Fatima miracle of the sun?

[nobody]

This thread reminds me of:

“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” --Albert Einstein

and

“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” – Albert Einstein

God is the ultimate artist, conducting this symphony of nature. --nobody

 

[Churchmouse]

churchmouse

• I wasn’t aware that this occurrence happened recently.*

I know many people who have witnessed the miracle of the sun in the last twenty years. The miracle of the sun was witnessed by some of my friends after a Marian conference that our prayer group hosted. There were Jehovah Witness staying in the hotel next to the conference center where the Marian conference was held, and some JWs saw the miracle of the sun as they were standing on the sidewalk outside of the conference center. I think it was the JW’s that first saw the miracle of the sun and pointed it out to the Catholics that happened to be standing outside the conference center.

Well, at least it’s clarified that we weren’t speaking about the same thing. I had envisioned you as some ancient dude, somewhere about the age of Sr. Lucia

• These miracles didn’t leave room for skepticism. The fact that our one sun didn’t react on a global level does and that is the difference.*

The fact that the miracle of the sun is a localized phenomena shows that it is not a natural phenomena.

Yes, but the fact that it was localized and happening within the eyes of a selected group, doesn’t mean that our “sun” appeared to be dancing or falling from the sky. Fact is, nothing happened to the sun, but only in the eyes of those who claim they saw this vision.

Are you saying that you didn’t see anything and the man did? I don’t really see this as unusual.

When I looked into the sky I saw nothing but the sun. But the man I was standing right next to was looking at the sun and describing to me things that I could not see. Later that day many othe people saw the miracle of the sun. I was there next to those people too, and I saw nothing but the normal sun in the sky. People were crying with joy that saw the miracle of the sun.

I don’t see how you can say that nothing unusual is happening when a man can stare directly into the sun for an hour and not have his retinas permanently damaged!

But men have walked on fiery coals without blistering and laid under massive weights atop beds of nails without piercing. Under extreme duress, 90 lb. women have lifted cars off their loved ones. Under trance-like conditions, I believe a man can stare at the sun for long periods without any damage whatsoever. However, this miracle didn’t really involve our sun, the mass of heated gases which is the center of our solar system, but rather, it involves a vision which a few people claim they saw. If this is the same thing that happened in Fatima, I can see why the RCC steers clear of imposing any belief in this.

Peace,
CM

 

[nobody]

churchmouse, the natural phenomenon I’m talking about is the volcanic ash theory BayCityRick described.

 

[Churchmouse]

nobody:

This thread reminds me of:

“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” --Albert Einstein

and

“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” – Albert Einstein

Hey nobody,

Those are two great quotes. It’s like Scripture states:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1)

but Scripture also states:

"Prove all things, hold fast to the good " (1Th 5:21).

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

CM

• Fact is, nothing happened to the sun, but only in the eyes of those who claim they saw this vision.*

When Peter spoke after Pentecost, everyone that was listening to Peter preach heard him in his own language. That was a miracle. The physical sound waves that were emanating from Peter’s mouth were not being perceived the same way by everyone.

The miracle of the sun is the same thing – the light waves from the Sun are not perceived in the normal way.

• Under trance-like conditions, I believe a man can stare at the sun for long periods without any damage whatsoever.*

You might believe that is true, but that doesn’t make it true. There are chemical reactions that light rays activate in the retina. These reactions obey the laws of physics, and unless one is supernaturally protected, the chemical reactions caused by staring into direct sunlight will damage the retina. A man in a trance can still can hurt if he is sleepwalking.

• However, this miracle didn’t really involve our sun, the mass of heated gases which is the center of our solar system, but rather, it involves a vision which a few people claim they saw.*

What do you mean? Did the miracle of the boy you saw healed not involve the suspending of the laws of nature?

 

[Churchmouse]

CM

• Fact is, nothing happened to the sun, but only in the eyes of those who claim they saw this vision.*

When Peter spoke after Pentecost, everyone that was listening to Peter preach heard him in his own language. That was a miracle. The physical sound waves that were emanating from Peter’s mouth were not being perceived the same way by everyone.

The miracle of the sun is the same thing – the light waves from the Sun are not perceived in the normal way.

