Refuting refutations of prophecies from Fatima

[JBogdan]

A website ( csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima/ ) says that the Fatima prophecies of the start of World War II and Francisco’s and Jacinta’s deaths were not published until after the fact (implying that no prophecies actually took place). Is there any evidence to show that the prophecies were **published **before the events took place?

All the websites I have seen seem to also admit that they were not **published **until after the fact.

I’ve seen some websites that say that it was written beforehand, but I need something that says it was **published **beforehand. I wanted to use the Fatima prophecies as a proofs of Catholicism but I can’t unless they were **published **before the events.

 

[Bluegoat]

You really should not use these as proofs of Catholicism. Catholics are not even required to believe these were authentic.

These things are stuff for those who already have faith, not for those who don’t. And lots of religions have visions and miracles, so the fact that they are found in Catholicism isn’t that helpful.

 

[followingtheway]

Nice work! God bless.

David

 

[Insight]

A website ( csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima/ ) says that the Fatima prophecies of the start of World War II and Francisco’s and Jacinta’s deaths were not published until after the fact (implying that no prophecies actually took place). Is there any evidence to show that the prophecies were **published **before the events took place?

All the websites I have seen seem to also admit that they were not **published **until after the fact.

I’ve seen some websites that say that it was written beforehand, but I need something that says it was **published **beforehand. I wanted to use the Fatima prophecies as a proofs of Catholicism but I can’t unless they were **published **before the events.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said that the 3rd secret of Fatima was the same as the Akita Message; “A former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, Howard Dee, said in a 1998 interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, “Bishop Ito was certain Akita was an extension of Fatima, and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) personally confirmed to me that these two messages, (The third Secret of Fatima & the Akita message), are essentially the same (5, 6).””

ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Modern_Miracles_Fatima.htm

God Bless

 

[Windfish]

Catholics are not even required to believe these were authentic.

What does that have to do with anything? We are not required to believe a lot of things. All that means is that private revelation does not fall within the purview of infallibility. But a lot of things don’t fall within that purview - should we not believe in them on that account?

These things are stuff for those who already have faith, not for those who don’t. And lots of religions have visions and miracles, so the fact that they are found in Catholicism isn’t that helpful.

I would be interesting in seeing examples and seeing if they match the pedigree of private revelation in the CC. And then we can go from there. But using your reasoning, there is no reason for a non-Christian to accept the fact of the Resurrection since they do not already have faith.

 

[Windfish]

A website ( csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima/ ) says that the Fatima prophecies of the start of World War II and Francisco’s and Jacinta’s deaths were not published until after the fact (implying that no prophecies actually took place). Is there any evidence to show that the prophecies were **published **before the events took place?

All the websites I have seen seem to also admit that they were not **published **until after the fact.

I’ve seen some websites that say that it was written beforehand, but I need something that says it was **published **beforehand. I wanted to use the Fatima prophecies as a proofs of Catholicism but I can’t unless they were **published **before the events.

For prophecies, I would take a look at Our Lady of Quito. Our Lady imparted prophecies to Sister Marianna for the 20th century. Did I mention these prophecies were imparted in the 16th century?

As for Our Lady of Fatima, I have not been able to confirm the date in which that was made known. I have a lot of books on Fatima, and I’ll have to work through them again to see what they say.

 

[puzzleannie]

I must remember to bookmark this link to the Vatican website and the official explanation of the 3rd secret, seems to come up so often
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

the intro says that parts 1 & 2 were published in 1941 and reproduces Sr. Lucia’s letter and the text. that is not to say they were not known by any bishops or pope before then, but that they were published at that time

other than the 3 parts of the secret I don’t know which prophecies are officially recognized as messages the children received.

I really would not waste time on any other sites than this for info on Fatima

 

[Bluegoat]

What does that have to do with anything? We are not required to believe a lot of things. All that means is that private revelation does not fall within the purview of infallibility. But a lot of things don’t fall within that purview - should we not believe in them on that account?

I would be interesting in seeing examples and seeing if they match the pedigree of private revelation in the CC. And then we can go from there. But using your reasoning, there is no reason for a non-Christian to accept the fact of the Resurrection since they do not already have faith.

