt Catholics away from the Truth.

    As the passage Sissy has quoted above indicates, there are other spirits with these powers than God and His good angels and saints.

    In researching the Ordo Templi Orientis, I came across some statistics years ago indicating the disproportionate number of OTO groups in the area of Medjugorje.  OTO is a Gnostic group.  Gnosticism is antinomian.  There is a thread of it winding down through the centuries, as Msgr. Ronald Knox demonstrated in Enthusiasm.  Think personal signs and visions here.

    Before I take any apparition to be authentic and worthy of belief, I want the full approval of the Church behind it.  That leaves Medj. out.

  • Chris:

    I understand your point of view completely. But that’s all it is.

    Nothing you have mentioned (and I do mean absolutely nothing!!!) challenges the authority of the local bishop in determining the nature of the phenomena. The current Bishop of Mostar has upheld Zanic’s decision (and Zanic was not retired because of Medjugorje; that’s just silly.) The personal opinions of others, including the Holy Father, are just that, and are not the same as an authoritative ruling.

    “The Commission of Inquiry into the events at Medjugorje of the Episcopal conference of Bosnia-Herzogovina (which is comprised of four bishops) has the authority to form a new commission eventually.” There isn’t one right now, is there? In any case, such an appointment does not remove the ordinary authority of a diocesan bishop. That Bishop Ratko does or does not personally believe in a particular phenomena with the theological virtue of Faith, is irrelevant, since it is not required of him.

    (Now, THIS paragraph is admittedly very opinionated; take it or leave it.) Many (but not all) devotees of Medjugorje are prepared to follow every pious-looking kook who claims to hear voices after an apple falls on his or her head. I’ve met all kinds of them. Some put out a few books, attract a few followers, then after claiming one endorsement after another, get into a little trouble and are never heard from again. They’re like the latest fashion statement, and it makes Caholic devotionalism out to be like a carnival show. Publishers of Marian materials make references to their sources as “reliable visionaries” with no authority other than their own. The point is, it’s a real short walk from the Medjugorje bandwagon to this one. (End of opinionated paragraph.)

    Years ago, I asked the eminent Mariologist, the late Father Frederic Jelly, OP, what he thought of the events at Medjugorje. His reply: “I wish people got as excited over the Eucharist.”

    How we doin’ so far?

  • Regarding Pope Urban VIII, this also is taken out of context. He was referring to a private revelation that was under investigation but no conclusion was reached yet, for as he said, “and if it should prove to be false”. The question you should ask is “prove to be false” by whom? By the promoters, the sheep, the bishop of the mystic, or by Rome.

    According to the Diocese of Mostar, there are no physical healings at all. If there were healings, they have to be submitted to the Bishop also. Please produce the proof of these miraculous healings. I would be very interested in seeing them.

    If you read the the Document at the Diocesan website I provided you will see from the bishop’s own words that things that have been attributed to come from the mouth of the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger were never said by them. How many times has Pope been very close to Medjugorje but never stepped foot there or even mentioned it’s name while in the area? That says a lot right there.

    I learned a long time ago that you can provide documentation all day long to “some” who believe in the Medjugorje and they will go to their graves ignoring the truth and yet there are others who have seen the truth and brushed the dust from their feet concerning it because they learned that if they continued on in it, they would be in disobedience.

    “The Devil rejoices greatly when a soul seeks after revelations and is ready to accept them; for such conduct furnishes him with many opportunities of insinuating delusions, and derogation from faith as much as he possibly can; for such a soul becomes rough and rude, and falls frequently into many temptations and unseemly habits.”
    St. John of the Cross

    Quoting the bishop from his website:

    Ratzinger’s frei erfunden. In 1998, when a certain German gathered various statements which were supposedly made by the Holy Father and the Cardinal Prefect, and forwarded them to the Vatican in the form of a memorandum, the Cardinal responded in writing on 22 July 1998: “The only thing I can say regarding statements on Medjugorje ascribed to the Holy Father and myself is that they are complete invention” – frei erfunden – (O. P., p. 283).

