M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly.
- Status
K
Knightswhosayni
Guest
Ok, so we are supposed to ignore our skepticism, because why? It angers me that truth goes so close to the edge of possible error. That doesn’t make sense when your job is to focus of truth, not probablyor possibily true. I mean the Vatican has approved of alot of wrong things in the past, but “corrected” itself. Indulgences, selling relics, Galileo, etc.
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
No. You are supposed to accept the possibility that you could be wrong and have faith that your church is guided by the Holy Spirit and would not promote something harmful to your faith or salvation.
Then, you go about your life joyful practicing the faith and leaving Fatima devotions to those who believe them.
K
Knightswhosayni
Guest
So, something possibly being a lie and promoted, doesn’t bother you? It’s ok to just trust it? I find that hard to do, but I get you.
T
TMC
Guest
First, I would say that I believe there are a lot of Catholics whose opinions on apparitions are similar to yours. I think most of them just kinda shrug it off. Is that OK? I don’t know.
I would also say that I don’t think its accurate to say that the Church finds Fatima to be “true” or even “valid.” I think the term used is “worthy of belief,” which I interpret as meaning, “believe it if you want,” or maybe “its not against Church teaching to believe it.”
I would also say that I don’t think its accurate to say that the Church finds Fatima to be “true” or even “valid.” I think the term used is “worthy of belief,” which I interpret as meaning, “believe it if you want,” or maybe “its not against Church teaching to believe it.”
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
There’s a difference between saying ‘I’m not so sure and I need more evidence’ versus ‘this is error and a lie’…
K
Knightswhosayni
Guest
I do accept that possibility. Does the church? Why not? Share better evidence and more publicly. I’ll do more research.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Actually you are not. You are free to not believe. The Church does not say of private revelation “this is true”, they say that “this is approved for faith expression” or “this is worthy of belief” or similar phrases.
I think you need to do more research on these subjects, as your statements on these are false.
A
AlNg
Guest
Miracles are interesting, in that some people say that miracles prove that their religion is the true religion.
Take for example, the Miracle of the Holy fire that happens in the Church of the Resurrection every year. This miracle occurs only for the Orthodox Church, not for the Roman Catholic church, and it occurs only on the day of Orthodox Easter, not the Catholic Easter day. On an Orthodox forum, a poster said that this proves that the Orthodox Church is the true Church, since the miracle has occurred on the Orthodox Easter, every year for centuries.
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/
So a Catholic wrote in (on the Orthodox forum) that the Catholic Church also has miracles. For example, a miracle in which Mary says “I am the immaculate Conception” at Lourdes and further, many other miracles have occurred after the apparition.
“I Am the Immaculate Conception”, Our Lady told St. Bernadette
Bernadette Soubirous, after an absence of three weeks from her visits to the grotto in Massabielle to see ‘The Lady’, felt a sudden irresistible urge to return there during the night of the 24th/25…
catholicismpure.wordpress.com
As you know many Orthodox have a problem with the Immaculate Conception because of their teaching on original sin.
So what was the response? The response was that some miracles are caused by Satan in order to confuse us as to which religion is the true religion.
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
Ah, my friend, now we are entering into the realm of ego and the age old desire of all human beings to bend others to their way of thinking. You have stated your case well and no one doubts your position, a perfectly valid one to have.
Please allow me to offer a non-Catholic perspective here; I have no issues with the apparitions. I understand that the church knows there will be problems with some over accepting them fully so does not force anyone to do so. This is a tremendously compassionate and understanding approach from an institution which has, historically, carried a rather big stick from time to time when it comes to the ordinary lay person and what they ought to believe. I have read every post up to this one and can see you are having some difficulties but I pray you find some peace in this matter, and soon. Instead of being frustrated with your stance I might suggest you do what I do in such cases; enjoy the conversation and accept that all points of view have merit. You and I are under no obligation to change our position, but letting others have theirs is what ultimately helps me to let go.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I concede your point regarding the term “true”. It’s not right to say it’s “true” per se. But is it inaccurate to say that the church, in approving some revelations, is making a statement as to whether or not the apparition is “valid” (having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent)? It seems to me that the church is saying that it is reasonable to believe the events of Fatima took place. Same with Lourdes, Guadeloupe, etc. Have I misunderstood?
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
That definition is more in the context of an argument in a debate or discussion. I don’t think that valid or invalid really apply to this sort of event and that is why the Church uses “worthy of belief”, “approved for faith expression” etc. depending on the weight of the evidence for those private revelations that are deemed to be, to paraphrase your statement, reasonable to believe in.
S
stpurl
Guest
See, that’s a problem. First, you’re incorrect regarding your premise that the Church somehow ‘erred’ with regard to "galileo, indulgences’ etc and 'corrected them, therefore you fear the ‘same’ with apparitions approved by the Church.
