People can use anything and everything to criticize the church, including the Bible. There are a lot of “Bible Thumpers” who despise the Catholic church, and quote from it to condemn the Church. I guess that means the Bible is bad for the church, too. No Bible, no private revelation - not sure what that leaves us.What I believe lazlo was referring to was the unfortunate occurances where some people who are deeply attracted to the messages of the Fatima visions use them to criticize the Pope and other Church leaders. When private revelation is used to promote disunity, it is ultimately bad for the Church.
No, I think you’re missing the point. To name a church after a private revaltion that no Catholic is even obliged to believe in does seem an odd thing; even more so to put a feast honouring that private revelation on the calendar.With your kind of thinking, we could never name churches after any people or events who came after Christ. We would never celebrate any feast days of the saints, we would have no writings of the saints. St. Francis would be anathema, as would St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. John of the Cross, and on and on.
The Catholic Church is based on scripture and tradition. It is true that you do not have to believe in such things as Fatima to be a Catholic in good standing, but the truth is that our Lord has not just left us for 2000 years, but has many times over the years sent his Blessed Mother to us, especially in times of trouble and crisis. You don’t have to believe that, but you are cheating yourself out of very rich spirituality when you reject approved private revelation such as Fatima. Maybe you’re very strong spiritually, but I need as much help as I can get.
We have a church here in Brooklyn that is called St. Bernadette’s, and it has a huge grotto of Lourdes outside the church. There is another church in Manhattan actually called “Our Lady of Lourdes” and another named “Notre Dame.” I guess you would have a problem with that too.No, I think you’re missing the point. To name a church after a private revaltion that no Catholic is even obliged to believe in does seem an odd thing; even more so to put a feast honouring that private revelation on the calendar.
The fact is that the Virgin may have appeared at Fatima, Portugal to three children in the early part of the 20th century. The apparitions are not indisputable, however, and they cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as a certain historical fact. As a Catholic, one may legitimately dismiss this event as inauthentic. And so to have churches named “Our Lady of Fatima” parish presents something of an irregularity, it seems to me.
Imagine the Catholic who does not believe in Fatima but whose parish is named “Our Lady of Fatima Church”. It may be that it could even be considered pastorally insensitive to allow churches to be named after events that Catholics aren’t obliged to believe in. Perhaps churches ought to have universally acceptable names. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
It would be one thing to have “Our Lady of Fatima Church” in Fatima. Fine. Makes sense, even if one doesn’t believe in the apparitions. Catholic Churches in honor of the Virgin are often given names that honor her as patroness of the locality in which they are located. In my diocese, there is a church called “Our Lady of Black Rock”, Black Rock being a neighborhood within the city. It does not imply that Our Lady appeared in Black Rock, of course.
But to have “Our Lady of Fatima” churches worldwide seems strange to me. Where does that sort of thing end, one wonders? What if a bishop were to name his diocese’s newest church “Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Church”? In our diocese there exists a new merged parish renamed “Blessed John XXIII Parish” that a number of parishioners are irritated by because they don’t really care for Pope John XXIII or his reforms and don’t feel that they should have to belong to a parish named after him.
I’ve come across alot of whacky names for Roman Catholic Churches in my time (one of my favorites is “Mary, Mother of the Church Church”) and that would seem to suggest that it might be advisable for dioceses to sort of cut the comedy, if you will, and attempt to get back to basics when naming our churches. Perhaps Catholic Churches shouldn’t, really, be named after private revelations or contentious non-dogmas or even after controversial modern figures. And they certainly shouldn’t be given foolish-sounding names, as so many merged parishes have been given (“SS. Peter & Cecilia”, “SS. Joseph & Thomas”, &c.), or as in the case of mis-named parishes, like “St. Padre Pio Parish” (instead of St. Pio of Pietrelcina Parish, as it should be) and “Bl. Mother Teresa Church” (instead of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta Church).
What I believe lazlo was referring to was the unfortunate occurances where some people who are deeply attracted to the messages of the Fatima visions use them to criticize the Pope and other Church leaders. When private revelation is used to promote disunity, it is ultimately bad for the Church.
