Photographic contradiction of Miracle of the Sun?

[adgloriam]

And, no one should convert to Catholicism based on someone else’s private revelation.

Well, we’ve talked about this before @ConstantLearner. If God operates a miracle through some servant, for a lot of people to witness in-loco -for everyone to see- the sign isn’t reduced to the seer or prophet. Those witnessing are exactly that: witnesses, privileged.

From saint Francis de Paola resurrecting a corpse, to saint Anthony “speaking in tongues” before a full cathedral including the pope, to the medical doctors that witness contemporary miracles. Please notice the catechism says “those receiving private revelation”, which does not objectively include those that were simply material witnesses to the fact. Also, one criteria playing a role in discern validity of a private revelation is the increase in faith and conversion it produces - again it pertains to the one receiving the revelation and nevertheless produces those characteristic special fruits. The revelation is also in that sense destined by God to produce those fruits in others.

We don’t really know what the sun did or didn’t do that day.

The church has passed judgement about what the sun did and that it was a miracle. I trust the church on this.

And, no one should convert to Catholicism based on

Well, this is a big thing isn’t it?! The amount of sudden (instantaneous is a good word) radical conversions of those witnessing that didn’t receive the private revelation directly and nevertheless were direct witnesses to the fact and miracle.

 

[JimG]

Private revelations are not necessarily what we would call “physical” events; they are about what people saw and heard. Many people saw the sun dance and plunge toward the earth. Some did not see it. Some saw nothing. That does not mean the miracle was not real. People saw what God intended them to see or or not see. (As in the Eucharist, human beings see only the appearances of things.) If God had caused the sun to actually move about in this fashion, there would have been gravitational and astronomical consequences all over the earth. That’s not what God wanted. He wanted them to see what they saw.

None of that casts doubt on the miracle of the sun, and I am a firm believer in the Fatima revelations. The fact that there were 70,000 observers present and many of them did see the miracle of the sun convinced many of the truth of the Fatima revelations to the children.

 

[adgloriam]

@JimG @ConstantLearner @(name removed by moderator) @phil19034 @Tis_Bearself

Rules of good method: At Fátima, there was not only “private revelation” but also “A SIGN” (OT/NT terminology), “FOR MANY TO SEE”, there was also “prophecy” revealing future events.

So, “private revelation” in the more accurate sense of “a vision” and not “locution”, pertaining to the “seers” was there. And parallel, “A SIGN” for “many” and “prophecy”. Complex in including diverse elements, after the facts there were also “cures”. Close to a full set…

not necessarily what we would call “physical” events

there would have been gravitational and astronomical consequences all over the earth.

This is actually something I learned being confronted on CAF after careful reflection being well versed in the literature: GOD IS NOT LIMITED BY THE SUN!!! God could physically move the sun keeping all other things in their place as He wills, and also give this truly extraordinary physical miracle to see only to those He wants, for God is not limited by the physics laws of His creation…God cannot lie to us, nor deny Himself, thus Our Lord defines Himself.

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The most interesting thing about Fatima to me is that many people, including some who were very far away and thus were not part of a crowd that could have been influenced, said they saw something…and some people who were right on the scene said they saw nothing.

God picks and chooses who He wants to reveal things to, always.

 

[ConstantLearner]

This is actually something I learned being confronted on CAF after careful reflection being well versed in the literature: GOD IS NOT LIMITED BY THE SUN!!! God could physically move the sun keeping all other things in their place as He wills, and also give this truly extraordinary physical miracle to see only to those He wants, for God is not limited by the physics laws of His creation…God cannot lie to us, nor deny Himself, thus Our Lord defines Himself.

Of course God is not limited by anything. You are right. But I’m just saying unless we were there, we cannot testify to what happened at Fatima. We can believe, but not give testimony to anything other than our belief.

 

[JimG]

Yes, God could move the sun while preventing the gravitational and cosmological effects. He could also make the sun appear to move locally, such that the phenomenon was visible in the vicinity of the Fatima event and not in other parts of the earth, without moving the sun itself.

Edited to add: I agree that in addition to being a private revelation, Fatima also provided a Sign, which was promised and provided.

 

[BlackFriar]

many of which have been approved as an authentic apparition

No.
“Worthy of belief” does not mean “authentic apparition”.

 

[BlackFriar]

Or he could have done something much simpler, made the sun dance by directly influencing the imaginations of those he chose. Saves all the gravity issues that would need to be compensated for. More elegant too.