A deeper read into the first group shows that the Church did not ‘err’ the way you think it did with indulgences, for example. The Church never was in favor of ‘selling’ indulgences. The sale by certain members was the wrong, not the indulgences themselves. That is a huge point.
The Church also teaches, for example, that baptism requires a Trinitarian blessing to be valid; baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now (you might be too young to remember this) but there was a period in the crazy 1980s or so when SOME clergy in the church went new-agey and baptized people ‘in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier’. That was so wrong that the baptisms under same were not valid. BUT --here’s the point–baptism in the Trinitarian formula was not the problem. And it was not "the Church erred in the ‘different’ baptism formula, it was ‘some people within the Church’.
If you can understand now about indulgences not being ‘wrong’, it might help you be a little less worried about the Church’s standing on certain apparitions.
A deeper read into the first group shows that the Church did not ‘err’ the way you think it did with indulgences, for example. The Church never was in favor of ‘selling’ indulgences. The sale by certain members was the wrong, not the indulgences themselves. That is a huge point.
The Church also teaches, for example, that baptism requires a Trinitarian blessing to be valid; baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now (you might be too young to remember this) but there was a period in the crazy 1980s or so when SOME clergy in the church went new-agey and baptized people ‘in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier’. That was so wrong that the baptisms under same were not valid. BUT --here’s the point–baptism in the Trinitarian formula was not the problem. And it was not "the Church erred in the ‘different’ baptism formula, it was ‘some people within the Church’.
If you can understand now about indulgences not being ‘wrong’, it might help you be a little less worried about the Church’s standing on certain apparitions.
T
TMC
Guest
I can’t speak for the Church, obviously. I would say that if the Church was sure that the apparitions happened and were real - i.e. actual manifestations of Mary, who appeared to give an important message to the world - then the Church would likely treat the apparitions and the messages differently.
I think the Church is saying that for those that find the apparitions are useful in the deepening or advancement of their faith, the Church finds no harm in believing in them. But, I could be misunderstanding the Church’s position, which is appears (to me) to be neither clear nor uniform among the leaders of the Church.
T
TheHolyTrinity
Guest
The OP must be a fan of Monty Python and the Holy Grail or the themed guild
D
Dum
Guest
Hello you have understanding of the 1st level of spiritual decernment.
I’ve been to Fatima 2. And medjugore.
People want to believe in supernatural events. Some are deceived. Some are ok
D
Dum
Guest
Yes you understand
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Saint Pope JPII had no doubt about Fatima being real. Neither did Pope Pius XII.
And the Church is not treating the apparitions and message “differently” out of some uncertainty or doubt. The Church declared that the era of public revelation, in other words all the essential truth revealed about the Faith, closed with the death of the last apostle. No revelation after that can add to the faith, it can only illuminate and enhance what is already there.
Mary did not deliver any new additions to the faith when she appeared at Fatima or any other approved apparition. It is not necessary for Catholics to believe in apparitions simply because all the truth they need to know was already revealed in public revelation; the truth is complete. If this was not the case then the Church would be in a position of not having taught the whole truth for hundreds of thousands of years and then having some new piece of the truth show up (a la Joseph Smith).
It’s very difficult to discuss private revelations and apparitions on this forum, because there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose they serve, and why the Church treats them the way that it does. I think previous generations of Catholics had a much better handle on this.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
You may misunderstand my point. I am not referring to treating the different apparitions different one from the other. I mean that if the Church were sure of any apparition, it would be treated different than it is.
If the Church believes with certainty that Mary appeared and delivered a message for the world from God, I would expect those words to be treated with at least the weight and reverence that the Epistles are treated, if not treated equal to the Gospels. Here, after all, are the direct words of the Theotokos, delivering the message of God, unfiltered, without the errors inherent in centuries of copying, the vagaries of translation, and so on. Why, if the Church is certain these are the unfiltered, certain words of Mary, are those words not treated like Scripture? Maybe they don’t add to revelation (although I question how that can be true given that they contain revelations.) But wouldn’t her words provide more sure guidance to revelation than anything we currently have? Why have most Catholics never heard those words, why are they not taught in every Catholic school?
Based on how the apparitions are treated, I can only assume the Church is not certain of them, and thus the term “worthy of belief” and not “true.”
K
Knightswhosayni
Guest
We’ve all seemed to prove my point that it causes confusion. We have all come across those people who place as much weight on apparitions as they do the Gospel. These apparitions that make predictions and then those are seen as worthy of belief. Pope John Paul II was great, but you dont think he had a sentimental attachment that could cloud how he viewed this?? He put his bullet at Fatima. He was publicly putting ALOT of weight on the prediction. How are predictions like this not too close to occult nonsense? There are entire groups spending loads of time fixating on these events. That’s not a problem? Just ignore all that? People fall into sin for alot of reasons, but why does the church have to get so near to private revelations and create another scenario for guillable people to obsess over something not needed for their sanctification? Because it fills pews, that’s why. And, I find that disturbing. I pray one day it wont bother me so much.
- Status