Fatima NOT DOGMA

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I find the whole subject of Fatima fascinating, and I suppose it is particularly suited to this forum.

For one thing, it is an “approved apparition” and people often mistakenly think that, because it’s approved, it’s automatically part of Church teaching. For another, (and maybe I’m off-base here), I suspect that Fatima gets lots of press in this forum because of the “conversion of Russia” concept since, of course communism was, is, and will always be, the bugbear of a certain segment of the population. What? The Soviet Union imploded? No more state-sponsored communism? Fine. They turn the words against the Russian Orthodox Church, or something else.

But even more fascinating to me is this: rarely does anyone here mention Lourdes, despite the famous words of the Holy Virgin “Je suis l’Immaculée Conception” which actually do represent dogmatic teaching.

I’d say I don’t get it, but I actually think I do.

I am going to have to agree with you on this one.

Lourdes is starting to play a role in my life now. With my illness and a posible invitation to a Lourdes pilgrimage I am now looking into it more.

 

[kozlosap]

I find the whole subject of Fatima fascinating, and I suppose it is particularly suited to this forum.

For one thing, it is an “approved apparition” and people often mistakenly think that, because it’s approved, it’s automatically part of Church teaching. For another, (and maybe I’m off-base here), I suspect that Fatima gets lots of press in this forum because of the “conversion of Russia” concept since, of course communism was, is, and will always be, the bugbear of a certain segment of the population. What? The Soviet Union imploded? No more state-sponsored communism? Fine. They turn the words against the Russian Orthodox Church, or something else.

But even more fascinating to me is this: rarely does anyone here mention Lourdes, despite the famous words of the Holy Virgin “Je suis l’Immaculée Conception” which actually do represent dogmatic teaching.

I’d say I don’t get it, but I actually think I do.

I totally agree! After spending a year on CAF, I figured I was the only one who felt a spiritual closeness to St. Bernadette yet no feeling good or bad concerning Fatima. The almost fanatical cult-like following of some people who are devoted to Fatima scares me.

BTW - the second part of St. Bernadette’s Story (Passion I think it’s named) will be shown on EWTN this Wednesday.

 

[Seamus_L]

I realise the church does not require anyone to believe in Our Lady of Fatima, but to be quite candid, if a priest ever told me that he did not believe in OLF, or Our Lady Of Lourdes (St Bernadette Soubirous is one of my favorite Saints) or Our Lady of La Salette, I simply would not attend any mass he was saying or ever go to him for confession.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I realise the church does not require anyone to believe in Our Lady of Fatima, but to be quite candid, if a priest ever told me that he did not believe in OLF, or Our Lady Of Lourdes (St Bernadette Soubirous is one of my favorite Saints) or Our Lady of La Salette, I simply would not attend any mass he was saying or ever go to him for confession.

Wow, now I have heard everything.

You would actually avoid a priest who follows what the Church Teaches.

Amazing.

There are so many approved apparitions there is no way that anyone could work them all into their spiritual life.

I have worked in those that work for me or have drawn me in (so to speak) but for all those others I neither believe (as it is not required) nor disbelieve. I leave it to each individual to work it out for themself and I expect that same respect for me and my spiritual life.

 

[Seamus_L]

And that amazes you ? I once told a very Traditional priest that I was uncomfortable going to confession with an elderly priest who I considered rather abusive. Know what he told me ? He said I was in no way obligated to go to that particular priest, and that I should go to a confessor I was comfortable with.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And that amazes you ? I once told a very Traditional priest that I was uncomfortable going to confession with an elderly priest who I considered rather abusive. Know what he told me ? He said I was in no way obligated to go to that particular priest, and that I should go to a confessor I was comfortable with.

You’re comparing apples and oranges here. An abusive priest =/= a priest who has little to zero interest in private revelation.

This same principle applies to normal Catholics too.

 

[JReducation]

The message of Fatima is pretty simple. There is nothing doctrinally or morally new in it: pray and repent. What’s so new about this?

The problem here is that some people who have a devotion to Our Lady under the title of Our Lady of Fatima want to promote the devotion as if it were essential to salvation. The essential to salvation is the message to pray and do penance, not the devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. That’s why the Holy Father’s always use the same words. “The message of Fatima remains relevant to our day.” Of course it does. They are not asking Catholics to have a devotion to Our Lady under the title of Fatima. They are encouraging prayer and penance. They are driving home the message, not the devotion.

