Fatima NOT DOGMA

[JReducation]

The prophecies of Our Lady at Fatima have all come to pass, all would be hopelessly lost if not for her promise that “…in the end my Immaculate Heart will Triumph.” Thank her that she does not predicate that on whether we listened and obeyed her or not or on whether the Church has made her words into Dogma or not.

The Church cannot “make” her words into Dogma. Neither Mary nor the Church have the authority to create dogma. Dogma is revealed by Christ through :

• Sacred Tradition
• Magisterium
• Scripture

There are no other sources of Dogma. To accuse or suggest that Mary attempts to introduce new dogma into the life of the Church is a sin against her. It’s accusing her of something that she would never do. Mary, as mother of God and Mother of the Church, would never usurp the Church or interfere in her teachings. She supports the faith of the people, just as she did while she was living on earth.

Any statement that suggests that Mary brings something new to the table, as if God had forgotten something, is stunning. Mary clarifies. Mary stengthens. Mary encourages. Mary leads by example. Mary intercedes. Mary calls men to her son. Mary rejoices in her son’s triumph over sin.

Anything that Mary does through miracles and apparitions must be looked at through her roles in Salvation History, never outside of that context. Otherwise, we will distort what God is trying to help us understand. I believe that this is happening with Fatima.

Even the Holy Father’s statement is being read into, when it is pretty black and white. In seven-years we will celebrate the centinary of Fatima. It is his prayer and hope that Mary’s Immaculate Heart will triumph and he is calling upon Catholics to stop talking so much about it and start loving and living with a heart filled with love and without resentment and bickering. That is the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. However, some of the greatest defenders of Fatima can often be resentful, judgmental, demanding, and holier than thou. This is very unlike Mary. These behaviors are not from an immaculate heart, but from hearts who have taken the Christian message and turned it into a battle cry instead of an invitation to live and walk in truth. People who do this are doing the opposite of what Mary did.

Posters who want to understand the meaning of the Immaculate Heart may want to read The Silence of Mary by Ignacio Larañaga, OFM, Cap.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[brumano]

I agree in the main with your last post, it is rather confusing though as to why you assert originally though that " Fatima is not Dogma" as if someone or anyone has been campaigning for these 97 yrs. that it should be incorporated into the dogmatic teachings of the Church. That the Magisterial Chuch has as others have pointed out declared the events of Fatima to be “worthy of belief” is enough recommendation…you’re not required to accept it. The church doesn’t require you to , nor does it or can it prevent anyone from it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I agree in the main with your last post, it is rather confusing though as to why you assert originally though that " Fatima is not Dogma" as if someone or anyone has been campaigning for these 97 yrs. that it should be incorporated into the dogmatic teachings of the Church. That the Magisterial Chuch has as others have pointed out declared the events of Fatima to be “worthy of belief” is enough recommendation…you’re not required to accept it. The church doesn’t require you to , nor does it or can it prevent anyone from it.

If you read through this whole thread you will see that some are asserting otherwise.

There is even a post by a user saying that if a priest, or even the Pope, were not to believe in Fatima that they could not accept such a priest, or Pope.

There are also those who are saying that we must believe in Fatima.

Please go ahead and read every post in this thread.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Incorrect especially your statement about the Immaculate Conception, which came about as direct result of a Marion Apparition.

fatima.org Its a great source of info. As far as the purpose of fatima.org and there cause? Thats an entirely different story. Regardless there’s no better referrence to the facts of fatima. And from that point any specific information you need is easily obtained.

You are mistaken.

The Church has believed and celebrated in various places the Immaculate Conception for centuries. In 1476, the celebration of the feast was extended to the whole of the Latin Church by Pope Sixtus IV, though he did not require it to be believed *de fide. *This was also affirmed by the Council of Trent, ie, that no one could be charged with heresy for not believing it. In 1708, Pope Clement XI made the feast a Holy Day of Obligation for the whole of the Latin Church. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined and made binding on the Church by Pope Pius IX in 1854, FOUR YEARS prior to the apparition of Our Lady to St. Bernadette at Lourdes. Indeed, that was one reason her priest came to believe. He required Bernadette to ask the Lady Her Name. Bernadette did so and was told, “I am the Immaculate Conception,” and Bernadette repeated the pharse all the way home, being unfamiliar with it (which is what any child would do if he or she had to remember something important that they knew nothing about). Her priest came to believe that the child spoke the truth and the Lady was visiting her because the term “Immaculate Conception” had not been a part of her catechesis, she lived in an environment where the topic wouldn’t come up, etc.