 

[adgloriam]

Because folks of good will are wondering, here is the “state of the art” scientific explanation:

The most plausible scientific explanation of the phenomenon has been given thoroughly by Fr.Stanley Jaki. A graduate, in theology, from St.Anselm in Rome and in physics from your own US Fordham University. Recipient of “Lecomnte du Nouy” prize in 1970 and the “Tempelton” prize in 1987. Author of “God and the Sun at Fátima”, Port Huron Michigan 1999, Real View Books. An extensive 400page research about the miracle of the Sun. And also “The Sun’s Miracle or something else” Port Huron Michigan 2000, Real View Books. [Original hypothesis was proposed by ProfºDiogo Pacheco de Amorim.]

According to Fr.Jaki, “the explanation is in the fact that 2 air currents that meet at an angle can make a mass of air enter rotation. In case there is an inversion of temperature, the mass will not only rotate but also move up and down, very likely in an elliptic orbit. The size of the lens of air can wary between a few to 30 meters. If, beyond this, it fills with ice particles, it can fragment light in several, at least some, colors of the rainbow, as it was observed at Fátima. A similar phenomenon occurres when tornadoes form.”

“the miraculous character of that lens of air must be searched in the formation that was created above Cova da Iria and in the prediction of the moment made by Lúcia months before, well as the fact that the lens of air, being so fragile, having maintained it’s form for more or less 15 minutes after describing 2 or 3 elliptic motions in direction of the earth. The explanation of the event by means of the lens of air does account, in satisfactory manner, for the complex set of occurrences that are miraculous in that they are unpredictable and very rare.”

@JimG @ConstantLearner @(name removed by moderator) @phil19034 @Tis_Bearself @AlNg @StephieNorthCo @Elf01 @Kathleen18

[There where a total of 8 extraordinary physical phenomenon at Fátima as referenced in the thread in post nº2…Let’s not forget that. Pope Pius XII saw the miracle on the day of his ordination as bishop.]

 

[BlackFriar]

Let’s not forget that. Pope Pius XII saw the miracle on the day of his ordination as bishop.]

I do not believe so.
He was not made bishop on the day of the Fatima miracle nor am I aware that he ever said he saw a sun miracle on that day.

I believe he witnessed a few sun miracles many years later in the Vatican gardens in the year he was comtemplating making the dogma of the Assumption. Hardly the Fatima miracle of 1917 … rathar just a similar phenomenon he took as a sign to proclaim ths dogma.

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

Let’s not forget that. Pope Pius XII saw the miracle on the day of his ordination as bishop.]

I do not believe so.
He was not made bishop on the day of the Fatima miracle (…)

Pope Pius XII was ordained bishop on 13 of May 1917, by pope Benedict XV at the Sistine Chapel, the day of the first Fátima apparition.

Hardly the Fatima miracle of 1917

In pope Pius XII own words: “I have seen the ‘miracle of the sun’, this is the pure truth.” [In his own words, pope Pius XII does place “miracle of the sun” between quotes.]

I believe he witnessed a few sun miracles many years later in the Vatican gardens in the year he was comtemplating making the dogma of the Assumption.

Pope Pius wrote he saw the miracle of the sun 4 times:

30 de Outubro de 1950, at 16h
31 de Outubro of 1950.
1 of November 1950.
8 of November 1950.

Pope Pius XII wrote on his vision:“During the usual stroll through the Vatican gardens, reading and studying,” at the height of the square of Our Lady of Lourdes, “in direction to the height of the hill, on the road to the right of the wall (…) I was impressed by the phenomenon, that until now I had never seen. The sun, that was still quite high, showed like a yellowed opaque globe, encircled by a shiny circle”, that, however, didn’t hinder focus the sight."

he took as a sign to proclaim ths dogma.

In 1940, as pope, he definitively recognized the apparitions of Fátima.
In 1942, he consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate heart of Mary.
In 1950, on the 1st of November pope Pius XII proclaims the dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady, (after consulting with 1.181 bishops a unanimous decision with only 6 expressing reservation) with the Papal bull Munificentissimus Deus, as a fulfillment of the dogma of Immaculate Conception.

My imprecision, glad you mention it.

 

[Kathleen18]

Thank you for including me on the discussion! I do believe in the miracles associated with Fatima!

 

[StephieNorthCo]

I’m not sure why I was referred to in your post, other than I “liked” 2 posts in this thread.

I would agree atmospheric lensing can be used as an aspect of explanation for the effect to some extent. It would be a far stretch to invoke it for those reporting it some distance removed.

Having said that, I would agree that private revelation may be revealed to some but not all, as Bear mentioned, and that since it is private revelation, unless it is an essential part of your conversion experience, better focus on other aspects that are part of the deposit of faith better serve, as Deacon Jeff pointed out.

