Fatima NOT DOGMA

[At_Trent]

Who knows. Maybe the computer liked it.

Miracles happen

Do you think those people are incapable of thinking critically about their beliefs? If they are on solid ground than there should be no worries. If someone’s spiritual health is in danger because I say why I am very careful about private revelation, they should probably not be on the internet discussing such questions.

As for why - do you think that people are attacking people in some kind of personal way? Have you noticed how Catholics regularly criticize and even attack the theological and spiritual positions of other Christians, as well as non-Christians? Do you see that as personal too?

I find it strange that people are generally ok with some pretty blunt discussions of theological issues that various groups hold dear, but as soon as you get to issues of spirituality, they become defensive and feel the need to walk on eggshells. In there own way they are just as important and significant; in fact they probably have more impact on people’s everyday life than whether they approve of the filioque or not, and so bad ones could have a much greater negative effect on individuals.

I think if the Fatima devotion wasn’t identified today as a traditionalist phenomena, we would not be discussing it in this manner.

Is it any wonder one gets defensive when his devotion is pooh poohed ? Especially Marian devotions. She is a huge part of the Faith.

We can discuss Protestants on a separate thread. This topic has nothing to do with them This is a Roman Catholic vs Roman Catholic clash.

 

[At_Trent]

I think this is a misunderstanding, a confusion of terms. Objectively, no one needs any private revelation to be saved. The are not Sacraments of God’s Grace. * Subjectively*, however, there are millions that will be in the kingdom because the appearance of Mary was the very channel that increased their faith. Most notable is the conversion following the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Yes, and the conversions continue today. One this week or 1000 the next week, Marian devotions build faith.

 

[At_Trent]

I think ByzCath is a Byzantine Catholic - he’s part of the catholic Church.

And the Catholic Church says in its own teaching that private revelations do not add anything new to the deposit of faith - otherwise it would be gnosticism. Of course God’s grace can touch individuals, including through a private revelation, but that is not quite the same thing.

I’m not arguing otherwise, let him answer.

 

[At_Trent]

I have to agree here too. I was weary of Fatima talk when considering conversion, because that’s like the deep end of the pool of Faith ; however, the prophetic nature of Fatima gives it weight, and lends authority to more ancient prophesying in the Scriptures. The drama behind and around the scenes is also noteworthy, as that drama with secular powers and authorities during the events were like microcosms of the 20th century as a whole, and Faith v faithlessness in general. My private opinions of course, but that helped endear me the spiritual significance and value of Fatima

Pax,
Tim

Thanks for sharing your experience Tim. You came upon Fatima with an unbiased view and your story is evidence of how any Marian devotion can build strong faith. This is why the Church approves them.

Pax tecum !

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Who are you to state what a Roman Catholic needs or does not need ? What drives you to pronounce acknowledging the Church approves of something is as far as one needs to take it ?

I think this is a misunderstanding, a confusion of terms. Objectively, no one needs any private revelation to be saved. The are not Sacraments of God’s Grace. Subjectively, however, there are millions that will be in the kingdom because the appearance of Mary was the very channel that increased their faith. Most notable is the conversion following the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

What he said.

Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith, public revelation, is required for salvation. Other things may help lead one there but they are not required.

Just a little glimpse into my path. I was lead to Christ by the New Age writings of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, it is a very unique path, would I say that it is required for everyone elses path to salvation? Would the Church say so? No, it is not required.

Are you a former Roman Catholic ? Honest question. I mean no ill intent but your words are offensive to at least one Roman Catholic here and perhaps more. Thus I must point out what I believe to be a very arrogant statement.

I think ByzCath is a Byzantine Catholic - he’s part of the catholic Church.

And the Catholic Church says in its own teaching that private revelations do not add anything new to the deposit of faith - otherwise it would be gnosticism. Of course God’s grace can touch individuals, including through a private revelation, but that is not quite the same thing.

I’m not arguing otherwise, let him answer.

I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic who is a brother in the Order of Carmel which is a Latin Church order.

I also apologize if pointing out what the Catholic Church Teaches regarding private revelations is “offensive”.

