Fatima theology. Confused

[Sephero]

Hi everyone, I am researching Orthodoxy as of late, as I find their theology on Salvation more inline with my heart.

I decided to see what orthodoxy thought of the Fatima apparitions. Some of the apparitions stuff I find a little strange myself. Anyways just a few observations I find confusing, the follow first observation, and question is from an Orthodoxy response to Fatima.

The apparition also taught that
one’s suffering in this life could
obtain salvation for others. In The
first appearance, it asked the children
if they would “bear all the
suffering (God) wills for you, as an
act of reparation for the sins by
which He is offended, and of supplication
for the conversion of sinners.”13
And in the fourth
appearance, the apparition told the
children, “Pray, pray very much,
and make sacrifices for sinners.
For many souls go to Hell because
there is no one to make sacrifices
for them.”14
In this way, too, our Lord’s offering
for us is denigrated by the
idea that our suffering somehow
supplies for others that which is
missing in His offering of Himself.
This is a blasphemous delusion,
showing Satanic pride in
thinking that we can save others by
our prayers and suffering, thereby
putting ourselves in the place of
Christ.

I have to agree, is not Christs sacrifice sufficient?

“I promise to assist at the
hour of death with the graces necessary
for salvation all those who,
on the first Saturday of five consecutive
months, go to confession,
receive Holy Communion, say the
Rosary, and keep me company for
fifteen minutes while meditating
on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary,
with the object of making
reparation to me.”

Why are we making reparation to Mary?

What exactly is reparation?

“When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is going to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.”

On the night of January 25, 1938, Sister Lucy saw the ominous red glow Our Lady had foretold would be the great sign that God was "going to punish the world by means of war, famine and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father". On the following day the strange phenomenon of the "illuminated night" was reported in newspapers across Europe and North America. 3 Sister Lucy understood that the punishment of the world was about to begin, and several weeks later, in March [1938], Hitler invaded Austria and annexed it to Germany, and this act began the escalation of events which transformed the various aggressions of Germany, Italy and Japan into World War II.

Firstly, God punishing us, is that even legit? A God who is Love, is actively punishing us? Not only that, but apparently using Hitler as the means?

Seriously?

“in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary in order to obtain peace for the world . . . because only She can help you.”

Only Mary can help us, God is not available, or to angry perhaps?

This to my ears, is totally odd, all of it, and it is making me question, and look more at Orthodoxy.

Can some someone help our here?

Thanks.

 

[Wesrock]

The Church is one body. It’s how the communion of saints works. It’s why we can offer masses and indulgences for those in purgatory who are not ourselves. And if I have an unrepentant or even unbaptized uncle, am I not to pray for his conversion? Or is such a thing inappropriate? To be honest, this seems like a misplaced Orthodox criticism.

Christ’s sacrifice is not being replaced. His is the ultimate sacrifice, and it’s only through Christ’s sacrifice and our participation in Christ that our works and sacrifices can themselves have any meaning within our lives. It’s in our prayers and our petitions to saints for their prayers that we hope our Father in responds

The question on Christ’s sacrifice seems more like a Protestant objection than an Orthodox one. If Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient, why do we do works? And so on down the line. We are called to pray for each other. We can take communion on behalf of others and their intentions and offer it to them.

As for punishment . . . We see multiple times that God allowed human events to play out in such a way as to enact punishment. I think the Orthodox would agree with the Church Fathers that Jerusalem was judged for its rejection of Christ and persecution of Christians during its sacking by the Romans in 70AD.

I suppose I haven’t commented on Mary. I will leave that to another time. Sorry my thoughts are so scattered right now. I hope they help at least a little.

 

[pianistclare]

Mary exhorts us to pray unceasingly.
Simple as that.

 

[commenter]

Hi everyone, I am researching Orthodoxy as of late, as I find their theology on Salvation more inline with my heart.

I decided to see what orthodoxy thought of the Fatima apparitions. Some of the apparitions stuff I find a little strange myself. Anyways just a few observations I find confusing, the follow first observation, and question is from an Orthodoxy response to Fatima.