Even Pope John Paul II who had a great devotion to Our Lady under the title of Fatima, did not insist on the devotion to her under this title. He did, however, constantly preach of the importance of devotion to Our Lady. If we look at Oriental Catholics, they do not have a strong devotion to Our Lady under many of the titles that Romans use. However, Eastern Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox is very Marian. Let’s not lose our focus here. The issue is devotion to the Thetokos, not to Fatima and fidelity to the call to prayer and conversion from sin.

As far as the miracles are concerned, one can learn a great deal from Sacred Scripture. Johanine Mysticism explains it best. The Miracles were signs of the Messiahship of Jesus. They were a means to an end. "So that you may believe . . . " Johanine Mysticism is constantly reminding us of the importance of blind faith. In his Mystical Theology, John helps us understand that miracles are given to man because we are weak in faith. Miracles are really meant to strengthen our faith in Christ. They are not meant to be ends in themselves. The one thing that is very clear in Johanine Mystical Theology is the danger of a faith that is grounded in signs and proofs. While John does not belittle the signs, he is very interesting in his handling of them. He has less miracles in his Gospel than any other writer. He selects just enough miracles to support the Messiahship of Christ.

Our quest and following of miracles must always be regulated by our desire to adore the Messiah, not wonder at the unexplainable. That’s why the Church pays little attention to miracles attributed to human beings while they are alive. She pays a lot of attention to miracles through their intercession after they die, because these miracles point to the saving power of God. When we study miracles, such as that of Fatima, we must focus on the saving power of God. Anyone who has studied Johanine Mysticism, not John’s Gospel, that’s something else, but Johanine Mysticism is very focussed on the saving power of God. Everthing must lead to a better understanding of his Glory.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The message of Fatima is pretty simple. There is nothing doctrinally or morally new in it: pray and repent. What’s so new about this?

The problem here is that some people who have a devotion to Our Lady under the title of Our Lady of Fatima want to promote the devotion as if it were essential to salvation. The essential to salvation is the message to pray and do penance, not the devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. That’s why the Holy Father’s always use the same words. “The message of Fatima remains relevant to our day.” Of course it does. They are not asking Catholics to have a devotion to Our Lady under the title of Fatima. They are encouraging prayer and penance. They are driving home the message, not the devotion.

Br JR,
What you say is correct for the most part, but if you look at some of those pushing Fatima at this forum it is not just the message of “pray and do penance”. It is not just devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. It is that the consecration of Russia did not occur and that the Third Secrect has not been fully revealed.

They go further than the message of pray and do penance.

I would even hazard a guess that some of them here believe that we must pray the Rosary daily because Our Lady of Fatima said we should.

 

[Pregustator]

I don’t disagree with any of this. However, just last may the current Pope visited Fatima, said mass there, and also mentioned that the message of Fatima was not over and it is particuarly relevant to our time. With that said, why would anyone choose not to believe in a “private” revelation that even the Pope himself firmly believes in? That to me is an odd position.

Because, as the currently reigning pope has himself pointed out, “the pope is not an oracle”. Of course, when the pope teaches something from the deposit of the Faith, Christians are obliged to believe. But when he publicly expresses a personal belief in something non-essential (such as a private revelation), I do not understand why it should be imagined that any other Catholic should feel compelled to conform his personal beliefs on the non-essential matter in question to those of the reigning pope. To suggest that one should seems to me the odd position to take, especially when you consider that the next pope could conceivably have a very different take on the matter in question.

Now, I think one can say that it might be reasonable for a Catholic to, perhaps, take a second look at something of this nature if the pope deems it important enough to publicly comment on or write about it…if he cares to and if he has time to and if he feels motivated to bother with it. But if, after doing so, he concludes “nnnn…no. With all due respect to His Holiness, I still don’t believe in that, I’m afraid; it just doesn’t add up, from my perspective,” his position should not be regarded as an odd one, I think, but as a carefully considered one.

The pope, of course, as a human being who is not an oracle, will have many, many personal opinions about many, many topics and issues that are not fundamental to the Catholic Faith. No Catholic whould even be expected to attempt to discover what the pope’s personal opinions are on any such subject, much less to conform his personal opinions on any of those subjects to those of the reigning pope.

Remember, too, that we live in a media age of prolific pontiffs who enjoy expressing their opinions and publishing them. Five centuries ago, however, the average Catholic might not even have had any concept of what the pope looked like, much less what his opinion was on the latest private revelation of interest. And that was just fine. There was no need for the average Catholic to know what the pope’s opinion was on that matter, or even to be aware of the private revelation, itself.

