Fatima, the work of satan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are these all from the angel visions, because I posted the Mary vision on here, and that wasn’t on it.
:banghead: Of course a passage from Revelation, or any other blessed book of Holy Scripture, CAN and often DOES have more than one meaning. It’s called DEPTH.

Psalm 22, for example (“My God, my God, why have you abandoned me”) is BOTH an account by David of his own feelings and struggles in the face of his very real enemies, AND a prediction of the circumstances of Christ’s Passion and Death. Two DIFFERENT meanings.

And you have been told time and time again that the ‘Oh my Jesus’ prayer (as in post #659) was taught by MARY in her appearance in June 1917 to the children. Who told them to recite it every day when they prayed their Rosary, which by the way she also commanded them to pray every day.

Please do us the simple courtesies of listening to us and believing at least that much of what we say. We are the experts here, you are the very newest of new students.

There were at least half-a-dozen appearances over a period of six months - you certainly give no indication of having thoroughly read through accounts of the whole thing from beginning to end of the appearances, and have posted nothing like a thorough account of all of Mary’s sayings and doings at Fatima.
 
Are these all from the angel visions, because I posted the Mary vision on here, and that wasn’t on it.
The prayer “O my Jesus. . .”, the instruction for the children to make sacrifices to the Lord for sinners, and Mary’s self-identification are all messages given at Fatima by the Blessed Mother, not the angel.

Forgive me, but I don’t know the posting of “the Mary vision” to which you are referring. Could you please give me the # of the post you are talking about?
 
The prayer “O my Jesus. . .”, the instruction for the children to make sacrifices to the Lord for sinners, and Mary’s self-identification are all messages given at Fatima by the Blessed Mother, not the angel.

Forgive me, but I don’t know the posting of “the Mary vision” to which you are referring. Could you please give me the # of the post you are talking about?
643 645 646 straight from vatican.va
 
643 645 646 straight from vatican.va
Right. You are citing summaries of the secrets, not the messages in their entirity. It might be in your best interest to read the entire messages, especially in light of your OP “Fatima, the work of satan?”

And if the only thing you have read about Fatima is this summary, I wonder what it is that would prompt you to suspect it is the work of satan?

In any case, I expect that you would want to know the whole contents of what you are questioning. Did your read Eden’s posts?
 
And. . .Simon, I tried to offer two responses to your challenge:
Originally Posted by myfavoritmartin
I’ve given you verses, example the Christ in flesh one… show in the message of the vision where the vision is qualified according to the verse that tells you how to test spirits… . .
Something anything in the message that does anything even remotely close…
Please see posts 565 and 648. I appreciate any interaction with my effort to answer you!
 
“People mention fruit. Well, this has caused division. Not too many Protestants agree on it…”

Yup. Gotta get rid of all that divisive stuff, like Scripture. Or like Jesus, who freely admits that He came not to bring peace, but a sword.

Anybody gonna tell Jesus that He ought to be a uniter, not a divider? 🙂

My parents taught me the faith perfectly well, and I have no complaints about my school and parish. But it was Fatima that taught me as a child about the importance of individual daily prayer, the Sacraments, and contemplation of Christ’s life and the Scriptures, back when such “personal devotion” had been deemphasized. That teaching brought me safe through high school and college, saved me from suicide and despair, helped me again and again.

Learning about Fatima brought me closer to Christ. I am not the only one who can and will say this.
 
