Eastern Catholic View of Fatima?

[crazzeto]

For Catholics (of the Roman Church and the various Eastern/Oriental Churches) the apparitions of Fatima fall under the category of “private revelation” and as such are not binding on anyone. One is free to believe in the Fatima apparitions or not. Most Eastern Catholics that I know simply don’t ever think of Fatima. When asked they might acknowledge Fatima as authentic, but after that they’d probably go their merry way without so much as another tip of the hat in the direction of Fatima. Personally it’s not an apparition that I promote.

What a sad conincidence, you’re likely to get the same reaction from your average Roman Rite Catholic =(

Unfortunetly really the only people promoting it are the priests and bishops. I think today we tend not want to believe in such things. On a personal level, I accept Fatima and constantly promote it… Particularly the Fatima prayer, which more of us should be praying.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What a sad conincidence, you’re likely to get the same reaction from your average Roman Rite Catholic =(

Unfortunetly really the only people promoting it are the priests and bishops. I think today we tend not want to believe in such things. On a personal level, I accept Fatima and constantly promote it… Particularly the Fatima prayer, which more of us should be praying.

I don’t really understand how what I said is a sad coincidence. The Church teaches that the faithful are free to believe or not believe private revelations. Fatima falls under the category of private revelation; thus we are free to believe it or ignore it.

I’ve personally been there (and was not too impressed) as well as to Lourdes (and was very impressed). In my childhood I had a strong devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, and spent a good deal of time reading the story of her appearance to the three children. I’ve gazed upon the tombs of Jacinta and Francisco, as well as on the shrub over which our Lady appeared. I won’t condemn anyone who decides to go on pilgrimage to Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc., so long as the apparitions are approved. But we must all remember that these apparitions are private revelations. What we should be focusing on is living the Gospel to its fullest.

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t really understand how what I said is a sad coincidence. The Church teaches that the faithful are free to believe or not believe private revelations. Fatima falls under the category of private revelation; thus we are free to believe it or ignore it.

I’ve personally been there (and was not too impressed) as well as to Lourdes (and was very impressed). In my childhood I had a strong devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, and spent a good deal of time reading the story of her appearance to the three children. I’ve gazed upon the tombs of Jacinta and Francisco, as well as on the shrub over which our Lady appeared. I won’t condemn anyone who decides to go on pilgrimage to Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc., so long as the apparitions are approved. But we must all remember that these apparitions are private revelations. What we should be focusing on is living the Gospel to its fullest.

Perhaps you don’t see it as sad due to your stronger connection to Lourds. I was born on the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, I’ve always been far more connected to it, more so even than Lourds or Guatalupe (though due to a lack of choice, I do have a Guatalupe Scapular).

Your correct about these apperitions being private revelation, but as their status is “Worthy of belief” I think this offers some importance. No, not so much as public revelation (deposit of faith), but great importance none-the-less. The Church is telling us God had something to say at Fatima, Lourds, Guatalupe… Isn’t that worth investigating?

Thus I feel it’s sad that these apperitions are so casually dismissed by many. Certainly not understood or researched at all.

 

[dcointin]

I read the article by Miriam Lambouras, and her conclusions seem to be heavily influenced by her antagonism toward the Catholic Church. For example, toward the end she writes: “With the exception of Zeitoun, the apparitions have all appeared within a church which has pushed the God-man back into heaven and appointed a man as His infallible vicar on earth, a man whose position and power are reinforced and extended by these visions.” Her approach is what I call the “machine gun” method of argument, to give as many arguments as possible in the hopes that at least one of them will be convincing. She argues against the apparitions on the basis of psychological delusion, pagan goddess worship, politican intrigue, natural phenomena, satanic illusions, etc. Much of her argument strikes me as very similar to those of atheist skeptics against any religious miracles, while ignoring the similarity of apparitions to events in Orthodox history. For example, there are Orthoodx visitations of the Theotokos to many saints, outdoor shrines, miracle working icons, etc., and she fails to see the essential similarity to Catholic occurances. What particularly shocked me was her suggestion that the apparitions may be preparations for the Anti-Christ! I don’t think it’s a coincidence that she’s a covert from Protestantism, many of whom carry their anti-Catholic biases with them into Orthodoxy. I would personally not recommend this as an Orthodox response to the question.