The dogmatic definition did NOT depend on the apparition because the apparition occured four years after the dogmatic definition.

You can believe in Fatima. I believe in Fatima (I don’t believe the conspiracy theories or that the Church has failed to do what the Theotokos asked or that there was a double for Sr. Lucia). You are, however, mistaken that we are required or that we will ever be required to believe in Fatima because Fatima is clearly defined as a private revelation, NOT a part of public revelation, the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. You are also mistaken in your assessment of the development of doctrine by the Catholic Church. Cardinal Newman believe in A development of doctrine, but it had more to do with how we come to explain and illuminate that which has already been revealed and handed down.

I always urge people, if you truly believe what you say is true, then submit a dubium to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ask them, flat out, “Is Fatima required to be believed by the faithful? Is it a dogmatic belief that we all must accept?” It may take them a while, but they’ll answer.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Also mentioned at the end of the articles Michelle posted is a correlation of Fr Gruners situation, to the same Padre Pio went through with the church. No-ones here to speculate Fr Gruners situation. No one knows how it will turn out. His situation dosen’t detract from the the Catholic Church and Pope Benedicts Homily on Fatima though.

But thanks for the info.

Two further things:

A) Saint Pio made his submission in obedience to the Church. He did it immediately. Fr. Grunner has failed to do so.

B) Fr. Grunner runs ***A ***Fatima group/informatin center, etc. He doesn’t run THE official Fatima center.

 

[JReducation]

Two further things:

A) Saint Pio made his submission in obedience to the Church. He did it immediately. Fr. Grunner has failed to do so.

B) Fr. Grunner runs ***A ***Fatima group/informatin center, etc. He doesn’t run THE official Fatima center.

Padre Pio was never threatened with a suspension. In fact, he never had any direct dealings with the Vatican. The mandate was given through the Superior General, the Provincial Minister and the Father Guardian of the local house. He simply accepted it. He was never suspended. He was asked to celebrate mass inside the conventual cloister. That’s a big difference. He was told not to speak to anyone outside about his situation, which is a superior’s right to do so. Francis did the same thing to Anthony of Padua. In fact, Francis refused to allow Anthony permission to speak to him about his miracles. When Anthony tried, Francis would walk away. Anthony backed off. Fr. Gruner’s behavior is not the same as either Anthony or Pio.

Incorrect especially your statement about the Immaculate Conception, which came about as direct result of a Marion Apparition.

The Immaculate Conception goes back to the early years of the Church’s history. By the Middle Ages the Franciscans defended the Immaculate Conception under the leadership of John Duns Scotus. By 1516, the Franciscan General Minister proclaimed the Immaculate Conception patroness of the Order. This long tradtion led to the founding the Immaculata by Maximilian Kolbe and today to the founding of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. The decree simply closed the debate that had been going on for almost 1800 years.

Most of these events predate the Miracle of Lourdes, which is where Mary first refers to herself as The Immaculate Conception.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Padre Pio was never threatened with a suspension. In fact, he never had any direct dealings with the Vatican. The mandate was given through the Superior General, the Provincial Minister and the Father Guardian of the local house. He simply accepted it. He was never suspended. He was asked to celebrate mass inside the conventual cloister. That’s a big difference. He was told not to speak to anyone outside about his situation, which is a superior’s right to do so. Francis did the same thing to Anthony of Padua. In fact, Francis refused to allow Anthony permission to speak to him about his miracles. When Anthony tried, Francis would walk away. Anthony backed off. Fr. Gruner’s behavior is not the same as either Anthony or Pio.

The Immaculate Conception goes back to the early years of the Church’s history. By the Middle Ages the Franciscans defended the Immaculate Conception under the leadership of John Duns Scotus. By 1516, the Franciscan General Minister proclaimed the Immaculate Conception patroness of the Order. This long tradtion led to the founding the Immaculata by Maximilian Kolbe and today to the founding of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. The decree simply closed the debate that had been going on for almost 1800 years.

