V
Vico
Guest
“Did not mention” is the correct phrase to use.
Collins Learner’s Dictionary
never, adverb
Last edited:
- Status
Collins Learner’s Dictionary
never, adverb
C
commenter
Guest
Vico, maybe you are right about Fatima. Maybe Jim is right. But you definitely weaken your own argument, and also weaken credibility of Fatima, when you make this kind of picky response. Why make your own argument less persuasive?JimR-OCDS:
“Did not mention” is the correct phrase to use.
Collins Learner’s Dictionary
never, adverb
V
Vico
Guest
Has nothing to do with an argument validity. It is a contradictory statement that was made, so I think it is clear if it reads:Vico:
Vico, maybe you are right about Fatima. Maybe Jim is right. But you definitely weaken your own argument, and also weaken credibility of Fatima, when you make this kind of picky response. Why make your own argument less persuasive?JimR-OCDS:
“Did not mention” is the correct phrase to use.
Collins Learner’s Dictionary
never, adverb
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Never mentions it in the cross examinations at the time when she gave her testimony to what she saw and heard from the Blessed Mother. Originally I stated that the Blessed Mother never mentions the time frame of Amilia being in purgatory, and this is according to the testimony given by the three visionaries.
Sorry if you got confused
Jim
Sorry if you got confused
Jim
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
I do have some skepticism of Lucia’s account, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
It’s just that they are inconsistent with her original testimony of what took place at the time of the apparitions in Fatima.
Those are the only apparitions approved by the Church, as far as I know. I don’t recall the Church evern investigating or approving her own private revelations as a nun.
What adds to my skepticism, is that the other two children never heard the conversation concerning Amilia. In fact, Francesco couldn’t hear the Blessed Mother at all, and testified that he could only see her talking to Lucia. Lucia then told him what the Blessed Mother said.
Anyway, as this thread title shows, there is confusion between the messages of Fatima, which lean toward hopelessness and those of Sister Faustina in the Divine Mercy.
Each person will have to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them
Jim
It’s just that they are inconsistent with her original testimony of what took place at the time of the apparitions in Fatima.
Those are the only apparitions approved by the Church, as far as I know. I don’t recall the Church evern investigating or approving her own private revelations as a nun.
What adds to my skepticism, is that the other two children never heard the conversation concerning Amilia. In fact, Francesco couldn’t hear the Blessed Mother at all, and testified that he could only see her talking to Lucia. Lucia then told him what the Blessed Mother said.
Anyway, as this thread title shows, there is confusion between the messages of Fatima, which lean toward hopelessness and those of Sister Faustina in the Divine Mercy.
Each person will have to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them
Jim
Last edited:
A
Axsenex
Guest
I don’t believe in it so I am just amused by the debate.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Where does that then put the First Five Saturdays devotion which was explained to Lucia at Pontevedra?
Our Lady told Lucia at Fatima that she wanted to establish a devotion to her Immaculate Heart, but it was not until Pontevedra that it was outlined to Lucia how this ought to be accomplished. As far as I understand it, the Church has approved of this devotion.
There is also the important issue that the children experienced the apparitions slightly differently and I think that out of the three of them it it was Lucia who Our Lady chose to hear and see things in a way meant to be recorded for posterity. Was it not Lucia that was to remain on Earth to spread the message? Was Lucia not instructed to learn to read and write?
I don’t think that the three children’s experiences and accounts can really be used to corroborate each other to a degree of what exact words were or were not said. All three children had their role to play, but I think the role of Lucia was to communicate the message to the world. If she has been chosen as such, then I think we should err on the side of accepting her accounts on face value.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
First Saturday devotion is a private devotion.
Same as the nine first Fridays as given to St. Margaret Mary Alocoque by Jesus Himself.
But I have to ask, why the two different devotions ? Did the First Saturday devotion replace the Nine First Friday devotion ?
Then we have the Divine Mercy promises given to Sister Faustina, which seems to contradict the messages at Fatima.
Divine Mercy has the message of hope, where Fatima tends to have a message of hopelessness, pain and suffering, especially when we hear people make statements outside of the words spoken by the Blessed Mother to the three children in the apparitions themselves.
Fatima tends to turn people away from the Church, where the message of God’s mercy and Love, draws them.