 

[trophybearer]

Perhaps you don’t see it as sad due to your stronger connection to Lourds. I was born on the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, I’ve always been far more connected to it, more so even than Lourds or Guatalupe (though due to a lack of choice, I do have a Guatalupe Scapular).

Your correct about these apperitions being private revelation, but as their status is “Worthy of belief” I think this offers some importance. No, not so much as public revelation (deposit of faith), but great importance none-the-less. The Church is telling us God had something to say at Fatima, Lourds, Guatalupe… Isn’t that worth investigating?

Thus I feel it’s sad that these apperitions are so casually dismissed by many. Certainly not understood or researched at all.

You find it sad because you believe in it. No one is obligated to believe in it, so those who don’t probably find it sad to see so msny people wasting their time. What investigation are you proposing? They’ve been investigated already. If you think a person can’t read about and investigate these apparitions 'til their eyes pop out and walk away not believing them then you are just wrong. I have, and I know others who have.

You believe in them, others dismiss them either casually or after thorough examination… that’s life.

 

[trophybearer]

I read the article by Miriam Lambouras, and her conclusions seem to be heavily influenced by her antagonism toward the Catholic Church. For example, toward the end she writes: “With the exception of Zeitoun, the apparitions have all appeared within a church which has pushed the God-man back into heaven and appointed a man as His infallible vicar on earth, a man whose position and power are reinforced and extended by these visions.” Her approach is what I call the “machine gun” method of argument, to give as many arguments as possible in the hopes that at least one of them will be convincing. She argues against the apparitions on the basis of psychological delusion, pagan goddess worship, politican intrigue, natural phenomena, satanic illusions, etc. Much of her argument strikes me as very similar to those of atheist skeptics against any religious miracles, while ignoring the similarity of apparitions to events in Orthodox history. For example, there are Orthoodx visitations of the Theotokos to many saints, outdoor shrines, miracle working icons, etc., and she fails to see the essential similarity to Catholic occurances. What particularly shocked me was her suggestion that the apparitions may be preparations for the Anti-Christ! I don’t think it’s a coincidence that she’s a covert from Protestantism, many of whom carry their anti-Catholic biases with them into Orthodoxy. I would personally not recommend this as an Orthodox response to the question.

It has nothing to do with Protestantism, so you can get that out of your head right away. Accepted apparitions in Orthodoxy generally don’t talk and talk and give secret messages and cause division. Even the devil can appear as an angel of light. Being eager to accept apparitions, especially ones that behave like Fatima and Lourdes can easily lead to demonic delusion. Miraculous icons and the appearance of saints etc are nothing at all like what supposedly went on at Fatima.

 

[dcointin]

It has nothing to do with Protestantism, so you can get that out of your head right away. Accepted apparitions in Orthodoxy generally don’t talk and talk and give secret messages and cause division. Even the devil can appear as an angel of light. Being eager to accept apparitions, especially ones that behave like Fatima and Lourdes can easily lead to demonic delusion. Miraculous icons and the appearance of saints etc are nothing at all like what supposedly went on at Fatima.

I can’t help but notice the similarities between the article I talked about and radical Protestant apologists, and given that she was a Protestant before becoming Orthodox, that’s not a difficult conclusion to come to. It frankly reads like a “Benny Hinn” tract.

I’m not approving of Fatima, I’m just pointing out the problems in her treatment of Catholic apparitions.

 

[Vico]

… I was born on the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, I’ve always been far more connected to it, more so even than Lourds or Guatalupe (though due to a lack of choice, I do have a Guatalupe Scapular)…

I was born on the feast of Our Lady or Lourdes. It is however, that same Lady.

