Fatima: Proof?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But that comparison about UFOs is terrible. 70,000 people were waiting for a miracle on October 13th, 1917. And they got it.

UFO occurances are pathetic; There is never any substance to them. What a horrible comparison.

You may think so but for an unbeliever maybe not.

After all, 70,000 and one miracle is a drop in the bucket when those who follow UFO sightings say that there have been 120,000 UFO sightings, surveys that state that 5-10% of the US population have seen what they consider a UFO, and that since 1947 there have been 150 million people who have witnesses to UFO sightings. [reference UFO Evidence]

These people might think Fatima has no substance to it.

If Pope John Paul II can acknowledge Our Lady of Fatima for saving him at his attempted assasination (which, by the way, occurred on the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition, May 13th, 1981) then we should have confidence in Our Lady of Fatima too.

Still doesn’t make Fatima part of the Deposit of the Faith so it is not required for a faithful Catholic to believe in it.

Just as a side note, I do not believe in UFOs and I am keeping my beliefs on apparitions to myself as I do not believe it is necessary for anyone here to know where I stand on that issue.

 

[cheddarsox]

Still, I think Fatima is far more exciting to your average joe than say, Summa Theologica.

The purpose of religion is not to “Wow!” the audience, it is to transform the participants.

The light of Truth shining in your own life will be a miracle they themselves can see, rather than hearing a story of what someone else saw.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

what are the proofs?, or rather, what is a good source that analyzes the proofs?

and if the proofs are so compelling that they could be used as a “sword”, why doesn’t the Church require belief in the miracle?

 

[Della]

I agree that citing Fatima isn’t sufficient to convince an atheist. Heck, it isn’t even convincing enough for some Catholics, who are not obliged to believe in it.

However, if an atheist had all the proofs of Fatima laid before him, I still don’t think he’d be impressed. He doesn’t have enough background in Catholic teaching to understand its significance. Not all Catholics see its significance, either, so it’s not the best apologetics tool.

Of course, Catholics must subscribe to the Church’s right to pronounce private revelations as “worthy of belief,” but we are not required to follow any devotions springing from such private revelations nor do we have to believe in them, because, as it has been pointed out, they are not part of the deposit of faith.

I happen to believe in the approved apparitions of the Church–Lourdes is my personal favorite. But, I wouldn’t expect an atheist to necessarily be won over by it, nor do I think any apparition is the right tool for the trust and parry of religious debate.

 

[mschrank]

Hmm, I kind of understand what some of you are saying now- that if you don’t know the theology behind it, Fatima is not as significant as if you knew just what the background story, if you will, consists of.

I still hold by my statement that it is much bigger than UFO sightings, plus, UFOs aren’t supernatural, they are natural if they are indeed real.

I think it is a bit of a conflation. but then again I don’t know if the person who suggested that was just playing devils advocate.

The Miracle of the Sun was predicted in advance by some kids who also went on about world politics and theology (which would of almost in itself have been a miracle).

I defy anyone to find a miracle or miraculous event that was a) predicted b) involved people who could of had no way of making it up c) seen by thousands of people d) has eluded any credible materialist explanation (sorry, mass hallucination, sundogs are all weak theories)

After all, Christianity is founded on miracles. It is not a philosophical pattern, like materialism or some of the eastern religions. Its a weird story with unexpected twists, turns and curves and the only reason why people give it creedance is because of miracles.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hmm, I kind of understand what some of you are saying now- that if you don’t know the theology behind it, Fatima is not as significant as if you knew just what the background story, if you will, consists of.

I still hold by my statement that it is much bigger than UFO sightings, plus, UFOs aren’t supernatural, they are natural if they are indeed real.

I think it is a bit of a conflation. but then again I don’t know if the person who suggested that was just playing devils advocate.

The Miracle of the Sun was predicted in advance by some kids who also went on about world politics and theology (which would of almost in itself have been a miracle).

I defy anyone to find a miracle or miraculous event that was a) predicted b) involved people who could of had no way of making it up c) seen by thousands of people d) has eluded any credible materialist explanation (sorry, mass hallucination, sundogs are all weak theories)

After all, Christianity is founded on miracles. It is not a philosophical pattern, like materialism or some of the eastern religions. Its a weird story with unexpected twists, turns and curves and the only reason why people give it creedance is because of miracles.

Again, no scientific proof here to make an non-believer believe. The Church doesn’t even require belief.

Just as there is no scientific proof of UFOs.

They can easily be classed in the same category.

There are also some who believe that UFOs are supernatural in nature.

 

[Valke2]

For rwoehmke and cheddarsox, no one has advocated using a sword to try to win converts, and healthy debate is not the same thing as shoving one’s opinions down another’s throat.

We are not discussing debating tactics, but why some people cannot/will not accept the miraculous even when there are good proofs for it. Understanding why helps a good apologist help those who need him. And that is what we are discussing.

For mschrank, as to coherent arguments from all sides, I like what G. K. Chesterton had to say about that. He stated that the logic of the madman is irrefutable because it is a closed system like a circle that does not admit anything that will not keep it intact (I’m paraphrasing his thought here).

Whenever one cannot admit a new element into one’s thinking, then that thinking is closed. Catholicism admits all that is true into it, so it is not a closed system of belief like atheism is.

That sounds a lot like circular reasoning. Catholicsim is not a closed system because it admits all that is true? But who determines what is ture for Catholicism?