With Fatima, and it’s more enthusiastic adherants, we aren’t talking about correction or admonishment. The message of Fatima wasn’t to tell the Church to stop some error or to reengage a better understanding of the message of Christ. The point of contention is usually the consecration of Russia and whether it was done correctly.Is it not possible, for Heaven to rebuke Rome?
That’s an honest question, and not meant to start a war. Obviously, Lutherans contend that all the Church of Christ is subject to admonishment, even the Pope. It is natural for us to assume the possibility that God could send the Blessed Virgin to slap us upside our head (frankly, I wish she would… it would sort out quite a few things if we received some tough maternal love in a way that couldn’t be rationalized or ignored…) if we’re drifting off into lala land. My mind even drifts to the freak tornado that knocked the cross off the top of the ELCA church, were they were collectively deliberating their latest heresy.
From a Roman Catholic perspective, is the Roman Catholic Church able to receive admonition and correction from Heaven, were it to come from so great a messenger as the Blessed Virgin? Or does the dogma of infallibility, in its various forms, innoculate Roman Catholic Christians from even hearing a corrective voice from the Queen of Heaven?
Pax.
So, please, how would universally-acceptable parish names “rob us of many great gifts given to us by Jesus Christ through our Blessed Mother”?We have a church here in Brooklyn that is called St. Bernadette’s, and it has a huge grotto of Lourdes outside the church. There is another church in Manhattan actually called “Our Lady of Lourdes” and another named “Notre Dame.” I guess you would have a problem with that too.
You have a right to your opinion, but thank God, the church itself does not share your opinion, for that would rob us of many great gifts given to us by Jesus Christ though our Blessed Mother.
Not exactly correct. There is a definite warning for the church:With Fatima, and it’s more enthusiastic adherants, we aren’t talking about correction or admonishment. The message of Fatima wasn’t to tell the Church to stop some error or to reengage a better understanding of the message of Christ. The point of contention is usually the consecration of Russia and whether it was done correctly.
Why is St. Bernadette a canonized saint? Don’t you think the appearance of Mary at Lourdes had a major part to do with that? Is there anyone who thinks of Bernadette who does not think of that? The Notre Dame church in Manhattan has a huge grotto inside the Church replicating that at Lourde, and they also have holy water from Lourdes that you can buy there.So, please, how would universally-acceptable parish names “rob us of many great gifts given to us by Jesus Christ through our Blessed Mother”?
At any rate, St. Bernadette is a canonized saint and “Notre Dame” is just the French for “Our Lady”, so neither of those examples actually illustrates your point (a point I remain unclear on).
I did not say there aren’t warnings included in the messages of Fatima, or in the messages of many approved and unapproved apparitions. But the message of Our Lady of Fatima wasn’t a rebuke or correction as WorkerPriest suggested. The portion you stated is more of a “if-then” statement.Not exactly correct. There is a definite warning for the church:
"It warns that if the requests of Our Lady of Fatima for the Consecration of Russia and the First Saturday devotion are not honored, the Church will be persecuted, there will be other major wars, the Holy Father will have much to suffer and various nations will be annihilated. Many nations will be enslaved by Russian militant atheists. Most important, many souls will be lost. "
fatima.org/whyfatima.htm
Sounds like a warning to the church to me.
What bothers me is Catholics who question the Catholicism of other Catholics when they raise a question over a non-essential issue like the appropriate naming of parishes.Why is St. Bernadette a canonized saint? Don’t you think the appearance of Mary at Lourdes had a major part to do with that? Is there anyone who thinks of Bernadette who does not think of that? The Notre Dame church in Manhattan has a huge grotto inside the Church replicating that at Lourde, and they also have holy water from Lourdes that you can buy there.
Because we have these churches named after private revelations, we therefore have a physical reminder of these miracles and the messages they bring us. And these churches tend to concentrate on these messages more, as well.
Why are you, as a Catholic, so against that? What is it in the messages that bother you?
I did not say there aren’t warnings included in the messages of Fatima, or in the messages of many approved and unapproved apparitions. But the message of Our Lady of Fatima wasn’t a rebuke or correction as WorkerPriest suggested. The portion you stated is more of a “if-then” statement.
I fully believe in the messages of Fatima, by the way. I just cringe when some people seem to be almost superstitious in thier promotion of them.