Most of these events predate the Miracle of Lourdes, which is where Mary first refers to herself as The Immaculate Conception.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you, Br.! To clarify, I would NEVER compare Gruner to St. Pio.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The comparison is made in a posted link above by Michelle. I didn’t bring up Saint Padre Pio, the “posted article did” I keep hearing about everyone reading everything here, but that continues to be proven incorrect.

And while I understand what you saying about the “Immaculate Conception” and its History with the CC, thats not a point of contention,. nor does it have anything to do with Lourdes being used in the Doctrine. It has little to do with the “fact” it isin the encyclical used by the Pope which could read above and was used to create that Church Doctine which is posted here. Which relate’s directly back to my point that a Apparition could and has been used in Church Doctine which “you wrongly concluded above” it could not be done. It has been done! And the info is all posted on this thread which all claim to have read. How you conclude this now, I fail to see?

When an approved apparition becomes such, it can be used in Church doctrine which you clearly see from above it has. Going back to point {A] of the Immaculate Conception, has little to with the fact of whats talked about here. I fail to see the point unless your wrongly beating the drum “again” that an apparition can’t be used in CC doctrine. Which it clearly already has been. The apparition was used to “confirm” what you have mentioned. And it is Church Doctrine.

Speculation about Fr Gruner etc is all well and fine. Yet, its a sad act of disception when used to invalidate a “Miracle and Message of God at Fatima” which it so clearly was. Another drum continued to be beat on this thread, and about Fatima/Fr Gruner which doesn’t detract from the reality of what happened in Fatima in 1917 and through the lifes of the Seers. While I acknowledge the info, matter of fact I told you how to find it with Michelle above? “If your reading the thread”.

Anyway while we are talking Church Doctrine…

“Philosophy” is often used to write Church Doctrine, never mind apparitions. If you read all of Encyclicals from the past Two Popes this is obvious when relating the the Holy Spirit. How could it not be true? Nobody clearly understands the Holy Spirit, only aspects of the Holy Spirit are understood. Where is the word “Trinity” in the Bible? Why to you believe the age old question arrises from the 9th century between the Orthodox and Catholic Church? Because of Church Doctrine. Its simply a matter of what is said in the Bible and Scripture, and then how that is interpreted by a Human Being. Be it one who is a disciple of Christ and the elect of the CC. Then their interpretation is collectively agree’d upon and it then became Doctrine.

The “Trinity” is a perfect example, why do assume the two churchs debate this? Because of of understanding how the Holy Spirit comes to us, through the Father, or through the Father and the Son? Here is a point of contention of “Church Doctrine”. And it was highly contested till Pope John Paul IIs Three encyclical’s on the Holy Spirit. The “point” is that with the Holy Spirit, mens interpretation of Bible and Scripture is used, never mind a Miracle from God. Which definatly can be used if the Church so desired, and it has already be done with Lourdes. And this relates back to the process of how and why with Apparitions.

God Bless, GT

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“Philosophy” is often used to write Church Doctrine, never mind apparitions. If you read all of Encyclicals from the past Two Popes this is obvious when relating the the Holy Spirit. How could it not be true? Nobody clearly understands the Holy Spirit, only aspects of the Holy Spirit are understood. Where is the word “Trinity” in the Bible? Why to you believe the age old question arrises from the 9th century between the Orthodox and Catholic Church? Because of Church Doctrine. Its simply a matter of what is said in the Bible and Scripture, and then how that is interpreted by a Human Being. Be it one who is a disciple of Christ and the elect of the CC. Then their interpretation is collectively agree’d upon and it then became Doctrine.

The “Trinity” is a perfect example, why do assume the two churchs debate this? Because of of understanding how the Holy Spirit comes to us, through the Father, or through the Father and the Son? Here is a point of contention of “Church Doctrine”. And it was highly contested till Pope John Paul IIs Three encyclical’s on the Holy Spirit. The “point” is that with the Holy Spirit, mens interpretation of Bible and Scripture is used, never mind a Miracle from God. Which definatly can be used if the Church so desired, and it has already be done with Lourdes. And this relates back to the process of how and why with Apparitions.

