Are there any Catholics here who do not believe in what happened at Fatima?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Because he is an atheist (former “devout” Catholic ).

He posted in another Fatima thread (very similar).

Kind of sounds like this whole thread was started to stir the pot among Catholics. I guess he got what he wanted.

I won’t waste my time staying subscribed to a thread that pits people against the Blessed Mother.

Unbelievable, people…

lol ! I never started this thread with the intention of causing division amongst Catholics here. Doesn’t the Bible condemn those who falsely accuse others?

I am wondering what are the weaknesses associated with the authenticity of Fatima. I was also wondering what Richard Dawkins has to say about it. From the excerpt I picked up in his The God Delusion, his explanation of it seems very weak, at best. I heard however that even he said that he couldn’t explain what happened at Fatima, and I’m trying to find evidence for his “retraction”.

So yes, I was wondering why some Catholics may not believe in what happened at Fatima. Please don’t think it was intended to cause division . Come to think of it, it slightly angers me that you accuse me of something I had no intention of doing.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Concerning Fatima, it’s to my understanding that no apparition can ever add to the deposit of faith (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition). Therefore, as a Catholic, you are free to not believe in any apparition, which includes Fatima.

But from my studies (and this was a belief I used to hold myself), it would be silly for a Catholic to dispute Fatima. It doesn’t make that Catholic any “less Catholic”. But it is a silly decision, because what happened at Fatima was a public prophecy (which is not synonymous with public revelation). If I remember correctly, it was the largest miracle in recorded Christian history that told people to go to a certain destination to witness a miracle (in other words, it even dwarfed Jesus’ miracle of feeding the 5,000).

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Rejecting all apparitions is akin to rejecting all the miracles associated with the saints. Why then does the Church insist on evidence for miracles prior to canonisation? If St Bernadette was deluded and the water at Lourdes has no curative properties why is she regarded as a saint?

I only have basic knowledge of Lourdes, so please forgive me if I am in error. But the Church (or more specifically, the Congregation of the Saints) doesn’t place too much emphasis on the miracles a saint performed whilst he/she was alive. Generally, the miracles performed are a by-product of living a very holy life (St. Dominic Savio, for example, had several ecstasies; St. Padre Pio allegedly worked many miracles).

What the Church does consider primarily are the miracles performed whilst the saint is in Heaven (i.e. physically dead on Earth). The reason the Church places emphasis whilst the saint is “dead” is because any miracle performed after the saint’s death signifies God’s approval. As a Catholic, you have to remember that saints don’t work miracles in and of themselves. God works through them. So a miracle after a saint’s death shows that God wants that person to be declared a saint. Not to complicate things further, but when a person is declared a saint, it makes them “happy” in Heaven. Some are called “great in the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:19), and a miracle (or miracles, rather) reflects that. This probably explains why some saints are more popular than other saints.

You can see I read up on this a lot :compcoff:

 

[Yellow_Belle]

**His body was certainly not an ordinary body. It was glorified and could pass though walls. An apparition is not necessarily a hallucination. It is a **supernatural **appearance, i.e. a vision of spiritual reality. The resurrected Jesus is not a vision of spiritual reality nor an image or nor a ghost nor an apparition. None of those can be touched nor do they eat.

From being visible to those to pray to her.Mary is not being “excluded” from anything. Neither is it necessary to see an image of her to honour her in prayer*
*
Which is based on the reality of miracles to which apparitions are often inextricably linked.Bernadette’s sainthood is not based on apparitions. It is based on the Church’s procedure and requirements for canonisation, which, BTW, once declared, is required to be believed as it is an infallible declaration

 

[nice2000]

i believe!

Ditto!!

 

[tonyrey]

His body was certainly not an ordinary body. It was glorified and could pass though walls.** An apparition is not necessarily a hallucination. **

It is a supernatural appearance, i.e. a vision of spiritual reality. The resurrected Jesus is not a vision of spiritual reality nor an image or nor a ghost nor an apparition. None of those can be touched nor do they eat.

"supernatural “appearance” means the act of Jesus appearing with His glorified body. It was a vision only in the sense that the Apostles saw His body with their eyes!

Far from being visible to those to pray to her. Mary is not being “excluded” from anything. Neither is it necessary to see an image of her to honour her in prayer.

Apparitions are not necessary but neither are miracles! God’s love is not restricted to what is necessary…

Which is based on the reality of miracles to which apparitions are often inextricably linked.

Bernadette’s sainthood is not based on apparitions. It is based on the Church’s procedure and requirements for canonisation, which, BTW, once declared, is required to be believed as it is an infallible declaration.

