New Fatima Documentary to Air, Critical of Vatican

[itsjustdave1988]

If Russia was consecrated in the manner Our Lady requested over 20 years ago, where is the much vaunted ‘conversion’?

It’s a prayer. Not by our will and not in our time, but by the will of the Father will it be answered. Your criteria for this prayer being answered is, in my opinion, absurd. For many, the proof was the fall of the USSR. An atheist nation, by policy, has now allowed increased religious freedom. Hmmmm… perhaps your understanding of Our Lady’s intent is different than Our Lady’s.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think prayers are being answered …

Religious Freedom in Russia Today
by Vladimir Feodorov, Oct 1998
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2065/is_4_50/ai_53631773

 

[katolik]

itsjustdave1988:

I think prayers are being answered …

Religious Freedom in Russia Today
by Vladimir Feodorov, Oct 1998

Do you think Our Lady would want to support Evangelicals and other Protestants who call people with a devotion to Mary,Mother of God, idolaters? Who view the crucifix and statue of Our Lady of Fatima as idols?

 

[TNT]

The only items of Fatima that are in controversy in the Catholic mileau is:

1. Was the 3rd secret fully revealed in 2000.
2. Was Russia’s consecration done as Lucy desired in accord with the instructions from the Lady in the apparition.

All the rest is accepted by Catholics everywhere. This includes an authentic apparition and the greatest public miracle since the loaves and fishes.

You have to wonder why God would put together such a program. What was so important that it be done in the first place. Personally, I connect it with the survival of the Church of Christ in the future sometime after 1917.
Let us wait to see what the documentary has to say on the controversies.

PAX is a small outfit, but I don’t think the mainline channels would accept the Fatima doc. any more than they did the “Passion of the Christ”.
I will venture to say that PAX will put on Mel’s film long before the Mainline channels, unless Mel holds out for big $. That would say nothing of the value of Mel’s film, would it?

Question:
Am I or am I not permitted to criticize the “Vatican”, whatever that means? Can the Vatican make bad judgements or not? If they can, then they can be criticized.
For instance, when the Vatican said it was OK to receive the host in the hand, was that a great idea? If so, what great good came from it? After all, Vatican Popes b4 have condemned it. Exactly when did this condemnation become voila a good act?

WMI

 

[TNT]

puzzleannie:

…the Church declared the original Fatima message permissible for belief and veneration of Our Lady of Fatima permissible under that title.

Pronouncements, curses, deprecations, defiance and detraction issued against the Pope by certain adherents of this cultus enjoy no such approval and lead to schism and even outright heresy. Which is precisely why the Church is so reluctanct to give credence to private revelation.

Defiance of the Pope on this issue is as scandalous and sinful as defiance on issues such as abortion, women priests, adherence to liturgical norms and other issues of far graver importance. Frances Kissling move over, you’ve got company.

Actually, I believe the Church says WORTHY of belief, not just permissable.
Who, exactly in the Catholic members cursed the pope? What curse did they say? Where is that recorded? I’d like to have a word with them.

Actually, the Church is not reluctant on apparitions out of fear for schism or heresy.
It has a well thought out and historically successful method of discernment. Step by step. If it is authentic, it is pronounced as worthy of belief. If not, then it is either ignored as not worthy, or condemned by the bishop in authority as Mejagorie was about 3 times over in order to dispel confusion of the faithful. If the apparition claim can’t get passed the bishop it’s DOA.
Finally, there has always been defiance of the pope on some subject or another. The modernist defies the dogma of inerrancy of Scripture, the other end defies the primacy of the papacy (Eastern orthodox). Some have defied the pope merely on disciplinary matters, but these have no equivalence to abortion, female priests as you join them. One is questionable or ambiguous opinions or discipline and the other is Revelation.
If one agrees only to attend a Traditional Mass, and avoid the Novus Ordo, is that defiance? The pope says both are agreeable to him. Yet the Novus Ordo is rejected by some. Is that defiance?
Is the Novus Ordo Mass revelation?
Can one pope defy a previous pope on a teaching of the Catholic Church? Or is the current pontiff a supreme authority that stands alone, disconnected from previous papal teachings as the Mormons would tell you about their “Apostle/Prophets”?
ps. Is there a spell checker on this message board or am I on my own?
WMI

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Actually, I believe the Church says WORTHY of belief, not just permissable.

