Fatima-Pope Pius XI

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No one is saying that what the private revelations contain belong to the deposit of faith, are dogma or must be believed. All we are saying is that you can’t deny that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. Whether you want to accept that is your decision.

Then you are saying that they are part of the deposit of the Faith and must be believed in.

Can you show any statement from the Church which says such a thing?

There are places in the Faith were we are free to disagree.

For one example, just look at the Assumption. The Latin Church celebrates the Assumption of the Virgin Mary while the Byzantine Catholic Churches celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (Mother of God). Both celebrate the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven but the Byzantine celebration acknowledges that Mary “fell asleep in the Lord” (died) while many Latin Catholics believe that she did not die befor the assumption. The Church has declared neither dogma.

Let me end this with saying that I have never stated here at Catholic answers were I stand or what I believe on any appiration. For me it is a private matter and has nothing to do with the Faith of others.

It seems though that many try to raise the occurances at Fatima to the level of dogma which can not be done.

 

[LilyM]

St. Catherine of Siena was canonized because of the significant good work she did in addition to her visions. She worked to bring the Papacy back to Rome from Avignon. **Just because she is a saint doesn’t mean that her all her visions or writings are accurate. They could have been misinterpreted or deceptions of the devil **who has tried to deceive and attack many other saints, Padre Pio being one example. The Church formally recognizes St. Catherine as a mystic, acknowledging her private revelations.

EXACTLY!!! And if she’d had NO visions whatsoever, or if ALL her visions had been deceptions of the devil (and many of them absolutely were, she said so herself) she would still be a saint, no? The infallible part of the declaration is that she is in heaven, the whys and wherefores of her getting there are surely a matter of opinion and not dogma.

You haven’t addressed the final issue which I raised in my last post, of elevating apparitions to a level on a par with the ordinary means of sanctification. You’ve said in so many words that some saints needed their apparitions to become holy. This is directly contrary to everything I know of Church teaching on the topic.

The ordinary means of sanctification - especially the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist - are more than sufficient for any soul, absent any apparition, to make us holy.

It shows a staggering level of misunderstanding, that you could say that the sacraments, especially the Eucharist - recieving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus - aren’t in and of themselvs enough, assuming we prepare worthily, to produce sufficient grace for our sanctification.

Or that a mere apparition of Our Lord or Our Lady could be anywhere like on the same level as the sacraments, or could add anything substantial to them!

 

[Shin]

Regarding St. Catherine of Siena:

Regarding this matter, Pope Benedict XIV, 'On Heroic Virtue’:

There is also a revelation attributed to S. Catherine of Sienna, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, and which is mentioned by S. Antoninus. But as there is no trace of that revelation among the visions and revelations of S. Catherine, collected by the Blessed Raymund of Capua, there arises no slight suspicion, that this has been added to them, and is therefore to be accounted apocryphal, as is shown at length by Cardinal Gotti, and Martin del Rio.

---

While it is true the saints can be mistaken about such matters, one must not make such an accusation lightly… period.

I’ll note the book linked above discusses how to treat ‘private revelations’ for those interested.

 

[JPUSC]

EXACTLY!!! And if she’d had NO visions whatsoever, or if ALL her visions had been deceptions of the devil (and many of them absolutely were, she said so herself) she would still be a saint, no? The infallible part of the declaration is that she is in heaven, the whys and wherefores of her getting there are surely a matter of opinion and not dogma.

You haven’t addressed the final issue which I raised in my last post, of elevating apparitions to a level on a par with the ordinary means of sanctification. You’ve said in so many words that some saints needed their apparitions to become holy. This is directly contrary to everything I know of Church teaching on the topic.

The ordinary means of sanctification - especially the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist - are more than sufficient for any soul, absent any apparition, to make us holy.

It shows a staggering level of misunderstanding, that you could say that the sacraments, especially the Eucharist - recieving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus - aren’t in and of themselvs enough, assuming we prepare worthily, to produce sufficient grace for our sanctification.