Jesus said things that caused division too, didn’t many walk away, was it a satanic message He was preaching ?
This is a red herring. You guys can’t sit at your keyboard and talk about fruit, people being united, etc. and then when I bring up that some are divided, mention Jesus. You just can’t do that. The division Jesus brings is nothing close to this for if it were, EVERY Christian would be on the “it was Mary” side. That isn’t the case, so bringing up Jesus is just a red herring.
And the fruit of protesting, splits, splits, splits, are those from God or satanic ?
God. He wanted the Church brought back to the way it should be. What was the fruit on the part of the Catholic Church in response to it? What was the fruit of the Catholic Church on many issues when it was challenged in the middle ages?
Not everything that happened in the lifetime of Jesus was written down, even you own Bible should say that.
I know this and I said this. I also said that anything that was not written down was not given to us to know. All that God wanted us to know was written down in His Word.
And I’ll ask you as well to show me a satanic prophesy that has come true ?
I don’t have to. I never said this was satanic. 😃 Now, can you show me where it has come true? A prophecy has to come true at one specific point in time. To say, “well people over the years have loved Mary (therefore Christ as you reason) more means the prophecy was true” would be wrong. Prophecies have to have an objective, verifiable time of when they come true and saying alot of people will love God is no prophecy, especially when the Bible declares that the love of many will wax cold. Unless we’re “not” in the end times?
 
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Hoosier, the point is John was given a vision in Revelation (Apocalypse) 12 of a crowned woman. I know most Protestants don’t think this can possibly be Mary and would argue that it’s Israel or the Christian Church. We Catholics say it can be and is ALL of those things (multiple meanings, which does sometimes happen in Bible prophecy). So yes, we believe John was granted a vision of Mary.

More importantly - the entire book of Revelation or the Apocalypse is a prophecy about the endtimes, yes??? Written by the Apostle John decades AFTER Christ’s Ascension, yes??? So prophecy continued after Christ’s earthly existence, yes? In fact Paul says that some Christians are given the gift of prophecy, among other gifts.
Hi Lily, thanks for your post. You took the time to know that Protestants see something else in that passage. 👍 I will grant that it could be Mary, but I don’t believe it. I believe it is Israel/the Church.

I used to go to a pentecostal church. I stopped believing in prophecy to protect myself and because I believed that 1Corinthians taught it. If I am wrong, I am open to it. I don’t believe that Revelation was strictly prophecy for the end times. Some of it is, no doubt. I believe it was useful for the believers back then and that it is a story of the cosmic battle between good and evil, the devil and the Church throughout the centuries.
 
“People mention fruit. Well, this has caused division. Not too many Protestants agree on it…”

Yup. Gotta get rid of all that divisive stuff, like Scripture. Or like Jesus, who freely admits that He came not to bring peace, but a sword.
Red herrings. All of them. The fact is, YOU guys are the ones who don’t hold to Scripture alone. :rolleyes:
Anybody gonna tell Jesus that He ought to be a uniter, not a divider? 🙂
Another red herring. You guys aren’t getting the picture. It is YOU people that have claimed this has brought unity and when I say it brought division you then want to bring Jesus into it. You know what? Jesus IS a divider. Hence the Reformation being His Will. Praise Jesus!
My parents taught me the faith perfectly well, and I have no complaints about my school and parish. But it was Fatima that taught me as a child about the importance of individual daily prayer, the Sacraments, and contemplation of Christ’s life and the Scriptures, back when such “personal devotion” had been deemphasized. That teaching brought me safe through high school and college, saved me from suicide and despair, helped me again and again.
So something that is supposedly not even required for you to believe in was what really sealed the deal for you? I’m happy for you but shouldn’t Scripture have done it? I’m truly glad you are alive too and I credit that to the Lord Himself. I can trust Him. I can’t trust a vision that the Church claims you don’t even have to believe in anyways.
Learning about Fatima brought me closer to Christ. I am not the only one who can and will say this.
**
How do you know this? Couldn’t it be your subjective belief that Fatima brought you closer to Christ? I have an objective source (Scripture) which says objectively, that it was the Holy Spirit that brought you closer to Christ. I am not the only one who can and will say this.** 👍
 
OK, Simon.

I think I just figured it out. You CAN’T interpret that Mary is the woman in Rev. 12, because then you would be faced with Mary and the BABY Jesus appearing together in a vision.

Because if you did, then you’d have to admit that the Mary and Infant Jesus apparitions are Scripturally Based.

Am I close?
 
OK, Simon.

I think I just figured it out. You CAN’T interpret that Mary is the woman in Rev. 12, because then you would be faced with Mary and the BABY Jesus appearing together in a vision.

