Fatima NOT DOGMA

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, there were accounts of the miracle in the Portgual newspapers.

Just as there are accounts in newspapers of other massed witnessed events. I could do a search here at CAF where I have posted just that sort of thing.

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.

Again, I am not stating where my belief lies with Fatima but how does the answer, “it has nothing to do with my spirituality” work for you?

 

[Robert_Burns]

Why does it seem that so many (so-called) traditionalist Catholics want to raise Fatima to such a level that every Catholic must believe in it?

Fatima is a private revelation and as such is not part of the deposit of faith and is not required to be believed in by any Faithful Catholic, not even the Pope must believe in it to be a Catholic.

Why must someone force their view of spirituality upon everyone else?

Maybe because EVERY POPE without exception since the Apparition HAS given the example for we Catholics of their belief in it by making a pilgrimage there?

 

[Pregustator]

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?

The church has approved this apparition. No, you do not have to accept it, but you have no right to try to take it away from anyone else.

Obviously in a confrontational state of mind? Is your name “Hector” by any chance?

I haven’t even mentioned in this thread whether or not I, personally, believe in Fatima or not. I am not hostile to anyone who does believe in it, and I do not denigrate anyone’s beliefs. I’d like to know in which post of mine on this thread you think I have denigrated anyone’s belief. Please quote me.

All I have said is that Catholics aren’t obligated to believe in things like Fatima if they choose not to, and that dioceses might do well to avoid potentially controversial names for parishes. I also suggested that dioceses avoid silly names for parishes, names that do not makes sense, such as, for example, “SS. Joseph & Thomas”.

So…what the deuce are you even talking about? Take Fatima away from anyone else? How would I be able to do that, exactly, do you think?

 

[Bluegoat]

By CC, I’m assuming you mean Catholic church. Where does the Catholic church treat private revelations as a “problem”?

The way they treat it is a problem, not they treat it as a problem.

 

[WorkerPriest]

I wonder, if perhaps the content of the visions and messages of Fatima, contribute to the consternation between the categories of public and private revelation.

Though the visions and messages came in an apparently private fashion, didn’t they come in such a way that they were commended to the whole world? The call of the Lady of Fatima to faith and repentance was not directed only at the diocese in which the seers received it… and the orders given to the popes certainly reached beyond the private borders of the local bishop. World calamities in the prophecies made the visitation at Fatima of interest to people around the world, and if the apocalyptic end of the Third Secret is yet to be realized, there are a whole lot of martyrs in waiting.

I wonder if Fatima is one of those rare events where the categories just don’t fit. Or, is it possible, that Fatima is actually a public revelation that is being inappropriately shoe-horned into a private revelation category? How can the Vatican commend Fatima as worthy of belief, and yet constrain the very public contents to private revelation?

Again, my apologies if I’ve misunderstood or misapplied the inside-baseball terms.

Pax.

 

[Pregustator]

I wonder, if perhaps the content of the visions and messages of Fatima, contribute to the consternation between the categories of public and private revelation.

Though the visions and messages came in an apparently private fashion, didn’t they come in such a way that they were commended to the whole world? The call of the Lady of Fatima to faith and repentance was not directed only at the diocese in which the seers received it… and the orders given to the popes certainly reached beyond the private borders of the local bishop. World calamities in the prophecies made the visitation at Fatima of interest to people around the world, and if the apocalyptic end of the Third Secret is yet to be realized, there are a whole lot of martyrs in waiting.

I wonder if Fatima is one of those rare events where the categories just don’t fit. Or, is it possible, that Fatima is actually a public revelation that is being inappropriately shoe-horned into a private revelation category? How can the Vatican commend Fatima as worthy of belief, and yet constrain the very public contents to private revelation?

Again, my apologies if I’ve misunderstood or misapplied the inside-baseball terms.

Pax.

Well, didn’t public revelation end with the death of the last apostle?

The Fatima event involves an alleged apparition with a message shared with three children…long, long, long after the death of John. It’s a private revelation.

 

[pnewton]

What? I’m not sure what you’re meaning with this sentence, and it’s open to some potentially dangerous interpretations. Obviously, one’s not free to pursue whatever spirituality they find most edifying or beneficial – or else there would be no purpose in approving private revelation or condemning fake revelations, etc.

I suspect you just misspoke, but I want to make sure.

Yes, I meant any legitimate Catholic spirituality.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

People don’t believe it, or perhaps simply neither believe nor disbelieve, for the same reasons you would disbelieve similar events that happen in a Hindu or Muslim context.