I personally believe it, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

[BlackFriar]

Pope Pius XII was ordained bishop on 13 of May 1917, by pope Benedict XV at the Sistine Chapel, the day of the first Fátima apparition.

Exactly, that is not the date of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.

You have clearly attempted to suggest that a future Pope somehow saw the Fatima Sun Miracle on the same day.
He didnt because:

1. His consecration was not on that day
2. You yourself admit his 4 experiences were in 1940
3. His sun phenomenon was clearly a different one and not related to Fatima being at a different time and place and he himself never spoke of a Fatima connection…if anything he spoke of OL of Lourdes.
   My Buddhist sister in law has had a similar experience on a mountain top when she was a teenager. Was that somehow the same as at Fatima?

Yes Pope Pious is devoted to OL.
But lets get the facts right rather than this wishful thinking that he saw the Fatima miracle on the day of his ordination. This is not imprecision it is simply fake news if you cannot substantiate such a wild assertion.

 

[adgloriam]

First off, pope Pius XII said :“I saw the ‘miracle of the sun’” not “I saw a ‘miracle of the sun’”. So, definite article not indefinite article.

1. His sun phenomenon was clearly a different one and not related to Fatima being at a different time and place and he himself never spoke of a Fatima connection…if anything he spoke of OL of Lourdes.

What “the miracle of the sun” was the pope referring to? What “the miracle of the sun” of Lourdes are you speaking of?

1. You yourself admit his 4 experiences were in 1940

The pope said it. And no it was in 1950.

1. His consecration was not on that day

Yes the pope says himself said he saw “the miracle of the sun”, Yes the pope was consecrated bishop on the day of the first apparition. Now those are two facts, if in the lengthy posts I’ve written here something got mixed up I’ll correct it at first opportunity.

But lets get the facts right rather

Well if I do make an imprecision in the considerable amount of facts I reproduced I’ll correct it at first chance. Again, it is hardly to be expected that someone can memorize all these facts.

So look: You made in much less posts and less words more imprecision and errors than I did in much lengthier and difficult expositions.

 

[adgloriam]

unless it is an essential part of your conversion experience

This is exactly the point I hadn’t yet made. And I’m glad you said it. Because, to call the Marian Apparitions “Irrelevant” (seems a very poor choice of word) does affront those that were “cured” at a Marian shrine/sanctuary (imagine how their families felt and feel to this day), or those that in their personal history of conversion hold deep devotion to a specific apparition of Our Lady.

I would even go a step farther. Some of the greatest pilgrimage sites in western Europe are either Marian or pertaining to a canonized saint. So, it seems a bit reducing (looking at practical devotion, the way devotion is in practice practiced) to reduce all these fruits of private revelation to irrelevant. And I have sensed this strange need especially from US Catholics, to immediately label all of this as “irrelevant” [perhaps the same way I’ve never heard a single European talk about “traditionalism”.]

Oh well, it is relevant to the 500.000 Catholics in this picture…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[BlackFriar]

And no it was in 1950.

Indeed, as you say:

Pope Pius wrote he saw the miracle of the sun 4 times:
30 de Outubro de 1950, at 16h
31 de Outubro of 1950.
1 of November 1950.
8 of November 1950.

1. If he saw it in 1917 that would make 5 times.
2. He did not say he saw the Fatima MOTS.
   He simply stated he saw the same type of miracle.
   For it to be the same miracle as at Fatima he would have had to have seen the field and people gathered at Fatima as on that 1917 Oct day. In fact he never said that, in fact he said it physically ocurred when he was by a statue of OLOLourdes in the Vatican garden.
   You invented the rest simply on the basis of “the”.
   That is clearly wishful thinking given a face value reading of the whole article.

By all means correct me if I am wrong if you can provide further source documentation.

 

[adgloriam]

Well, if you are bound on being the accuser (com juízo temerário) I’ll leave you to it. [You have failed thus far in understanding a better part of what I wrote -accusations by rash judgement being a fruit in themselves- no sense in engaging you any longer.]

 

[BlackFriar]

Thats fine, you are unable to provide evidence for your apparantly invented 5th vision of May 1917 on the day of his episcopal ordination … which the Pope didnt actually say from what I can see.

 

[adgloriam]

I’ve have already corrected my assertion, for all to see (an innocent mix-up in the moment.) And I actually have made no accusations or judgements.

You on the other hand, have made more mistakes and more accusations than me (your rash accusations are full of ill-will).

So I’m happy that all can see.