 

[Valke2]

As to arguments against the miracle, it is not without controversy and I’m sure a brief google search would set forth such in detail.

 

[Della]

That sounds a lot like circular reasoning. Catholicsim is not a closed system because it admits all that is true? But who determines what is ture for Catholicism?

A better expression on my part would have been the whole of reality. The Church does not, and does not need, to deny anything that is real/true, be it natural or supernatural truth/reality, since it teaches that truth is one of the supreme goods. I’m sorry I wasn’t more precise.

 

[mschrank]

But demanding scientific proof of something that is not by its nature scientific is a fallacy called begging the question. That means the premise is assumed in the arguement.

Apologetics is probably the least satisfactory branch of belief, its just mentally masticating (not a spelling mistake) over the same facts over, and over, and over, and over. Another rich little can of worms is the dating of the gospels- this debate literally hasn’t changed for 150 years. The debate never really goes anywhere, there is never really any progress. Each side has some arguement and counter arguement and is confidently assured of itself.

I’ve almost become a sort of postmodernist, I mean, maybe “truth”, from the human perspective, is just whatever our heart wants it to be- epistemologically. We’ll find ways of believing in whatever we desire.

Now, this doesn’t mean God doesn’t’ exist or we can’t know him but, it means that if we love God, we’ll go down that path, and if we don’t, we don’t. Even if we can’t prove in a vaccum using human reason that Jesus really did rise from the dead, that doesn’t change whether he did or not. If he did, than we’ll love him and believe in him and defend him.

Our hearts decide whether we are materialists or whether we’re Catholics. And the heart is pretty deep, “who can know it?”.

Perhaps all these ‘isms’ enchant us as stories, and we fill in the facts. Whether they are true or not, well, that’s another question. Perhaps thats why Jesus tells us to convert our hearts and then believe in the Gospel.

Maybe Heidegger was right, poetry might be more objective than science.

 

[Valke2]

A better expression on my part would have been the whole of reality. The Church does not, and does not need, to deny anything that is real/true, be it natural or supernatural truth/reality, since it teaches that truth is one of the supreme goods. I’m sorry I wasn’t more precise.

ahh. got it, thanks.

 

[Chipper]

But this is not a small, Jesus on a tortilla chip kind of “Miracle”, this is like, the biggest thing since the Ressurection. I don’t think I’m exaggerating either!

It’s great that your really excited about Fatima. But there is a whole other group out there that doesn’t believe Fatima actually occured. That is the majority of protestants. If they did believe they would convert to Catholic. So it isn’t just and atheist denial. Most people that don’t believe just convince themselves that it was something other than the Virgin Mary.

I tried to push this miracle off on one of our atheist friends, and he just basically said, it was probably mass hysteria. He just refused to believe it. The protestants either don’t respond or some of them say it was something evil.

Sad, real Sad.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But demanding scientific proof of something that is not by its nature scientific is a fallacy called begging the question. That means the premise is assumed in the arguement.

Well then do not approach atheists on this topic.

And I would leave those who believe in UFOs alone also. If you don’t need scientific proof then why should they?

Again, it is not a good idea to lead with something that is not part of the Deposit of Faith.

 

[puzzleannie]

But this is not a small, Jesus on a tortilla chip kind of “Miracle”, this is like, the biggest thing since the Ressurection. I don’t think I’m exaggerating either!

ty.

with due respect, Fatima is not the biggest thing since the resurrection. if such hyperbole is your typical mode of trying to convince atheists I imagine you do not enjoy much success with them.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I defy anyone to find a miracle or miraculous event that was a) predicted b) involved people who could of had no way of making it up c) seen by thousands of people d) has eluded any credible materialist explanation (sorry, mass hallucination, sundogs are all weak theories)…

Good for you.

And what about those mass hallucination theries. sheesh… that would be a miracle in itself too.

70,000 people waited for it and got it. How incredible. By the way, are there any credible reports of anybody who was there and didn’t see it? I don’t think so.

 

[silentdeb]

Huh.

No replies, let’s just go back to bickering over how many angels can fit on the head of the pin rather than address an apodictic vindication of Orthodoxy and its critics.

No, let’s update it - how many angels can fit in a Volkswagen?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Just as there is no scientific proof of UFOs.

They can easily be classed in the same category…

No they can’t. :nope: Anybody who tries is belittling the miracles of Fatima.

Stop it with the UFO comparisons. Has there ever been 70,000 people who witnessed a UFO at any one time? Has there ever been a UFO siting that’s captured the imaginations of generations of people? Most UFO sitings are exciting for about a day or two… you know, until the authorities realise that it was just a weather balloon.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

As to arguments against the miracle, it is not without controversy and I’m sure a brief google search would set forth such in detail.

Everything has controversy, including the resurrection.

What is unanimous is that everybody was waiting for a miracle, and everybody got it. Everybody… 70,000 of them. You can’t deny that.

How did they know something strange was going to happen that day (13th October 1917)?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Good for you.

And what about those mass hallucination theries. sheesh… that would be a miracle in itself too.

70,000 people waited for it and got it. How incredible. By the way, are there any credible reports of anybody who was there and didn’t see it? I don’t think so.

To which I would add:

Are there any credible reports of 70,000 people suffering from the exact same delusional fantasy at precisely the same moment and place?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What is unanimous is that everybody was waiting for a miracle, and everybody got it. Everybody… 70,000 of them. You can’t deny that.

Actually the Church says we can. This is why it is not part of the Deposit of Faith.