This is not the same thing, Matt. The fact that folks heard Peter in their own language preaching the message of the gospel isn’t comparable. The fact is “everyone” there heard Peter, including those who understood Peter’s plain dialect. This vision doesn’t compare.

• Under trance-like conditions, I believe a man can stare at the sun for long periods without any damage whatsoever.*

You might believe that is true, but that doesn’t make it true. There are chemical reactions that light rays activate in the retina. These reactions obey the laws of physics, and unless one is supernaturally protected, the chemical reactions caused by staring into direct sunlight will damage the retina. A man in a trance can still can hurt if he is sleepwalking.

I don’t have to tell you that stranger things have happened. The laws of physics tells you that a 90 lb. woman cannot lift a two ton truck, but it happens. The laws of physics tells you that fire burns things, but men have walked on fire without suffering a singe. Considerng this, I would not be surprised to see a man looking at the sun for longer times than mere physics can allow.

However, this miracle didn’t really involve our sun, the mass of heated gases which is the center of our solar system, but rather, it involves a vision which a few people claim they saw.

What do you mean? Did the miracle of the boy you saw healed not involve the suspending of the laws of nature?

We’re speaking past each other again, Matt. I don’t doubt that miracles exist and I have seen a few, not just this one. But in every instance of miracles within Scripture and in those I’ve seen, it never involved a universally common object–the sun. Either the sun reacted in an unnatural way on this day in 1917, thus bringing credence to a very strange happening or many people saw something which others couldn’t see, thus bringing skepticism as to what actually happened. Yet, the reality remains–the sun wasn’t effected at all.

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

cm

This is not the same thing, Matt. The fact that folks heard Peter in their own language preaching the message of the gospel isn’t comparable. The fact is “everyone” there heard Peter, including those who understood Peter’s plain dialect. This vision doesn’t compare.

Some miracles are greater than others. The miracle of hearing Peter speak in many different tounges is a great miracle because it brought the message of salvation to those who experienced the miracle. The miracle of the sun affirmed that the message of Lady of Fatima needed to be taken seriously. Fatima brought no new revelation of God to man, it merely affirmed the existing revelation of God. The miracle of the sun was a lesser miracle than the miracle of hearing Peter speak in various languages.

• The laws of physics tells you that fire burns things, but men have walked on fire without suffering a singe.*

Scriptures condemn fire walking. You seem to be trying to make a case that the miracle of the sun is diabolical phenomena. You should be careful in saying what could be a miracle of the Holy Spirit is actually a diabolical deception.

• But in every instance of miracles within Scripture and in those I’ve seen, it never involved a universally common object–the sun.*

The miracle of the sun standing still for Joshua has already been mentioned. Did everyone in the world on that day experience that phenomenon as Joshua did, or was this a localized miracle involving the sun?

 

[Matt22]

Dear Churchmouse,

I would like to commend you for replying to most attacks against your position. It is hard to be in the hot seat, and I think you deserve a big round of applause.

Skepticism is healthy. “To believe with certainty, we must begin with doubting.” (Stanislaus I) But, you should not doubt everything that people relate to you. If you continue down that road, you may soon find that you have publicly stated disbelief in something you actually believe.

For example, any Catholic commentator could have said that they doubted your healing story of the boy who fell from the window. I remain skeptical, but I do not doubt you. I believe in the goodness of God, and I do not doubt in His abilities. I believe that God can and does act through our separated brethren. There is no reason to disbelieve; afterall, a man cast out demons in Jesus’ name in the Gospels, and yet he was not a disciple.

Many commentators in this forum have presented eyewitness accounts of Fatima, some 70 000 in number, some of which were atheists. Again, you can be skeptical, but not doubtful. To doubt would be to doubt in the goodness of God, that He should will a miracle for the good of those who observed and heard. Such doubting is a sin against the Holy Spirit; to consider as evil what is actually the hand of God.

Being doubtful and critical of everything may also lead you to be hypocritcal. Afterall, you (and Catholics as well) pose for belief the OT story of Joshua’s conquest against the Amorites (Jos. 10). We are told that the sun stood still for a whole day. Two explanations of this passage are posed by biblical scholars: a miraculous lengthening of the day or a miraculous cloud cover which prevented the enemy from rallying their forces. We believe either explanation by faith, yet a non-Christian may argue that the lack of worldwide eyewitness to a lengthening of the day (or a phenomenal clouding of the sun) is reason for disbelief. They are correct, of course, if mass hysteria of the Israelites is admitted as scientifically possible.