The apparition also taught that
one’s suffering in this life could
obtain salvation for others. In The
first appearance, it asked the children
if they would “bear all the
suffering (God) wills for you, as an
act of reparation for the sins by
which He is offended, and of supplication
for the conversion of sinners.”13
And in the fourth
appearance, the apparition told the
children, “Pray, pray very much,
and make sacrifices for sinners.
For many souls go to Hell because
there is no one to make sacrifices
for them.”14
In this way, too, our Lord’s offering
for us is denigrated by the
idea that our suffering somehow
supplies for others that which is
missing in His offering of Himself.
This is a blasphemous delusion,
showing Satanic pride in
thinking that we can save others by
our prayers and suffering, thereby
putting ourselves in the place of
Christ.

I have to agree, is not Christs sacrifice sufficient?

“I promise to assist at the
hour of death with the graces necessary
for salvation all those who,
on the first Saturday of five consecutive
months, go to confession,
receive Holy Communion, say the
Rosary, and keep me company for
fifteen minutes while meditating
on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary,
with the object of making
reparation to me.”

Why are we making reparation to Mary?

What exactly is reparation?

“When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is going to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.”

On the night of January 25, 1938, Sister Lucy saw the ominous red glow Our Lady had foretold would be the great sign that God was "going to punish the world by means of war, famine and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father". On the following day the strange phenomenon of the "illuminated night" was reported in newspapers across Europe and North America. 3 Sister Lucy understood that the punishment of the world was about to begin, and several weeks later, in March [1938], Hitler invaded Austria and annexed it to Germany, and this act began the escalation of events which transformed the various aggressions of Germany, Italy and Japan into World War II.

Firstly, God punishing us, is that even legit? A God who is Love, is actively punishing us? Not only that, but apparently using Hitler as the means?

Seriously?

“in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary in order to obtain peace for the world . . . because only She can help you.”

Only Mary can help us, God is not available, or to angry perhaps?

This to my ears, is totally odd, all of it, and it is making me question, and look more at Orthodoxy.

Can some someone help our here?

Thanks.

Provide documentation on your sources, for Fatima and for “Orthodoxy”. I agree with the previous poster, this sounds more like Protestant objections than Orthodox.

The Church approved Fatima as a private revelation in 1930. Anything made public after that is not reviewed by the Church for approval, not really part of approved private revelation.

Not sure what you mean by “Fatima theology”. It’s a private devotion/revelation. It adds nothing to theology. Compare the Catholic Catechism to an equivalent Catechism for Orthodox.

 

[brad90956]

Mary exhorts us to pray unceasingly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hi everyone, I am researching Orthodoxy as of late, as I find their theology on Salvation more inline with my heart

I decided to see what orthodoxy thought of the Fatima apparitions. Some of the apparitions stuff I find a little strange myself. Anyways just a few observations I find confusing, the follow first observation, and question is from an Orthodoxy response to Fatima

I have no idea what it is that you’re presenting. I’m a Priest who is a theologian in Europe. Your “Orthodoxy response” is from a website for a foundation based in the State of Oklahoma, which is not a bishop’s seat of an autocephalous Church I am familiar with. Whether the website is of a priest or only a layperson, its theological provenance is dubious to me

The unsigned (one can’t call it a journal article or a research project) declaration – it’s to be generous to say it constitutes a response “of Orthodoxy”

The apparition also taught that
one’s suffering in this life could
obtain salvation for others. In The
first appearance, it asked the children
if they would “bear all the
suffering (God) wills for you, as an
act of reparation for the sins by
which He is offended, and of supplication
for the conversion of sinners.”
And in the fourth
appearance, the apparition told the
children, “Pray, pray very much,
and make sacrifices for sinners.
For many souls go to Hell because
there is no one to make sacrifices
for them.”
In this way, too, our Lord’s offering
for us is denigrated by the
idea that our suffering somehow
supplies for others that which is
missing in His offering of Himself.
This is a blasphemous delusion,
showing Satanic pride in
thinking that we can save others by
our prayers and suffering, thereby
putting ourselves in the place of
Christ

I have to agree, is not Christs sacrifice sufficient?