 

[ChadS]

I read the article by Miriam Lambouras, and her conclusions seem to be heavily influenced by her antagonism toward the Catholic Church. For example, toward the end she writes: “With the exception of Zeitoun, the apparitions have all appeared within a church which has pushed the God-man back into heaven and appointed a man as His infallible vicar on earth, a man whose position and power are reinforced and extended by these visions.” Her approach is what I call the “machine gun” method of argument, to give as many arguments as possible in the hopes that at least one of them will be convincing. She argues against the apparitions on the basis of psychological delusion, pagan goddess worship, politican intrigue, natural phenomena, satanic illusions, etc. Much of her argument strikes me as very similar to those of atheist skeptics against any religious miracles, while ignoring the similarity of apparitions to events in Orthodox history. For example, there are Orthoodx visitations of the Theotokos to many saints, outdoor shrines, miracle working icons, etc., and she fails to see the essential similarity to Catholic occurances. What particularly shocked me was her suggestion that the apparitions may be preparations for the Anti-Christ! I don’t think it’s a coincidence that she’s a covert from Protestantism, many of whom carry their anti-Catholic biases with them into Orthodoxy. I would personally not recommend this as an Orthodox response to the question.

I think you may be onto something here with this. I thought it some what odd in the beginning of the article she mentions approvingly of Our Lady of Walsingham, since in her opinion, it pointed people directly to her Son. What I thought odd is that she seemed to have been lumping Walsingham, which is just a shrine, along with all the other apparition sites. So, I’m not sure if she saw a distinction or understood the distinction or if the article was a general way to attack particularly Catholic forms of devotion as opposed to the Orhtodox forms.

ChadS

 

[crazzeto]

I was born on the feast of Our Lady or Lourdes. It is however, that same Lady.

Yes, it most certainly is… However the feasts are so named because they celebrate a particular visitation of Our Lady… This is why we bother saying “Our Lady of…” at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure belief even comes in to play. When we start investigating apparitions specifically such as Fatima or Zeitoun Egypt. Its pretty hard to discount what thousands have had to say. Especially when we are now talking those of all religions, Islam, no religion and extreme atheists. There then becomes a seperation of belief and factual knowledge. The Apparitions really happened, the Miracles really happen. They were not just confirmed by the pope they were witnessed by many non believers of Christ, who all seem to be in agreement of the appearence of the Holy Mother.

How else would you explain this and your non-belief?

I came upon these situation skeptical yet with an open mind, I can’t conclude anything else but their reality. But then again I truly also believe in the Trinity and the Coronation/Queen of Heaven and don’t merely sit on the fence of debate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

BTW the idea satan appearing as a apparition of the Blessed Mother to convert sinners, draw non-believers to God, and heal people of Blindness, Sickness and Polio really makes no sense. What would be the purpose of that? Sort of contradicts what satan is about, and does. Can real evil disquise itself as greatness? I’m sure it does all the time through musicians, athletes, politicians, orators etc. But I never once have I heard of one of these pretending to be the Blessed Mother? And verbalize and showing hell and evil? Talking conversion, the greater good, turing away from evil and finding God, Penance. Just doesn’t seem to wash with an actual presence of evil.

If one, just one of those individuals from Egypt came forward and made any mention of satan and some sort of ultimate goal, then even then the very doubt could be raised. But that also hasn’t happened to anyones knowledge.

I also believe that denying the existence of the Blessed Mothers apparitions, and the very message which all her apparitions preach, doesn’t move the world towards world peace, and the ulitmate goal of heaven. Which is all I have ever heard from any of her messages. A constant call for awareness of sin growing in the world, man turning away from Jesus Christ/God, and the ultimate outcome of these actions, which is much suffering in this world, and thus calamity. Pretty much seems to be the path/course we are on.

Also anything which tends to move Christology towards the greater good of togetherness, I would be very skeptical to dismiss. Without a doubt a combined faith of christians is desperatly needed in the world. And as real evil, and other aspects of evil such as islam grow, this reality becomes more and more evident. Without a doubt the world is on a path of destruction, and to be rooted in christian faith to any degree, then the solution should be apparent. Redeem through Christ and Pray from lost souls. The more unified we become as a faith, the better chance this reality has.

To create any more division within the christain faith is surely the work of satan, with his divide and conquer thinking.

God Bless, GT

 

[StevenDunn]

I’m a Latin Rite Catholic convert from atheism( about 3.5 years now ) and after a brief interest in Marian apparitions I concluded they contributed nothing to my faith. I’m Catholic, so I already believe in the miraculous and the unique status of the Mother of God. But what does she say? Pray, fast, repent, receive the sacraments. Well, obviously, right? I don’t need an apparition to tell me that. Maybe some people do, I don’t know.