ByzCath pointed out that there have been a number of mass sightings of UFOs, that were documented by newspapers. Or people who have said that they were abducted by aliens. It is, theoretically, quite possible that the same psychological processes could work in cases of religious revelation.

Another possibility in such a situation might be that a malevolent super-natural force could be at work.

Remember, an approved apparition doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is saying it is true. They are saying that as far as they can see, it is not a hoax or lie, and it does not contradict Catholic teaching.

Personally, the fact that the Blessed Virgin supposedly commented extensively on 20th century world events makes me doubtful of the visions validity, rather than more likely to believe it.

I am not sure why you are saying anyone is trying to “take away” these visions. I haven’t seen anyone so far say anything like that. What they have done is commented on how the Catholic Church says such visions are to be understood, compared to how people are actually understanding them. It seems to be the believers who are insisting that disbelief or even neutrality is somehow less faithful.

 

[pnewton]

Yet the Church tells us that private revelation adds nothing to the deposit of faith so I do not understand your comment " just because one does not rise to the level of formal heresy by disregarding what the Church teaches does not mean it can be tossed aside lightly."

I was trying to be nice about the opening post and the title and tiptoe around the fact that it makes no sense. Fatima is not dogma. Of course not. It is a city; an infallible bit of geography. We can look it up on a map. The post was too vague about what the objection was. The first post also shows a common misconception. Everything that is not dogma is not simply up for grabs. We still have an obligation to listen to Holy Mother Church in what she is teaching. I don’t expect Anglicans and Lutherans to get this, but for Catholics we have an obligation to try and understand the mind of the Church when we disagree with something.

The apparations at Fatima are approved and deemed by the Church to have spiritual value. If a Catholic does not like this fact, then it is not up to them to disagree with the decision of the Church in this matter. Rather simply move on to something else. It is not required that one watch the movies, read the stories or anything else. Who cares? Yet it remains approved. It remains part of our Church’s tradition. Our Lady of Guadalupe is still the patroness of the Americas whether one dances the folk dances or goes to Mass that day. As far as naming parishes, you may not really care for the saint your parish is named after. It does not change that this is still part of Church tradition. I have never lost any sleep over the fact my Church is named after a curmudgeon.

I would not, however, base a crusade newspaper on any of these things.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The apparations at Fatima are approved and deemed by the Church to have spiritual value. If a Catholic does not like this fact, then it is not up to them to disagree with the decision of the Church in this matter. Rather simply move on to something else. It is not required that one watch the movies, read the stories or anything else. Who cares? Yet it remains approved. It remains part of our Church’s tradition. Our Lady of Guadalupe is still the patroness of the Americas whether one dances the folk dances or goes to Mass that day. As far as naming parishes, you may not really care for the saint your parish is named after. It does not change that this is still part of Church tradition. I have never lost any sleep over the fact my Church is named after a curmudgeon.

And all “approved” means is that the Church states that they are worthy of belief. Not that they must be believed.

No one needs to believe in any of the “approved” revelation for salvation as all they do is reafirm public revelation. No one “needs” more than that.

Some find comfort in the extra, others do not.

I just do not see the push that many believers have in these private revelations that makes them insist that all must believe in them and that, in the words of one user here, they are binding upon us.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The sentence is not self-contradictory:

Nobody has to believe it, but everybody should (for their own sakes).

And here is more for those who study too hard, or twist more into something than was said to contort it into what they wish was said so they can argue and rebut:

No, I’m just giving you an honest linguistic analysis of your sentence. “Has to” and “should” are virtually synonymous.

He has to believe in hell or else he’s declared a heretic.
He should believe in hell or else he’s declared a heretic.

Both terms imply a necessity. However, the Church states that belief in Fatima is not a necessity (as I’ve presented in the apologist video made by CA itself). Hence, your statement is shooting itself in the foot. Look I am not necessarily advocating anything against Fatima, I’m just suggesting you construct a sentence that makes more sense.

It says this: We are free to take Fatima or leave it. But if one looks at it objectively, openly and honestly, even from a historical viewpoint, the message of Fatima is quite clear. We need to pray and return to God. Our salvation rests in God alone and not in anything of man. The West stood toe to toe with the atheistic forces of Communism for 70 years, spending vast blood and treasure but could never defeat it - in fact it relentlessly spread. Until the consecration requested at Fatima was enacted on 25 March 1984, that is. Then it collapsed without hardly a shot being fired. All those who lived through those days know it is a great miracle plain and simple; those who did not live through it do not and cannot understand.

Scripture itself already tells us the same message of Fatima:

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And Sacred Scripture was already there looooong before Fatima.
Sacred Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith while Fatima is not.