When the pope speaks to us as bishop, teacher, and father, it is not his personal opinions that bind us, but the Christian Faith which he reiterates to us. When, as a devout Christian like any other, he expresses his personal opinion–however publicly–concerning a private revelation, he might as well be expressing his opinion on the existence of UFOs for all that it compells individual Catholics. We are not even obliged to discover what Benedict XVI believes about Fatima, much less to share those beliefs.

 

[notredame_999]

Because, as the currently reigning pope has himself pointed out, “the pope is not an oracle”. Of course, when the pope teaches something from the deposit of the Faith, Christians are obliged to believe. But when he publicly expresses a personal belief in something non-essential (such as a private revelation), I do not understand why it should be imagined that any other Catholic should feel compelled to conform his personal beliefs on the non-essential matter in question to those of the reigning pope. To suggest that one should seems to me the odd position to take, especially when you consider that the next pope could conceivably have a very different take on the matter in question.

Now, I think one can say that it might be reasonable for a Catholic to, perhaps, take a second look at something of this nature if the pope deems it important enough to publicly comment on or write about it…if he cares to and if he has time to and if he feels motivated to bother with it. But if, after doing so, he concludes “nnnn…no. With all due respect to His Holiness, I still don’t believe in that, I’m afraid; it just doesn’t add up, from my perspective,” his position should not be regarded as an odd one, I think, but as a carefully considered one.

The pope, of course, as a human being who is not an oracle, will have many, many personal opinions about many, many topics and issues that are not fundamental to the Catholic Faith. No Catholic whould even be expected to attempt to discover what the pope’s personal opinions are on any such subject, much less to conform his personal opinions on any of those subjects to those of the reigning pope.

Remember, too, that we live in a media age of prolific pontiffs who enjoy expressing their opinions and publishing them. Five centuries ago, however, the average Catholic might not even have had any concept of what the pope looked like, much less what his opinion was on the latest private revelation of interest. And that was just fine. There was no need for the average Catholic to know what the pope’s opinion was on that matter, or even to be aware of the private revelation, itself.

When the pope speaks to us as bishop, teacher, and father, it is not his personal opinions that bind us, but the Christian Faith which he reiterates to us. When, as a devout Christian like any other, he expresses his personal opinion–however publicly–concerning a private revelation, he might as well be expressing his opinion on the existence of UFOs for all that it compells individual Catholics. We are not even obliged to discover what Benedict XVI believes about Fatima, much less to share those beliefs.

I speak for a lot of traditional catholics on this site- I wouldn’t trust any pope who does not believe in Fatima.

 

[malphono]

Pregustator;7248219:

When the pope speaks to us as bishop, teacher, and father, it is not his personal opinions that bind us, but the Christian Faith which he reiterates to us. When, as a devout Christian like any other, he expresses his personal opinion–however publicly–concerning a private revelation, he might as well be expressing his opinion on the existence of UFOs for all that it compells individual Catholics.

I speak for a lot of traditional catholics on this site- I wouldn’t trust any pope who does not believe in Fatima.

It’s true that the Church rarely “approves” apparitions, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is incorrect to say to that because Fatima (or any other such apparition) is “approved” that it automatically is part of the Deposit of Faith. It isn’t. The “approval” simply means that, after due investigation, the Church accepts that an apparition occurred. Nothing more, nothing less. I cannot see that PP Benedict XVI (or, for that matter, any of his predecessors), has said or even implied anything to the contrary.

 

[pnewton]

I speak for a lot of traditional catholics on this site- I wouldn’t trust any pope who does not believe in Fatima.

I think the question is more, what they believe about Fatima. I do not think the question is so much whether Mary appeared, but how universal the instructions are that she gave to the children. Of course the biggest controversy is the consecration of Russia.

 

[Pregustator]

I speak for a lot of traditional catholics on this site- I wouldn’t trust any pope who does not believe in Fatima.

Now, you’ll pardon me, but this sort of opinion, to me, is very illustrative of what can go wrong in the mind of a Catholic when an undue attachment to a private revelation takes hold of him. “I would not trust any pope who does not believe in Fatima.” Despite the fact that such a pope would have been duly-elected by the College of Cardinals, depite the fact that he would enjoy the protection of infallibility, a Catholic is saying that he would not trust Christ’s Vicar, should he express a disbelief in a certain private revelation.