Do you believe some Fatimists are flirting with an extreme obsession ? If the answer is yes, then we agree on something. But in this case, can you not see a single saving grace or any benefit at all in Devotion to Fatima ? What of the person who hold dear the devotion and does not speak of it to anyone ? One who only prays the prayers and never get’s on the internet and speaks of it ? Would you tell that person he/she does not need to believe in it ?

Yes I do believe this and some of them post here. There is at least one who says he is discerning a vocation to the priesthood and is an avowed follower of Fr Grunner that states that Fatima is binding upon all Catholics.

Fatima is not born of heresy, schism, error, or dissidence.

We agree on this but schism, error, and dissent have come out of Fatima, just look to Fr Grunner and his ilk.

I have no problem with those who are passionate in following any private revelation. I start to have problems when they state that we all need to follow them and their devotions. I have problems when they make claims that go against what the Church has stated, like that the third secret has not been revealed or Russia has not been consecrated.

Both John Paul II and Sr Lucia have stated that both have been done. So we either beleive these conspiricy theories that they have not and therefore John Paul II and Sr Lucia are liars or we believe the Church that they have been.

I chose to stand with the Church and what it Teaches.

 

[Seamus_L]

It’s amazing that people are actually having problems with Fatimists these days. I shudder to think how many churches don’t even have rosary groups, and yet we’ve got people getting warned that they better adhere to the Fatima message or else.
You may reject the message, but I know parishes where it frequently turns up in homilies, sometimes even in the confessional. It's part of Catholicism period.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Do you believe some Fatimists are flirting with an extreme obsession ?

Case in point.

It’s amazing that people are actually having problems with Fatimists these days. I shudder to think how many churches don’t even have rosary groups, and yet we’ve got people getting warned that they better adhere to the Fatima message or else.

You may reject the message, but I know parishes where it frequently turns up in homilies, sometimes even in the confessional. It’s part of Catholicism period.

I have no problem, as I said, with those who have a devotion to any of the private revelations. I have a devotion to some that apply to my spiritual life.

It is those that are like this that raise issues for me.

 

[pnewton]

Just a little glimpse into my path. I was lead to Christ by the New Age writings of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, it is a very unique path, would I say that it is required for everyone elses path to salvation?

That is pretty good. I’ll call your E. Clara and raise you John MacArthur. Yep, he was one of the people that help me convert to Catholicism. Ironic, isn’t it? So it is not surprising that so many hold dear different nooks in the Catholic universe.

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Church is based on scripture and tradition.

Fatima is not tradition.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Fatima is not tradition.

Nice catch Michael, I missed that one.

 

[JReducation]

Personally, I believe that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. My point is that this is not a post against Fatima, but of clarification of Church tradition. Since this is the TC forum, it’s a good place to clarify the tradition.

I did a little research on popes and apparitions and found that they are very selective on how they use these apparitions to evangelize, which is the ultimate responsibility of every pope.

In the case of Fatima, there is a message that Our Lady requested that Russia be consecrated to her using specific guidelines, according to many. Here is where we get into the conflict between some people and the popes. The popes say that this was done. Other people say it was not done according to the criteria given by Our Lady.

This takes us into the area of authority. A pope receives his authority through the line of succession back to Peter, therefore, back to Jesus Christ. Our Lady, does not enjoy Apostolic Authority. Scripture is very clear that she points to Christ and that she directs the servants at Cana, “Do whatever he tells you.” Scripture is also very clear that Jesus speaks authoritatively only through Peter. “He who hears you hears me.” Our Lady is pointing to Christ who speaks through Peter.

While the Blessed Virgin Mary is the most noble of all of God’s creatures and the most noble of his messengers, her nobility and holiness do not trump Peter’s authority, even if he were a horrible sinner. He remains The Rock upon which the faith of the Church is built.

The pope, without any impunity, can scrutinize a request, such as the Consecration of Russia. He is free to do so at his discretion, because the request is not a matter of dogma or part of public revelation, which bind popes. Therefore, if the pope says that he has consecrated Russia, even though he used a means or a formula that is different from that which was given to him by the children at Fatima, the Church has to accept that answer. Only he can consecrate and only he can decide how to do it. Our Lady cannot decide this for him or bind him, because she’s not in the line of succession.