Or that a mere apparition of Our Lord or Our Lady could be anywhere like on the same level as the sacraments, or could add anything substantial to them!

Yes, the ordinary means of sancrification are enough, but when it comes to particular people, such as Blessed Jactina, the apparitions still played a great deal in their public canonization. Yes, Jacinta could’ve been a saint without the apparitions, but her public reputation of sanctity came about through the apparitions and the messages.

I never said apparitions were elevated on par with the ordinary means of sanctification. Some saints needed guidance to know what God had planned for them. When we need guidance, don’t we ask God for guidance? For these particular saints, God chose to manifest Himself in a more direct way.

 

[JPUSC]

Regarding St. Catherine of Siena:

Regarding this matter, Pope Benedict XIV, 'On Heroic Virtue’:

There is also a revelation attributed to S. Catherine of Sienna, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, and which is mentioned by S. Antoninus. But as there is no trace of that revelation among the visions and revelations of S. Catherine, collected by the Blessed Raymund of Capua, there arises no slight suspicion, that this has been added to them, and is therefore to be accounted apocryphal, as is shown at length by Cardinal Gotti, and Martin del Rio.

---

While it is true the saints can be mistaken about such matters, one must not make such an accusation lightly… period.

I’ll note the book linked above discusses how to treat ‘private revelations’ for those interested.

Thanks for the confirmation, Shin. That alleged quote from St. Catherine was rather unpleasant. Good thing Pope Benedict XIV cleared it up.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, the ordinary means of sancrification are enough, but when it comes to particular people, such as Blessed Jactina, the apparitions still played a great deal in their public canonization. Yes, Jacinta could’ve been a saint without the apparitions, but her public reputation of sanctity came about through the apparitions and the messages.

I never said apparitions were elevated on par with the ordinary means of sanctification. Some saints needed guidance to know what God had planned for them. When we need guidance, don’t we ask God for guidance? For these particular saints, God chose to manifest Himself in a more direct way.

Yes, and the ordinary means of sanctification are more than sufficient on their own to provide that guidance - for EVERYONE. Jacinta not just could have, but WOULD have become a saint, and WOULD have been canonised for her sanctity, since these things were God’s will for her, without the apparitions.

It’s like you (and, so you think, the church) notice the cherry on top of a chocolate cake and you say ‘it just wouldn’t be a chocolate cake without the cherry. Furthermore, the church wants us to believe that that cake was a chocolate cake because of the cherry, and that we MUST believe on pain of sin that the cake had a cherry on it’.

Of course the cherry is a good thing - but it isn’t the cake, it doesn’t make the cake a cake, and we aren’t harmed in the slightest by ignoring the cherry completely. We aren’t harmed by choosing to believe that there wasn’t even a cherry on the cake, as long as we believe the cake was a chocolate cake!

Look at the story of Jonah. God wanted Jonah to go to Nineveh, Jonah after some stubbornness obeyed.

Sure there was the episode of the whale, but remember Nineveh was hundreds of miles from the nearest coastline. Jonah had to make the decision to go himself, and had to do the hard work to get to Nineveh himself.

So the episode of the whale, while making an interesting story, is really insignificant spiritually speaking - the whale DIDN’T make Jonah a prophet or make him obedient to God. Or really add to his ability to be those things. It didn’t even show him God’s will for him, since he knew that already without it.

 

[JPUSC]

It was God’s will that she have the apparitions. While being an observer of an apparition does not make one a saint, the apparition did affect her life.

Didn’t Our Lady appear at Fatima to tell the world that they must change their lives in order to be saved? People sometimes need signs, warnings and divine intervention. Why are miracles so highly looked upon by the Church? Why are miracles needed in order to prove the sanctity of a person? Why are you trying to discount the fact that the apparitions did have an effect on the Fatima children? An individual’s personality and life is molded by their experiences. The apparition was a significant event in Jacinta’s life.