Then, if you choose to be Orthodox, you will have to confront and contend with the reality of their monastic tradition, like ours, which is precisely a life of self-sacrifice, such as requested at Fatima. The monastic life is a life of intercessory prayer, offered in austere environments of privation, for the salvation of souls, the welfare of the Church, the ordering of civil governments, and souls in need…in response to God’s call and for His honour

Each point addressed as a concern is, actually, reflected within the practices of the Christian East

“I promise to assist at the
hour of death with the graces necessary
for salvation all those who,
on the first Saturday of five consecutive
months, go to confession,
receive Holy Communion, say the
Rosary, and keep me company for
fifteen minutes while meditating
on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary,
with the object of making
reparation to me”

Why are we making reparation to Mary?

What exactly is reparation?

Frankly, if you are asking first “Why reparation to Mary” and then asking “What IS reparation,” it indicates that you need to understand fundamental concepts in theology before you try to make theological conclusions. That is basic

“When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is going to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father”

/…/ Sister Lucy understood that the punishment of the world was about to begin, and several weeks later, in March [1938], Hitler invaded Austria and annexed it to Germany, and this act began the escalation of events which transformed the various aggressions of Germany, Italy and Japan into World War II

Firstly, God punishing us, is that even legit? A God who is Love, is actively punishing us? Not only that, but apparently using Hitler as the means?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously. I suggest you go back and study the theology of history concerning the Babylonian exile to have a fundamental concept of how infidelity that is sown can result in something very unpleasant to reap, seen through the lens of the theology of history as “divine punishment” as preserved in Sacred Scripture

“in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary in order to obtain peace for the world . . . because only She can help you”

Only Mary can help us, God is not available, or to angry perhaps?

No. It’s not because He is “not available” or “too angry” – it’s because such is His disposition. It wasn’t necessary that God constitute the Mother of the Redeemer as Mother of redeemed humanity…but that is what He chose to do

This to my ears, is totally odd, all of it, and it is making me question, and look more at Orthodoxy

Well…you seem to be on a journey. As an Orthodox, you will have to also come to terms with many things your ears find totally odd…in order words, whether you end up in the East or the West, you will have to accept mysteries you can’t comprehend

In the East, you will venerate the Panagia, the Most Holy Theotokos, and offer her that homage which every Orthodox does – just as every Catholic is called to venerate her with the singular veneration of hyperdulia

I am at a loss to understand why private revelation in the West would be a stumbling block. In the East, you will also confront mystical phenomenon. I remember one case being invited, privately on a quiet visit to a certain place somewhere in the world, being invited to view a holy icon of the Orthodox that was miraculously shedding myrrh. Without comment, I venerated the icon…as indeed I would any icon. I wasn’t really surprised it was withdrawn subsequently from veneration because the phenomenon lacked a supernatural origin. That’s not in any way to cast aspersion as the very same phenomenon exists in the Occidental Church…the point is that one has to be honest about what is essential and what is, actually, incidental…such as private revelations

 

[Sephero]

This is what I read.

orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

And this is from Fatima in Lucia’s own words

"“In October Our Lord
will come, as well as our Lady of
Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel.
Saint Joseph will appear with the
Child Jesus to bless the world.”

This is another thing I don’t understand, Many ‘Our Ladys’, how do we understand the different Marys, with different titles? Also, how does one understand the Child Jesus? Is Jesus also a Child at all times, or does He transform into a Child, or what?

What exactly is reparation, and why do we make it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

This is from the second secret.

“When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father.”

In relation to this above quote, I suppose in general I’m trying to comprehend, how God punishes us, by means of war (I’m no good with Old Testament stuff). Like, in this case does this mean that God used Hitler as an instrument to carry out this punishment, or does it mean, he simply allowed the evil to take place (permissive will).

How can Love (God is love) punish us in this way?

I’m not being antagonistic here, these are genuine questions.

Many thanks,
Mark

 

[Todd977]

The apparition also taught that
one’s suffering in this life could
obtain salvation for others. In The
first appearance, it asked the children
if they would “bear all the
suffering (God) wills for you, as an
act of reparation for the sins by
which He is offended, and of supplication
for the conversion of sinners.”13
And in the fourth
appearance, the apparition told the
children, “Pray, pray very much,
and make sacrifices for sinners.
For many souls go to Hell because
there is no one to make sacrifices
for them.”14
In this way, too, our Lord’s offering
for us is denigrated by the
idea that our suffering somehow
supplies for others that which is
missing in His offering of Himself.
This is a blasphemous delusion,
showing Satanic pride in
thinking that we can save others by
our prayers and suffering, thereby
putting ourselves in the place of
Christ.