Just for the sake of example, if the pope were to consecrate Russia in a private ritual, where no one else is watching, the request has been satisfied, even though it was not satisfied using the means or the manner that was communicated to him. In other words, he is not bound to the request, because it does not come through apostolic authority, scripture or sacred tradition. He can fulfill it in any way that he judges or to put it on hold and see what happens. Popes factor in a lot of information and criteria before making such decisions.

We need to lighten up on the popes on this particular issue, lest we fall into the error of placing the Virgin Mary above apostolic authority, a position that she has never claimed for herself. She is the Mother and Queen of the Apostles, but she is not the Head of the Apostles. That title belongs to Peter and Christ above him. We have to focus on the power of the papacy, temporal and supernatural. There can be a tendency to subscribe to the supernatural authority of Our Lady, forgetting that popes also have supernatural authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

What he said.

Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith, public revelation, is required for salvation. Other things may help lead one there but they are not required.

Just a little glimpse into my path. I was lead to Christ by the New Age writings of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, it is a very unique path, would I say that it is required for everyone elses path to salvation? Would the Church say so? No, it is not required.

I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic who is a brother in the Order of Carmel which is a Latin Church order.

I also apologize if pointing out what the Catholic Church Teaches regarding private revelations is “offensive”.

Yes I do believe this and some of them post here. There is at least one who says he is discerning a vocation to the priesthood and is an avowed follower of Fr Grunner that states that Fatima is binding upon all Catholics.

We agree on this but schism, error, and dissent have come out of Fatima, just look to Fr Grunner and his ilk.

I have no problem with those who are passionate in following any private revelation. I start to have problems when they state that we all need to follow them and their devotions. I have problems when they make claims that go against what the Church has stated, like that the third secret has not been revealed or Russia has not been consecrated.

Both John Paul II and Sr Lucia have stated that both have been done. So we either beleive these conspiricy theories that they have not and therefore John Paul II and Sr Lucia are liars or we believe the Church that they have been.

I chose to stand with the Church and what it Teaches.

Thanks for your reply, and I agree, devotion to Fatima is not mandatory in any way shape or form according the the Church. I can’t ignore it though.

As far as “We agree on this but schism, error, and dissent have come out of Fatima, just look to Fr Grunner and his ilk.” , those three things are not unique to Fatima. Schism, error, and dissent are usually tied to Doctrine and Dogma… since early in Church history.

I just don’t buy any arguments that warn others of devotion to Fatima. What happened there is a warning itself.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As far as “We agree on this but schism, error, and dissent have come out of Fatima, just look to Fr Grunner and his ilk.” , those three things are not unique to Fatima. Schism, error, and dissent are usually tied to Doctrine and Dogma… since early in Church history.

Yes this is true, I believe that if Fatima was not the excuse for this man and others they would have found some other reason for schism, error, and dissent.

I just don’t buy any arguments that warn others of devotion to Fatima. What happened there is a warning itself.

I agree with this. There is no reasons to warn anyone of devotion to any approved apparitions but there are also no reasons to warn anyone of not having devotion to any approved apparitions which you can plainly see some doing here at CAF and even in this very thread.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your reply, and I agree, devotion to Fatima is not mandatory in any way shape or form according the the Church. I can’t ignore it though.

As far as “We agree on this but schism, error, and dissent have come out of Fatima, just look to Fr Grunner and his ilk.” , those three things are not unique to Fatima. Schism, error, and dissent are usually tied to Doctrine and Dogma… since early in Church history.

I just don’t buy any arguments that warn others of devotion to Fatima. What happened there is a warning itself.

I believe that warning someone re: Devotion to Fatima is unncessary. However, I would warn people about some groups that have risen around the apparitions of Fatima. Some are very devout. Their agenda is to promote prayer, dovotion to our Lady and the Gospel Life.