I didn’t say one should believe them or not - though the CC says Catholics don’t have to because it has not asserted they are real. So a person who thinks they are not real shouldn’t believe them, and the CC is ok with that. “Worthy of belief” means they don’t teach anything questionable, and don’t seem upon investigation to be the result of fraud. That is not the same as saying they are real revelations from Mary, or whomever.

No, there is no requirement for a non-Christian to accept the Resurrection. But if you would like him to become a Christian, that is what you must convince him of - that it is true.

What I said is that these private revelations should not be used for apologetics to non-Christians. They are just as likely to do the opposite, and they are not fundamental. It would be much better to actually convince them of the Resurrection and the Incarnation. We understand Mary because we know who Christ is.

 

[thistle]

What does that have to do with anything? We are not required to believe a lot of things. All that means is that private revelation does not fall within the purview of infallibility. But a lot of things don’t fall within that purview - should we not believe in them on that account?

I would be interesting in seeing examples and seeing if they match the pedigree of private revelation in the CC. And then we can go from there. But using your reasoning, there is no reason for a non-Christian to accept the fact of the Resurrection since they do not already have faith.

Bluegoat is right. The OP wants to use a private revelation as proof of Catholicism. Considering that private revelations do not even have to be believed by Catholics how could something like that be proof of Catholicism.
By the way the Resurrection was Public Revelation, and has nothing to do with any private revelations.
If you want to believe in one or all of “approved” private revelations good for you but you cannot badmouth or be sarcastic to those who don’t because the Church officially says we do not have to believe them.
Catholics are complete through Scared Scripture, Sacred Tradition and The Magesterium. Nothing more is needed for our salvation.

 

[Windfish]

What I said is that these private revelations should not be used for apologetics to non-Christians.

The question is Why?

Bluegoat:

No, there is no requirement for a non-Christian to accept the Resurrection. But if you would like him to become a Christian, that is what you must convince him of - that it is true.

Why cannot the same be said of others miracles in the history of the Church?

 

[Windfish]

Bluegoat is right. The OP wants to use a private revelation as proof of Catholicism. Considering that private revelations do not even have to be believed by Catholics how could something like that be proof of Catholicism.

I think you are proposing a non sequitur, here. Just because the Church does not mandate belief in a particular miracle or private revelation, that does not mean that they have no role in apologetics and evangelization. Consider: the Church does not mandate belief in the many proofs for the existence of God. Does that mean those proofs cannot be used by apologists and evangelists? Of course not. All that means is that such proofs do not fall within the purview of the Church’s charism of infallibility. That is it.

Bluegoat is wrong.

 

[Poof]

I side with Windfish. There’s nothing wrong with using our miracles as some sort of weapon in evangelizing. The Catholic Church is the only church with a huge number of authentic, convincing and well investigated miracles. We have every right in using them to evangalize others. God gave us these miracles to strengten our faith, so why can’t we use these signs to bring others to our church? I don’t know about you but miracles garner a lot of attention. Even if the discussion of these miracles will most likely fail in convincing others on the spot. It will certainly give them something to think about. And who knows, maybe it will help them in their future search for God and his one true church. I agree that miracles shouldn’t be used as a measure of faith. But there is definitely, nothing wrong with talking about them to non-catholics.

 

[Poof]

I wanted to use the Fatima prophecies as a proofs of Catholicism but I can’t unless they were **published **before the events.

Bogdan, Fatima’s miracle of the sun is all you need to achieve your goal. It’s impossible to refute. Even your average catholic can fend off the most experienced atheist by just doing a little bit of research. Good luck with whatever you’re doing but don’t expect anyone to bow down and say “you’re right!”. A lot of these people already have a fixed mentality regarding other religions besides their own (same goes for us). So it’s going to take a hell of a discussion to convince somebody with opposing beliefs. Wish you the best.

 

[Windfish]

Hey, Poof.

Were you the guy I PM’d with regarding Lanciano?

 

[Poof]

Hey Windfish, I don’t recall receiving any pms about Lanciano. Maybe you’ve mistaken me for another person.