Because if you did, then you’d have to admit that the Mary and Infant Jesus apparitions are Scripturally Based.

Am I close?
I don’t want to speak for Simon but in my opinion, we would not have to admit anything.

a) It is very likely the passage in Revelation is not talking about Mary;

and b) we don’t have to admit anything anyways. It is not required belief (supposedly) to accept Fatima. 👍
 
OK, Simon.

I think I just figured it out. You CAN’T interpret that Mary is the woman in Rev. 12, because then you would be faced with Mary and the BABY Jesus appearing together in a vision.

Because if you did, then you’d have to admit that the Mary and Infant Jesus apparitions are Scripturally Based.

Am I close?
MADE me smile pretty large there, but no I’d never put the 2 together… Many, many, many theologians even ecfs dont and wont accept Mary there.
Truly a vision that gives me nothing more than what I can get from scripture is immaterial, if the only thing to be taken out of it, is glorifying the rosary praying and Marys immaculate heart praying, then it is unimportant, TO me.
 
MADE me smile pretty large there, but no I’d never put the 2 together… Many, many, many theologians even ecfs dont and wont accept Mary there.
Truly a vision that gives me nothing more than what I can get from scripture is immaterial, if the only thing to be taken out of it, is glorifying the rosary praying and Marys immaculate heart praying, then it is unimportant, TO me.
Can you show me that an ECF rejected that Mary is the woman?

P.S. I thought that would make you smile. My day is done, now! 🙂
 
How about this:
  1. “When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.”
.
Yes, your right this recognizes Christ as our Saviour as scripture requests, thank you Jane and sorry I missed this (hard to respond to 30 people at once would be my excuse)
FORGIVE me please.
Incidentally I don’t doubt it is part of the vision as I googled it and it is on numerous web pages, in my defense I was using vatican.va and it wasn’t at the one I linked
I apologize for not double checking more pages… Thought i was at “the source”
Sincerely, it does behoove me to be more thorough around here as I pointed out to Jonathankinsman.
Peace?
Simon
 
Can you show me that an ECF rejected that Mary is the woman?

P.S. I thought that would make you smile. My day is done, now! 🙂
Commentary not mine…
Victorinus
Victorinus wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation. We would expect somebody to mention a Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 in such a document, if he held such a view. Instead, Victorinus says that the woman is the people of God, and he goes on at length to contradict numerous details of the Marian interpretation:


“The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people…And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 12:1-2)

When commenting on how the woman flees into the wilderness after the child is taken up to Heaven, Victorinus suggests that the fleeing into the wilderness hasn’t occurred yet:

“Although, therefore, it may signify this woman bringing forth, it shows her afterwards flying when her offspring is brought forth, because both things did not happen at one time; for we know that Christ was born, but that the time should arrive that she should flee from the face of the serpent: we do not know that this has happened as yet.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 12:16)

Thus, if the fleeing into the wilderness hadn’t occurred yet, at a time after Mary’s death, the woman cannot be Mary.

Victorinus goes on to say that some of the events of Revelation 12 are to occur in the end times:


“This is the beginning of Antichrist yet previously Elias must prophesy, and there must be times of peace. And afterwards, when the three years and six months are completed in the preaching of Elias, he also must be cast down from heaven, where up till that time he had had the power of ascending; and all the apostate angels, as well as Antichrist, must be roused up from hell.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 12:17)

If the woman of Revelation 12 is still alive in the end times, she, once again, can’t be Mary.
 
Methodius
**
Pope Pius XII approvingly wrote:

“Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.” (Munificentissimus Deus)**

Roman Catholics often claim that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, even though the latter part of the chapter speaks about events, including events of the end times, which didn’t occur during Mary’s life. Even if we view the woman as Mary, the passage doesn’t logically lead to the Assumption of Mary, a doctrine for which the passage is often cited.