Others have made it their agenda to dicatate to the Church (clergy, religious and lay peopel) how to live, what to do, how to do it and when to do it. That is not the message of Fatima or any of the apparitions of Our Blessed Mother. If that were the case

1. 
   *]Bernadette would have become a tele-evangelist, not a Sister of Charity.
   
   *]Lucia would have joined the Socialist regime and helped govern Portugal. Instead, she became a Carmelite and lived most of her life in silence.
   
   *]Juan Diego would have become a motivational speaker. Instead, he goes back to his village and lives a saintly life.
   
   St. Bernadette said it best when she was interviewed by the incredulous bishop. “I was ordered to tell you what happened, not to make you a believer.”
   
   Stay clear of those groups who want to make you a believer, believe as they believe and live as they live. The visionaries never adopted this mission.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

I believe that warning someone re: Devotion to Fatima is unncessary. However, I would warn people about some groups that have risen around the apparitions of Fatima. Some are very devout. Their agenda is to promote prayer, dovotion to our Lady and the Gospel Life.

Others have made it their agenda to dicatate to the Church (clergy, religious and lay peopel) how to live, what to do, how to do it and when to do it. That is not the message of Fatima or any of the apparitions of Our Blessed Mother. If that were the case

1. 
   *]Bernadette would have become a tele-evangelist, not a Sister of Charity.
   
   *]Lucia would have joined the Socialist regime and helped govern Portugal. Instead, she became a Carmelite and lived most of her life in silence.
   
   *]Juan Diego would have become a motivational speaker. Instead, he goes back to his village and lives a saintly life.
   
   St. Bernadette said it best when she was interviewed by the incredulous bishop. “I was ordered to tell you what happened, not to make you a believer.”
   
   Stay clear of those groups who want to make you a believer, believe as they believe and live as they live. The visionaries never adopted this mission.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

1. 
   Well, Br JR, stated in that way, is sound advice. Cult-like behavior is to be avoided, I agree.
   
   Thanks for the quote by St Bernadette. Lourdes is my devotion of choice. And Lourdes Water is one of my fav sacramentals.

 

[notredame_999]

What he said.

Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith, public revelation, is required for salvation. Other things may help lead one there but they are not required.

Just a little glimpse into my path. I was lead to Christ by the New Age writings of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, it is a very unique path, would I say that it is required for everyone elses path to salvation? Would the Church say so? No, it is not required.

I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic who is a brother in the Order of Carmel which is a Latin Church order.

I also apologize if pointing out what the Catholic Church Teaches regarding private revelations is “offensive”.

Yes I do believe this and some of them post here. There is at least one who says he is discerning a vocation to the priesthood and is an avowed follower of Fr Grunner that states that Fatima is binding upon all Catholics.

We agree on this but schism, error, and dissent have come out of Fatima, just look to Fr Grunner and his ilk.

I have no problem with those who are passionate in following any private revelation. I start to have problems when they state that we all need to follow them and their devotions. I have problems when they make claims that go against what the Church has stated, like that the third secret has not been revealed or Russia has not been consecrated.

Both John Paul II and Sr Lucia have stated that both have been done. So we either beleive these conspiricy theories that they have not and therefore John Paul II and Sr Lucia are liars or we believe the Church that they have been.

I chose to stand with the Church and what it Teaches.

Reading this post and I’m pretty sure I was the one ByzCatholic was referring to who is discerning a vocation and also follows Fr. Gruner. As someone else has posted here, I think it is completely logical to at least consider that perhaps John Paul II, the popes before him, and even some in the vatican right now are withholding the final secret because they think thats what is good for the church. However, this may be changing.

Another problem I have is that the third secret should have been revealed by 1960. That is well known, even by people who do not follow Fr. Gruner. For whatever reason it did not happen. Revealing the message by 1960 was the wish of the Blessed Virgin herself.

I think the real reason why laity and even clergy like Byz-Catholic get so upset when people question the so called consecration of Russia is because it cuts to the core of what the church has become post Vatican II. As a young person who has only grown up with the novus ordo, I feel that Vatican II watered down the faith. We no longer abstain from meat on all fridays, we no longer pray for the conversion of jews in mass, we no longer state that the Catholic religion is true and all others are false, and most importantly for the most part we no longer have our latin mass that set us a part from our Protestant neighbors.

