Apparitions and Salvation

[Knightswhosayni]

I’m sorry ,but although I believe in the possibility of miracles, I don’t feel compelled to believe miracles that go against basic logic. And, the church says my salvation does not depend on them. However, it’s hard to ignore the promotion and hostility that surround so many apparitions. Why promote things which cause so much conflict and confusion ?

Fatima is a prime example. If it’s not necessary to salvation, why are churches named after it? That’s nice if you like and believe, but why promote it so heavily? Also, there is so much that is suspect. Lucia was known as a great storyteller and a child with an excellent memory. From what I read, she told spectators to look at the sun. Well, common sense tells you that would alter your sight. This is 1917, most people were still VERY ignorant of common science like this. Also, she revealed the secrets like her cousins early death after the fact? Her mother considered her a liar and her father egged her on*maybe I’m not correct on that. Bit, could it be she wanted to impress him and she wanted to be “someone” special? What do we know about the Bishop who approved this, etc? People are caught up in Medjugore, which could be totally false. Do people care if something is really true or not? If my salvation is not dependent on this, why waste anytime considering it at all??

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Fatima is a prime example. If it’s not necessary to salvation, why are churches named after it? That’s nice if you like and believe, but why promote it so heavily?

I’m not seeing hundreds of churches named “Our Lady of Fatima”, so it’s questionable whether having a parish here or there named that constitutes “promotion”.

To the extent that there are a few such churches out of millions of Catholic parishes, churches are named after a saint or an event in the life of Jesus or Mary. Our Lady of Fatima is Mary, who is a saint of the Church. The name is thus permissable.

Also, there is so much that is suspect.

No one is requiring you to believe in it. Not sure why you’d waste your time getting all bothered about something that you are not required to believe or accept and that is not necessary to your personal salvation. Or why you’d title a thread “Apparitions and Salvation” when belief in apparitions is not necessary to salvation.

However, it’s a Vatican-approved apparition, so the Vatican has deemed it worthy of belief by the faithful. They reached this conclusion after an extensive investigation, probably considering a lot of factors that you and I aren’t privy to. And they aren’t going to change their mind because you or anyone else think it’s suspect.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not someone whose faith relies on the visions or mystical experiences of others either, but they can be encouraging. And I’ll only say that people of 1917 we’re not stupid-or naive about what happens when you look into the sun. And while the Church teaches that belief in private revelations are not at all required of us, she also doesn’t need to ask any of us whether or not she should acknowledge and appreciate those revelations.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If you don’t believe it that is fine. I’m not sure what your objection is.

The Vatican found Fatima to be an apparition worthy of belief after extensive investigation of it. You should not be surprised that people speak about Fatima favorably. Same with Lourdes, Guadeloupe, and so on. Those who do believe in these apparitions receive great graces from them. Surely, you don’t see that as a bad thing?

Our Lady of Fatima is Mary. Surely, you don’t have objection to churches being named for Mary?

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Well, because of the hostility that is shown towards those who feel as I do. It’s ok to publicly say you believe it, but so many Catholics I’ve seen go beyond that. You are shunned or criticized for not believing it. That is bothersome because it’s unecessary. And, it bothersome to promote something that isnt necessary for our relationship with Christ. What’s all the noise about?? What about the Third secret noise? More unnecessary nonsense. It’s kind of hard to ignore. I wouldn’t personally chastise anyone who is moved by it, but everybody knows it’s heavily promoted. How can you say it’s not?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

You are shunned or criticized for not believing it.

I’m skeptical of Fatima. I’ve never felt shunned for it. My parish has a very strong Fatima devotion. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t feel the need to speak out against it. Other people believing in Fatima does no harm to me.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Believing in Mary and her role and believing she is Our Lady of Fatima are not required to go together. That’s the point. Why not promote things that arent shrouded in nonsense and confusion? That’s a better way to access grace. But, since I’m only a lowly layperson, my opinion is not special. I haven’t any deep resources on how or why it was approved. I’m just supposed to trust a Bishops opinion, but not logic. Ok? Good fruitscan come from nonsense. It doesn’t make it true. Yes, believe it or not, in that era mistakes could’ve easily been made out of IGNORANCE. It’s a pretty good possibility, so that is a problem. Truth, not sentimental belief is more important in my opinion. But, once the church approves, its not gonna turn around unapprove it. That’s actually not a good thing, is it? Because if truth is what the church is seeking, she should not choose to promote something that can easily be misunderstood.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The church approved it because they found it to be worthy of belief. That’s how the church operates. If you want to know more about the process there are countless books and interviews on the subject.

How are you personally harmed by someone else’s devotion to Fatima?

(Edited for consistency)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I sincerely doubt you are experiencing widespread persecution when you attend Mass because you don’t believe in Fatima. Unless you are somehow going to Mass every Sunday at Fatima, or at a World Apostolate of Fatima Shrine in some other country, the subject of Fatima is unlikely to come up at all except maybe once a year on the feast day of Our Lady of Fatima, and even then the feast is an optional one in most places and many priests would not even refer to it. I’m pretty sure there are dozens of Catholics in the pews at my parishes who aren’t even sure what Fatima is, don’t pay attention to it, and/or don’t believe in it.