I have to agree, is not Christs sacrifice sufficient?

Before sinners can take advantage of Christ’s saving sacrifice they must undergo conversion. Praying for and offering up our own sacrifices for the conversion of sinners so that they can then take advantage of Christ’s saving sacrifice does not denigrate Christ’s sacrifice in the least. It should be noted that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved even without our prayers and personal sacrifices for their conversion but many sinners do not cooperate with that sufficient grace. By our prayers and sacrifices we ask God to give sinners even more grace to bring about their conversion. Thus, by our prayers and sacrifices more sinners are saved than would be otherwise because more sinners undergo conversion and are then able to take advantage of Christ’s saving sacrifice.

Praying for and offering up our own sacrifices in reparation to ameliorate the temporal consequences of sins does not denigrate the unique ability of Christ’s sacrifice to ameliorate the eternal consequences of sin in the least. Sacred Scripture speaks well of the sacrifices Job offered for the temporal consequences of the sins of his children (Job 1:4-5) and the sacrifices Judas Maccabeus and his men offered for the temporal consequences of the sins of their fallen comrades. (2 Maccabees 12:39-45)

 

[Wesrock]

I’m going to focus on your Marian concerns right now. Reparations are to correct wrongs done. Reparations to Mary are for insults given to her. We do not act as individuals, but as one body in Christ, making reparations made by others within our assembly. The error is, ironically enough, interpreting these reparations with too much focus on Mary. They must be understood as Christocentric, in light of Mary being Mother of God, God-bearer, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church, Archetype of the Church, assembly of believers, the Body of Christ, the true Ark. Insults to Mary undermine all of these truths about her, and are insults to Christ and the Church. If we lose focus of the Christocentric reality behind our devotion to Mary, even as faithful Catholics and not skeptics, we stray into error.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Sephero, we reap what we sow. God is not punishing us per se. That’s just a manner of speaking. It’s the easiest way of presenting what is happening to us without saying, “well, it’s not God, it’s just us skrewing up our world”. Saying that would give the impression that God has nothing to do with it. And thus many people would deduce that there is no God (I know, it happened anyway) But God does have something to do with everything that happens on earth. But He is not to blame for our “punishment”.

Your question about why is it called God’s punishment (so called), for me, simply boils down to Mary applying an understandable concept to a complex theological idea that probably goes beyond the ability of the best theologians to articulate through language or any construct for that matter. But in some sense, it is punishment from God. Try to figure out how. That’s the beauty of it, there is still some meat on the bone for us.

 

[mattp0625]

Sephero-

We are not required to follow the various apparitions of Mary. Catholics differentiate doctrine from dogma from devotion from practices. Everything is not a dogma.

If you do choose to follow them, think of it this way- she is in heaven in the presence of God. She is wearing a crown of stars. In her apparitions, she has appeared in different forms. Would that be so impossible for God?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is what I read.

orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

And this is from Fatima in Lucia’s own words

"“In October Our Lord
will come, as well as our Lady of
Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel.
Saint Joseph will appear with the
Child Jesus to bless the world.”

This is another thing I don’t understand, Many ‘Our Ladys’, how do we understand the different Marys, with different titles?

All right…at this point you leave me quite confounded. Where exactly are you in this spiritual journey?

You have come to critique a private revelation…seemingly doing so without any substantive understanding of either the theology or even the most basic thought of the Latin Church surrounding private revelation.

You say the Latin Church’s approach is flawed and therefore you prefer the thought of the East – which is certainly your right and I do not argue that; I have a great love for the East and for the Orthodox with whom I have worked, as a priest consultant, on issues of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

So, please explain now to me how you can ask the question you ask above about Our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel in view of, taking just the Russian Orthoodox Church, the holy icons of the Theotokos invoked as Our Lady of Vladimir and Our Lady of Kazan and Our Lady of the Sign.

How are the titles of the Latins so disturbing to you but the titles of the Orthodox not problematic but rather reaffirming to you of Orthodoxy? This makes no sense to me as a theologian.

If it a doctrinal point that was confusing you and your mind preferred one answer to another, that I could comprehend more…but not this.