Now we can have two interpretations for those who disagree with Vatican II; We can leave and start a parallel church that lacks papal approval like Arch. Marcel Lefebvre did, or we can remain inside the church and honestly express our dissapointment with the council. I favor the second option.

youtube.com/watch?v=gta69uY8VY4&p=40A534B0B791EF7F&playnext=1&index=7

 

[beehumble]

Personally, I believe that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. My point is that this is not a post against Fatima, but of clarification of Church tradition. Since this is the TC forum, it’s a good place to clarify the tradition.

snip

In the case of Fatima, there is a message that Our Lady requested that Russia be consecrated to her using specific guidelines, according to many. Here is where we get into the conflict between some people and the popes. The popes say that this was done. Other people say it was not done according to the criteria given by Our Lady.

This takes us into the area of authority. snip Our Lady is pointing to Christ who speaks through Peter.

The pope, without any impunity, can scrutinize a request, such as the Consecration of Russia. He is free to do so at his discretion, because the request is not a matter of dogma or part of public revelation, which bind popes. Therefore, if the pope says that he has consecrated Russia, even though he used a means or a formula that is different from that which was given to him by the children at Fatima, the Church has to accept that answer. Only he can consecrate and only he can decide how to do it. Our Lady cannot decide this for him or bind him, because she’s not in the line of succession.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

We need to distinguish between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, the Church in Heaven and the Church on earth. It is one church, but some of it is on the earth, and some of it is already in Heaven.

Blessed Mary now sits on a throne as Queen of the Cosmos alongside her Son. She is higher than everyone and everything except the Holy Trinity.

The popes are free to change the formula for consecration of Fatima, and in fact several did. Several tried to do it without unity with the bishops. However, their consecrations were not accepted by ‘Heaven’. It is only when it was done very closely to the formula requested that we find it was accepted.

We need to be clear that Blessed Mary is not here on her own authority, but on authority of the Holy Trinity. Her authority now does trump Peter’s authority in Heaven. Again we should not confuse the realities of today with the times when both Blessed Mary and Peter were on the earth. Now Blessed Mary reigns as Queen. Peter is one of the 24 elders in Revelation who reside next to the throne (Moses had his 12, and Jesus had His 12 - thus there are 24).

Of course the point is moot - both Blessed Mary and St. Peter only do the will of God, so they always act in complete harmony with His will. So to try to point out who has authority over who is a moot point anyway.

The Church on earth can and does exercise authority where it is permitted by God. My understanding, for example, is that the sinner’s prayer “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven” was altered slightly from what was given by the angel on purpose, to test the authenticity of the apparition. If the alteration was permitted (ceding authority to the Church that would be a ‘plus’ towards authenticity, if not, then it would be a ‘minus’.) However, not all formulations are allowed to be altered - again, several popes did the consecration w/o the bishops’ involvement, and these failed, so obviously this alteration was in a sense “vetoed” by God. God wanted His whole Church on Earth (pope plus the bishops) to make the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The consecration has been done, according to Sr. Lucia, the Vatican, and history. So the formula offered by JP II was perhaps slightly different than the formula as given, but within the range of allowable acceptability by God. Those who say it was not done need to realize what Br. JR, OSF says here is correct in that the Church on Earth can alter these things to a certain, allowable degree. Most things have a lot of freedom of change permitted, such as that prayer of the angel given above, while a few things apparently must follow pretty closely to the formula as given while still allowing for some minor alterations.

Those who say the consecration was not done are sadly mistaken and have totally removed the earthly Church’s authority to alter these things even if only to a small degree in some cases. They are handcuffing the Church in a way that God has not done. God loves His Church on earth, and His popes. He doesn’t try to show them up, so to speak.

God bless you!

 

[Hunter53]

The popes are free to change the formula for consecration of Fatima, and in fact several did. Several tried to do it without unity with the bishops. However, their consecrations were not accepted by ‘Heaven’. It is only when it was done very closely to the formula requested that we find it was accepted.