The canonisation of Bernadette is supported by miracles to which the apparitions at Lourdes are inextricably linked. If she had been hallucinated the Church wouldn’t have canonised her, permitted pilgrimages to Lourdes or encouraged the faithful to pray for her intercession for the sick.

 

[tonyrey]

Rejecting all apparitions is akin to rejecting all the miracles associated with the saints. Why then does the Church insist on evidence for miracles prior to canonisation? If St Bernadette was deluded and the water at Lourdes has no curative properties why is she regarded as a saint?

I agree with you but rejecting every single apparition amounts to doubting the authenticity of miracles. Why wouldn’t God permit the saints in heaven to appear to saints on earth when He reveals the power of their intercession by healing the sick? It would be further evidence for the Communion of Saints!

 

[Yellow_Belle]

"supernatural “appearance” means the act of Jesus appearing with His glorified body. It was a vision only in the sense that the Apostles saw His body with their eyes!
Apparitions are not necessary but neither are miracles! God’s love is not restricted to what is necessary…
The canonisation of Bernadette is supported by miracles to which the apparitions at Lourdes are inextricably linked. If she had been hallucinated the Church wouldn’t have canonised her, permitted pilgrimages to Lourdes or encouraged the faithful to pray for her intercession for the sick.

You are dangerously close to heresy regarding the resurrection of Jesus: I repeat, the resurrected Jesus was not a vision, an apparition, a ghost, an image or a ‘supernatural appearance’. Jesus rose from the dead, his body still showing the marks of his crucifixion. He ate with his disciples, was embraced by Mary Magdalene and offered Thomas the opportunity to put his hands into His side to quell Thomas’s doubts that he had risen.

You still have not explained why or how Mary is ‘excluded’ or from what.

And how often do I have to repeat this: the apparitions at Lourdes are not the reason Bernadette was canonised. She was canonised because of the sanctity of her life and because two attested miracles were attributed to her, in accordance with the procedures of canonisation. She is a saint because the Church has infallibly declared that she is in heaven.

 

[Jkimbo]

"supernatural “appearance” means the act of Jesus appearing with His glorified body. It was a vision only in the sense that the Apostles saw His body with their eyes!..

You can not substitute the word in with the word with, there lies your error.

Also they saw and touched his body which further gives more weight to physical verses just a vision.

 

[tonyrey]

"supernatural “appearance” means the act of Jesus appearing

Heresy?! If a person appears with his body is there any doubt that he is really there? I specified “the act of Jesus” to differentiate the two meanings of appearance. To appear in person is quite different from appearing to be present…

And how often do I have to repeat this: the apparitions at Lourdes are not the reason Bernadette was canonised. She was canonised because of the sanctity of her life and because two attested miracles were attributed to her, in accordance with the procedures of canonisation. She is a saint because the Church has infallibly declared that she is in heaven.

And how often do I have to repeat that the canonisation of Bernadette is also supported by miracles to which the apparitions at Lourdes are inextricably linked?

If she had been hallucinated the Church wouldn’t have canonised her, permitted pilgrimages to Lourdes or encouraged the faithful to pray for her intercession for the sick.

You have totally ignored this fact…

 

[BigFellaMick]

Mary warned us of the coming chastisement. That’s real enough. Real enough that every Pope since it was revealed has believed in it. Russia used as God’s vengeance. Look at Russia today. Spreading anti western propaganda and the growing muslim population is always a threat. Entire nations will be annihilated. Whether people believe in the chastisement or not is one thing but even from a secular standpoint it’s easy to see russia’s slowly growing to be an islamic militant state. Not as bad as the middle east as they have been fighting extremism faaaaaar longer than the west, and yet islam is still spreading and corrupting the Faith. It’s a very real threat no matter what angle you choose to look at it

 

[tonyrey]

"supernatural “appearance” means the act of Jesus appearing

Do you go anywhere without your body?!

Also they saw and touched his body which further gives more weight to physical verses just a vision.

I specified that the Apostles saw His body with their eyes - not their imagination.

 

[razredge]

I don’t believe it - mainly because the statements of the seers are so fanciful and far more likely to be the work of human imagination than of divine origin.

 

[yablabo]

Found below in this thread…

"Of course it does not add to the deposit of faith. That is why we are not required to believe the apparition by divine faith.

But if an authority declares it is worthy of belief, there is still an obligation to believe, but not by divine faith, just as if your father were to teach you something from his natural office of authority".

FurtherSuntime.

Does this mean that if a very significant and profoundly legitimate apparition was in store for mankind and clear words were uttered on behalf of The Blessed Virgin Mary which corrected
a Catechism translation of scripture…the Catholic Church would reject the request from heaven?
Is this whats going on?