There are not many Marys. There is one Mary. She is depicted in different ways, according to the purpose of the depiction or the aspect of her that is being considered. Mary at the foot of the Cross (Our Lady of Dolours) is depicting a different scene in her life and in the mystery of salvation than when she is in prayer with the apostles at the moment of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring at Pentecost (Our Lady of the Cenacle), for example.

But the Orthodox do the same in their depiction of the Most Holy Theotokos in the mystery of the nativity as opposed to the mystery of her own dormition, for example. Is it again the case that the Latin practice of iconic representation disturbs you but the Orthodox does not?

Also, how does one understand the Child Jesus? Is Jesus also a Child at all times, or does He transform into a Child, or what?

The glorified and resurrected body is not constrained by the physical laws that affect us in this life. So, yes, the Lord can and has manifested Himself in the mystery of His divine childhood. It is the appearance His glorified body assumes by the sense perception of the person to whom He is appearing; He has not reverted to being a child or, as it were, gone back in time.

What exactly is reparation, and why do we make it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

I would suggest as a start, you read this text by the renowned English language author of catechetical texts, the late Father John Hardon, SJ

therealpresence.org/chapel/pen_rep.htm

For a more Mariocentric approach, there is this text that is based on the De Montfort school of spirituality.

ewtn.com/library/Montfort/Handbook/Reparat.htm

 

[Della]

A book I would add to Don Ruggero’s list is: “A Still, Small Voice” by Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel. It’s an easy read and full of good information about how the Church deals with private revelation, such as Fatima.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is from the second secret.

“When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father.”

In relation to this above quote, I suppose in general I’m trying to comprehend, how God punishes us, by means of war (I’m no good with Old Testament stuff). Like, in this case does this mean that God used Hitler as an instrument to carry out this punishment, or does it mean, he simply allowed the evil to take place (permissive will).

How can Love (God is love) punish us in this way?

I’m not being antagonistic here, these are genuine questions.

Many thanks,
Mark

Well…it’s leaving one rather hampered when on the one hand one wants to have a discussion that impinges upon the theology of revelation and then declares that one of two testaments of Sacred Scripture one is no good at.

The theology of history that derives from the Babylonian exile and the fall of Jerusalem and the southern kingdom provides an archetypal paradigm for the question you ask. The paradigm runs thus:

1. God establishes a covenant with His people
2. The people are not faithful to the covenant
3. God sends prophets to the people to call them to conversion and repentance.
4. In so far as there is conversion and repentance, there is restoration, albeit there can yet be very unpleasant consequences.

We encounter this repeatedly in the course of salvation history in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament.

In the case of the Babylonian exile, we have the paradigm as above except that the prophets – notably Jeremiah – who come with a message from the Lord of the need to repent and to abjure infidelity to the covenant. The message is rejected, as is the messenger.

The result is the fall of the Davidic throne, the people being taken away in exile for decades, the destruction and dispoiling of the temple of Solomon. All of these were completely unthinkable from the perspective of the people of God in view of the divine promises that had been made. How did this happen? It engendered an existential crisis, to use a modern term and a modern concept.

God did not destroy the temple but He did not intervene to prevent its destruction. The chain of events in human history were purely predicated on the action of human actors. God, being omniscient, knew thoroughly and absolutely the chain of events and what would or (even could) result from various decisions.

The resolution to the conundrum is ultimately through the prophets God sends to lead the people out of exile, notably Ezekiel, who present that what happened occurred precisely as the fruit of infidelity to the covenant.

War is, as the Virgin articulated, the fruit of sin. Whether it was the war that took the Jewish people to live in Babylon as captives of the victors or whether it was World War I or World War II.

God does not inflict war upon humanity. Humanity inflicts war upon humanity. An event of a person will lead to a result/many results…some of which can be foreseen humanly and others which cannot. Except God. He is omniscient as well as omnipresent.

God can intervene in His providence – which Our Lady said He would do, if the people repented of sin, turn to the Lord in prayer, and ASKED Him to intervene.

This is not unlike the analogy of a human parent. A parent can watch a child, grown or not, make a mistake. They can warn the child not to do something – such as touch a hot stove. If the child reaches out and touches the hot stove, the burn is not the punishment of the parent…it is the consequence of the child touching a hot stove. Of course, the parent knows that the child may remember the consequence as a lesson for future consideration…also concerning matters much more important that putting a finger to a stove.

