I struggle with Third Secret interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexShmatko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can I just make a point

The church approved that fatima was authentic
The church ignored all the requests that were made
 
porthos11 said:
the Church has denied the order of the Blessed Virgin in this private revelation. I
Click to expand...
When you suggest the Church “ignored” or “denied” an order of Our Lady, you are implying it is supposed to believe them.

Here’s the thing – you say
PiusOfTheCross said:
Nevertheless, the Church did ignore the orders of the Blessed Virgin whether they were true or not. Are you capable of understanding this?
Click to expand...
and that implies the Blessed Virgin ordered something – that could be true or not. What I am saying is that a good, faithful Catholic may believe that the Blessed Virgin never even ordered anything. That she never appeared in Fatima.

In other words, one can, as a faithful Catholic, assert that the Church did not ignore the orders of the Blessed Virgin, because she never gave any orders.
 
Last edited:
PiusOfTheCross said:
Please read what I’ve stated already. The Church does not HAVE to follow the instructions of a private revelation. I never said that. Please watch your statements. Nevertheless, the Church did ignore the orders of the Blessed Virgin whether they were true or not. Are you capable of understanding this?
Click to expand...
Yes you did. When you used the word “orders”.

You further said the church “disobeyed” her “orders”. Not merely “ignore”. “Disobey”.

Using the words order and disobey of course leads one to infer nothing less than something binding. By stating that the Church “disobeyed”, you are stating that the apparitions at Fatima were binding.
PiusOfTheCross said:
The Third Secret hasn’t been fulfilled or released(in full) yet. We know this by the distinction with what happened to JPII and the events of the released secret, the speculations of Fr. Gabriele Amorth, along with the fact that the Church disobeyed the order of the Blessed Mother to release it before 1960.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine.

I’m not the one who needs to watch my statements. You may deny that you said it in such and such words, but it’s right there for all to read.
 
No, you are simply connecting the dots irrationally. If I were to make an order to the Church, they would simply disregard and disobey my order, rightly so. This in no ways defines anything about the authority of the Church nor does it suggest that the Church must obey. I stand by what I said entirely, that the Church does not have to follow the orders of a private revelation, they can simply disobey. Furthermore, you seem to treat Fatima, correct me if I’m wrong, as something hypothetical, which may be true or not. However, Fatima is an approved apparition. Before you infer, watch what I write closely. While believing in Fatima is not necessary for the salvation of your soul, the events did still occur.
 
Last edited:
PiusOfTheCross said:
No, you are simply connecting the dots irrationally. If I were to make an order to the Church, they would simply disregard and disobey my order, rightly so. This in no ways defines anything about the authority of the Church nor does it suggest that the Church must obey. I stand by what I said entirely, that the Church does not have to follow the orders of a private revelation, they can simply disobey. Furthermore, you seem to treat Fatima, correct me if I’m wrong, as something hypothetical, which may be true or not. However, Fatima is an approved apparition. Before you infer, watch what I write closely. While believing in Fatima is not necessary for the salvation of your soul, the events did still occur.
Click to expand...
Oh, you’re just trying to wiggle your way out of your writing while at the same time trying to stand by it.

Disobedience is a sin, but there is no disobedience where there is nothing binding. When you use the word “disobey”, you carry with it the necessary implication that there is a binding authority. If you ordered the Church to do something, it is impossible for them to disobey you because you have no authority. All they can do is ignore you. Much like it’s impossible for the Church to disobey Fatima, because Fatima has no authority over the Church. In fact, it’s quite the reverse. What the Church can do, is disregard it. But no private revelation can ever tell the Church to obey it.

And regardless of my feeling about Fatima, even though it’s worthy of belief, one does not need to believe ANYTHING about it. Not its Secrets, not its message, and not even that it occurred (that last part, however, would be rather imprudent to disbelieve).
 
Sorry, but I’m not. Disobedience is not a sin, except when the command, instruction, or order was executed by a proper and legitimate authority(according to Aquinas’ natural law, anyways). The implication of authority with disobedience is not a legitimate statement at all; it’s just wrong.

Further, private revelations can and do make commands, and it is entirely up to the Church to obey them or not. For example, the Mother ordered the Pope to consecrate Russia to her heart. This was not a mere suggestion, it was an order.

Mentioning that a soul does not need to believe in Fatima is just tip toeing around the argument. Souls can still go to Heaven with invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith, but nonetheless, they still ought to believe in the religion. Likewise, people ought to believe in Fatima, even though it is in their full right to not believe in it without the penalty of sin.
 
Last edited:
PiusOfTheCross said:
Inferring and calumny are grave moral errors, good sir! I’m not saying anything about the Magisterium of the Church, I’m just saying they ignored an order of Mary from a private revelation. I can’t see why you’re still arguing. Say, in the year 2020, a mystic says that Mary ordered a jubilee year, and the Pope does not listen. This says nothing about the authority of the Church or her Magisterium, whether the order was true or not. Just because the Church didn’t ‘follow an order’ doesn’t make it bad. Please understand this.
Click to expand...
I am not a “sir,” and I have not committed calumny (inferring, by the way, is not necessarily a “grave moral error”.) You criticize the Church for disobeying an “order” from a private revelation. I’m really sorry that you don’t understand what you’re doing when you say that; but unless the Church has given you an unprecedented amount of authority in determining these things, disagreeing with you is not “calumny” by any stretch of the imagination.
 