In Catholic lingo, they are one and the same thing. Any number of non-Biblical miraculous events are proposed by the Church for inspiration and permissible belief, but none are required.

 

[john654]

Hi,
This has got the SSPX written all over it!

John

 

[TNT]

DominvsVobiscvm:

In Catholic lingo, they are one and the same thing. Any number of non-Biblical miraculous events are proposed by the Church for inspiration and permissible belief, but none are required.

Really? I did not know that. I just never could find any official pronouncement on an apparition that used the word permissable. That does not mean it is not there somewhere. Could you tell me where you found it?
Gratefully,
WMI
**
Worthy:
Webster’s Revised Unabridged**
Wor"thy (?), a. Compar. Worthier (); superl. Worthiest.] [OE. worthi, wurþi, from worth, wurþ, n.; cf. Icel. ver’ebugr, D. waardig, G. w’81rdig, OHG. wirdīg. See Worth, n.]

****Having worth or excellence; possessing merit; valuable; deserving; estimable; excellent; virtuous.

Permissible:

Permis"sible (?), a. That may be permitted; allowable; admissible. – Permis"sibleness, n. – Permis"si*bly, adv.

If the RCC co-mingles these words as being the same, then I’m still confused… or are you? I always thought the RCC was known for precision as opposed to ambiguity or informality in its pronouncements.

 

[TNT]

john654:

Hi,
This has got the SSPX written all over it!

John

SSPX may encourage it but they are UNlikely behind it. I have no bones to pick for or against the SSPX, except they sometimes seem illogical. I would not question their sincerity or devotion to the RCC. BUT…

I would rather guess that it is Fr Gruner’s apostolate (www.fatima.org) that is behind this. Their whole reason for existing is the “Consecration of Russia” via Lucy’s later private revelation. You might try that site and see how they promote the upcoming broadcast. That should give the clue. In any case I plan to record it for study.

Also, I believe the instructions to Lucy by the Lady of the apparition was not until about 1929 concerning the consecration request. I think that fulfilled a promise by the Lady in 1917 to return.

I do not know if the Church found this later apparition as “worthy of belief” in any official pronouncement. Does anyone have more on this?
WMI

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jim ov Cov:

If Russia was consecrated in the manner Our Lady requested over 20 years ago, where is the much vaunted ‘conversion’? If anything, things are getting worse. Abortion is still the usual means of birth prevention, Catholics are still restricted, Russia still has it’s armaments, and still interferes in the affairs of it’s neighbours (Ukraine, Belarus). It is patently obvious that Russia is not converted, there has not been a period of peace granted to the world, and Our Lady has not received the acknowledgement that God desires. Ergo, the consecration has not been done in the manner Our Lady requested.

If the Mother of God comes to earth and prophecys the time and place of a great miracle, perhaps the greatest public miracle since Our Lord’s time, and then performs the miracle for believers and unbelievers alike, then everyone, the Holy Father included, better take notice. The solemn requests of the Mother of God can not just be dismissed as a ‘private revelation’. Either it is reasonable to believe that the Fatima revelations are true (they don’t have to be De Fide to be true) or it isn’t. If it is reasonable to believe, as most of us seem to, then it equally reasonable to expect that Our Lady’s requests should be faithfully fulfilled. What are we saying otherwise? “Sorry Holy Mother, we don’t need your heavenly assistance thank you very much.” We should rejoice that the Church has been granted such a great favour, and we should be eager to follow the plan provided by Heaven for true peace in the world. How many of us unthinkingly live and act on ‘private revelations’ without so much as a quibble? All of us. Every single last one of us. The Rosary, the Divine Mercy, the Miraculous medal, the brown scapular, Lourdes water, St. Juan Diego’s Tilma, the fifteen prayers of St. Bridget, St. Anthony’s brief, the green scapular, the list is endless. Why suddenly decide that the same criterion doesn’t apply to Fatima? It reveals something very wrong in our modern, Catholic pysche concerning Fatima.