Again, if mass hysteria of 70 000 people is scientifically possible, then the eyewitness accounts of Christ’s Resurrection are placed in a doubtful light. Their eyewitness is the very basis of our hope. So, by using your own argument the athiest can easily disqualify the eyewitness of 150 disciples in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Be careful, my friend, lest you find yourself doubtful of what is truly God’s hand in this world.

 

[Pax]

Churchmouse,

In spite your many keystrokes throughout this thread, you have never been able to asail the veracity of the approximately 70,000 eyewitnesses at Fatima. Nor have you been able to refute the arguments about a localized miracle versus a global viewing. While your thinking is logical from natural assumptions it neverthess fails the necessary tests to refute the occurence of the miracle.

You simply do not wish to believe it, and that is certainly your perogative. The one thing that you have not managed to do, and apparently cannot do, is provide a refutation. It simply isn’t there. The miracle either happened as described, or it did not happen. The fact of the miracle in no way has to follow any prescribed natural set of events. The nature of miracles is such that they do not follow the natural, and that is precisely what makes them supernatural.

If you can come up with a logical refutation that proves that the eyewitnesses are unreliable then please provide it. Interestingly enough, no one has ever provided such a refutation and you have yet to do so. Admittedly, miracles are difficult to believe, and they become more so the more adamant we are in our preconceived ideas about how God should operate. This is presumptuous at best.

 

[Matt22]

Churchmouse,

In talking about Joshua 10, you said that the lack of worldwide evidence to a lengthening of the day may be evidence that the passage isn’t literal.

Churchmouse:

Sure, but the lack of evidence could be evidence that the passage isn’t literal.

Isn’t literal? If you mean that the language could be symbolic, I’ll give you that. Afterall, we say that it’s “raining cats and dogs.” Our literal meaning is that it’s raining hard, yet we’re saying it symbolically.

We must contend that the writer of Joshua meant to say something, and not just willy-nilly wrote that the sun stood still. Literally, he meant something happened that was miraculous. What you’re contending, therefore, is that the passage uses language which has escaped our current conception of things. One possible scenario is, as I have mentioned, a miraculous cloud covering which stopped the enemy from rallying their forces.

Whatever befell, we believe it to be true because we believe in the testimony of the Bible. Yet I believe in the testimony of the Bible because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church to declare an infallible canon of Scripture. I therefore must also believe in the infallible Church’s ability to declare a miracle as worthy of belief or not. I reject Sola Scriptura as an unbiblical tradition of men. (See Karl Keating’s “Proving Inspriation” tract). What is ultimately at question here is the Catholic Church’s authority vs. Martin Luther’s self-proclaimed authority as prophet (see Dave Armstrong’s article “Martin Luther the ‘Super-Pope,’ de facto infallibility, and Protestant Tradition” ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ171.HTM).

I readily admit to you that I am a Catholic, not because a good Pentecostal “worship service” doesn’t move my heart (it does), nor because I don’t enjoy the lengthy sermons of many Protestant pastors (I do), nor because I’m happy that the Catholic Church offers little for me to join as a young adult (I’m not). I desire all of these things to penetrate Catholic lifestyle. I am Catholic, not because I have devotion to Mary or lay faith in any apparition–I mainly ignore them. I am a Catholic because I cannot compromise my belief in the Holy Eucharist (Jn 6), my belief in the biblical teaching of Scripture plus Tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15), my belief in Church authority (Matt. 16:17-19; 18:17-18), etc. I am a Catholic because my intellect has no other choice. I have found all things Catholic to be above reproach, and for that reason I have laid my faith in Christ and His Church.

Peace of Christ,
Matt:thumbsup:

 

[Churchmouse]

cmSome miracles are greater than others. The miracle of hearing Peter speak in many different tounges is a great miracle because it brought the message of salvation to those who experienced the miracle. The miracle of the sun affirmed that the message of Lady of Fatima needed to be taken seriously. Fatima brought no new revelation of God to man, it merely affirmed the existing revelation of God. The miracle of the sun was a lesser miracle than the miracle of hearing Peter speak in various languages.

