Fatima NOT DOGMA

[notredame_999]

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:

fatima.org/essentials/facts/popeapprov.asp

Excuse me, Pope Paul VI. Roman numerals get confusing.

 

[Like]

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.

It’s up to you who you want to believe, but I’ll stay with Pope’s & Sr. Lucia word that the 3rd. secret has been accepted by Our Holy Mother!

Who is POPE PAUL XI???

 

[Brooklyn]

Excuse me, Pope Paul VI. Roman numerals get confusing.

I think Fr. Martin is wrong about Pope Paul VI as well:

In 1964, during the Second Vatican Council, at the solemn closing ceremonies at the end of the third session, before all the Catholic bishops of the world, Pope Paul VI renewed Pius XII’s consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He also announced that a special envoy was to be sent to Fatima. In the Pope’s name the Papal Legate would carry, as a symbolic gift, a Golden Rose to the Fatima Shrine. The inscription on it would say that Pope Paul was entrusting the entire Church to the care of Our Lady of Fatima. Then, in fact, on May 13, 1965, through his Papal Legate, as he had announced at the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul presented the Golden Rose at Fatima, commending the whole Church to Our Lady of Fatima’s care.

   On May 13, 1967, on the fiftieth anniversary of the first Fatima apparition, the Holy Father went on a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. He wrote an encyclical on the occasion of his pilgrimage. While there, he also blessed seventy National Pilgrim Virgin statues, to travel continually so that many nations would remember and practice the Message of Fatima.

fatima.org/essentials/facts/popeapprov.asp

Every Pope, from Benedict XV, who was Pope in 1917, has shown his approval and support of Fatima.

 

[JReducation]

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?

It is one thing to refuse a request and another to exercise legitimate authority. The pope exercises the authority of Peter, which Mary would never try to undermine. That’s why she poses requests not orders. We must never forget one important dogma, Mary is not outside of the Church or above Peter. She is part of the Church, even though she is his mother. Even in heaven, she continues to be part of the Church where Christ is the head and Peter the Vicar.

I realize that analogies are rocky, but it’s the best that I can find right now. Think of it as being the mother of the King. The King’s mother is the Queen Mother, but she is neither the Head of State nor the Head of Government. The King is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.

There is a careful balance that we must observe, lest we fall into the danger of giving Mary attributes that contradict Catholic doctrine and that she does not want. There are always two extremes in discussions on Mary. There are those whe want to dismiss her as unimportant. That’s nonsense. Then there are those who will elevate her to equality with Christ and his Vicar. That’s not accurate either. Her role in the mystery of the Church is very unique. She is its mother and protectress. She must be honored as such. She is not its head and she should not be given the rights and honors that go with that office. Christ is its head, here and in heaven. Peter will always be it’s vicar, here and in heaven. The Church teaches us that even in heaven, Peter is The Prince of the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hunter53]

It is one thing to refuse a request and another to exercise legitimate authority. The pope exercises the authority of Peter, which Mary would never try to undermine. That’s why she poses requests not orders. We must never forget one important dogma, Mary is not outside of the Church or above Peter. She is part of the Church, even though she is his mother. Even in heaven, she continues to be part of the Church where Christ is the head and Peter the Vicar.

I realize that analogies are rocky, but it’s the best that I can find right now. Think of it as being the mother of the King. The King’s mother is the Queen Mother, but she is neither the Head of State nor the Head of Government. The King is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.

There is a careful balance that we must observe, lest we fall into the danger of giving Mary attributes that contradict Catholic doctrine and that she does not want. There are always two extremes in discussions on Mary. There are those whe want to dismiss her as unimportant. That’s nonsense. Then there are those who will elevate her to equality with Christ and his Vicar. That’s not accurate either. Her role in the mystery of the Church is very unique. She is its mother and protectress. She must be honored as such. She is not its head and she should not be given the rights and honors that go with that office. Christ is its head, here and in heaven. Peter will always be it’s vicar, here and in heaven. The Church teaches us that even in heaven, Peter is The Prince of the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have never assumed that Mary was equal to Christ or above the popes. If Mary asked you to do something, would you do it just as She wanted you to or would you change it?
The modern popes changed it and I don’t know why.