God Bless, GT

First, no one said that popes cannot mention apparitions for illustrative purposes when talking about dogmatic matters. Second, the Church has always believed in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity, from the very begining. What has developed is the manner in which we explain and articulate that belief.

As I’ve said, file a dubium. No Catholic is required to believe in any private revelation and no private revelation has been the foundation for a dogma. For that matter, look the Catholic encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm

And this is what the Catechism says on the matter:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

First, no one said that popes cannot mention apparitions for illustrative purposes when talking about dogmatic matters.

My friend, when you say “No One” mentioned a marion apparition can’t be used in CC Doctine, you are back pedaling. Thats exactly my point of contention, and it was continually mentioned that “I was wrong” about this. When in fact its a matter of Record.

Next a point in the “above” posts is wrongly brought up about Doctrine relating “directly” to Bible. While I agree entirely with the CC Doctrine and interpretation of the Bible. It doesn’t get away from the “fact” that a great deal of Doctrine are Theologically debatable. Matter of fact when you research Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI one of their area’s of expertise is Theology. John Paul II bought Benedict to the Vatican specifically because of his knowledge in this area. Benedict is regarded worldwide as one of the greatest mind’s alive in this area. Back when Benedict first came to the Vatican. He and John Paul II would meet every Friday with known scholars worldwide to debate Theology. Thats how vast their education and practical experience is in that area.

Now when encyclicals are written on any specific Topic, be it, Original Sin, Sexual Morality, or the Holy Spirit and Immaculate Conception. There is only so much actual fact we can detract from the Bible. Here at this point is where scholars in many fields come into play. A few areas being Theology, Philosophy and Phenomina. “Dominum et Vivicantum” is the longest encyclical in the History of the Vatican on the Holy Spirit and ultimately opened the door for possible communion between Catholic/Orthodox Church’s. Which started in what, 85? Thus the idea was to plant a seed and open the doors for conversation which we see the magnitude of 25-years later.

The issue’s which the CDF investigates for the CC range to many areas. All of which are interpretation of Bible. Angelicans come to mind immediately with Women as Pastors etc. Or think about the debates with Judaism? The very fact of Jesus Christ as Messiah is debated? Anyway the point is if strict Bible Scripture is all there was to this, then there would be no need for CC Doctrine. CC Doctrine is to clarify Historys events throught an in-depth study by some the greatest scholars on earth. And some of the Doctrine even cross’s the threshold of Phenominology.

But yes while I clearly understand how the Vatican researchs and terms Apparitions and the reason for this. My point from the very first post on this thread is this; while you may have no belief what-so-ever in fatima. And while that is your choice. IMHO its foolish to discard, reject and throw anything out the window which in fact may prove to be 100% accurate. Especially when some of the greatest minds past and present in Theology do believe in Fatima. And I have little concern for the 3rd Secret or Russia’s converstion, which sights are the best for Fatima, what Fr Gruners position with the Church is, all have little to do with the “reality of Fatima” The area of Fatima I find illuminating are Christs words left to the Seer in regards to the Holy Spirit, the predicted Miracle by the Blessed Mother. Those words left by Christ left no room for wrong interpretation, as the Blessed Mothers so obviously have in regards to Fatima. IMO that is what raise’s the flag in regards to the Blessed Mother.

What will happen? Hopefully the Church and Faith will grow and we will elapse a period given to satan as a time of testing without grave results. Yet one can’t help but notice the position society remains in. And its always the same evils dressed differently. History leaves little doubt about the results of Atheism, Communism, Marxism, and all the rest of the abominations straight out of the Lake of Fire. Each passing decade brings new names but yet the same game disquised differently with evil.

But no I don’t I believe you have to quit your day job and go on a Crusade for Fatima. Nor do I believe it should become a point of focus which replaces good Bible understanding and Church doctine. I do believe Fatima is real and an open mind need be kept, in particular the next 7-years.

Anyway its been an engaging conversation and thread. Also I find the array of intellect on CAF is vast. Its without a doubt educational “if” you can open your mind. Catholic Chuch Doctine is without a doubt written by some the greatest minds in the field. Its sound to say the least. The fact the Miracle of the Sun being predicted ahead of time is reality, it may well be CC-Doctrine in the future. It relates directly to the Holy Spirit as do the Visitations of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother at Fatima.