If people do not ask God to intervene, that violates the theology of secondary causality in what the Church teaches regarding prayer, well articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas…to wit:

God associates human beings with Himself in the ordering of creation. We do this in various ways, including prayer.

• Human life and human crops rely upon rain; drought conversely is a crisis
• Human beings cannot (at least absolutely, in spite of things like cloud seeding) cause rain. God causes rain through the laws of nature
• We can pray for rain and God conjoins the granting of rain, at times, to our asking for it
• When we pray, we are not telling God something He does not know…He knows we need rain
• When we pray, we are not trying to persuade God to do something against His will by sending rain
• It is not a mercantile transaction…sending the right combination of prayers and sacrifices does not compel God, by means of a bargain, to send rain
• When we pray, we are participating through secondary causality in the rain which He sends. We are co-workers with Him in the order of His creation
• If, on the other hand, we do not ask…because we cannot be bothered, do not believe, choose not to confess our reliance on Him, one can say He “punishes” us by not sending rain but that is a very poor way of expressing it. We are punishing ourselves by not turning to Him in our need and asking Him to send the rain

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can some someone help our here?

Thanks.

Paul referred to himself as a co-laborer with Christ when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 3:9
For we are God’s fellow workers.

Paul went further in his understanding of our responsibility as co-laborers with Christ when when he wrote:

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Is anything lacking from the perfect sacrifice that Christ offered upon the Cross? Paul clearly indicates that more is to be done and that he makes up what is “still lacking” in his own flesh.

 

[Sephero]

Many thanks everyone for you time and replies.

Hi Todd, you said

It should be noted that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved even without our prayers and personal sacrifices for their conversion but many sinners do not cooperate with that sufficient grace. By our prayers and sacrifices we ask God to give sinners even more grace to bring about their conversion.

But isn’t this a contradiction? Surely if something is sufficient in itself, it does not require anything extra. If we find that a sinner does not respond to sufficient grace, then surely that sinner has rejected the only amount of grace necessary for his salvation?

If we have to pray for more grace, does that not make the original amount of grace insufficient?

Thank you Wesrock, reparation that makes a little more sense now that you speak of it this way.

1Lord1Faith, yes, I try to see as far as I possible can, how God is not punishing us as you mention. I try to see more like you say we reap what we sow, meaning that we brought it upon ourselves, and since nothing happens without God willing it, it appears as punishment.

But it’s just so direct when Mary says that ‘God will punish us by means of war’, why not say.

“You have brought war upon yourselves, and God cannot not permit these things because of the lack of your repentance, and prayer.” Or something like that?

Hi Don Ruggero, thank you for your replies.

Thank you for making the comparison between the eastern monastic tradition, and the requests of Our Lady of Fatima.

You are correct also in that, perhaps a lot of my confusion stems from a lack of knowledge in theology. It’s just that I have been reading bit and bobs here, and for some reason I feel pulled towards Orthodoxy currently. A lot of that has to do with listening to and reading Fathers Stephens 'Glory to God for all things" podcast and blog.

Ok I can see your point about divine justice and wars, I guess I have a hard time understanding an all loving God being wrathful, and handing down punishment by means of war. If you could point me to a resource that would help me understand this better that would be great.[EDIT: I just saw the link to Trent Horns ‘Hard Sayings’ book.

I am at a loss to understand why private revelation in the West would be a stumbling block.

I guess because these private revelations are so predominant in Catholicism.

You say the Latin Church’s approach is flawed and therefore you prefer the thought of the East – which is certainly your right and I do not argue that; I have a great love for the East and for the Orthodox with whom I have worked, as a priest consultant, on issues of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

So, please explain now to me how you can ask the question you ask above about Our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel in view of, taking just the Russian Orthoodox Church, the holy icons of the Theotokos invoked as Our Lady of Vladimir and Our Lady of Kazan and Our Lady of the Sign.

How are the titles of the Latins so disturbing to you but the titles of the Orthodox not problematic but rather reaffirming to you of Orthodoxy? This makes no sense to me as a theologian.

Actually I never said Latin Church was flawed, I am flawed, I have no idea pretty much about anything. I simply found the revelations of Fatima slightly strange at first inquiry. If more light happens to grace my life in relation to these aspects I will happily welcome it of course.