The Consecration of Russia (not the world, or humanity or anything else) MUST be done, publicly, solemnly, by the Holy father, in unison with all the bishops of the world, right now. Why wait?

Not forgetting the alleged vision of Leo XIII in 1884 about satan’s having a century given him in which to destroy the Church. The century is well over, even if one is fairly elastic (or generous) in one’s date setting.​

And there are quite few unfulfilled prophecies in “The Thunder of Justice” - a book which is always good for a laugh San Fran was not destroyed by 2000.

Not to mention those mistaken dates for the end of the world - including ones set by Catholics.

Certain Protestants have the rapture - we have Marian apparitions and the like. Sociologically at least, the two sets of enthusiasms are very alike. The whole idea of heavenly secrets granted to favoured recipients could, unlike many things, plausibly be regarded as a hangover from pre-Christian antiquity; and there’s not much difference between writing the “Book of Mormon” (revealed by the angel/resurrected being Moroni), and writing a life of Mary revealed in a vision. It would be interesting to know what sort of visions/apparitions/other phenomena are experienced by members of other faiths - does Ganesh reveal anything to Hindus ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jim ov Cov:

If Russia was consecrated in the manner Our Lady requested over 20 years ago, where is the much vaunted ‘conversion’? If anything, things are getting worse. Abortion is still the usual means of birth prevention, Catholics are still restricted, Russia still has it’s armaments, and still interferes in the affairs of it’s neighbours (Ukraine, Belarus). It is patently obvious that Russia is not converted, there has not been a period of peace granted to the world, and Our Lady has not received the acknowledgement that God desires. Ergo, the consecration has not been done in the manner Our Lady requested.

If the Mother of God comes to earth and prophecys the time and place of a great miracle, perhaps the greatest public miracle since Our Lord’s time, and then performs the miracle for believers and unbelievers alike, then everyone, the Holy Father included, better take notice. The solemn requests of the Mother of God can not just be dismissed as a ‘private revelation’. Either it is reasonable to believe that the Fatima revelations are true (they don’t have to be De Fide to be true) or it isn’t. If it is reasonable to believe, as most of us seem to, then it equally reasonable to expect that Our Lady’s requests should be faithfully fulfilled. What are we saying otherwise? “Sorry Holy Mother, we don’t need your heavenly assistance thank you very much.” We should rejoice that the Church has been granted such a great favour, and we should be eager to follow the plan provided by Heaven for true peace in the world. How many of us unthinkingly live and act on ‘private revelations’ without so much as a quibble? All of us. Every single last one of us. The Rosary, the Divine Mercy, the Miraculous medal, the brown scapular, Lourdes water, St. Juan Diego’s Tilma, the fifteen prayers of St. Bridget, St. Anthony’s brief, the green scapular, the list is endless. Why suddenly decide that the same criterion doesn’t apply to Fatima? It reveals something very wrong in our modern, Catholic pysche concerning Fatima.

The Consecration of Russia (not the world, or humanity or anything else) MUST be done, publicly, solemnly, by the Holy father, in unison with all the bishops of the world, right now. Why wait?

Not forgetting the alleged vision of Leo XIII in 1884 about satan’s having a century given him in which to destroy the Church. The century is well over, even if one is fairly elastic (or generous) in one’s date setting.​

And there are quite few unfulfilled prophecies in “The Thunder of Justice” - a book which is always good for a laugh. San Fran was not destroyed by 2000. Or was there going to be a nuclear war ? ToJ is a Catholic “The Bible Code”.