 

[Brooklyn]

It is one thing to refuse a request and another to exercise legitimate authority. The pope exercises the authority of Peter, which Mary would never try to undermine. That’s why she poses requests not orders. We must never forget one important dogma, Mary is not outside of the Church or above Peter. She is part of the Church, even though she is his mother. Even in heaven, she continues to be part of the Church where Christ is the head and Peter the Vicar.

I realize that analogies are rocky, but it’s the best that I can find right now. Think of it as being the mother of the King. The King’s mother is the Queen Mother, but she is neither the Head of State nor the Head of Government. The King is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.

There is a careful balance that we must observe, lest we fall into the danger of giving Mary attributes that contradict Catholic doctrine and that she does not want. There are always two extremes in discussions on Mary. There are those whe want to dismiss her as unimportant. That’s nonsense. Then there are those who will elevate her to equality with Christ and his Vicar. That’s not accurate either. Her role in the mystery of the Church is very unique. She is its mother and protectress. She must be honored as such. She is not its head and she should not be given the rights and honors that go with that office. Christ is its head, here and in heaven. Peter will always be it’s vicar, here and in heaven. The Church teaches us that even in heaven, Peter is The Prince of the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That is very well stated. Mary is not the head of the church in any sense. But, we know that Mary has always been and will always be one in will and thought with her Son. We also know that in the pope is infallible in regard to faith and morals. Ergo, it follows that the Pope and Our Blessed Mother would always be in agreement on these matters. So the question of one being the “authority” over the other is a moot point in the case of Mary and the Pope. And once a Pope has put his stamp of approval on a Marian apparition, even though it is not required for salvation, we can be 100% sure that any verified statements coming from said approved apparition can be accepted without question.

 

[Brooklyn]

I have never assumed that Mary was equal to Christ or above the popes. If Mary asked you to do something, would you do it just as She wanted you to or would you change it?
The modern popes changed it and I don’t know why.

What have the modern popes changed?

 

[notredame_999]

It is one thing to refuse a request and another to exercise legitimate authority. The pope exercises the authority of Peter, which Mary would never try to undermine. That’s why she poses requests not orders. We must never forget one important dogma, Mary is not outside of the Church or above Peter. She is part of the Church, even though she is his mother. Even in heaven, she continues to be part of the Church where Christ is the head and Peter the Vicar.

I realize that analogies are rocky, but it’s the best that I can find right now. Think of it as being the mother of the King. The King’s mother is the Queen Mother, but she is neither the Head of State nor the Head of Government. The King is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.

There is a careful balance that we must observe, lest we fall into the danger of giving Mary attributes that contradict Catholic doctrine and that she does not want. There are always two extremes in discussions on Mary. There are those whe want to dismiss her as unimportant. That’s nonsense. Then there are those who will elevate her to equality with Christ and his Vicar. That’s not accurate either. Her role in the mystery of the Church is very unique. She is its mother and protectress. She must be honored as such. She is not its head and she should not be given the rights and honors that go with that office. Christ is its head, here and in heaven. Peter will always be it’s vicar, here and in heaven. The Church teaches us that even in heaven, Peter is The Prince of the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What do you think of the terms Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces?

 

[JReducation]

What do you think of the terms Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces?

They have to be used with great caution. That’s why the Church never uses them in any authoritative writings on Mary. While the well educated Catholic knows what they mean, the average person does not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

The modern popes changed it and I don’t know why.

What have the modern popes changed?

For that matter, what is a “modern” pope?

Maybe its the red boots?

 

[JReducation]

I have never assumed that Mary was equal to Christ or above the popes. If Mary asked you to do something, would you do it just as She wanted you to or would you change it?

If Mary asked me to do something, I would first ask for permission from a legitimate superior before proceeding. That would probably be after I got over the shock.

The modern popes changed it and I don’t know why.

The brothers once challenged St. Francis, because he did not do something as the scriptures said it should be done. Francis smiled and responded, “The person who has canonical authority need not explain himself,” and walked away. To this day, we have no idea why he imposed certain things on us that we are bound to obey under penalty of grave sin. He never said.

The point is that this is the same with popes. They do not have to tell us why they do or not do something. If and when they do, it is a courtessy on their part. I have learned not to ask or to expect an explanation and to be very appreciative when I get one.