This is in no way proof that anything has happened. There are other incidents that have hundreds and thousands of witnesses that are reported as not being anything. I got into this discussion before and it really upset a couple of users here but the example is witnesses to UFOs. There are cases where there are large, and I mean really large, witnesses to them.Consider that Fatima’s Miracle of the Sun, witnessed by some 70,000 people, is without question the greatest miracle witnessed by the masses since the time of Jesus and the Apostles. The vast number of witnesses rules out fraud. So it happened.
I am sorry to have to disagree with you on this. There are only two levels, public revelation and private revelation. There is no special level for Fatima. It is a private revelation and not binding upon any Catholic, that’s just a fact of Catholic Teaching.In short, Fatima is unique. Of course it is not dogma, or doctrine, or part of the Deposit of the Faith.
Or the believe in private revelations.What bothers me is Catholics who question the Catholicism of other Catholics when they raise a question over a non-essential issue like the appropriate naming of parishes.
Or that you do not practice a certian private devotion, like praying the Rosary daily.What bothers me is Catholics who question the Catholicism of other Catholics when they raise a question over a non-essential issue like the appropriate naming of parishes.
Actually, there were accounts of the miracle in the Portgual newspapers.[ByzCath;7189852]This is in no way proof that anything has happened. There are other incidents that have hundreds and thousands of witnesses that are reported as not being anything. I got into this discussion before and it really upset a couple of users here but the example is witnesses to UFOs. There are cases where there are large, and I mean really large, witnesses to them.
"At one o’clock in the afternoon, midday by the sun, the rain stopped. The sky, pearly grey in colour, illuminated the vast arid landscape with a strange light. The sun had a transparent gauzy veil so that the eyes could easily be fixed upon it. The grey mother-of-pearl tone turned into a sheet of silver which broke up as the clouds were torn apart and the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds. A cry went up from every mouth and people fell on their knees on the muddy ground…
The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands. The blue faded slowly, and then the light seemed to pass through yellow glass. Yellow stains fell against white handkerchiefs, against the dark skirts of the women. They were repeated on the trees, on the stones and on the serra. People wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they.
You are correct, it is not binding upon any Catholic to believe in Fatima. But I still don’t understand why any Catholic would choose not to. I would love for someone to explain that to me. Do you think it is just coincidence that three little children, not even in their teens, completely ignorant of world events, would be able to give messages regarding the most profound and serious events in the 20th Century? Do you really think it’s possible they just made it all up? Why would there be so many newspapers accounts of the miracle of the sun? Did they just make it all up? Obviously the Church doesn’t think so. Two of them are blessed, and the Church has declared this an approved apparition.I am sorry to have to disagree with you on this. There are only two levels, public revelation and private revelation. There is no special level for Fatima. It is a private revelation and not binding upon any Catholic, that’s just a fact of Catholic Teaching.
I was going to try to let this go because you are obviously in a confrontational state of mind. Nowhere did I or anyone else question the “Catholicism” of Catholics who do not accept the revelations of Fatima. We have all said, over and over, it is not binding upon Catholics to believe this. But your answer here does not explain why you will not accept it, and why you are even hostile to it. Why do you feel the need to denigrate the beliefs of those of us who do accept it?What bothers me is Catholics who question the Catholicism of other Catholics when they raise a question over a non-essential issue like the appropriate naming of parishes.
By CC, I’m assuming you mean Catholic church. Where does the Catholic church treat private revelations as a “problem”?This thread is an absolutely beautiful example of why the way the CC is treating these private revelations is a problem…
Great post. Saints are infalliblly declared, apparitions are not.This thread is an absolutely beautiful example of why the way the CC is treating these private revelations is a problem.
It is not proven that something was a true revelation, simply because many people witnessed it. If that is our basis for truth, there are many other non-Christian miracles we will all have to believe. And though I don’t like to have to point this out, miracles and visions can be super-natural without coming from Heaven.
This “no one has to but all should” just makes a mockery of the principle. People are supposed to use their judgement.
And not believing in such revelations does not mean one would also have to disbelieve in every saint etc. Such a statement just shows a serious misunderstanding. The CC has said that it knows, foe example, that St Francis is a saint. That is not the same as saying that a particular private revelation is worthy of belief - in that case the CC itself doesn’t know if the thing is true or not.