    Conclusion. Not only are these statements ascribed to the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger “complete invention”, but the numerous messages of Medjugorje, ascribed to the Madonna are also complete invention. If our faith is considered obsequium rationabile – rational service to God, true and healthy spiritual worship, as it rightfully is (Rm 12:1), then it cannot be any person’s private fantasy or illusion (O. P., p. 84). The Church is competent to say this. In her name, 30 chosen priests and physicians, working together in three Commissions for 10 years, in more than 30 meetings, dutifully and expertly investigated the events of Medjugorje and brought forth their results of study. And not one, but twenty bishops responsibly declared that there exists no proof that the events in Medjugorje concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.
    end quote

  • The Commission of Inquiry into the events at Medjugorje of the Episcopal conference of Bosnia-Herzogovina (which is comprised of four bishops) has the AUTHORITY to form a new commission eventually. this time. So we are left with the local bishop’s decision. And a bishop answers directly to the Holy See, not a regional commission. I’m not the one disputing the Church’s authority here. I know about “the reasonings behind the action taken by the Holy See.” Overruling the bishop isn’t one of them.

  • Chris said:
    “I think you had better take your argument up with the authorities of the Church which have given over the resonsibility to form a future commission when the time comes.  If it were in the hands of the local bishop, then he would be the one with authority to form a future commission, but he cannot.  Once again, things are simply on hold.  Patience is a virtue!!”

    Where are you getting this information, from a Medjugorje website?

    Quoting Fr Peter Joseph of Wagga Wagga, Australia, who has a doctorate in dogmatic theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome,

    “No private individual has the authority to judge definitively and officially which private revelations are true and which are not.The authority to rule on the genuineness of a private revelation rests first with the local Bishop. You cannot change Canon Law. The apparitions of Lourdes, Knock, Fatima, Beauraing, Banneux – to name only a few – were approved by the local Bishops. The Popes of the time never issued any judgement on them. The current canonical practice is that the local Bishop must appoint a committee to investigate and rule on any private revelation (if he thinks it worthy of investigation), but the Holy See “may” intervene if necessary or if the Bishops ask it to. Alternatively, he may ask the Episcopal Conference of his country to assist in the investigation and judgement.

    It is forbidden, as well as sinful, to propagate private revelations which have received a negative judgement from the local Bishop or the conference of Bishops, or the Vaticanfled by unfortunate developments.  Neither is Medjugorje invulnerable.  That is why it is and will be so important that bishops be very conscientious about their mission as shepherds for Medjugorje, so that the obvious fruits that are in that place might be protected from any possible unfortunate errors.

    I believe that the words of Mary at Cana: ike but what anyone says other than the Bishop of Mostar doesn’t make a hill of beans. What has been quoted here from the Document on the Diocese of Mostar website makes a great hill of beans because it is coming from the only one with authority in the matter of Medjugorje.

    Your “You can go!” statement is right of course. I can go to any parish Church in the world and no one can stop me. But as with the case of Medjugorje, I cannot go believing that there is an apparition and messages being given there if the bishop says not to and in fact, that is exactly what has been said.

    Earlier Chris said:
    “Pamphlets, personal beliefs, messages distributed have not been forbidden -”

    I beg to differ with you.  With regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, canon 623 #1 of the current Code remains in force: `The Pastors of the Church have the right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful, which touch upon faith or morals, be submitted to their judgment’.

    Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgment of the “diocesan Bishop”, and , in particular cases, to the judgment of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

    I have not seen the present Bishop’s or the previous Bishop’s signature approving any favorable writing on Medjugorje.

    Booklets, leaflets, pamphlets, films, or books may not be used to promote an apparition or miracle that is under an interdiction of any kind. Contrary to what many will tell you, the abrogation of Canon Laws 1399 and 2318 do not permit the publication of apparitions unless no action or decision has been made by the local bishop. Any action that has been taken by the bishop must be obeyed. Read his Document on his website.

    I heard one person who was a Medjugorje supporter say that they are told by these Medjugorje publications and other supporters that reach a wide range of “believers”, not to listen to ‘anything” anyone says against Medjugorje. Bad suggestion, bad idea!

  • Sissy, you wrote: “David, you havenuthor_email>
    http://http//www.splendortruth.com/curtjester
    66.157.203.43
    2005-02-11 22:46:30
    2005-02-12 02:46:30
    Is she also a Catholic?  I saw a story earlier saying she was and that one of the reasons she will not become Queen is that the law there makes it illegal for a Catholic to rise to the throne.

    Now if she did receive an annulment I could understand to some extent the Archbishop’s comment, otherwise you are entirely correct in just how inoppropriate this comment was.

Archives

Categories