In regards to the OP question and answer? Is it Dogma? The Miracle of the Sun is the most significant Spiritual event of the past 100-years.

Anyway to conclude with Vatican II the “Dogmatic Constitution of the C-Church” had made it clear that the C-Church did not live, so to speak, by infallible definitions alone. The authoritive tradition of the church, articulated by the church Pastors, is binding on Theologians and the people of the Church alike. To suggest otherwise is to create an absurd situation in which C-Church Teaching is either “infallibibly defined or its virutally non-existant” Vatican II had a clear verbal impact to its view on the nature of the authoritive teaching of the Church. From here understanding that Marion Apparitions can and have been used in C-Church Doctrine, then you can see how at some point Dogma and Fatima may come into play. Bottom line, the Miracle of the Sun is sigificant.

God Bless, GT

 

[jchristie5]

The two may be one and the same. It would explain a lot.

Here is an article on the suspension of this priest:

catholicinsight.com/online/church/ci_gruner.shtml

Here is a support from the suspension from another side or the spectrum

theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/ngruner/wanderer.html

Since Fr. Gruner has no legitimate function as a Catholic priest, his “crusade” is no better than a layman’s blog. He needs to be reconciled to the Church before he preaches at others, beam and mote.

 

[jchristie5]

I am knew at this so be “gentle”.
I surmise that if long term members with scores of contributions - would be, by their hard earned discretion alone - “be correct in their judgements” :
I spent a considerable amount of time on the Fatima.org site and its explanantion of “the standing or otherwise of Father N Gruner”.
As you quote articles which are 4 and 6 years old and the serious, detailed and current counter arguements on Fatima.org make absolute sense - I respectively disagree on this matter.
Given his work is extraordinary - at the very least I would anticipate quotes of references on a man of the cloth and the subject matter - to be current.
kind regards
J

God Bless and protect Pope Benedict and Father Gruner - all Priests and Bishops for that matter.

 

[ellyka112]

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.

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

_______________________
[download wii game](http://www.thewiidownloadsreview.com)
[burn wii game](http://www.thewiidownloadsreview.com)

 

[pnewton]

Given his work is extraordinary - at the very least I would anticipate quotes of references on a man of the cloth and the subject matter - to be current.
kind regards.

The Church is not a newspaper. The quotes given are recent, in the eyes of the Church. I would encourage anyone that doubts what was said to go to fatima.org and read what Fr. Gruner says himself. Ask yourself, does he write like a Roman Catholilc priest, or like a disgruntled conspiracist?

 

[brumano]

I hate to burst your bubble but even apologist Jimmy Akin would be on the OP’s side on this one.

Catholic Answers - Marian Apparitions

Well I don’t think it’s totally fair to say that he would, he has’nt weighed in on this particular thread, directly, so that we could make the blanket statement in his stead:"…Jimmy Akin would be on the OP’s side on this one". Anyway, trusting that you’re sufficiently familiar with Jimmy Akin’s viewpoints on this and other related matters, let’s say he would take the OP’s side; so what? His opnions carry a certain weight, due to his bakground, education, various abilities, and all around general qualifications as a Catholic Apollogist, fine and noted; but again so what? He is not a religious or a priest or a prelate, nor does he or any of the other broadcast apologists carry any official credentials of The Roman Catholic Church as Teachers of the Faith. In other words his opinions on Fatima and all the related issues which have arisen about Fatima are really in a certain respect no more or less of value than any other lay Catholic. In fact due to the nature of Fatima, it’s time and place, I would value the opinions of any our older generation Catholics far more than his (or mine it should go without saying) because they lived closer in time to the actual events themselves, and if they were somehow more directly involved; well, so much the better.
The reason I go on about this is because I seem to notice a rather quick and somewhat nervous reaction on the part of Catholic Radio talk show hosts whenever Marian phenomena, especially Fatima are raised. I’m not sure of course and maybe it’s just me, but they all seem to want to downplay or diminish or deprecate in some way Marian revellations as put forth for discussion.

 

[brumano]

The problem with Fatima is that the traditionalist usually do not give attention neither to Lourdes and St Bernadette Soubirous, nor St Faustina Kowalska; both with similar and very important messages.