No one is pre-programmed to be holy. While Mary was immaculately conceived, she didn’t have to respond to God’s Will. God can choose to manifest Himself to anyone He wishes, regardless of their level of sanctity.

Hasn’t God made His Will known to individuals for their benefit? If the angel hadn’t appeared to Mary during the Annunication, how would she have known that she was to be the Mother of God? How would she have given her “fiat” if God had not make His Will known to her? How would St. Joseph have known that the child Mary was carrying was the Lord Himself if he hadn’t been given the dream?

Private revelation is binding only on those who receive it.
catholic.com/library/private_revelation.asp

It’s called private revelation, because it is meant for an individual. Thus, Jacinta did need that revelation to know what exactly God planned for her. Yes, she most likely would’ve lived a life of sanctity without the apparitions, but it was through the apparitions that her main mission was revealed to her.

The youngest non-martyred children ever to be beatified

Jacinta and Francisco Marto are the two youngest non-martyrs to be declared blessed in the history of the Church.

It is true that they received the enormous grace of the apparitions of the Most Blessed Virgin in Fatima. Nevertheless, they were not beatified simply for having seen and heard Our Lady. Rather, they were declared blessed because they attained sanctity. This they did by taking the apparitions seriously, drawing consequences from them for their personal lives and making of them the center of their thoughts and interests. They attained sanctity because they corresponded to the graces they received, generously heeding the Lady’s requests for prayer, penance, and reparation. It is their correspondence to these graces and their heeding of these requests that are now acknowledged in their beatification.

Our objective in this article is not to write of the apparitions or the Message of Fatima. Crusade has already and often done this, and the subject is generally known. Less known, however, are the lives of these two children and the high degree of virtue they attained. Our main aim here, then, is to present some aspects of their lives with the intention of demonstrating how they, despite being so young, did in fact reach heights of sanctity and were thus the first fruits of the Fatima Message.

tfp.org/magazine/mag46/main.htm

I didn’t say you have to believe the apparitions. I said that since the Church recognizes feasts and saints associated with apparitions, then it encourages devotion to them. If the Church did not believe in the validity of these events, they would not be on the Roman Calendar.

Nothing outside of the deposit of faith requires the belief of a Catholic, but if the Church recognizes that Jesus and Mary do make visitations to the world once in a while to reiterate certain parts of our faith, why wouldn’t we listen?

 

[LilyM]

It was God’s will that she have the apparitions. While being an observer of an apparition does not make one a saint, the apparition did affect her life.

Didn’t Our Lady appear at Fatima to tell the world that they must change their lives in order to be saved? People sometimes need signs, warnings and divine intervention. Why are miracles so highly looked upon by the Church? Why are miracles needed in order to prove the sanctity of a person? Why are you trying to discount the fact that the apparitions did have an effect on the Fatima children? An individual’s personality and life is molded by their experiences. The apparition was a significant event in Jacinta’s life.

No one is pre-programmed to be holy. While Mary was immaculately conceived, she didn’t have to respond to God’s Will. God can choose to manifest Himself to anyone He wishes, regardless of their level of sanctity.

Hasn’t God made His Will known to individuals for their benefit? If the angel hadn’t appeared to Mary during the Annunication, how would she have known that she was to be the Mother of God? How would she have given her “fiat” if God had not make His Will known to her? How would St. Joseph have known that the child Mary was carrying was the Lord Himself if he hadn’t been given the dream?

It’s called private revelation, because it is meant for an individual. Thus, Jacinta did need that revelation to know what exactly God planned for her. Yes, she most likely would’ve lived a life of sanctity without the apparitions, but it was through the apparitions that her main mission was revealed to her.

I didn’t say you have to believe the apparitions. I said that since the Church recognizes feasts and saints associated with apparitions, then it encourages devotion to them. If the Church did not believe in the validity of these events, they would not be on the Roman Calendar.

Nothing outside of the deposit of faith requires the belief of a Catholic, but if the Church recognizes that Jesus and Mary do make visitations to the world once in a while to reiterate certain parts of our faith, why wouldn’t we listen?