The church father Methodius says that the woman is the church, not Mary. He refers to the correct view of the woman, so he doesn’t seem to have thought that there were multiple correct interpretations. Apparently, he thought it would be incorrect to view the woman as Mary:


“The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: ‘Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see; all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.’ It is the Church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8:5)

Not only did Methodius not view the woman as Mary, but he didn’t even think that the child is Christ. He describes the child in Revelation 12 as the people who are regenerated in baptism through the work of the church. He argues against those who think the child is Christ:

“The Church, then, stands upon our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fulness of the nations come in, labouring and bringing forth natural men as spiritual men; for which reason too she is a mother. For just as a woman receiving tim unformed seed of a man, within a certain time brings forth a perfect man, in the same way, one should say, does the Church conceive those who flee to the Word, and, forming them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state. Whence it is necessary that she should stand upon the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it…If any one, for there is no difficulty in speaking distinctly, should be vexed, and reply to what we have said: ‘But how, O virgins, can this explanation seem to you to be according to the mind of Scripture, when the Apocalypse plainly defines that the Church brings forth a male, while you teach that her labour-pains have their fulfilment in those who are washed in the laver?’ We will answer, But, O faultfinder, not even to you will it be possible to show that Christ Himself is the one who is born. For long before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word was fulfilled. And John speaks concerning things present and things to come. But Christ, long ago conceived, was not caught up to the throne of God when He was brought forth, from fear of the serpent injuring Him. But for this was He begotten, and Himself came down from the throne of the Father, that He should remain and subdue the dragon who made an assault upon the flesh. So that you also must confess that the Church labours and gives birth to those who are baptized.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8:6-7)

Methodius disagreed with Pope Pius XII and Roman Catholicism’s modern apologists.
 
“God wishes you to remain in the world for some time because He wants you to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart for the Heart of Jesus wants my Immaculate Heart to be venerated by His side.
I promise salvation to those who embrace it and their souls would be loved by God as the flowers placed by myself adorning His throne.”

When I read this type of stuff I can’t help but wonder how many of you think its Mary and how many the work of satan?

2nd corinthians talks of satan disguised as a beautiful angel.
Just curious…
What a thread! I’m sorry for not reading all of the posts, but then, I’m sure you understand.🙂

Certainly it **could ** be the works of Satan, and the Church was concious of this in the very beginning. However, there is a delima. If it is a deception of Satan, then, we sin in accepting it; however, if it is a true revelation, we sin in claiming it comes from a Satanic source.Those who hold a neutral position and claim it was an illusion are certainly not able to explain the miracle which happened on the 13th of Octobre.Even if a rare meteological phenomenom is proposed, the fact that such a phenomenom was predicted cannot.We are all within the same position; is it from Satan or was it a revelation from Heaven?

First, let us start with Abraham; he was visited by three angels. Were those angels from God or Satan? God appeared to Moses as a fire on the Holy mountain; was this
Satan or God? Did Jacob really see Gof face to face? Or was it Satan?
Certainly without any hesitation you will say such revelations were from Heaven because they’re found in scriptures. You’re faith in scriptures is like our faith in the Church.Taking the apparitions one by one, without accepting the authority of the Church (or scriptures), there would be ample reasons to believe in the possibility that such apparitions could have come from Satan. For example, God appears to Abraham, in the form of three messengers ( why bring in such confusion if God claims to be One?) God revealing HImself as an unconsuming Fire could be symbolic to the fires of Hell. God wrestling with Jabob is the hardest one to accept. If such event would have happened within the catholic church, I’m certain non catholics would have found this ridiculous in essence…God wrestling with Jacob?
Then comes Jesus; his miracles and healings. They could have been from the powers of Satan, and this is precisely what happened. The Pharasees claimed His powers were of Satanic origin. However, when Jesus performed exorcisms, He then asked the pharasees if Satan would actually destroy his own works; and this is the question we need to ask concerning Fatima.
Consecrate Russia and there will be world peace. Russia represents not only atheism, but religious persecution . Could Russia’s work be the work of God or Satan?If it is of Satan, then, it seems that Fatima must be from Heaven.

Andre
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top