 

[Windfish]

Hey Windfish, I don’t recall receiving any pms about Lanciano. Maybe you’ve mistaken me for another person.

No, wait a sec, you made a thread here before on the incorruptibles, yeah?

 

[JBogdan]

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said that the 3rd secret of Fatima was the same as the Akita Message; “A former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, Howard Dee, said in a 1998 interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, “Bishop Ito was certain Akita was an extension of Fatima, and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) personally confirmed to me that these two messages, (The third Secret of Fatima & the Akita message), are essentially the same (5, 6).””

ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Modern_Miracles_Fatima.htm

I wasn’t talking about the Third Secret of Fatima; I was talking about the prediction of World War II. By the way, does Akita have anything I can use to prove Catholicism?

 

[JBogdan]

What does that have to do with anything? We are not required to believe a lot of things. All that means is that private revelation does not fall within the purview of infallibility. But a lot of things don’t fall within that purview - should we not believe in them on that account?

I would be interesting in seeing examples and seeing if they match the pedigree of private revelation in the CC. And then we can go from there. But using your reasoning, there is no reason for a non-Christian to accept the fact of the Resurrection since they do not already have faith.

The problem I face is that the burden of evidence is on Catholicism if we want to persuade others to become Catholic. If it was just a matter of belief, then it would not be a big deal. You factor the moral obligations into it (such as not working on the Lord’s Day and attendance on Sundays and holydays which really make it hard for us Catholics to get jobs which conform to our religion) and you are already pushing the limit. Factor in the commandment of the Church that you have to contribute to support the Church, and the burden of evidence rests squarely on the Church. Although the Church does not specify what it wants directly, it’s pretty obvious from the Bible and the exhortation fro tithes that they want 10% unless you can’t afford it. let’s say I earn $40,000; they want $4,000 a year, which means a little less than $80 a week. I **could **certainly afford it, but why would I dish out money that amounts to the sum of my annual electric and gas bills? Even though I might, my coworkers won’t unless they have some real evidence that Catholicism is the true religion. Lining up doctrinal stuff isn’t good enough (the agnostics have the lead on us even in that); I need to find some authentic miracles for proving Catholicism.

Any ideas?

 

[JBogdan]

For prophecies, I would take a look at Our Lady of Quito. Our Lady imparted prophecies to Sister Marianna for the 20th century. Did I mention these prophecies were imparted in the 16th century?

Thanks for the lead on Quito. I looked it up and there might be some potential there. The thing that worries me, though, is that this Catholic site ( michaeljournal.org/goodsuccess.htm ) says there was a period where these prophecies to Mother Mariana would be unknown for 3 centuries. This website ( traditioninaction.org/OLGS/A008olgsInterviewLife2.htm ) (sorry that it seems to be SSPX) says her body was not exhumed until 1906 (which triggered the interest in her but was well after most of the prophecies had been fulfilled) and the official report did not come until the 1980s (well after all the prophecies had been fulfilled). Do you know what date the actual prophecies were published? Depending on the publication date, we might be experiencing the same situation with Quito where the prophecies were published after the fact.

 

[JBogdan]

I must remember to bookmark this link to the Vatican website and the official explanation of the 3rd secret, seems to come up so often
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

the intro says that parts 1 & 2 were published in 1941 and reproduces Sr. Lucia’s letter and the text. that is not to say they were not known by any bishops or pope before then, but that they were published at that time

other than the 3 parts of the secret I don’t know which prophecies are officially recognized as messages the children received.

I really would not waste time on any other sites than this for info on Fatima

I wasn’t looking for the Third Secret of Fatima; I was looking for the prophecy of World War II.

Moreover, I already checked this site before I posted my question; it did not have enough information on Fatima for what I needed and did not have an answer for my question. Moreover, I asked Catholic Answers for a response to this three times and they ignored my question (two through EWTN’s site, once through this site). I am quite disappointed that I have not been able to find anything on **any **Catholic website that shows these prophecies were published before the prophecies were fulfilled.

If you could find an answer to my question I would greatly appreciate it.