As a matter of fact neither of the previous ones can be used against the unity of the Church, exactly as for St Faustina one have to deny the same principles used to promote the Fatima message

Strange, all these you’ve mentioned all seem to have the same message, but in different kinds of language for different people of different nationalities. Does’nt that in itself prove something very amazing?

 

[brumano]

If you read through this whole thread you will see that some are asserting otherwise.

There is even a post by a user saying that if a priest, or even the Pope, were not to believe in Fatima that they could not accept such a priest, or Pope.

There are also those who are saying that we must believe in Fatima.

Please go ahead and read every post in this thread.

Okay I’m reading and rereading every post in this thread.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Anyway, trusting that you’re sufficiently familiar with Jimmy Akin’s viewpoints on this and other related matters, let’s say he would take the OP’s side; so what? His opnions carry a certain weight, due to his bakground, education, various abilities, and all around general qualifications as a Catholic Apollogist, fine and noted; but again so what? He is not a religious or a priest or a prelate, nor does he or any of the other broadcast apologists carry any official credentials of The Roman Catholic Church as Teachers of the Faith. In other words his opinions on Fatima and all the related issues which have arisen about Fatima are really in a certain respect no more or less of value than any other lay Catholic.

Sorry but you’re just so wrong. That’s not his opinion. What he says is official Church position. If you’ve already reread the thread, many have already proven that. Private revelation cannot add anything to public revelation and is not part of the deposit of Faith. End of story.

The reason I go on about this is because I seem to notice a rather quick and somewhat nervous reaction on the part of Catholic Radio talk show hosts whenever Marian phenomena, especially Fatima are raised. I’m not sure of course and maybe it’s just me, but they all seem to want to downplay or diminish or deprecate in some way Marian revellations as put forth for discussion.

If giving the facts about private revelation not usurping public revelation and Church authority feels somewhat like diminishing private revelation, then I’m afraid it’s you who might have a problem. The only reason why they have the stamp, “Worthy of belief” is because they have not said anything contrary to what has already been taught. Of course one should not reject that particular part of the apparitions but in this day and age, I personally don’t rely on these apparitions to remind me of our doctrines.

Personally my faith is pretty much more reliant on something more down-to-earth than miracles and visions.

 

[brumano]

“The problem with Fatima is that the traditionalist usually do not give attention neither to Lourdes and St Bernadette Soubirous, nor St Faustina Kowalska; both with similar and very important messages.” WHAT !!! I think this qualifies for most outrageous statement of the day.

                          Regarding people who do not believe in Our Lady Of Fatima, I realise they are not required to, but I can't help but be suspicious of there reasons for not believing. I have found the reasons to be that the message is too harsh, it's un-ecumenical, it's too right wing, they don't believe in hell, etc.

I get this sense of general opinion also, sometimes I’ve had these kinds of feelings about certain aspects of the Fatima story and messages myself, but I think if we vouchsafe trust to our Blessed Mother we then can understand Fatima as being harsh; yes, but necessarily so, more truly ecumenical because all have to be regathered to the true church, right wing because the threat looming for the future was from the extreme hateful left, and in the end merciful because it provides hope for the poor sinners, who the children saw in hell, but did so in order for God to save them. I think it may be that those same persons who the children saw were saved by the children’s prayers and acts of reparation to the Immaculate Heart. Fatima’s not about going to hell, it’s about being saved from it.

 

[brumano]

I am not commenting on my belief of Fatima, actually Fatima plays absoultely no role in my spiritual life. There are other apparitions that I do believe in as they do play a role but I must comment on this.

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.

So I am sorry but while that can be used to prove it as a private revelation, it does nothing to raise it to any higher level.

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.

What could be put forth proving the actuality of Fatima? Would it be the witness of thousands testifying to having seen something which is not only physically impossible but impossible to even begin to massively imagine, or hallucinate to happen? Would it be the reports of non believers and anti Marian cynics reporting the same as devout Catholic Marian believers? Would it be the reported statement by a doctor, that the intensity of the heat needed to evaporate that volume of water in that short of a time duration (the event only lasted approx. 3mins.) would have also incinerated all the people standing there? Well, those are proofs positive, but what I think really does it is this… at a certain exact instance a woman in the crowd cried out:" Oh God please don’t let me die in my sins."