Well, once again, the fact that all heard Peter in their native tongues isn’t comparable to people who see a dancing sun when, in reality, the sun isn’t doing anything. The former–all men hear Peter in their native languages and thus brings faith. The latter–some folks see something that others don’t see and thus brings skepticism.

Scriptures condemn fire walking. You seem to be trying to make a case that the miracle of the sun is diabolical phenomena. You should be careful in saying what could be a miracle of the Holy Spirit is actually a diabolical deception.

Wrong. The scribes said that Jesus had an unclean spirit (Mat. 3:30) and that He did miracles through them (vs.22). They blasphemed by implying that the Holy Spirit was a demon. Scripture commands us to “Prove all things; hold fast to the good” (1Th 5:21). We are not commanded to ignore things just because it seems good. After all, Satan himself can transform into an “angel of light” (2Co. 11:14). Sorry, the jury’s still out on this one.

The miracle of the sun standing still for Joshua has already been mentioned. Did everyone in the world on that day experience that phenomenon as Joshua did, or was this a localized miracle involving the sun?

Let’s assume that this passage is completely literal, not poetical or prose, and that the *sun and the moon standing still * isn’t a metaphor for “daylight” (which would be more believable IMHO). You still can’t get by the fact that everyone present would have seen this phenomena and not just a selected group. I’ll go further and say that if God stopped the sun than He stopped the sun, thus parts of the world would have experienced a “white night.” Again, the account doesn’t say more than it has to and we can only assume what is going on.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Pax:

Churchmouse,

In spite your many keystrokes throughout this thread, you have never been able to asail the veracity of the approximately 70,000 eyewitnesses at Fatima. Nor have you been able to refute the arguments about a localized miracle versus a global viewing. While your thinking is logical from natural assumptions it neverthess fails the necessary tests to refute the occurence of the miracle.

As far as the “70,000” goes, where can I find the documentation that “70,000” actually saw this happen? I see this number repeatedly, but no one here has provided the info. Plus, I remember reading a long time ago that less than half actually reported seeing the sun dance and fall and that there are discrepancies in the accounts of those who saw it.

You simply do not wish to believe it, and that is certainly your perogative. The one thing that you have not managed to do, and apparently cannot do, is provide a refutation. It simply isn’t there. The miracle either happened as described, or it did not happen. The fact of the miracle in no way has to follow any prescribed natural set of events. The nature of miracles is such that they do not follow the natural, and that is precisely what makes them supernatural.

I don’t see why I would have to refute a phenomena that seems to refute itself, much less one that attempts to lend credence to a theology I don’t hold (that would be your burden, not mine), but it isn’t that I choose not to believe it, it comes in my understanding that not all supernatural phenomena is of God, even those which claim they are. Scripture shows that the supernatural isn’t all from “God” and you see this in Scripture from the magicians in Moses’ day to the magician (Simon) in Apostolic times. I believe in deception and that the majority of deception comes in subtler forms as evidence in Eden. This goes deeper then the mere “the lady spoke about God therefore it must be from God” argument that I get from many Catholics here and elsewhere. If Satan can transform into an “angel of light” thus providing something which seems good, than we must be “wise as serpents” in the midst of wolves. You seem to be one who wants to believe it because it supports your theological view, thus you accept the miracle. I, on the other hand do not hold to these views and see the account as skewed from start to finish.

If you can come up with a logical refutation that proves that the eyewitnesses are unreliable then please provide it. Interestingly enough, no one has ever provided such a refutation and you have yet to do so. Admittedly, miracles are difficult to believe, and they become more so the more adamant we are in our preconceived ideas about how God should operate. This is presumptuous at best.

Again, I don’t see this as my argument to refute. First there has to be a basis and the assumption is that “70,000” saw it and that they were all “reliable.” That, dear sir, is presumption. Yet it must be proven before a refutation can take place. Unfortunately, you don’t know these folks and cannot vouch for their integrity, thus you wouldn’t be able to provide a basis for your argument. On the other hand, I’ve already had my say regarding the sun and the fact that it neither danced or fell that day in 1917. There are no scientific records showing that the sun reacted in any strange way that day, locally or globally.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Matt22:

Churchmouse,

In talking about Joshua 10, you said that the lack of worldwide evidence to a lengthening of the day may be evidence that the passage isn’t literal.
Isn’t literal? If you mean that the language could be symbolic, I’ll give you that. Afterall, we say that it’s “raining cats and dogs.” Our literal meaning is that it’s raining hard, yet we’re saying it symbolically.