I’m pretty confused at your question, personally. But I thought since you quoted my post, maybe you were looking for a response from me personally…

– Nicole

 

[FurtherSuntime]

What is confusing ? its a straight forward question…

If The Blessed Virgin Mary appears to man once again, and there are words which suggest
an error in exact translation re scripture, will the Catholic Church attend to the correction?

Or…is The Catholic Church not subject to the “deposit of truth from heaven”…is that it?

Pretty straight forward… Seems to me the Church has created a political style safety net…
if we like…we will recieve. If not…its not real and everyone can …make up there own mind

Either the Church takes responcibility and believes in the words of Fatima or the occasion is clearly rejected by manner of regard for truth. A wishy washy disrespectful remark to God himself… Fence sitting…a total shame to say the least…an embarassment .

There may be another…how is man supposed to know? was Fatima or Lourdes predictable.?

Obviously Fatima visitation had nothing to do with war as…man ALWAYS has war.
The message was all about translation in faith…otherwise the event would of been without
full meaning.

 

[Road2Damascus]

What is confusing ? its a straight forward question…

If The Blessed Virgin Mary appears to man once again, and there are words which suggest
an error in exact translation re scripture, will the Catholic Church attend to the correction?

Or…is The Catholic Church not subject to the “deposit of truth from heaven”…is that it?

Pretty straight forward… Seems to me the Church has created a political style safety net…
if we like…we will recieve. If not…its not real and everyone can …make up there own mind

Either the Church takes responcibility and believes in the words of Fatima or the occasion is clearly rejected by manner of regard for truth. A wishy washy disrespectful remark to God himself… a total shame to say the least…an embarassment

There may be another…how is man supposed to know? was Fatima or Lourdes predictable.?

Obviously Fatima visitation had nothing to do with war as…man ALWAYS has war.
The message was all about translation in faith…otherwise the event would of been without
full meaning.

And this is why the Miracle of the Sun is so important because it would mean, if it happened, that God went to all this trouble to perform an absolute real and true Miracle for all men to see, so I get your drift.

I read that John Haffert book where he talked to the Witnesses, I would have to say it is persuasive and even if one wanted to say they are unsure about the sun falling, if people were looking at it say, that still would not change the facts that the light gave off different hues, red, green, blue etc. and in this some of the witness testimony agreed in fact.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

And this is why the Miracle of the Sun is so important because it would mean, if it happened, that God went to all this trouble to perform an absolute real and true Miracle for all men to see, so I get your drift.

I read that John Haffert book where he talked to the Witnesses, I would have to say it is persuasive and even if one wanted to say they are unsure about the sun falling, if people were looking at it say, that still would not change the facts that the light gave off different hues, red, green, blue etc. and in this some of the witness testimony agreed in fact.

Fatima is so profound. The quaint and beautiful story is responsible for changing so many lives.

If the words spoken in the apparitions were exact replica in Catholic Catechism translation… Catholics would be told we must believe every single word uttered.

Why would there be a visitation from heaven if the Catholic Catechism was perfectly on target?

Nothing makes any sense here… I believe its a legitimate story after a full study years ago

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Obviously Fatima visitation had nothing to do with war as…man ALWAYS has war.
The message was all about translation in faith…otherwise the event would of been without
full meaning.

Man always has war, but what happened during World War 2 was nothing less than pure savagery. When I was at the World Youth Day, we had a Cardinal who was speaking about this. He said along the lines that there seemed to be a cultural paradox in the 20th century - many technological, academic and economic feats were achieved, but paradoxically, it was the bloodiest century in Man’s recorded history. So it’s unfair to consider World War 2 as “just another war”. It was nothing less than pure blood spilling.

 

[tonyrey]

Man always has war, but what happened during World War 2 was nothing less than pure savagery. When I was at the World Youth Day, we had a Cardinal who was speaking about this. He said along the lines that there seemed to be a cultural paradox in the 20th century - many technological, academic and economic feats were achieved, but paradoxically, it was the bloodiest century in Man’s recorded history. So it’s unfair to consider World War 2 as “just another war”. It was nothing less than pure blood spilling.

It is not really a paradox because secular achievements are not necessarily linked to moral and spiritual progress. Technological feats have enabled man to cause more bloodshed far more efficiently and on a much greater scale, e.g. Hiroshima and Auschwitz.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

It is not really a paradox because secular achievements are not necessarily linked to moral and spiritual progress. Technological feats have enabled man to cause more bloodshed far more efficiently and on a much greater scale, e.g. Hiroshima and Auschwitz.

It is a paradox. What the Cardinal is saying is that we often think our generation is “civilized” and “moral”, but we aren’t really different from those who have gone before us. Remind me of how many unborn children are eliminated every year?