Let’s talk about Jesus for a minute. He was washing the Apostles feet and he has the dialogue with Peter. Peter became a little over enthusiastic and asked Jesus to bathe him from top to bottom. Jesus gives a very simple answer, “Let’s do it this way for now.” He doesn’t really explain why. It is later that we understand that Jesus is instituting the diaconate at that moment. But that did not becom clear until after the Ascension.

We have to accept. Sometimes, we’re too curious. We want popes to explain everything for us and we don’t want to live with mystery or be left out in the dark. But we have to remember that God knows what he’s doing and why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[beehumble]

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 do not believe this is accurate. (Assuming you meant Paul VI?) Please cite a source (book, page, and quote form the book, please). And even if he said it, I do not believe him. As a previous poster said, Paul VI through his actions showed a belief in Fatima.

 

[JReducation]

That is very well stated. Mary is not the head of the church in any sense. But, we know that Mary has always been and will always be one in will and thought with her Son. We also know that in the pope is infallible in regard to faith and morals. Ergo, it follows that the Pope and Our Blessed Mother would always be in agreement on these matters. So the question of one being the “authority” over the other is a moot point in the case of Mary and the Pope. And once a Pope has put his stamp of approval on a Marian apparition, even though it is not required for salvation, we can be 100% sure that any verified statements coming from said approved apparition can be accepted without question.

Popes do not declare private visions matters of doctrine. They declare them worthy of belief. There is a difference. They deliberately avoid doing this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bluegoat]

Popes do not declare private visions matters of doctrine. They declare them worthy of belief. There is a difference. They deliberately avoid doing this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br JR, would you mind unpacking just what that means - “worthy of belief” vs “matter of doctrine”. I’m thinking this may be causing some confusion.

It is nice to see you are still kicking around here, Br. Your posts are always very interesting.

 

[Brooklyn]

Popes do not declare private visions matters of doctrine. They declare them worthy of belief. There is a difference. They deliberately avoid doing this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Here is an interesting quote from Rev. Eamon R. Carroll, O. Carm., S.T.D. Professor of Theology Loyola University of Chicago and Associate Editor back in 1989 on whether it is necessary to believe in Fatima.

Again we put the question: must Catholics believe in Fatima? The answer is two-fold. **So far as the heart of the Fatima message goes, meaning prayer, penance, reparation and the compassionate Immaculate Heart of Mary — the Church’s approval here is absolute. No Catholic is free to reject these key aspects of Christian belief and practise. The Church’s judgment here is infallible because these are matters that affect the very core of our Christian and Catholic life. So far as the particular circumstances that gave rise to the Fatima message are concerned the Church has warmly recommended acceptance of the apparitions, but only as a matter of human faith, so that a Catholic is not obliged to accept the initial accounts, whether of 1917, or the appearances of the angel in 1916 or subsequent revelations communicated to Lucy since 1917. **This may seem strange, but we cannot make obligations where the Church does not command us, and especially we must not impose on others the obligation of accepting private revelations. Very instructive in this regard is the advice of Pope Paul VI in his greatest Marian letter (February 2, 1974, Marialis Cultus, on the promotion of devotion to Mary). The letter explains the strong place of our Lady in the revised liturgy and then has a further section on the Rosary and the Angelus. We recall the role of the Rosary at Lourdes, LaSalette and Fatima. At the end of his warm pages about the Rosary Pope Paul wrote — it is surely applicable also to Fatima and other apparitions, that they must not be used to restrict the legitimate freedom of loyal sons and daughters of the Church: “In concluding these observations, which give proof of the concern and esteem which the Apostolic See has for the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin, we desire at the same time that this very worthy devotion should not be propagated in a way that is too one-sided or exclusive. The Rosary is an excellent prayer, but the faithful should feel serenely free in its regard. They should be drawn to its calm recitation by its intrinsic appeal”

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1165&CFID=55321946&CFTOKEN=34146504

So you’re right in that Fatima itself is not doctrine and is not required for salvation. But much of the message of Fatima, excluding the prophecies, of course, was and is Church doctrine which was emphasized by Our Lady of Fatima and those must be accepted by all Catholics. Fatima, as with all other approved Marian apparitions, is a wonderful gift given to us by our Lord and his Mother, which we are free to reject, but I personally don’t understand why anyone would. I need every spiritual lifeline I can get, but maybe that’s just me.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, would you mind unpacking just what that means - “worthy of belief” vs “matter of doctrine”. I’m thinking this may be causing some confusion.