So the Church doesn’t belive in (or believes less in) the worthiness and validity of St Catherine of Alexandria, St George, St Philomena, St Nicholas or St Christopher and other saints because THEIR feasts were either removed from the Calendar altogether or downgraded to optional memorials?

Or no longer believes quite as much in honouring the Precious Blood of Christ because it no longer has a separate feast of its own? Or St Paul because HE is now honoured together with St Peter instead of having a separate feast day of HIS own?

How about the Circumcision of Christ which used to be a Feast on January 1 and is no more? Does that mean that we’ve ceased believing that He was circumcised? Or ceased believing in the importance of that event?

And are you suggesting the Church believes MORE in the validity and worthiness of the doctrine of Mary Mother of God now, which has been dogma for 1600 years, because a new feast for her has in very recent decades replaced what used to be the feast of the Circumcision on January 1?

 

[JPUSC]

So the Church doesn’t belive in (or belives less in) the validity of the canonisations of St Catherine of Alexandria, St George, St Philomena, St Nicholas or St Christopher and other saints because THEIR feasts were either removed from the Calendar altogether or downgraded to optional memorials?

Or no longer believes quite as much in honouring the Precious Blood of Christ because it no longer has a separate feast of its own? How about the Circumcision of Christ which used to be a Feast on January 1 and is no more?

And are you suggesting the Church believes MORE in the validity and worthiness of the doctrine of Mary Mother of God now, which has been dogma for 1600 years, because a new feast for her has in very recent decades replaced what used to be the feast of the Circumcision on January 1?

No, the Church does what she feels is best for Catholics at the present time and if she thinks including the feasts of these Marian apparitions to the calendar would benefit everyone worldwide, then so be it.

 

[LilyM]

No, the Church does what she feels is best for Catholics at the present time and if she thinks including the feasts of these Marian apparitions to the calendar would benefit everyone worldwide, then so be it.

Of course she ALSO includes the feasts of hundreds of saints - I suppose you think we are lax in practicing our faith if we fail as individuals to specifically honour each and every single last one of 'em on each of their appointed days?

Now I’d hate to have been the first one to tell you this - but you DO know that a lot of those saints have never been formally and infallibly canonised by any Pope? And that quite a few of them (prime examples being the St Christopher and St Philomena who were ignominiously demoted) MAY NOT HAVE EVEN EVER EXISTED! Do you think EVERY such saint was removed from the Calendar? Doubt it very much.

So, it’s a pretty safe bet that we are in fact required (in some cases) by the Church to celebrate feastdays for NON-EXISTENT PEOPLE. Chew on that one.

 

[JPUSC]

Of course she ALSO includes the feasts of hundreds of saints - I suppose you think we are lax in practicing our faith if we fail as individuals to specifically honour each and every single last one of 'em on each of their appointed days?

Now I’d hate to have been the first one to tell you this - but you DO know that a lot of those saints have never been formally and infallibly canonised by any Pope? And that quite a few of them (prime examples being the St Christopher and St Philomena who were ignominiously demoted) MAY NOT HAVE EVEN EVER EXISTED! Do you think EVERY such saint was removed from the Calendar? Doubt it very much.

So, it’s a pretty safe bet that we are in fact required (in some cases) by the Church to celebrate feastdays for NON-EXISTENT PEOPLE. Chew on that one.

St. Christopher became a saint before the process of canonization was implemented. The Catholic Church suggests that almost nothing certain is known about the life and death of St. Christopher, but it doesn’t say that he didn’t exist.

Chew on that one.

His feast was in the General Universal Calendar for only 15 years. The Tridentine Calendar allowed a commemoration of Saint Christopher on 25 July only in private Masses. This restriction was lifted in 1954, but his feast day was removed from the calendar of saints in 1969.

We don’t have to celebrate every single feast in the calendar, but the fact that the Church decided to commemorate certain titles of Our Lady from apparitions with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is significant. Why would the Church offer the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in honor of a lie?

