Ooooh. Reading the PDF. Well, it seems that Fatima is hinky because Mary appeared to us heretical, schismatic, horrid Catholics, and because some Orthodox like it.
It elides right over any points that would make sense to Orthodox (like how the kids made sure to check if the people appearing to them were able to pray and say the Lord’s Name).
It pretends that Orthodox people never call Mary by different titles. (So I guess I was imagining that
Mary’s icons have different names, because that would make every icon represent different people!)
It pretends that Orthodox apparitions and miracles never promote popular devotions, and especially not new ones invented in the last century or so. (I guess that
this icon’s use against alcoholism is EEEEVULLL.)
Crikey, it just goes on and on… Whoever is writing this crud is clearly very suspicious of any kind of devotion that isn’t the devotion of specific kinds of mentally austere monks. Anything he doesn’t like, he throws the Desert Fathers at it. But he doesn’t mention anything in the Desert Fathers that is warm and human, and there’s a lot of that. He doesn’t distinguish between what is good for beginners, and what is good for those who are advanced and closely guided.
Back into the fray. Apparently his real beef is that Orthodox wanted to pray the Rosary in order that Russia would be converted from atheism and Communism defeated. He decides that it’s really… an evil plot! To convert Orthodox into evil evil Catholics!
And since he can’t just leave it there, he starts to go into advanced conspiracy occult crap. All the modern Marian apparitions are from Antichrist! And the devil infests all apparitions to kids! And people near puberty! And people well past puberty, whom we will claim are close to puberty! And so on… and on… and on. It’s a little better written than your average Protestant writing anti-Catholic junk, but it’s not particularly Orthodox in tone.
The truth is that a lot of the famous Marian apparitions of recent times were to kids; but a lot of them were to adults or to elderly people, or to entire villages at once. And the same thing is true throughout history, East and West.
Of course he “has a point” at the end, about private revelations not being something that one should accept without proof or careful examination. Which is why the Church carefully examines them. But given his assumptions, he can’t accept that Catholic bishops or popes have any sense or standing.
So yeah, if this guy had lived in Constantinople back in the day, he’d be an Ikonoklast.