Yet I can’t help but be disturbed that people become fascinated about the apparitions themselves when the apparitions’ focus is Christian repentance. If, say, Fatima is real, then the point of the message, that we return to Christ, is the important thing. Yet I find people obsessing over saying the Fatima prayer or learning about the notorious third secret. I think these apparitions, generally, lead people further from God than simply praying, fasting and receiving the sacraments without supernatural fanfare.

Then again, I’m just a sinner with a plank in my own eye.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m a Latin Rite Catholic convert from atheism( about 3.5 years now ) and after a brief interest in Marian apparitions I concluded they contributed nothing to my faith. I’m Catholic, so I already believe in the miraculous and the unique status of the Mother of God. But what does she say? Pray, fast, repent, receive the sacraments. Well, obviously, right? I don’t need an apparition to tell me that. Maybe some people do, I don’t know.

Yet I can’t help but be disturbed that people become fascinated about the apparitions themselves when the apparitions’ focus is Christian repentance. If, say, Fatima is real, then the point of the message, that we return to Christ, is the important thing. Yet I find people obsessing over saying the Fatima prayer or learning about the notorious third secret. I think these apparitions, generally, lead people further from God than simply praying, fasting and receiving the sacraments without supernatural fanfare.

Then again, I’m just a sinner with a plank in my own eye.

Apperitions and miricles (such as Eucharistic miricles) are more for those who’s faith has been weaked due to some circomstance. In Fatima there was a secular government trying to stamp out the Church ah-la Russia. Fatima helped prevent this at that time, more over it warned us about WWII as well as one last prophesy which the current pontiff does not beleive has yet been fulfilled.

 

[notredame_999]

I’m a Latin Rite Catholic convert from atheism( about 3.5 years now ) and after a brief interest in Marian apparitions I concluded they contributed nothing to my faith. I’m Catholic, so I already believe in the miraculous and the unique status of the Mother of God. But what does she say? Pray, fast, repent, receive the sacraments. Well, obviously, right? I don’t need an apparition to tell me that. Maybe some people do, I don’t know.

Yet I can’t help but be disturbed that people become fascinated about the apparitions themselves when the apparitions’ focus is Christian repentance. If, say, Fatima is real, then the point of the message, that we return to Christ, is the important thing. Yet I find people obsessing over saying the Fatima prayer or learning about the notorious third secret. I think these apparitions, generally, lead people further from God than simply praying, fasting and receiving the sacraments without supernatural fanfare.

Then again, I’m just a sinner with a plank in my own eye.

Respectfully couldn’t disagree more. The Marian apparitions do a number of things:

1. Confirm that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ.
2. Recognize the existence of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory- Basic Catholic dogmas.
3. Emphasize the need for frequent confession and communion. Why would a devil encourage confession which is a sacrament of humility?
4. Confirm the concept of an immaculate conception, Mary the Mother of God as the Queen of Peace. Most protestants, orthodox, and liberal catholics don’t understand that this title was not of her choosing but rather God. Its not like Mary is some rogue mother in heaven competing with her son, rather she was crowned by her son.
5. By Mary revealing herself mostly to children, Christ shows us again we must believe in him like a child- with all innocence and sincerity.

 

[crazzeto]

Respectfully couldn’t disagree more. The Marian apparitions do a number of things:

1. Confirm that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ.
2. Recognize the existence of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory- Basic Catholic dogmas.
3. Emphasize the need for frequent confession and communion. Why would a devil encourage confession which is a sacrament of humility?
4. Confirm the concept of an immaculate conception, Mary the Mother of God as the Queen of Peace. Most protestants, orthodox, and liberal catholics don’t understand that this title was not of her choosing but rather God. Its not like Mary is some rogue mother in heaven competing with her son, rather she was crowned by her son.
5. By Mary revealing herself mostly to children, Christ shows us again we must believe in him like a child- with all innocence and sincerity.

I think what Steve is pointing out that one can derive this based upon the strength of your own faith in Christ and his Bride. For him, he doesn’t need the apperitions to teach these truths. I would submit, the prophisies they contain are still useful regardless, but he is free not to integrate the teachings into his life.