The Church recognizes that these feasts would benefit the Church as a whole (as opposed to keeping the feasts local). The Marian feasts that are currently included in the Roman calendar include Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and Our Lady of Fatima. The feasts are there to remind us to pray and repent for the sins of the world. They are relevant to us at the present time and the Church knows this.

 

[LilyM]

St. Christopher became a saint before the process of canonization was implemented. The Catholic Church suggests that almost nothing certain is known about the life and death of St. Christopher, but it doesn’t say that he didn’t exist.

Chew on that one.

His feast was in the General Universal Calendar for only 15 years. The Tridentine Calendar allowed a commemoration of Saint Christopher on 25 July only in private Masses. This restriction was lifted in 1954, but his feast day was removed from the calendar of saints in 1969.

We don’t have to celebrate every single feast in the calendar, but the fact that the Church decided to commemorate certain titles of Our Lady from apparitions with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is significant. Why would the Church offer the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in honor of a lie?

The Church recognizes that these feasts would benefit the Church as a whole (as opposed to keeping the feasts local). The Marian feasts that are currently included in the Roman calendar include Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and Our Lady of Fatima. The feasts are there to remind us to pray and repent for the sins of the world. They are relevant to us at the present time and the Church knows this.

So what you’re saying is that for 15 years it was of huge and important benefit to us that the Universal Church celebrate the Feast of St Christopher - so why was it so specially beneficial for those particular exact 15 years, and neither before nor afterwards? What was it about the saint or that time period that made it so?

And in terms of actually non-existent (mythical or legendary) saints - I present Exhibit A - St Barbara. saints.sqpn.com/saint-barbara/

Not only was she removed from the Calendar - her cultus was suppressed in 1969.

And I quote: “While there were undoubtedly beautiful converts named Barbara, this saint is legend, and her cultus developed when pious fiction was mistaken for history.”

So there you have it. For more than 1,000 years the Church required and popularised the veneration of an ACTUALLY non-existent person as a saint. NOW do you see why feasts aren’t public revelation and can be taken with more than a little grain of salt?

 

[JPUSC]

So what you’re saying is that for 15 years it was of huge and important benefit to us that the Universal Church celebrate the Feast of St Christopher - so why was it so specially beneficial for those particular exact 15 years, and neither before nor afterwards? What was it about the saint or that time period that made it so?

And in terms of actually non-existent (mythical or legendary) saints - I present Exhibit A - St Barbara. saints.sqpn.com/saint-barbara/

Not only was she removed from the Calendar - her cultus was suppressed in 1969.

And I quote: “While there were undoubtedly beautiful converts named Barbara, this saint is legend, and her cultus developed when pious fiction was mistaken for history.”

The Church thought St. Christopher’s life and story would’ve been a good example for Catholics to follow and a source of comfort. I know in the 60’s that St. Christopher medals were given to soldiers to remind them to be “Christ-bearers” amidst their trials and suffering. The Church removed the feast from the calendar because of the lack of historical data, but St. Christopher remains a recognized saint. He was not “demoted”. With the thousands of saints in existence, you can’t fit in everyone for 365 days of the year. The Church simply chose to give particular emphasis to other saints.

The link you provided about St. Barbara is certainly not canon. It is the only link so far that has the phrase, “cultus suppressed in 1969”. Devotion to St. Barbara has not been suppressed.

She was removed from the calendar in 1969, just like St. Christopher, because of insufficient historical data about her life. The Church still maintains that she did exist. Certain legends developed about certain saints (who existed) which may or may not have been true. That is the reason for their removal from the calendar.

Historical data from antiquity is hard to find or interpret. The Church even allows the idea that the creation account found in Genesis could be symbolic (but maintains that Adam and Eve did exist).

 

[LilyM]

The Church thought St. Christopher’s life and story would’ve been a good example for Catholics to follow and a source of comfort. I know in the 60’s that St. Christopher medals were given to soldiers to remind them to be “Christ-bearers” amidst their trials and suffering. The Church removed the feast from the calendar because of the lack of historical data, but St. Christopher remains a recognized saint. He was not “demoted”. With the thousands of saints in existence, you can’t fit in everyone for 365 days of the year. The Church simply chose to give particular emphasis to other saints.

