I will do my best, time permitting.
Good Morning Jo!
There is on this board a thread titled ‘Prophecy of St Malachy’ in which, several weeks ago, I made the following observation:
When a list of ‘prophecies’ purports to have been written in the 12th century, and all of the predictions are dead-on accurate up to the 16th century, after which they are spotty to say the least, it doesn’t take a particle physicist to figure out that the list was written in the 16th century.
Simply by changing the dates, a logical, reasonable, SENSIBLE explanation of the Fatima ‘prophecies’ emerges.
The alleged apparitions occurred in 1917.
The ‘prophecies’ were revealed in 1941.
Those ‘prophecies’ which concerned events between 1907 and 1941 were specific and accurate except for the naming of Pius XII as Pius XI.
The ‘prophecies’ concerning events after 1941 were general, imprecise, and no more accurate than might be expected by chance. The remarks concerning the future of Russia were not even close. If the Lady had said, ‘Russia will continue in her errors until a visionary leader returns her back to Christ and to democracy, and this man may be identified by a prominent facial birthmark’, then I would give the ‘predictions’ some credence.
I understand that JPII was impressed by the fact that the attempted assassination took place in St. Peter’s Square, beneath which are buried the remains of martyrs of religious persecution such as described in the ‘prophecy’, but in all candor, Jo, read it yourself and you will see that it makes no reference whatever to the conditions under which the assassination attempt occurred.
Here the reasonable person needs to apply the principle of Occam’s razor. Which is more likely, that this devout young girl was visited throughout her life by a steady procession of angels and saints, including not only His beloved mother but Jesus Christ Himself, or that she had an overactive childish imagination which, over the years, developed into a case of outright fraud or, at best, delusion?
Finally, Jo, let me make the same observation and pose the same question that I directed to red earlier in the thread, and for which he had no answer:
I continue to believe that the most significant factor against the apparitions is Lucia’s claim that the Lady directed her to give a message to the pope, which I documented for you as you requested.
She later claimed that Christ Himself had directed her similarly.
By what logic do you suggest that Christ and His Mother did not reveal themselves to the pope directly? Why would, or should, his holiness be more inclined to believe a young girl prone to hallucinations?
What say you?
Once again, since you made no denial, I assume that you agree with me.