Not to mention those mistaken dates for the end of the world - including ones set by Catholics.

Certain Protestants have the rapture - we have Marian apparitions and the like. Sociologically at least, the two sets of enthusiasms are very alike. The whole idea of heavenly secrets granted to favoured recipients could, unlike many things, plausibly be regarded as a hangover from pre-Christian antiquity; and there’s not much difference between writing the “Book of Mormon” (revealed by the angel/resurrected being Moroni), and writing a life of Mary revealed in a vision. It would be interesting to know what sort of visions/apparitions/other phenomena are experienced by members of other faiths - does Ganesh reveal anything to Hindus ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jim ov Cov:

If Russia was consecrated in the manner Our Lady requested over 20 years ago, where is the much vaunted ‘conversion’? If anything, things are getting worse. Abortion is still the usual means of birth prevention, Catholics are still restricted, Russia still has it’s armaments, and still interferes in the affairs of it’s neighbours (Ukraine, Belarus). It is patently obvious that Russia is not converted, there has not been a period of peace granted to the world, and Our Lady has not received the acknowledgement that God desires. Ergo, the consecration has not been done in the manner Our Lady requested.

If the Mother of God comes to earth and prophecys the time and place of a great miracle, perhaps the greatest public miracle since Our Lord’s time, and then performs the miracle for believers and unbelievers alike, then everyone, the Holy Father included, better take notice. The solemn requests of the Mother of God can not just be dismissed as a ‘private revelation’. Either it is reasonable to believe that the Fatima revelations are true (they don’t have to be De Fide to be true) or it isn’t.

This is one of the difficulties in accepting them - they are called private, yet require to be treated as though they were more cetainly genuine than merely private revelations. They are in a sort of limbo between being divinely revealed therefore certainly genuine, and privately revealed, therefore not certainly genuine in all respects. One solution would be to treat the distinctions as purely artificial, and to canonise the revelations at Fatima as the 28th book of the NT. Since they are preached on, they are for all practical purposes “Holy writ” already.​

If the Mother of God comes to earth and prophecys the time and place of a great miracle, perhaps the greatest public miracle since Our Lord’s time, and then performs the miracle for believers and unbelievers alike, then everyone, the Holy Father included, better take notice. The solemn requests of the Mother of God can not just be dismissed as a ‘private revelation’. Either it is reasonable to believe that the Fatima revelations are true (they don’t have to be De Fide to be true) or it isn’t. If it is reasonable to believe, as most of us seem to, then it equally reasonable to expect that Our Lady’s requests should be faithfully fulfilled. What are we saying otherwise? “Sorry Holy Mother, we don’t need your heavenly assistance thank you very much.” We should rejoice that the Church has been granted such a great favour, and we should be eager to follow the plan provided by Heaven for true peace in the world. How many of us unthinkingly live and act on ‘private revelations’ without so much as a quibble? All of us. Every single last one of us. The Rosary, the Divine Mercy, the Miraculous medal, the brown scapular, Lourdes water, St. Juan Diego’s Tilma, the fifteen prayers of St. Bridget, St. Anthony’s brief, the green scapular, the list is endless. Why suddenly decide that the same criterion doesn’t apply to Fatima? It reveals something very wrong in our modern, Catholic pysche concerning Fatima.

The Consecration of Russia (not the world, or humanity or anything else) MUST be done, publicly, solemnly, by the Holy father, in unison with all the bishops of the world, right now. Why wait?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

If the RCC co-mingles these words as being the same, then I’m still confused… or are you? I always thought the RCC was known for precision as opposed to ambiguity or informality in its pronouncements.

As always, context is important. For any Catholic knowledgable about official Church teaching, there really is no ambiguity on the Church’s stance on “private” revelations.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

katolik:

Do you think Our Lady would want to support Evangelicals and other Protestants who call people with a devotion to Mary,Mother of God, idolaters? Who view the crucifix and statue of Our Lady of Fatima as idols?