I have a devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes. Even there, things are said by Catholics which were not spoken by the Blessed Mother to St Bernadette.
Being Christ Centered is far more important than any of these devotions and we as Christians need to bring the Good News of Salvation in Jesus Christ to people. Instead, many bring the message of guilt, suffering and hopelessness from these apparitions, and from what I’ve read, were not the words of the Blessed Mother to any of the visionaries.
Jim
Same as the nine first Fridays as given to St. Margaret Mary Alocoque by Jesus Himself.
But I have to ask, why the two different devotions ? Did the First Saturday devotion replace the Nine First Friday devotion ?
Then we have the Divine Mercy promises given to Sister Faustina, which seems to contradict the messages at Fatima.
Divine Mercy has the message of hope, where Fatima tends to have a message of hopelessness, pain and suffering, especially when we hear people make statements outside of the words spoken by the Blessed Mother to the three children in the apparitions themselves.
Fatima tends to turn people away from the Church, where the message of God’s mercy and Love, draws them.
I have a devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes. Even there, things are said by Catholics which were not spoken by the Blessed Mother to St Bernadette.
Being Christ Centered is far more important than any of these devotions and we as Christians need to bring the Good News of Salvation in Jesus Christ to people. Instead, many bring the message of guilt, suffering and hopelessness from these apparitions, and from what I’ve read, were not the words of the Blessed Mother to any of the visionaries.
Jim
Last edited:
A
anon90438963
Guest
I don’t think the two apparitions, of Fatima and to St. Faustina, contradict each other at all. They complement each other.
I often think of something that Catherine of Siena wrote, that God “has two faces.” To those that are in sin and in danger of losing their souls, he shows his face of anger and warning. To those in grace who strive to love God, he shows his face of mercy and love. The truth is that we move between these two as human beings on earth all the time, and we need both “faces” of God to keep us on the right track. A writer (can’t remember who at the moment) said something in the same vein: that there are two types of priests: fat priests and thin priests. “Fat” priests tell us all about the great goodness, love, and mercy of God. “Thin” priests tells us of sin, hell, and God’s displeasure. And, he said, we need both fat and thin priests.
I often think of something that Catherine of Siena wrote, that God “has two faces.” To those that are in sin and in danger of losing their souls, he shows his face of anger and warning. To those in grace who strive to love God, he shows his face of mercy and love. The truth is that we move between these two as human beings on earth all the time, and we need both “faces” of God to keep us on the right track. A writer (can’t remember who at the moment) said something in the same vein: that there are two types of priests: fat priests and thin priests. “Fat” priests tell us all about the great goodness, love, and mercy of God. “Thin” priests tells us of sin, hell, and God’s displeasure. And, he said, we need both fat and thin priests.
Last edited:
B
Brendan_64
Guest
No it does not. The message of Fatima is one of hope.
“In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph”.
How much more hopeful can a message be? The victory is assured. Yes, there will be suffering along the way, but the suffering will not be in vain. How is that not a message of hope?
Mary is reiterating God’s plan as told in scripture. We will disobey, we will offend God, we will suffer, we will continue to offend and ignore God, and we will continue to suffer, but in the end God will triumph.
At Fatima we are given hope that the sword of justice will be stayed from us if we turn to Our Mother and in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
How is that not a message of hope?
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The message of Fatima is one of hope.
“In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph”.
Unfortunately, this is drowned out by everything else which came outside of the approved apparitions.
Also, what about the Sacred Heart of Jesus ? Where does His triumph fit in ?
There’s no denying that there is contradictions between the message of Fatima and other apparitions.
Jim
“In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph”.
Unfortunately, this is drowned out by everything else which came outside of the approved apparitions.
Also, what about the Sacred Heart of Jesus ? Where does His triumph fit in ?
There’s no denying that there is contradictions between the message of Fatima and other apparitions.
Jim
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
interesting Chesterton quote. Do you have a reference?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I disagree, the message of Fatima is a message of hope. Fatima seems consistent with La Salette, it almost seems like a continuation of La Salette.
Do you think the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart is not enough? What is meant by the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate heart? Is Mary’s Immaculate Heart not her Fiat, “May it be done to me according to your word”? Is the triumph of her Immaculate Heart not the triumph of her Son? And when it says in Genesis that “She shall crush his head, and he shall lie on wait for her heel”, is that not the crushing of Satan by her Son (and hence by his Mother)?