That said, it will be dificult to do so. For instance when you receive a rosary as penance you are integrating a Marian apperition into your faith life.

 

[Stylites]

The Vatican approved list, from my research:
1 Guadalupe, Mexico (1531)
2 Quito, Ecuador (1594)
**3 Siluva, Lithuania (1608) **
4 Laus, France (1664)
5 Rue du Bac, Paris, France (1830)
6 Rome, Italy (1842)
7 La Salette, France (1846)
8 Lourdes, France (1858)
9 Pontmain, France (1871)
10 Gietrzwald, Poland (1877)
11 Knock, Ireland (1879)
12 Naples, Italy (1884)
13 Castelpetroso, Italy (1888)
14 Fatima, Portugal (1917)
15 Beauraing, Belgium (1932)
16 Banneux, Belgium (1933)
17 Kibeho, Rwanda (1981)

You didn’t include the Marian apparition site (circa 1550) which receives the most pilgrims each year: Vailankanni, India.

 

[ChadS]

For instance when you receive a rosary as penance you are integrating a Marian apperition into your faith life.

Not quite, not many people believe that the rosary was given to St. Dominic wholly formed the way we know it now. Scholarship and historical research shows that the rosary has been around in one form for another for centuries prior to St. Dominic. This doesn’t lessen the power of the prayer though. The Dominicans helped to popularize and spread its devotion, its shown great power like at the Battle of Lepanto and the Church has indulgenced the prayer heavily, many encyclicals and letters have been written by the Popes about it. So yes it is a mighty spiritual weapon but it does not have its origins in an apparition.

ChadS

 

[crazzeto]

Not quite, not many people believe that the rosary was given to St. Dominic wholly formed the way we know it now. Scholarship and historical research shows that the rosary has been around in one form for another for centuries prior to St. Dominic. This doesn’t lessen the power of the prayer though. The Dominicans helped to popularize and spread its devotion, its shown great power like at the Battle of Lepanto and the Church has indulgenced the prayer heavily, many encyclicals and letters have been written by the Popes about it. So yes it is a mighty spiritual weapon but it does not have its origins in an apparition.

ChadS

I’m well aware of the development of the Psalster, and even the relationship it has to the Rosary. The Church teaches that the Rosary was given to St. Dominc however, and it is in this spirit that Father will ask you to pray the rosary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I hear what you saying. And God Bless you, I think its fantastic you found Jesus Christ. And I don’t disagee with the idea, or reality is a better word, that you without a doubt can become deeply rooted in faith without the apparitions.

I see things slightly different due to my own experiences in life. Yet what brings one follower to God, or the next, very well may be completely different. Nothing right or wrong about it, it just is.

I’m a skeptical person by nature, so as far just looking at all the apparitions? I have reservations about some I suppose like anyone. I look at Medijugorie and whats been going there the past four years, and I find it a much more difficult to fully accept. Yet I’ve studied Fatima and Cairio Egypt Zeitoun and get a very different feeling about it. I not only believe it, I feel it. And a few of the others I also do.

Many of the apparitions happened very different also. Well, I’m sure you already know some are private revelations, others are very public and witnessed by thousands, and a few coincide with miracles as well as the apparitions.

As far as pin pointing when and of what year they refer to, etc. Thats a totally different thought. Though its hard to disagee with the situation on earth being tragic today.

Yet I have family, matter of fact my mother went to medijugorie and was deeply moved by the experienece there. I haven’t been there. Maybe if I had went I would feel differently I can’t honestly say.

I tend to follow my own feeling with these though. I was just reading about the apparitions of Our Lady of the USA in Indiana from the mid-50’s. Now for some reason I find those very believeable. While I feel that way about Indiana, and have trouble with others, I don’t know. But when your inner voice is telling you something, you have to listen also.

Yet my over all impression has been favorable and they have as a whole increased my awareness of the Blessed Mothers significance today. I was praying the rosary daily before I studied the apparitions. Yet I still believe they have only served to confirm my better thinking.

What do you think/feel about Medijugrie and the private revelations coming to those specific few women in from of the following?