And he asserts that he “speaks for alot of traditional Catholics on this site” when he says as much.

The notion that the trustworthiness of a Sovereign Pontiff could depend upon each individual Catholic’s feelings, based upon his own views on one given private revelation or another, is a very modernist, subjectivist, and dangerous notion indeed.

 

[Hesychios]

Now, you’ll pardon me, but this sort of opinion, to me, is very illustrative of what can go wrong in the mind of a Catholic when an undue attachment to a private revelation takes hold of him. “I would not trust any pope who does not believe in Fatima.” Despite the fact that such a pope would have been duly-elected by the College of Cardinals, depite the fact that he would enjoy the protection of infallibility, a Catholic is saying that he would not trust Christ’s Vicar, should he express a disbelief in a certain private revelation.

And he asserts that he “speaks for alot of traditional Catholics on this site” when he says as much.

The notion that the trustworthiness of a Sovereign Pontiff could depend upon each individual Catholic’s feelings, based upon his own views on one given private revelation or another, is a very modernist, subjectivist, and dangerous notion indeed.

You are spot-on with this.

It is by the authority of the church that apparitions are judged.

Not the other way around.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR,
What you say is correct for the most part, but if you look at some of those pushing Fatima at this forum it is not just the message of “pray and do penance”. It is not just devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. It is that the consecration of Russia did not occur and that the Third Secrect has not been fully revealed.

They go further than the message of pray and do penance.

I would even hazard a guess that some of them here believe that we must pray the Rosary daily because Our Lady of Fatima said we should.

There are two doctrinal issues that have to be carefully understood here.

The role of Mary in Salvation history: Her role is to be the Theotokos and to point all men to her son. She certainly makes this very clear at Fatima.

The role of Peter in Salvation history: It is Peter who governs the temporal Church, not Mary. She does not presume to trump his authority. Mary would never do what would be contrary to what her son has established. Therefore, Mary would not command the Church. The consecration of Russia is a request, not a command. It is not binding on Peter. It is not revelation nor moral theology. It is what is known as an act of piety that the Church may execute however she wishes and when she wishes.

The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II said that it had been done. There are those who argue that it was not done as per Mary’s instructions to the visionaries of Fatima. This is where the second doctrinal issue comes into play. It is Peter’s job to interpret and implement supernatural messages. It’s more than his job, it is his right. Those who insist that he has to do something this way or that way, because Mary said so run the risk of destabalizing the papacy. We cannot make the papacy subordinate to every message that comes through visionaries. These messages can be misunderstood by the visionaries or even repeated incorrectly, even when they understand. Human words are often lacking in communicating mystical experience. What the children at Fatima had was a mystical experience. Every mystic throughout history has always complained about the difficulty they encounter putting into words what they experience, see, hear and understand. Therefore, the Church, specifically the popes, have the flexibility to try to interpret and apply according to revealed truths and their best judgment.

As to whether or not the final secret has been fully revealed, that’s tricky argument. If something is a secret and someone tells us the alleged secret, how do we really know if there is more? That’s why it’s called a secret, because its content is known only to some.

As Catholics, this is where we place our trust in Peter’s leadership and his judgment in the best interest of the Church. If we focuss on the life of prayer to which Mary calls us and turning away from sin, the rest of the secret is not important. We will not be saved by the secret. We will be saved by grace. Grace comes through prayer, sacraments, penances and corporal works of mercy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[beehumble]

snip The consecration of Russia is a request, not a command. It is not binding on Peter. It is not revelation nor moral theology. It is what is known as an act of piety that the Church may execute however she wishes and when she wishes.

Again, Fatima is different than all other revelations. It was a request, but a request made by God through Blessed Mary, God holding a big stick and prepared to swing it at us. the message said God was to punish the world, but to prevent it I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia and the first Saturdays. If what I request is heeded Russia will convert and there will be peace; if not Russia will cause more wars and persecutions. In other words, if my request is granted, there will be peace; if not, there will be war, famine, persecution of the Church.

And as for the specifics of the request, for sure we now know the Act of Consecration to Russia had to be done by the Pope in union wiht the bishops, or else the request would be considered by God as unfulfilled. We know because popes who tried it without the bishops had no effect, including Pope John Paul on May 13, 1982. He did not do it in union with the bishops and so it was rejected by heaven.