God bless you!

And how is it that we know heaven accepted it? No we shouldn’t place the authority of the Virgin Mary over the popes but remember that not Christ or any of His Apostles, including St. Peter, would have refused Her request. So why have the modern popes?

 

[notredame_999]

We need to distinguish between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, the Church in Heaven and the Church on earth. It is one church, but some of it is on the earth, and some of it is already in Heaven.

Blessed Mary now sits on a throne as Queen of the Cosmos alongside her Son. She is higher than everyone and everything except the Holy Trinity.

The popes are free to change the formula for consecration of Fatima, and in fact several did. Several tried to do it without unity with the bishops. However, their consecrations were not accepted by ‘Heaven’. It is only when it was done very closely to the formula requested that we find it was accepted.

We need to be clear that Blessed Mary is not here on her own authority, but on authority of the Holy Trinity. Her authority now does trump Peter’s authority in Heaven. Again we should not confuse the realities of today with the times when both Blessed Mary and Peter were on the earth. Now Blessed Mary reigns as Queen. Peter is one of the 24 elders in Revelation who reside next to the throne (Moses had his 12, and Jesus had His 12 - thus there are 24).

Of course the point is moot - both Blessed Mary and St. Peter only do the will of God, so they always act in complete harmony with His will. So to try to point out who has authority over who is a moot point anyway.

The Church on earth can and does exercise authority where it is permitted by God. My understanding, for example, is that the sinner’s prayer “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven” was altered slightly from what was given by the angel on purpose, to test the authenticity of the apparition. If the alteration was permitted (ceding authority to the Church that would be a ‘plus’ towards authenticity, if not, then it would be a ‘minus’.) However, not all formulations are allowed to be altered - again, several popes did the consecration w/o the bishops’ involvement, and these failed, so obviously this alteration was in a sense “vetoed” by God. God wanted His whole Church on Earth (pope plus the bishops) to make the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The consecration has been done, according to Sr. Lucia, the Vatican, and history. So the formula offered by JP II was perhaps slightly different than the formula as given, but within the range of allowable acceptability by God. Those who say it was not done need to realize what Br. JR, OSF says here is correct in that the Church on Earth can alter these things to a certain, allowable degree. Most things have a lot of freedom of change permitted, such as that prayer of the angel given above, while a few things apparently must follow pretty closely to the formula as given while still allowing for some minor alterations.

Those who say the consecration was not done are sadly mistaken and have totally removed the earthly Church’s authority to alter these things even if only to a small degree in some cases. They are handcuffing the Church in a way that God has not done. God loves His Church on earth, and His popes. He doesn’t try to show them up, so to speak.

God bless you!

Fr. Malachi Martin, now dead, a former Jesuit has written extensively on Fatima. He knew Pope Paul XI. In fact it was Paul XI that released him of his vows of poverty and obedience. According to Fr. Martin, Paul XI didn’t even believe in Fatima.

 

[Brooklyn]

Fr. Malachi Martin, now dead, a former Jesuit has written extensively on Fatima. He knew Pope Paul XI. In fact it was Paul XI that released him of his vows of poverty and obedience. According to Fr. Martin, Paul XI didn’t even believe in Fatima.

I’m assuming you mean Pope Pius XI, as he was the pope predicted in the Fatima prophecies. I don’t think there has ever been a Pope Paul XI. I tend to think your Fr. Martin is wrong:

On October 1, 1930 the Sacred Penitentiary under Pius XI granted a partial indulgence to those who individually visited the Shrine and prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, and a plenary indulgence once a month to those who went there in a group. These indulgences granted in Rome came just in time to prepare minds to receive with entire confidence the soon-to-be-announced Episcopal approval, which the Holy See had thus discreetly supported.

    **With the knowledge and consent of Pope Pius XI, on October 13, 1930 Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) announced the results of the official inquiry of Fatima in a pastoral letter on the apparitions**. This official approval contained these important paragraphs:

In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby: –

1. Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917; and
2. Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.

fatima.org/essentials/facts/popeapprov.asp