Hi Matt,

What I meant was metaphor for “daylight.” I have no problem believing that God contained the daylight for 24 hours so these men could continue fighting. Yet, although this event was localized, all these men could see clearly that the daylight was still as opposed to an alleged 70,000 “reliable” witnesses claiming to see the sun do something the *physical * sun didn’t do.

We must contend that the writer of Joshua meant to say something, and not just willy-nilly wrote that the sun stood still. Literally, he meant something happened that was miraculous. What you’re contending, therefore, is that the passage uses language which has escaped our current conception of things. One possible scenario is, as I have mentioned, a miraculous cloud covering which stopped the enemy from rallying their forces.

Seems logical.

Whatever befell, we believe it to be true because we believe in the testimony of the Bible. Yet I believe in the testimony of the Bible because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church to declare an infallible canon of Scripture. I therefore must also believe in the infallible Church’s ability to declare a miracle as worthy of belief or not. I reject Sola Scriptura as an unbiblical tradition of men. (See Karl Keating’s “Proving Inspriation” tract). What is ultimately at question here is the Catholic Church’s authority vs. Martin Luther’s self-proclaimed authority as prophet (see Dave Armstrong’s article “Martin Luther the ‘Super-Pope,’ de facto infallibility, and Protestant Tradition” ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ171.HTM).

Well, obviously, I would contend different because I do not hold to the tenets you do. You introduce a variety of subjects that really have nothing to do with this one, except for the reasons why you uphold them.

I readily admit to you that I am a Catholic, not because a good Pentecostal “worship service” doesn’t move my heart (it does), nor because I don’t enjoy the lengthy sermons of many Protestant pastors (I do), nor because I’m happy that the Catholic Church offers little for me to join as a young adult (I’m not). I desire all of these things to penetrate Catholic lifestyle. I am Catholic, not because I have devotion to Mary or lay faith in any apparition–I mainly ignore them. I am a Catholic because I cannot compromise my belief in the Holy Eucharist (Jn 6), my belief in the biblical teaching of Scripture plus Tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15), my belief in Church authority (Matt. 16:17-19; 18:17-18), etc. I am a Catholic because my intellect has no other choice. I have found all things Catholic to be above reproach, and for that reason I have laid my faith in Christ and His Church.

Peace of Christ,
Matt:thumbsup:

Well, that’s why you’re a Catholic

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

churchmouse

• Let’s assume that this passage is completely literal, not poetical or prose, and that the sun and the moon standing still isn’t a metaphor for “daylight” (which would be more believable IMHO). You still can’t get by the fact that everyone present would have seen this phenomena and not just a selected group.*

I have already told you that I have stood next to people that were witnessing the miracle of the sun, while I saw nothing supernatural, or even out of the ordinary, happening to the sun. So I can easily “get by” what you are claiming is impossible. I know from actual experience that what you are claiming is impossible is indeed not only possible, but has happened.

But let me put my finger on what I believe is the real problem that you have with Fatima. You have already stated that you believe that miracles can occur, and have offered your witness to a rather spectacular miraculous healing. A disbelief in miracles isn’t what bothers you. You are a fundamentalist Protestant, and I think it bothers you that God would grant a miracle to give veracity to an apparition involving Mary. It is the Mary connection that really bothers you. You have a psychological need to dismiss this miracle because of your fundamentalist upbringing. The witness of thousands of people must be dismissed as a freak natural occurrence, mass hysteria, or even diabolical phenomena. But you should be careful when you assert that what could be a miracle of the Holy Spirit is really the deception of Satan. For your own sake, you should show prudence instead of making rash judgements.

 

[JohnCarroll]

When i first heard of the Miracle, I never thought the Sun actually fell but that the people SAW it fall. There are probably several ways to do this if you are God. A deformation of the atmosphere creating a lensing effect could cause the sun to move all over the place.( I once saw a car driving in the sky at night because of something like this.Very strange but very normal ) If this was a lens caused by dry air against moist air it might dry their clothes. A lens also can cause rainbow effects-- and a real rainbow come to think of it. As C.S. Lewis pointed out , all Gods miracles are a speeding up of slowing down of what He does all the time. God turns water into wine all the time --He just does it very slowly.

 

[Churchmouse]

churchmouse

• Let’s assume that this passage is completely literal, not poetical or prose, and that the sun and the moon standing still isn’t a metaphor for “daylight” (which would be more believable IMHO). You still can’t get by the fact that everyone present would have seen this phenomena and not just a selected group.*

I have already told you that I have stood next to people that were witnessing the miracle of the sun, while I saw nothing supernatural, or even out of the ordinary, happening to the sun. So I can easily “get by” what you are claiming is impossible. I know from actual experience that what you are claiming is impossible is indeed not only possible, but has happened.

Yes, you did, but you’re not really reading what I’m stating. There was no miracle of the sun because our sun wasn’t dancing or falling. Instead, a bunch of folks looking for some sign, saw something within their own minds. That’s why you saw nothing. Instead, you saw a man looking at the sun for an extended amount of time who didn’t suffer any ill effects, but this in itself isn’t unusual considering that transcendental states sometimes cause supernormal actions. That’s why I mentioned the fire-walkers as an example.

But let me put my finger on what I believe is the real problem that you have with Fatima. You have already stated that you believe that miracles can occur, and have offered your witness to a rather spectacular miraculous healing. A disbelief in miracles isn’t what bothers you. You are a fundamentalist Protestant…

Whoa! Hold on there. I am a Protestant, that fact I’ve been upfront about from the start, but I’m definitely no fundamentalist. So you have that wrong as well. And it doesn’t look good of you to make the following assumptions about me.

…and I think it bothers you that God would grant a miracle to give veracity to an apparition involving Mary. It is the Mary connection that really bothers you. You have a psychological need to dismiss this miracle because of your fundamentalist upbringing.

Whoa! Whoa! You are hyper-assuming at this point. First of all, I’ve been upfront about the fact that I’m an ex-Catholic. There is no “fundamentalist upbringing” and, as I stated already, I am not a fundamentalist now. Secondly, Mary, per se, isn’t the issue here, but the so-called miracle of the sun. Recall, I’m not the one who started this thread, but I did inflict my two cents. Now, if you don’t like the fact that I cannot accept the explanations given here, that’s okay, but don’t go making assumptions regarding me just because I do not see the logic in your statements.

The witness of thousands of people must be dismissed as a freak natural occurrence, mass hysteria, or even diabolical phenomena. But you should be careful when you assert that what could be a miracle of the Holy Spirit is really the deception of Satan. For your own sake, you should show prudence instead of making rash judgements.

Where did I make a “rash judgment”? Because I said the “jury’s still out”? Like I said before, God gave us a brain and intends for us to use it and if I’m not satisfied with the evidence given for Fatima, I will exercise my God-given right to “test all things” and be “wise as serpents.” I already explained the verses regarding blaspheming the Spirit and this isn’t the case here. No one here is saying that the Holy Spirit is a demon. Luke 12:10 goes so far as to state that one can speak against Jesus *himself * and still be forgiven. It is only when one puts the Holy Spirit in the position of a Unholy when one finds no forgiveness. “Mary” is not the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
CM

 

[Joanna]

The phenomen of the Miracle of the Sun calls to my mind the Book of Revelations 12: 1 “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the Sun…” At that time in 1917 the sun was displayed in its frightful power and in its benevolence (when it receded and left everyone and everthing clean and dry) at Our Lady of Fatima’s compliance with Lucia’s request for a miracle as a sign for the people from God. In the miracle of Guadalupe in 1531 the sun also played a part, appearing on the tilma of Juan Diego behind Our Lady of Guadalupe’s image signifying to the Aztecs that she was greater than the sun that they worshipped.

 

[Pax]

Churchmouse,

I hope I didn’t offend you with my previous post. If so, then I want to apologize. My intention is to be as direct and to the point as I can be. You’ve raised a fair question about where the number of 70,000 comes from. Although I don’t have original copies of the newspaper stories of the time, I will, nevertheless, submit the following:

[The maximum estimate was from Dr. Almeida Garrett, and was proposed some months after the event. He estimated the spectators at more than one hundred thousand. In “O Seculo” of October 15, Avelino de Almeida wrote: “The crowd, by the unprejudiced calculations of cultivated persons very new to mystical influences, was estimated at thirty or forty thousand people.” In his article of October 29, he corrected his first estimate: “On October 13, according to the calculations established by people free from every prejudice, some fifty thousand people were gathered on the moor of Fatima.” A neutral newspaper, the “Primeiro de Janeiro”, also estimated the crowd at fifty thousand individuals. We can therefore say, with a quasi-certainty, that this figure is a minimum; that is why the majority of historians propose as probable the presence of a crowd of seventy thousand."]

Please note that the above came from a secondary source. One would have to read the newspaper articles in some archive to verify them, but I personally have no reason to doubt the quotes.

Obviously, this doesn’t establish anything more than the approximate number of witnesses. I still feel that you need to refute the credibility of the witnesses. If you search the newspaper references above you will find quotes taken by reporters that name the people they interviewed and their eyewitness accounts. Something miraculous happened that day, and I do not believe the efforts you made to argue from the “requirements of nature” and localized versus world wide observance are logical.

If you were an atheist that did not believe in miracles, I would understand that line of argument although I would not agree with it. You do believe in miracles and pointed out that you had witnessed one. I have no reason to question your veracity concerning what you witnessed. In order to legitimately question the truth of your claim, I would have to show that your credibility as an eyewitness is not to be trusted. I cannot do that, and because I believe in miracles I cannot argue against you or what you saw. It is my contention that you operate under the same burden with the miracle of Fatima. You have to somehow demonstrate that the witnesses are unreliable. No one has ever done that.

 

[Pax]

Churchmouse:

I don’t see why I would have to refute a phenomena that seems to refute itself, much less one that attempts to lend credence to a theology I don’t hold (that would be your burden, not mine), but it isn’t that I choose not to believe it, it comes in my understanding that not all supernatural phenomena is of God, even those which claim they are. Scripture shows that the supernatural isn’t all from “God” and you see this in Scripture from the magicians in Moses’ day to the magician (Simon) in Apostolic times. I believe in deception and that the majority of deception comes in subtler forms as evidence in Eden. This goes deeper then the mere “the lady spoke about God therefore it must be from God” argument that I get from many Catholics here and elsewhere. If Satan can transform into an “angel of light” thus providing something which seems good, than we must be “wise as serpents” in the midst of wolves. You seem to be one who wants to believe it because it supports your theological view, thus you accept the miracle. I, on the other hand do not hold to these views and see the account as skewed from start to finish.

There are no scientific records showing that the sun reacted in any strange way that day, locally or globally.

Peace,
CM

I hope that you understand that I have been arguing strictly from logic. My basic assumption is that miracles do occur. I also believe that miracles are not restricted to Catholics or the Catholic Church. Moreover, I do not believe that any of us relies on miracles such as Fatima as a method of proving or verifying the truth of our faith. I do not need the miracle of Fatima to support any of my theological views except one. It does lend credence to the fact that miracles do exist.

I would argue strongly that we do have scientific evidence that the sun acted in a strange way that day…at least locally. Eyewitness evidence is scientific data. One can certainly question the eyewitness data, but in order to do so you must show that their testimony is unreliable.

On your side of the argument, I believe that you have a stronger case for doubting the source of the miracle than you have for suggesting that it didn’t happen. While I might disagree with you about the possibility of a Satanic source, it seems to me that from a logical Christian perspective you could engage this point more successfully. Many of the arguments you posed against Fatima “if they were valid” could be used even more easily to refute the miracle that you personally witnessed. My contention is that in neither case would a logical refutation exist.

Peace and all good,

PAX

 

[MiddleBear]

This is very brief summary of my understanding of the apparation and miracle at Fatima. Hope it helps.

Miracles are of supernatural origin.

The miracle at Fatima was investigated by the Church and all natural origins are ruled out, (so much for eclipse, volcanic dust etc.)

Supernatural phenomenum can be either holy or demonic.

The Church has investigated Fatima and determined that it was not of demonic origin.

Fatima was a private revelation, not a general revelation (Deposit of Faith). Catholics are not obligated to believe private revelations.
However, the Chuch has determined that we as Catholics can believe but are not obligated to belive that the miracle of the dancing sun occurred.