Fatima is different than any other private revelation. The popes know this, so they keep going their.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again, Fatima is different than all other revelations. It was a request, but a request made by God through Blessed Mary, God holding a big stick and prepared to swing it at us. the message said God was to punish the world, but to prevent it I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia and the first Saturdays. If what I request is heeded Russia will convert and there will be peace; if not Russia will cause more wars and persecutions. In other words, if my request is granted, there will be peace; if not, there will be war, famine, persecution of the Church.

And as for the specifics of the request, for sure we now know the Act of Consecration to Russia had to be done by the Pope in union wiht the bishops, or else the request would be considered by God as unfulfilled. We know because popes who tried it without the bishops had no effect, including Pope John Paul on May 13, 1982. He did not do it in union with the bishops and so it was rejected by heaven.

Fatima is different than any other private revelation. The popes know this, so they keep going their.

See this is just it. It is not binding, it is a private revelation.

Also Sr Lucia said that Heaven accepted his Consecration.

 

[beehumble]

See this is just it. It is not binding, it is a private revelation.

Also Sr Lucia said that Heaven accepted his Consecration.

Oh yes, I believe it has been accepted, and it was enacted on March 25, 1984.

I believe Fatima is the most important of all private revelations, in a class by itself.

(To reiterate, it was a request, but a request along the lines of “I want you to do this. If you do, you will be rewarded. If you don’t, you will be punished.”)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Oh yes, I believe it has been accepted, and it was enacted on March 25, 1984.

I believe Fatima is the most important of all private revelations, in a class by itself.

(To reiterate, it was a request, but a request along the lines of “I want you to do this. If you do, you will be rewarded. If you don’t, you will be punished.”)

Please show with Church Documents where there are different classes of private revelation.

You will not be able to do so because there are not.

Belief in any private revelation is not necessary for salvation.

 

[JReducation]

Again, Fatima is different than all other revelations. It was a request, but a request made by God through Blessed Mary, God holding a big stick and prepared to swing it at us. the message said God was to punish the world, but to prevent it I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia and the first Saturdays. If what I request is heeded Russia will convert and there will be peace; if not Russia will cause more wars and persecutions. In other words, if my request is granted, there will be peace; if not, there will be war, famine, persecution of the Church.

And as for the specifics of the request, for sure we now know the Act of Consecration to Russia had to be done by the Pope in union wiht the bishops, or else the request would be considered by God as unfulfilled. We know because popes who tried it without the bishops had no effect, including Pope John Paul on May 13, 1982. He did not do it in union with the bishops and so it was rejected by heaven.

Fatima is different than any other private revelation. The popes know this, so they keep going their.

We must not forget an uncompromising teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. There are no new revelations since the death of the last apostle. Therefore, all other “revelations” are private and non-binding on the Apostolic Churches. Heaven will not usurp the Church’s authoritative teaching and law on this or any matter.

For that reason, popes are not bound by these revelations. It is one thing to believe in the miracle and another to erect it to the level of revealed truth. All truth that God had to reveal has been revealed through Scripture. Tradition and the Magisterium. There are no other authoritative sources of truth.

Miracles where the Blessed Mother, Jesus, saints or angels speak to individuals are just that, miracles intended to strengthen the faith of the Church in what has already been revealed, not intended to introduce new truths, new commandments or new directions for the Church. However, the pope, under the ordinary magisterium has the power to make use of as much or as little of any message that comes through a miracle.

Take a simple example from more recent times, the visions of St. Faustina. The Church has lent public support to that part of the message that was consistent with what had already been revealed through scripture, Magisterium and Tradition, the eternal mercy of God and through the ordinary magisterium, she instituted Mercy Sunday, which is neither a dogma nor a moral teaching, but a devotion to God’s mercy celebrated in the liturgy, but ONLY for the Roman Church. Mercy Sunday does not exist in the liturgical calendar of the other Catholic Churches or the Orthodox Churches, nor is it required, because all Catholics and Orthodox already worship God’s mercy.

The same holds true for the message of Fatima. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims and Jews already teach and belief that the course to salvation is through prayer and conversion from sin, not through the consecration of Russia. However, Pope John Paul did execute the consecration. The consecration is considered to be executed with all the bishops, because all Catholic and Orthodox bishops are united to the Bishop of Rome in sacris. They need not lend audible support to share in his actions, since all validly ordained bishops, whether Catholic or other, are already united to Peter through the grace of their episcopal ordination.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF