Mass delusion or genuine miracle?

[Linusthe2nd]

Clearly we are at divide. Both sides have spoken at length. A lot of venting both ways. What is the value of miracles then? Clearly, they reinforce the faith of Christians as did the miracles of Old Testiment and the New Testiment. They have also been a source of many conversions to the faith. These are both very positive. I certainly understand the attitude of unbelievers. I am something of a skeptic on some of these things myself, I always wait until the Vatican indicates approval before I commit myself. I have experienced minor mircles myself - nothing so spectacular - but still enough to make one think.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But since the observatories of the world, including the Vatican’s own, reported nothing, I think it’s safe to say that’s exactly what happened - nothing.

Sarah x

That may be true Sarah, but the Vatican has accepted the authenticity of the miracles and the accompaning messages. Futher, the two younger seers have been canonized.
I think you would find the following interesting.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

A couple of things can’t be denied. The end of WW1 was predicted, as well as the coming WW2, and some the things that have happened since seem to follow closely the other predictions.

 

[atheistgirl]

A couple of things can’t be denied. The end of WW1 was predicted, as well as the coming WW2, and some the things that have happened since seem to follow closely the other predictions.

‘‘If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace;’’

Russia was consecrated as requested, twice for clarity as I understand it, and Russia has not been converted to Catholicism, and there has never been peace throughout the world. And never will be in my opinion.

Sarah x

 

[joe370]

‘‘If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace;’’

Russia was consecrated as requested, twice for clarity as I understand it, and Russia has not been converted to Catholicism, and there has never been peace throughout the world. And never will be in my opinion.

Sarah x

Hey Sarah. If you get the chance read this and let me know if you still believe that Russia has been consecrated?

catholictradition.org/Mary/fatima19.htm

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hmmm, it depends on what you mean by “converted” and “peace” as well, assuming that Russia was indeed consecrated.

Communism disappeared, allowing the Orthodox Church in Russia (an Apostolic Church, remember) to be free of oppression and come out of “hiding”, as it were. And the cold war ended.

 

[atheistgirl]

Hey Sarah. If you get the chance read this and let me know if you still believe that Russia has been consecrated?

catholictradition.org/Mary/fatima19.htm

Hey Joe

Well, Russia is part of the world isn’t it? If the whole world and all it’s people were consecrated, it stands to reason that includes Russia.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Hmmm, it depends on what you mean by “converted” and “peace” as well, assuming that Russia was indeed consecrated.

Communism disappeared, allowing the Orthodox Church in Russia (an Apostolic Church, remember) to be free of oppression and come out of “hiding”, as it were. And the cold war ended.

Does Our Lady not much mind whether someone is Orthodox or Catholic? Perhaps not, I don’t know. I would have guessed that She meant Catholicism though, since Catholicism has the fullness of truth, it claims, and the Orthodox, although Apostolic, are in perhaps minor error by comparison?

According to Wiki there are 750,000 Catholics in Russia. I don’t know if that number is increasing or decreasing.

Russia is not at peace, the country is a train wreck.

Sarah x

 

[joe370]

Hey Joe

Well, Russia is part of the world isn’t it? If the whole world and all it’s people were consecrated, it stands to reason that includes Russia.

Sarah x

Absolutely. My point was: It doesn’t look like Russia has been consecrated, as per sister Lucy. Did you get the chance to read the entire article?

 

[joe370]

Does Our Lady not much mind whether someone is Orthodox or Catholic? Perhaps not, I don’t know. I would have guessed that She meant Catholicism…

Sarah x

I agree Sarah…

 

[atheistgirl]

Absolutely. My point was: It doesn’t look like Russia has been consecrated, as per sister Lucy. Did you get the chance to read the entire article?

I read the whole article, and to be honest, it doesn’t make anyone look too good.

I linked previously to a statement from Lucy saying she wouldn’t see Our Lady again, yet Our Lady turns up in Tuy to see her.

We have a priest instructing Lucy to add to the words Our Lady gave her.

We have a claim Lucy is nothing but humble and honest, yet she adds to the words, the very words she gets, personally, from the Mother of God.

We have the Pope saying the request was carried out, yet claims from the visionary herself that yes it was, then no it wasn’t.

We have a Pope as the head of the Church founded on and by Christ Himself, devoted to His Mother, refusing to carry out an instruction as directed by Mary the Mother of God Herself, in a miracle the Church itself sanctioned, for reasons of earthy diplomacy. Seriously? Putting earthy considerations before the Divine?

It’s a mess.

And to me, personally, just adds to the incredulity of the whole event.

Sarah x

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Does Our Lady not much mind whether someone is Orthodox or Catholic? Perhaps not, I don’t know. I would have guessed that She meant Catholicism though, since Catholicism has the fullness of truth, it claims, and the Orthodox, although Apostolic, are in perhaps minor error by comparison?

That’s an interesting and complex question. Short answers are difficult to give. The Orthodox are also One, Holy, Catholic (meaning universal), and Apostolic. Also, they are the Church of Russia, not the Catholic Church.

As for Russia not being at peace, I agree with you-but then, I wasn’t referring to Russia specifically anyway, merely the end of the Cold War. The peace was never promised to be lasting.

I share a good amount of your skepticism though-a lot of the claims seem suspiciously vague, and while I don’t think Saint Lucy was lying it seems to me like some of what she claims is rather unclear.

 

[joe370]

I read the whole article, and to be honest, it doesn’t make anyone look too good.

I linked previously to a statement from Lucy saying she wouldn’t see Our Lady again, yet Our Lady turns up in Tuy to see her.

We have a priest instructing Lucy to add to the words Our Lady gave her.

We have a claim Lucy is nothing but humble and honest, yet she adds to the words, the very words she gets, personally, from the Mother of God.

We have the Pope saying the request was carried out, yet claims from the visionary herself that yes it was, then no it wasn’t.

We have a Pope as the head of the Church founded on and by Christ Himself, devoted to His Mother, refusing to carry out an instruction as directed by Mary the Mother of God Herself, in a miracle the Church itself sanctioned, for reasons of earthy diplomacy. Seriously? Putting earthy considerations before the Divine?

It’s a mess.

And to me, personally, just adds to the incredulity of the whole event.

Sarah x

Strange how 2 people can view the same thing differently. :shrugerhaps it is because we are viewing things, regarding Fatima, from a different perspective. You see the glass as half empty and I see the glass as half full…Oh well…Thanks for the feedback Sarah.

 

[joe370]

atheistgirl;9744136]I read the whole article, and to be honest, it doesn’t make anyone look too good.

I linked previously to a statement from Lucy saying she wouldn’t see Our Lady again, yet Our Lady turns up in Tuy to see her.

We have a priest instructing Lucy to add to the words Our Lady gave her.

We have a claim Lucy is nothing but humble and honest, yet she adds to the words, the very words she gets, personally, from the Mother of God.

We have the Pope saying the request was carried out, yet claims from the visionary herself that yes it was, then no it wasn’t.

We have a Pope as the head of the Church founded on and by Christ Himself, devoted to His Mother, refusing to carry out an instruction as directed by Mary the Mother of God Herself, in a miracle the Church itself sanctioned, for reasons of earthy diplomacy. Seriously? Putting earthy considerations before the Divine?

It’s a mess.

Perhaps you could you show examples of all 5 of the preceding claims so that I could assess…? That last one comes as no surprise, as per the article. There are many examples, with Marian apparitions, where Mary tells certain seers (e.g. Garabandal) to always obey the church leaders; in that case priests, and in the case of Fatima, the Pope. After all God iis guiding His church and Mary must obey God via His church. Also, number 4 was answered under the heading: What John Paul II Actually Said…

 

[atheistgirl]

Perhaps you could you show examples of all 5 of the preceding claims so that I could assess…?

From the very article you linked to

Did you read it before you linked?

Sister Lucy is obedient. She took a special vow of obedience. Her confessor suggested that she add to what Our Lady requested, and she obediently did so.

A priest suggesting the very words of Mary the Mother of God should be added to, and the woman who saw and heard the Mother of God, personally, obliges

Diplomacy and ecumanism taking precidence over the request of Mary? See here from the article you linked to:

And so Our Lady of Fatima was overruled by the demands of Vatican diplomacy and ecumenism. That may sound harsh, but that in fact is what Cardinal Tomko was saying here. And that is why the Pope was referring-----in the previous statements I’ve mentioned especially in need of help! -----to human weakness, human possibilities, he did what he could in the concrete circumstances, and so forth.

I can’t find the link I previously posted, but I linked to a claim Lucy was asked if Mary would return and appear to her again, and she said quite clearly no, yet Mary appeared twice more I think to her, including at Tuy.

As I said, none of this serves to make the claims any more credibel to me, in fact, honestly, they simply confirm my whole scepticism about the matter.

Sarah x

 

[joe370]

atheistgirl;9746366]From the very article you linked to

Did you read it before you linked?

A priest suggesting the very words of Mary the Mother of God should be added to, and the woman who saw and heard the Mother of God, personally, obliges

Diplomacy and ecumanism taking precidence over the request of Mary? See here from the article you linked to:

Oops, I can’t believe I overlooked that.

"Yet, in her letter to Pius XII, Sister Lucy had referred also to a consecration of the world with explicit mention of Russia. Why did she do that? In her handwritten note to Father Umberto, also published in L’Osservatore Romano, she gave this explanation: “In the letter I wrote to the Holy Father on the instruction of my confessor, I asked for the consecration of the world with explicit mention of Russia.” **But on the paragraph above she states, “Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request referred only to the Consecration of Russia.”
**

Explanation - she took a vow of obedience:

"Now, what does that tell us? It tells us, once again, that Our Lady of Fatima referred only to the Consecration of Russia. But, it tells us something else that is going to be very significant for understanding what happened with Sister Lucy before her death: Sister Lucy is obedient. She took a special vow of obedience. Her confessor suggested that she add to what Our Lady requested,* and she obediently did so. But she stressed, nevertheless, that Our Lady had not referred to that, but only to the Consecration of Russia.

Seems fine to me. The one at fault here is her confessor, therefore he should have gone to confession in my humble opinion.

can’t find the link I previously posted, but I linked to a claim Lucy was asked if Mary would return and appear to her again, and she said quite clearly no, yet Mary appeared twice more I think to her, including at Tuy.

I have never heard of such claim. I’ll check it out.

As I said, none of this serves to make the claims any more credibel to me, in fact, honestly, they simply confirm my whole scepticism about the matter.

Sarah x

I understand.

 

[atheistgirl]

Explanation - she took a vow of obedience:

She was a cloistered nun. Who was her vow of obedience to? Surely her Mother Superior and her Order. Not to her confessor?

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t explain anything to me.

In fact, honestly, it makes it all even more dubious.

Why would a nun, who has seen and spoken to the Mother of God, add to the words she was given by her?

Surely such a person would realize this is simply lying.

If Mary said XY and someone says make sure you say Mary said XYZ, and they do, then isn’t that lying? Even if they’re instructed to do it?

And is that just wrong plain and simple? I don’t think a cloistered nun has taken a vow of obedience to follow every instruction given to her by her priest confessor. In fact, I’m pretty sure even within the vow of obedience taken by all nuns monks and brothers it applies to, there is a get-out clause that makes it clear they are not to follow any instruction that is immoral or sinful.

Wouldn’t adding to the exact words Mary the Mother of God said, to make it seem as she said something she in fact didn’t, be immoral and sinful?

Sarah x

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I read the whole article, and to be honest, it doesn’t make anyone look too good.

I linked previously to a statement from Lucy saying she wouldn’t see Our Lady again, yet Our Lady turns up in Tuy to see her.

We have a priest instructing Lucy to add to the words Our Lady gave her.

We have a claim Lucy is nothing but humble and honest, yet she adds to the words, the very words she gets, personally, from the Mother of God.

We have the Pope saying the request was carried out, yet claims from the visionary herself that yes it was, then no it wasn’t.

We have a Pope as the head of the Church founded on and by Christ Himself, devoted to His Mother, refusing to carry out an instruction as directed by Mary the Mother of God Herself, in a miracle the Church itself sanctioned, for reasons of earthy diplomacy. Seriously? Putting earthy considerations before the Divine?

It’s a mess.

And to me, personally, just adds to the incredulity of the whole event.

Sarah x

As you know Sarah, Catholics are not required to believe in any private revelations, even those declared " genuine " by the Pope. However, only God can know future events. And Our Lady clearly fortold the end of WW 1 and the beginning of WW 2 under Pius XI. Only a Heavenly Messanger ( Our Lady ) sent by God to reveal this knowledge could know of it. Not even Satan knows of future events, though he, being the most intelligent of God’s created beings, can make shrewd guesses. But it would not be to his purposes to be the cause of mass conversions by revealing any of his " surmises. "

As to the " conversion " of Russia, God’s time is not our time. Conversion of a people or nation does not occur in a few short years. And given the end of the Soviet Union and the re-emergance of Orthodoxy since and the more general acceptance of Catholicism in Russia, perhaps " conversion " is taking place. Yet on the other hand, does " conversion " mean conversion to the Catholic faith? " Might it not simply mean a general conversion to faith, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Judaism, Islam, etc.?

 

[joe370]

atheistgirl;9748197]She was a cloistered nun. Who was her vow of obedience to? Surely her Mother Superior and her Order. Not to her confessor?

Her oath of obedience was not limited to her mother superior. She took an oath of obedience to the church, as a whole e.g. priests, (her confessor) bishops etc…

Keeping in mind that she did reaffirm that Our Lady had not referred to that, but only to the Consecration of Russia, so she did not lie.

"Now, what does that tell us? It tells us, once again, that Our Lady of Fatima referred only to the Consecration of Russia. But, it tells us something else that is going to be very significant for understanding what happened with Sister Lucy before her death: Sister Lucy is obedient. She took a special vow of obedience. Her confessor suggested that she add to what Our Lady requested,* and she obediently did so. But she stressed, nevertheless, that Our Lady had not referred to that, but only to the Consecration of Russia.

Why would a nun, who has seen and spoken to the Mother of God, add to the words she was given by her?Surely such a person would realize this is simply lying.

Mary, regarding other apparitions, has always told seers to obey the church leaders, so she is simply following suit. Why her confessor would tell her to add…I do not know. He was wrong. But notice again, that she follows it up by insisting that Mary was referring only to the Consecration of Russia.

Of course I do not see how any of this, in any way, undermines the supernatural component of Fatima…Can a priest make an error in discernment and judgement of a private revelation? Absolutely, if God permits it. The Church teaches that private revelations are never to be held as the source or the basis of the faith, and as Catholics we are not required to believe in any of them, not even the Church approved ones such as Fatima.

For example, on one occasion,the Sacred Heart of Jesus made a request to St Margaret Mary Alocoque, but when she told her Superior this request, her Superior did not approve. Soon afterwards, when Jesus came to her again, she asked Him about this, and He replied: “…not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I request of you without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please Me” Autobiography of St Margaret Mary.

Elsewhere in her Autobiography, we read that St Margaret Mary was told by Our Lord: “Listen, My daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient.”

In other words, obedience to the church is obedience to Jesus, even if we do not understand it when illogicality surfaces.

 

[atheistgirl]

joe370:
Of course I do not see how any of this, in any way, undermines the supernatural component of Fatima…

I don’t see one.

The ‘‘secrets’’ were written down long after 1917 when Lucy already knew the information. 1941 and 43 I believe she was asked to write down in the secrets.

Interestingly, it might be argued that if the Catholic Church was in possession of this information prior to the start of WWII and was not on every tv and every radio station in the world, and lecturing from the pulpits, that world war II would break out if people don’t repent, then the Church was negligent in it’s duty to prevent the start of WWII.

I can’t find any information from anywhere saying the Catholic Church officially warned of the outbreak of WWII due to the non repentance of sinners.

I can’t find anything from Vatican sources warning of the outbreak of WWII at all.

Since it had first hand information from Heaven, I would have thought this would have been high on it’s list to prevent the outbreak of the worst war in recent history.

Sarah x

 

[joe370]

atheistgirl;9749344]I don’t see one.

OK…

Interestingly, it might be argued that if the Catholic Church was in possession of this information prior to the start of WWII and was not on every tv and every radio station in the world, and lecturing from the pulpits, that world war II would break out if people don’t repent, then the Church was negligent in it’s duty to prevent the start of WWII.

I can’t find any information from anywhere saying the Catholic Church officially warned of the outbreak of WWII due to the non repentance of sinners.

That’s a really good point. The requests of Mary were penance, prayer, devotion to her Immaculate Heart and the first Saturdays devotion, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the church, at the time, would not only do just that, but that it would have revealed said information to the public. I think the question as to how else could a potential war have been averted if folks at that time were not privy to the information - is a good one. I have found no proof that the church didn’t promulgate the information? Something to look into…

Hard to believe that In 1925, Sister Lúcia would report that the Blessed Mother revealed the following, among the other things pertaining to war, and that the church would remain silent:
.
“Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary.”

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace… I shall come to ask for… the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays…”