In short, Fatima is very easy to ignore unless either, like I said above, you’re going to Mass every week at a Fatima shrine, or you have a couple of relatives or close friends who are really into it, in which case the answer is simply to limit discussion of the subject with them. I have never been in a parish that pushed Fatima or other apparitions on people, and have almost never heard it mentioned at a Mass (except like I said on the optional memorial day and perhaps around the time of the Marto children’s canonization) for about the last 50 years.

Of course, if you are the type who goes into mixed groups of Catholics, such as on this forum, and starts loudly complaining about Fatima, you will no doubt evoke some hostile responses from people who do choose to believe in it and practice the associated devotions. But like everything else people might loudly complain about in the Catholic Church, there will be some people who agree with you, some people who disagree with you, and some people who don’t care one way or the other.

It’s simply not the big deal you’re making it out to be.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

I’m harmed by the possibility that truth and logic are less important than how people feel about an apparition that is not a requirement? Sure, I’m not harmed by other people thinking whatever they want. You said yourself you are skeptical. How is the possibility of promoting something false not harmful to everyone? Just because something good happens from a lie doesn’t mean it’s ok. In the grand scheme, these Fatima people dont hurt me. But, if truth is what matters most then stay away from skeptical things, right? That’s what gets me. You can’t question once it’s done? Maybe I’m just to suspect? The church has done alot to make me question their authority and decisions.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m harmed by the possibility that truth and logic are less important than how people feel about an apparition that is not a requirement?

So you’re claiming that the Vatican is promoting untruth? That you somehow know better than they do about this subject?

Seems a bit presumptuous.

And if this is part of some broader picture of distrust you have in the Church/ Pope/ Vatican, as your last sentence suggests, then I would say you need to go talk to a priest, because your issues are going well beyond Fatima.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I’m harmed by the possibility that truth and logic are less important than how people feel about an apparition that is not a requirement? Sure, I’m not harmed by other people thinking whatever they want. You said yourself you are skeptical. How is the possibility of promoting something false not harmful to everyone?

Yes, I am a skeptic. The church, however, deemed the apparition to be valid. To the extent that the church promotes Fatima, they are promoting something they believe to be true based on the evidence.

I don’t have a problem with it and don’t feel harmed by it because I am not so prideful as to believe I know better than the church. I have not had the benefit of witnessing the events of Fatima or investigating the primary sources that make up the proof for it. In short, I’m open to the fact that I could be wrong about Fatima.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

It’s not presumptuous to think that it’s never possible that the Vatican can make mistakes because of bias? If they are teaching me something about salvation, I need to listen. This, this stuff is nonsense and open to too much error. We all have evidence of the errors of the laity and the divisions over Medjugore. Better to keep your personal revelations to ourselves.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Yes, believe it or not, in that era mistakes could’ve easily been made out of IGNORANCE.

Like what else besides people looking at the sun, which you’ve already mentioned?

You don’t think that people knew that looking directly at the sun caused vision problems?

Truth, not sentimental belief is more important in my opinion

You don’t seem to know much of anything about how these things in the Church are approved. There is no sentiment involved. It’s a lengthy process involving more than the local bishop.

Why not promote things that arent shrouded in nonsense and confusion?

You are going to get some pushback for calling the Fatima visions nonsense and confusion.

But, since I’m only a lowly layperson, my opinion is not special.

But your opinion is certainly tone deaf at a minimum, and could easily be seen as arrogant, not “lowly”.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

If they think it’s so valid, then why not really back that up. They say it’s not required to save themselves from being in error. That’s pretty obvious.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Really back that up how?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If they are teaching me something about salvation, I need to listen.

We’ve already established over and over that apparitions are not necessary to salvation and you are not required to believe them. You don’t need to listen to any teaching about Fatima, and you are free to ignore the whole thing if you prefer.

Your problem seems to be that for whatever reason, you personally are having trouble ignoring it and have decided that the Church has to agree with your view or there’s some serious issue. This is incorrect thinking.

I realize there is a thorough investigation, but do any of us know all the facts? Of course not.

In which case, you also don’t have any sort of reliable basis for concluding it’s untrue. You’re free to conclude that, but you also don’t “know all the facts” and I would bet that you know a lot fewer “facts” than several Popes and the Vatican commissions who were involved with investigating this.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

It’s easy when you say it’s valid, then throw in “but not required”. They must not think it’s all that truthful then.

Clearly you misunderstand the difference between public and private revelation.

Public revelation is what is binding on the faithful. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Everything since that point is private revelation. It may be found worth of belief (like Fatima), but cannot bind the faithful.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

I don’t assume they have to agree with me. I’m assuming the Church is going to teach me truth. When something as suspect as this event is deemed valid, my trust in the church is weakened. Truth should be clear, not confusing. I’m not all knowing, and neither are other human cardinals and bishops. I want to trust them, but then they choose to get mixed up in sentimental, unnecessary nonsense. I’m not confused about public and private revelations. I think truth a validity should not go near private revelations. Too much error is plausible.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You’re the one who’s decided it’s untrue based on your own analysis, which as you admit is based on incomplete facts.

You’re free to disbelieve it yourself, but the Vatican still says it’s worthy of belief whether you accept it or not.

If you can’t accept that the Vatican says this, and insist on seeing it as Vatican teaching untruth, like I said, you obviously have a personal problem with the Vatican teaching authority that goes way beyond just Fatima. Please speak to a priest. I’m out, as this thread is becoming repetitious. God bless.