It is nice to see you are still kicking around here, Br. Your posts are always very interesting.

Brooklyn did a very good job of unpacking it. The doctrines that are contained in the message of Fatima are not new. The Church goes on to identify them.

The actual apparition is not a doctrine. One can believe that there were such apparitions without dong any harm to the faith or one can lay it aside, also without doing harm to the faith.

What the Church says is that she leaves it up to the faith of the people to believe in the actual apparition. When she says that something is worthy of belief, she means that is good reason to believe that this was an apparition by the Mother of God, because the content is consistent with truth that has already been revealed. However, she does not go out on a limb and say that the Mother of God did in fact appear and that those who do not believe the apparition, not the truths, are in a state of heresy. There is no doctrinal teaching that says that we must believe every alleged apparition. There is doctrinal teaching that we must believe. If the children repeated these doctrines, those must be believed . . . not because Our Lady spoke them, but because they have always been part of the deposit of faith.

A good example is Mercy Sunday. God’s mercy has always been part of the deposit of faith. Therefore, instituting Mercy Sunday is not contrary to our faith. The Church could have done that with or without the visions of St. Faustina. It was not like Jesus revealed something new to St. Faustina. Jesus had spoken about his Father’s mercy in the Gospels. The OT is also full of teachings on God’s mercy.

Something is worthy of belief, because it speaks about that which has already been revealed to us. It’s another way of saying, “That’s believable…”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[paddy22]

What I don’t understand is why this thread got to be so long. Clearly the original poster was intending to cause an argument amongst yourselves. Obviously the OP is living in a fantasy world where nothing is wrong in the Church and anybody who says there is is an outright fundamentalist fanatic most likely SSPX loving loon. Read first post and second post (of OP) for confirmation.

 

[Pregustator]

What I don’t understand is why this thread got to be so long. Clearly the original poster was intending to cause an argument amongst yourselves. Obviously the OP is living in a fantasy world where nothing is wrong in the Church and anybody who says there is is an outright fundamentalist fanatic most likely SSPX loving loon. Read first post and second post (of OP) for confirmation.

Call this discussion community “Catholic Answers Forum” though they may, I think most of realize that it would be more aptly named “Catholic Arguments Forum”.

If all we really wanted was answers to questions, we could just look them up, couldn’t we? But no, we come here with them instead, sometimes asking questions that we already know the answers to, just to hear what other people have to say.

It’s a discussion forum. It’s an argument forum. It’s a way to kill down time at work. It’s something to do between commercials. There are baiters, and there are those who take the bait. There are people here who love to speak truth so raw it scandalizes, and there are people here who just love to be scandalized and to tell you how scandalous your opinion is.

It’s entertaining, and once in a while you learn something new.

 

[At_Trent]

Call this discussion community “Catholic Answers Forum” though they may, I think most of realize that it would be more aptly named “Catholic Arguments Forum”.

If all we really wanted was answers to questions, we could just look them up, couldn’t we? But no, we come here with them instead, sometimes asking questions that we already know the answers to, just to hear what other people have to say.

It’s a discussion forum. It’s an argument forum. It’s a way to kill down time at work. It’s something to do between commercials. There are baiters, and there are those who take the bait. There are people here who love to speak truth so raw it scandalizes, and there are people here who just love to be scandalized and to tell you how scandalous your opinion is.

It’s entertaining, and once in a while you learn something new.

One hot kitchen aint it ?
Where the greatest minds of our day come to sweat the big stuff !

Aw, look at how we love one another

 

[Robert_Burns]

Do you think that is all that was said? If so, than I don’t really have a problem with it. But to me it doesn’t seem like the claims for it are quite that simple.

I don’t know of course that it is not an authentic vision. I would not make that claim, I wouldn’t even go so far as to say I think it isn’t. But I think it is also important to be aware that visions and private revelations can have many dangers attached to them, even when the content seems harmless.

If we were talking about Bayside or Mejugorji I would agree , But if we are talking about Fatima or Lourdes or Guadalupe , I wouldnt.

As for whether or not it is an authentic vision do the POPES? Obviously the answer is yes. Secondly - the Church has approved them.

Now as for whether or not the Fatima Devotions supercede TRADITION or DOGMA obviously they do not and if anyone were to take the time to see what they advocate - they advocate a RETURN to Tradtion and a return to DOGMA from a world that is fast departing these very things.

Pax