The link you provided about St. Barbara is certainly not canon. It is the only link so far that has the phrase, “cultus suppressed in 1969”. Devotion to St. Barbara has not been suppressed.

She was removed from the calendar in 1969, just like St. Christopher, because of insufficient historical data about her life. The Church still maintains that she did exist. Certain legends developed about certain saints (who existed) which may or may not have been true. That is the reason for their removal from the calendar.

Historical data from antiquity is hard to find or interpret. The Church even allows the idea that the creation account found in Genesis could be symbolic (but maintains that Adam and Eve did exist).

That site is quite reliable. And ‘cultus suppressed’ means exactly that - her cultus has been suppressed. The writers on that site know very well the difference between someone merely being removed from the calendar and ‘cultus suppressed’. AND they know the difference between doubts about details of someone’s life and knowledge that they in fact didn’t exist.

If you go to that same site and look at the information on, say, St Christopher or St Philomena, those pages accurately state that they were only removed from the General calendar, but that private or local devotion is still permitted, or whatever the situation is.

And they state precisely what is known and what is disputed about these saints. St Ursula, for example, is described as ‘legendary’ rather than flatly stating that she didn’t exist - the site accurately states merely that she was removed from the Universal Calendar. And it describes in detail the doubts about the number of her companions etc.

So if only some details about St Barbara’s life were in doubt, they would state as much.

 

[JPUSC]

That site is quite reliable. And ‘cultus suppressed’ means exactly that - her cultus has been suppressed. The writers on that site know very well the difference between someone merely being removed from the calendar and ‘cultus suppressed’. AND they know the difference between doubts about details of someone’s life and knowledge that they in fact didn’t exist.

If you go to that same site and look at the information on, say, St Christopher or St Philomena, those pages accurately state that they were only removed from the General calendar, but that private or local devotion is still permitted, or whatever the situation is.

And they state precisely what is known and what is disputed about these saints. St Ursula, for example, is described as ‘legendary’ rather than flatly stating that she didn’t exist - the site accurately states merely that she was removed from the Universal Calendar. And it describes in detail the doubts about the number of her companions etc.

So if only some details about St Barbara’s life were in doubt, they would state as much.

The author of that site has no ecclessial authority to make a definitive statement nor does he cite any sources with evidence.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, published with ecclesiastical approbation, does not say devotion to St. Barbara has been suppressed.

newadvent.org/cathen/02284d.htm

 

[LilyM]

The author of that site has no ecclessial authority to make a definitive statement nor does he cite any sources with evidence.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia does not say devotion to St. Barbara has been suppressed.

newadvent.org/cathen/02284d.htm

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

That Imprimatur was granted in 1907. Her cultus hadn’t been suppressed yet. Of course it wouldn’t say that it had been - unless you’re expecting the good Archbishop to possess prophetic powers!

 

[JPUSC]

Hello - that Imprimatur was granted in 1907. Her cultus hadn’t been suppressed yet. Of course it wouldn’t say that it had been!

I noticed that too, but the entry would have been updated if there was a major problem with St. Barbara. Still, this site is more reliable than the other one.

 

[Like]

This tread is so far off track, it be closed!

You two should open a private thread on your topic where you can continue cutting each up

 

[LilyM]

I noticed that too, but the entry would have been updated if there was a major problem with St. Barbara. Still, this site is more reliable than the other one.

It doesn’t even have an entry on the Second Vatican Council fer crying out loud - and still cites Vatican I as the most recent Ecumenical Council. Neither is there the slightest mention of the Novus Ordo in its article on the Liturgy of the Mass.

Somehow I don’t know that I’d exactly call it up-to-date!

 

[Ottaviani]

Our Lady had a message for the entire world.
Hardly a private matter.