I’m not presenting opinion here. These are plain facts within the Church.

Because Fatima is virtually impossible to refute even from a historical viewpoint, it would be wise to listen to what God spoke to us through Fatima. When God ‘talks’ we should listen. It is for our good, for our sake, that He bothers to speak to us. So yes, everybody should take Fatima to heart and try to live it.

My point is whatever God spoke through Fatima is something that the Church has taught looong before these apparitions. Not to mention, there were a few others that already occurred before this one.

And again with the “should”? Next thing you’re going to tell me I’m going to hell for not believing in Fatima despite me believing the Deposit of Faith that had long preceded it.

Living Fatima will not harm a person; it will but help.

Neither will not living it and opting another form of spirituality (provided it doesn’t go against the direct teachings of the Church).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I just noticed something when I read the relevant paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The bolded emphasis is added.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but** to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history**. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
So even the Church realizes that these private messages are not “for all time”.

Also the second bolded protion goes to one poster here who says that the messages of Fatima bind Catholics, they can not do so without surpassing public Revelation as Fatima is said to bind us to things that are not part of that public Revelation.

 

[Pregustator]

So even the Church realizes that these private messages are not “for all time”.

No, and it can really be argued, I think, that the Fatima events, if authentic, are actually outdated at this point. The central issue seems to have been the conversion of Russia through some consecration by the Pope (which certainly did occur, according to some Fatima devotees, or which certainly did not occur, according to others). Whatever was meant to happen either did or did not happen but I don’t think anything, with respect to Fatima, is yet to come. It seems to me that the world issues that may have been addressed by this apparition have all passed into history at this point. Whether Fatima was authentic or not, it would seem to be irrelevant in the year 2010.

 

[Brooklyn]

Obviously in a confrontational state of mind? Is your name “Hector” by any chance?

I haven’t even mentioned in this thread whether or not I, personally, believe in Fatima or not. I am not hostile to anyone who does believe in it, and I do not denigrate anyone’s beliefs. I’d like to know in which post of mine on this thread you think I have denigrated anyone’s belief. Please quote me.

All I have said is that Catholics aren’t obligated to believe in things like Fatima if they choose not to, and that dioceses might do well to avoid potentially controversial names for parishes. I also suggested that dioceses avoid silly names for parishes, names that do not makes sense, such as, for example, “SS. Joseph & Thomas”.

So…what the deuce are you even talking about? Take Fatima away from anyone else? How would I be able to do that, exactly, do you think?

I have never before heard anyone get upset about the names of churches. I don’t consider “Fatima” or “Lourdes” or “SS. Joseph & Thomas” silly names, and I don’t really understand why you do, either. But it seems that you do, and that seems somewhat hostile to me. That is what the deuce I am talking about. And because someone does believe in Fatima, which the church officially believes in, and as mentioned in a prior post, every Pope since then has believed in, you still call it “silly” to name a church after that.

Why do you want to stop churches from being named for an approved apparition? Just what will that solve? A Catholic who is offended by an approved apparition has a real problem.

Maybe I’m showing my ignorance, but who the “deuce” is Hector?

 

[At_Trent]

Why does it seem that so many (so-called) traditionalist Catholics want to raise Fatima to such a level that every Catholic must believe in it?

Fatima is a private revelation and as such is not part of the deposit of faith and is not required to be believed in by any Faithful Catholic, not even the Pope must believe in it to be a Catholic.

Why must someone force their view of spirituality upon everyone else?

I’ve never had a traditionalist, no matter how hardcore, tell me or even hint at, me being expected to accept Fatima. Never on any trad forum have I seen such.

Yes, those who hold Fatima dear to their hearts pray for the Consecration of Russia, and they plead and beg H.H. to do so. Per Our Lady’s specific instructions. Is that really so much to ask ?

The request is a spiritual thirst, a faith in the apparition, and it is simply one of an enormous amount of requests our Holy Father receives.

Does the world include Russia. Yes, of course it does. Does the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary fulfill the request ? Not per Our Lady’s request. Why on earth a pope would visit Fatima and not do this I’ll never know.

If one does not hold the devotion, fine. But the need to ridicule others for holding it and fighting relentlessly for the Consecration of Russia is diabolical persecution. It involves Our Lady, and as long as there is indeed a chance she appeared at Fatima, I cannot see how a single negative view of the devotion by a Roman Catholic can be justified. Far too many witnessed the Miracle of the Sun. And in light of the times, it does not seem so far fetched God would perform such a miracle of that proportion.