I have no idea what you are asking. However, I believe Our Lady would want to support all sinners, that they may repent, becomes saints, and persevere in the Divine and Catholic Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *

Pope Pius X rejected the liberal Protestant and Modernistic doctrine of the evolution of religion through “New Revelations.” Thus he condemned the proposition that: “The Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles.” D 2021.

This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms:

**66 **“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. [emphasis added] Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Marian appartions, such as Fatima, are not doctrinal, and are therefore non-binding to Catholics.

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

itsjustdave1988:

It’s a prayer. Not by our will and not in our time, but by the will of the Father will it be answered. Your criteria for this prayer being answered is, in my opinion, absurd. For many, the proof was the fall of the USSR. An atheist nation, by policy, has now allowed increased religious freedom. Hmmmm… perhaps your understanding of Our Lady’s intent is different than Our Lady’s.

It seems to be you who are re-interpreting Our Lady’s plain words to suit your own world-view. Your comments make Our Lady’s prophecy meaningless because they are made completely open-ended, …‘it might happen sometime, in some way, some how…’ This makes a mockery of the Queen of Prophet’s message. Our Lady never promised the ‘fall’ of the USSR, but rather the conversion (to the Catholic Faith, what other kind of conversion would Mary speak of?) of Russia. As for those who keep repeating the ‘it’s only a private revelation’ mantra I would say this. Is Fatima true, or is it false? No one is saying it is necessary for salvation, very little has been solemnly defined as being of the deposit of Faith, but we are expected to believe a lot more that has not been so defined. So if the revelations at Fatima are true, then presumably we shouls act on them. If they are false then presumably we should act on that too. We can’t have it both ways. Our Lady has requested the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Why not just do it? What is the problem? The problem is not doctrinal, it is political. Many in the Vatican apparatus think that they can create ‘world peace’ by their own designs and through their own efforts. Mary’s peace plan kinda gets in the way and causes embarrassment when mixing with the great and the good of this present world.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Why not just do it?

It is accomplished. Quit despairing over it already.

Our Lady never promised the ‘fall’ of the USSR, but rather the conversion (to the Catholic Faith, what other kind of conversion would Mary speak of?) of Russia.

I have spoken to Catholic priests from Russia who say that this is happening. I trust they know what they are talking about. Do you live in Russia? How many in Russia need to convert to Catholicism before YOU are satisfied so as to remove all doubt?

Is Fatima true, or is it false?

I don’t know if this apparition and all that has been said about it is truthful. Somehow, I suspect there’s much truth mixed with a heck of a lot of error. That some in the Church seemingly are running from side to side in a panic, treating a private revelation as though it were a dogma discarded by the Church is ridiculous. This entire episode is filled with hearsay about what Sr. Lucy said or meant or intended, and what two different popes said or meant or intended, as if the posters hear have some infallible insight into what happened many moons ago. It seems to me to be a lot of fuss about nothing.

You want Russia converted? Pray for it and trust in your own prayer. But for the love of God quit despairing over events in the past, questioning the veracity or validity of the actions taken by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, questioning the facts of events that you have little more than hearsay knowledge of. If you have faith, your prayer will be answered, but only if it is God’s will and in God’s time, not yours.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Archbishop Kondrusiewicz in his talk at the dedication of Russia’s first Fatima Shrine, however, made it very clear that things in Russia began to change almost immediately when on March 25, 1984, Pope John Paul II in union with the bishops of the world, including the Orthodox, consecrated the world and Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must remember that “began to change” simply means an easing up of persecutions and restrictions while the poverty of the people both materially and spiritually remains.

This Archbishop has met the Pope to discuss Russia on more than one occasion. When he showed his Holiness a picture of the International Statue of Our Lady of Fatima in Red Square before the Kremlin the Pope also manifested emotion and said, “It is a miracle.”

fatimafamily.org/dedication.html
**