As to the various interpretations, which can be controversial, I don’t know thay any deny the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as the end point of the prophesy. Whether it is only the laity that let down and offend Our Lord, or whether this also includes clergy up to high levels, does that really change the final message of hope?
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Public revelations cannot contradict. They can always be reconciled, though it may take the Church some time to iron this out. Public revelation is cumulative. Doctrine does not change, but it can be developed. The development is permanent.
Private revelation is tricky. Two private revelations can be approved, in that they are both not incompatible with public revelations, but they are not necessarily compatible with each other. Lucia’s needs in 1917 were different from Bernadette’s needs decades earlier, or Faustina’s a few years later.
You and I might be taking medicines prescribed by the same doctor. That does not necessarily mean it is harmless, let alone healthy, for you to take mine or me to take yours. Private revelation is not cumulative. The council of Nicea, or Forence, is permanent. They will not be undone. Unlike them, Private revelation is not permanent, not cumulative.
This fact was not always presented well, especially about Fatima. Thus, we see people who begin their post with “I know Fatima isn’t public revelation, but…” Then they describe Fatima as if it were public revelation. Over use of private revelation was relatively harmless decades ago, when people had a solid grasp of public revelation. This is not the world we live in today.
Thus, I think from now on the Church will give private revelation much less attention than it had.
Private revelation is tricky. Two private revelations can be approved, in that they are both not incompatible with public revelations, but they are not necessarily compatible with each other. Lucia’s needs in 1917 were different from Bernadette’s needs decades earlier, or Faustina’s a few years later.
You and I might be taking medicines prescribed by the same doctor. That does not necessarily mean it is harmless, let alone healthy, for you to take mine or me to take yours. Private revelation is not cumulative. The council of Nicea, or Forence, is permanent. They will not be undone. Unlike them, Private revelation is not permanent, not cumulative.
This fact was not always presented well, especially about Fatima. Thus, we see people who begin their post with “I know Fatima isn’t public revelation, but…” Then they describe Fatima as if it were public revelation. Over use of private revelation was relatively harmless decades ago, when people had a solid grasp of public revelation. This is not the world we live in today.
Thus, I think from now on the Church will give private revelation much less attention than it had.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
You mention La Salette and I have major problems with La Salette.
My priest friend, RIP was a La Salette Priest.
When he told me how the visionaries of La Salette ended up, I reflected on St John of the Cross, and how he discerned whether a nun who had claimed to be having apparitions, or not. The process he used on the nun, proved she was making it up as she later confessed. The same held for La Salette and now Medjugorje.
The main principle St John used was whether there was a transformation of the visionaire, toward holiness. This took place with St Bernadette and St Lucia and the two children of Fatima. However, it did not with the visionaries of La Salette and Medjugorje.
Anyway, these things are left up to faith and whether the Holy Spirit is guiding you toward them or not, is the key and your our need to discern.
Jim
My priest friend, RIP was a La Salette Priest.
When he told me how the visionaries of La Salette ended up, I reflected on St John of the Cross, and how he discerned whether a nun who had claimed to be having apparitions, or not. The process he used on the nun, proved she was making it up as she later confessed. The same held for La Salette and now Medjugorje.
The main principle St John used was whether there was a transformation of the visionaire, toward holiness. This took place with St Bernadette and St Lucia and the two children of Fatima. However, it did not with the visionaries of La Salette and Medjugorje.
Anyway, these things are left up to faith and whether the Holy Spirit is guiding you toward them or not, is the key and your our need to discern.
Jim
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Was La Salette not approved by the local bishop at the time?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Yeah it was, but just because a Bishop approved it, doesn’t mean he was right. It’s not infallible.
Jim
Jim
A
anon90438963
Guest
I edited out Chesterton because while I believe it was him, I can’t verify at the moment. I’ll try to track it down.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I understood that it is down to the jurisdiction of local bishop to approve apparitions in his diocese. And did Pius IX and Leo XIII not also gave their approval? How much more approval is needed?
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It doesn’t matter. Apparitions being approved is not infallible dogma.
Belief in apparitions isn’t required for salvation.
Jim
Belief in apparitions isn’t required for salvation.
Jim
- Status