I make an effort to pray the full rosary once a week, as I have been enrolled in the confraternity of the holy rosary. So I am not altogether against any of this. I have come to view each day as a day for learning and striving to know God. You are correct that I am on a journey, though I wish I wasn’t, I wish I could have peace in my heart and know, yes this is it, but I have faith that I am getting there. Baptized a Catholic, I fell away and started to investigate Buddhism and Hinduism, the last few years I have spent listening to Advaita Vedanta. About two years ago, I read a book called ‘Meditations on the Tarot’ (It’s not what you think) which brought my seeking back to the Catholic Church.

I always had my heart set on Jesus, even when I was involved with Advaita Vedanta, I always understood that Jesus was God, but now I see that he does indeed have His Church. Then I realized there was another Church claiming to be the One True Church, so I feel I have to know, which one is the True Church.

Thank you for explaining about the Icons, and the different Manifestations of Our Lady, as icon, I can actually see this. I agree also about the Baby Jesus phenomena, though I can understand this mostly though my understanding of the different manifestations of Krishna in Hinduism. Krisnha is also depicted and been seen to appear as divine Child. though this would make an Orthodox believer wary.

In fact I read a book called “The Young man, the Guru, and the Elder (Paisos)” and while I found the depictions and stories of Jesus Christ and the Elder fascinating, I felt uneasy about the blanket critic that ALL Hindus are devil worshipers. I found that odd, because surely there are Hindu people who are seeking the Good, the One True God, even if due to their culture they may not understand Jesus to be the fullest revelation of God. In this sense I much more prefer the Catholic understanding that other religions have a ray of the Truth in them. I do understand though, that the devil does work in many of these Hindu rituals and practices no doubt.

Thank you for your last post, it was quite enlightening.

God bless,
Mark

 

[Wesrock]

But isn’t this a contradiction? Surely if something is sufficient in itself, it does not require anything extra. If we find that a sinner does not respond to sufficient grace, then surely that sinner has rejected the only amount of grace necessary for his salvation?

If we have to pray for more grace, does that not make the original amount of grace insufficient?

I think, in a sense, what we pray for are more opportunities for that person to repent and turn back to God. Unlike the angels, we can change in our disposition. Our choices in this life are not eternal (until death). There’s room for nuance. But just because a person rejects the grace God sends them at one point doesn’t mean it was insufficient for them to make a free choice.

You could also take a Thomistic view, though, if that’s more pleasing, and hold that all of the grace God sends is not only sufficient but efficacious. It’s a bit more predetermined, and in this case we pray that God may turn an unrepentant person into one of the elect.

But either way, I don’t see anything wrong with praying for the conversion of sinners.

 

[mattp0625]

Hello - you appear to be operating under assumptions similar to the following:

• Christ’s death on the cross gives us grace sufficient to save us from all past, present and future sins.

This concept does not account for all the scriptures that indicate a free will response from us in choosing to live a moral life, etc. It also assumes the bible indicates “faith alone”.

Jesus opened the door. We must choose to walk through, strengthened by grace. God does not make us into programmed robots.

The bible also indicates we can pray for one another, and as previously indicated, God can indeed use people as his instruments. This does not result in taking away from Jesus. It honors Him and we do this out of love for Him.

 

[commenter]

I guess because these private revelations are so predominant in Catholicism.

If private revelations were “predominant” then the content of private revelations would be part of the Catechism. It is not. You can’t begin to understand Catholicism until you look closely at ****Public ****Revelation, and the Mass. I am active in Catholic activities a few times a week, with extensive discussions, postings, etc with lots of ordinary and devout laity. There is, rare, mention of private revelations, but far less than there is on CAF.

Private revelations are, in a way, part of Protestantism too. This is pretty explicit in Pentecostal communions, where there is emphasis on Prophesy, Word of Knowledge, Interpretation of Tongues, etc. (I am not minimizing the value of these Gifts of the Spirit, just making a connection).

Even in evangelical circles, how often you hear or read “I felt the Lord put this on my heart to share with you” or “Pastor John’s message was especially annointed for our times, we want to share this with you”. A kind of private revelation, though not called that.

 

[Potato1237]

I agree, some of this is quite confusing and disturbing. Especially the “only I can help you” part. I don’t know how to react.