You stated that I put more stock in private revelation than in the Church. That is calumny. Also, it genuinely depends on the persons view towards Fatima that would define it as a criticism or merely an observation. I’m sorry that you feel sorry for me, but I hope that contrition(if you really have any, and didn’t say you feel sorry for me just for rhetorical effect) drives you to pray for me, I always need prayers! Finally, please forgive me for calling you a sir, my mistake.
 
I only go by your own words. If that’s not what you meant, you might want to reconsider your phrasing, rather than accusing others of sins as though you can read hearts.
One more time: the Church has no obligation to “obey” a private revelation. Nor do the Church’s members.
 
You now know what I meant and may reread my statements in that context.

For the tenth time: I understand that the Church need not obey private revelations. I never once said that. What I said was that the Virgin Mary, in the Fatima apparition, made a multitude of commands, one of them being to release the third secret before 1960. Thus, we can understand that this command was disobeyed. However, you must also note that this is not transitively a good or bad thing, because disobedience is not always a sinful act.
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
I understand that the Church need not obey private revelations. I never once said that.
Click to expand...
I hope you do understand, because I’m not the only one who understood your statements hat way. You claimed the Church “disobeyed;” there’s no disobeying where there is no obligation to obey.
 
  • Approved Private revelations have value, for some who choose to be encouraged by them. The only value in private revelations is that I, personally, may apply in my own life, towards conversion to God.
  • There is no value whatever in me applying private revelations to other people, including officials in the Church.
  • Every person who misuses private revelation begins by saying, “of course, this is not public revelation, however…” then they go on to treat the private revelation as if it were public revelation.
  • In 1930 the Church reviewed documents regarding Fatima and approved based on information in 1930. 95% of what is posted about Fatima is based on other information made public after 1930. It is not “approved” or “disapproved” by the Church.
  • Sister Lucia was a witness, but not an authority on Fatima. The current pope, the current bishop of Fatima, and for you, your own current bishop, would be the proper authorities on Fatima.
  • Other writers on Fatima can be useful informants on Fatima, if they lead you towards deeper conversion of your life. They are not authorities. If they use private revelation to entice your interest (“Let’s hear what Fatima (or Akita, or this other one) says about the false shepherds”), give them no more attention than you would give the National Enquirer. They care nothing for your salvation.
 
Last edited:
Your first statement is illegitimate in the fact that approved private revelations are to be believed by virtue of the Church’s teaching authority, albeit they are not apart of the Deposit of Faith, and belief in such a revelation is not definitive upon your salvation or not. Therefore, private revelations are not apart of the revelation of the Gospel. For example, one may believe in the Antichrist, but not necessarily that he is a person, but rather an idea or a group. The Church, though, teaches that the Antichrist is to be a man, a sole human being. It is the absolute truth, therefore, that the Antichrist is to be a man, but one must not believe so in order to merit from the saving Passion of Our Lord.

Your second statement is illegitimate in the capacity of my first statement, but also in the fact that various Popes have applied and interpreted this particular private revelation. It would most certainly be within the sphere of papism for the Catholic to take these private revelations most seriously.

Your third statement is not legitimate because you show lack of understanding of revelation. There is no such thing as “public revelation”, but rather the Deposit of Faith and Divine Revelation, and their capacities thereof. Secondly, your generalization that said person looks at a private revelation as a public revelation is simply a rhetorical generalization lacking any evidence.

I most certainly agree with your fourth statement!

Your fourth statement is also illegitimate because the sole authorities of any Marian apparition are the seers, in this circumstance being Jacinta, Lucia, and Francisco. However, the true authority, in this case the capacity of declaring whether an apparition is genuine or not, is the Bishop locale to the apparition, along with the Vatican.

I agree with your final statement a great deal!

Pray for me! I shall pray for you.
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
the sole authorities of any Marian apparition are the seers, in this circumstance being Jacinta, Lucia, and Francisco. However, the true authority, in this case the capacity of declaring whether an apparition is genuine or not, is the Bishop locale to the apparition, along with the Vatican.
Click to expand...
According to Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II and the Catechism, the bishops are the authorities. The authority of seers is not mentioned. The bishops can determine which parts of a private revelation may have validity, and which do not. (Consider the Church’s recent, tentative position on Medjugorge which is not final). In other words, parts of Fatima may be deemed by bishops worthy of attention, and parts not worthy. Most disclosures about Fatima (since 1930) have not been approved, or disapproved, by the Church. If a letter from St. Lucia about events in 1917 is discovered for the first time next year by a relative, that would obviously not be part of the Church’s 1930 approval (though not disapproved or condemned either. Just not evaluated.)

In any private revelation, a seer may perceive 10 messages as being from Mary. The bishop may decide messages 1 and 3 are approved. Period. The seer herself is unable to tell which messages show sign of supernatural origin or consistency with Church doctrine.

Your own bishop is authoritative for you. He should know your city, so he may decide which parts of which revelations are especially pertinent for your town, this year.

The message Paris needs to hear, in 2018, may be different from New York, and different from what Paris needed in 1968.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top