Look at what those children suffered for it.
youtube.com/watch?v=bvwcgsNA89g

 

[justme]

I’ve never had a traditionalist, no matter how hardcore, tell me or even hint at, me being expected to accept Fatima. Never on any trad forum have I seen such.

Yes, those who hold Fatima dear to their hearts pray for the Consecration of Russia, and they plead and beg H.H. to do so. Per Our Lady’s specific instructions. Is that really so much to ask ?

The request is a spiritual thirst, a faith in the apparition, and it is simply one of an enormous amount of requests our Holy Father receives.

Does the world include Russia. Yes, of course it does. Does the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary fulfill the request ? Not per Our Lady’s request. Why on earth a pope would visit Fatima and not do this I’ll never know.

If one does not hold the devotion, fine. But the need to ridicule others for holding it and fighting relentlessly for the Consecration of Russia is diabolical persecution. It involves Our Lady, and as long as there is indeed a chance she appeared at Fatima, I cannot see how a single negative view of the devotion by a Roman Catholic can be justified. Far too many witnessed the Miracle of the Sun. And in light of the times, it does not seem so far fetched God would perform such a miracle of that proportion.

Look at what those children suffered for it.
youtube.com/watch?v=bvwcgsNA89g

That’s just it, this “command” is not binding.

Also Pope John Paul II said he did it and Sr Lucia said that Heaven has accepted it.

So those who say it must be done are wrong on two accounts.

It can not be a must as it is a private revelation and for them to be right means that the seer, Sr Lucia, and Pope John Paul II are liars.

 

[Pregustator]

I have never before heard anyone get upset about the names of churches. I don’t consider “Fatima” or “Lourdes” or “SS. Joseph & Thomas” silly names, and I don’t really understand why you do, either. But it seems that you do, and that seems somewhat hostile to me. That is what the deuce I am talking about. And because someone does believe in Fatima, which the church officially believes in, and as mentioned in a prior post, every Pope since then has believed in, you still call it “silly” to name a church after that.

Why do you want to stop churches from being named for an approved apparition? Just what will that solve? A Catholic who is offended by an approved apparition has a real problem.

Maybe I’m showing my ignorance, but who the “deuce” is Hector?

The renowned “Hector the Projector,” of course.

You don’t think “SS. Joseph & Thomas” is a silly name? Churches named after paired saints are meant to be named after saints that are traditionally paired, for example, “SS. Peter & Paul” or “SS. Cosmas & Damian”. There exists a close relationship between them, a historical or familial connection, and that is why they are paired together.

But what is the relationship between St. Joseph, foster father of Jesus, and St. Thomas (be he the Apostle, Aquinas, More, or any other Thomas)? There isn’t any. The only reason the parish in question was named “SS. Joseph & Thomas” is because it is the result of a merger of a church called “St. Joseph” and another called “St. Thomas”! But you can’t then simply call it “SS. Joseph & Thomas” as if that makes any sense. Pick one or the other, or give it a new name.

That is what I meant by silly names, which, if you read all of my words instead of about 25% of them, which appears to be the case, you would have understood.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve yet to hear anyone suggest that Our Lady of Fatima should be elevated to Church doctrine. More than likely what people encounter is shock and disbelief if they’re saying things like “Oh I just don’t believe the Fatima message” or “I can’t believe the Blessed Mother really appeared several times to a poor 14 year old girl in the South of France in 1858”. It would sure shock me to hear any Catholic say something like that, unless of course they came from a liberal parish.
We not only have churches named for approved visions, we have statues, stained glass, paintings and icons of them. It's part of our great Catholic tradition.

 

[Robert_Burns]

And all “approved” means is that the Church states that they are worthy of belief. Not that they must be believed.

No one needs to believe in any of the “approved” revelation for salvation as all they do is reafirm public revelation. No one “needs” more than that.

Some find comfort in the extra, others do not.

I just do not see the push that many believers have in these private revelations that makes them insist that all must believe in them and that, in the words of one user here, they are binding upon us.

Some say the same things about Vatican Council II in that there is not a single ANATHEMA in any of the Documents.

 

[stephe1987]

I don’t see why people are so angry about this? This was prophetic about the 20th century.

People can name their parishes after whomever they like. Why does it matter? It’s not like they are named after a demon or something. Just go to a different parish.

And some people think the vision was fake BECAUSE it had prophecies that were fulfilled? That seems very odd to me. So is the Old Testament false because it contained prophecies about Jesus? People need to re-examine their faith and pray about this. Specific, fulfilled prophecies are not coincidental.