Several questions regarding the events at Fatima, Portugal in 1917...

[mark_a]

Here is a link from EWTN that copies the article from O Dia, Lisbon, Oct 17, 1917, which by the way, was a major anti-clerical newspaper.

Thanks for the link. From the article:

People then began to ask each other what they had seen. The great majority admitted to having seen the trembling and the dancing of the sun; others affirmed that they saw the face of the Blessed Virgin; others, again, swore that the sun whirled on itself like a giant

**Catherine wheel **

and that it lowered itself to the earth as if to burn it in its rays. Some said they saw it change colors successively…

What’s a Catherine wheel?

 

[JMJ_coder]

What’s a Catherine wheel?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_wheel_%28firework%29
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Victorious]

Second, that fact that there isn’t world peace and therefore the Consecration must not have taken place doesn’t stand scrutiny. For one thing, I’m not aware of any timetable on accomplishment for this.

Yep. Besides which, the precipitous fall of Communism that followed hard on the heels of the 1984 consecration cannot be a coincidence. It really started hitting the fan for the Reds immediately after the consecration, and in a mere seven years, the U.S.S.R. was dead. Who could have imagined it? And there is no telling what catastrophes were averted on account of it. The world gained enormously by the death of the Soviet Union, and Russia gained enormously, whatever else came after. Russia may still be in bad shape morally, but I don’t see how the destruction of Soviet rule could be viewed as anything but a plus and a step in the right direction.

 

[ORD_NASILA]

In Acts 1:20 a successor of Judas is chosen and Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. Furthermore, through out the NT (Col 1:25, 1 Tim. 3:1, etc.) Paul refers to his position as a divine “office”. An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi (in 1 Tim. 3:1) and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

Thus, the promise that Jesus made to His Apostles applies to their successors as well. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

With regards to the instructions that Jesus gave to them preach only to the house of Israel, that was an instruction given to them only while Jesus was still physically with them. It was their on-the-job training so to speak. Jesus then modifies this commandment to them just before ascending to heaven with the instructions " … go and make disciples of ALL nations … " (see Matt. 28:19). This is clearly the case in the Catholic Church.

I thank you for your indepth reply to my serious question. I am learning a lot from this website, Keep up your good work. Regard, O.N.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Your Apologetic argument is sound with one caveat. The possible existance of Heretics within the Church. I cite the Existance of Judas Iscariot and Our Lords warning to Beware of False Prophets in Matthew 7 : 15 Though 20. Certainly holding office isnt the only criteria if the Fruits are not indicative of sound doctrine. Certainly the recent Scandals point to something being amiss. And no , I am not making a wild accusation about anyone in particular. I am not impugning anyone’s Claim whether legitimate or illegitimate to Ecclesiastic Office. Certainly Nestorius and Arius wielded Power on a platform they claimed from The same Apostolic authority you cite. I am simply not as forthcoming to annoit them (Those who claim the Consecration is done) as Living Saints all the while ignoring the fruits of their labors being thorns. In short - there isnt world peace meaning the FRUIT Grown isnt what we know should have been planted by the Consecration. I think if we are honest about that - then we can move to address the shortcoming and perhaps if a complete and unmistakable Consecration is done precisely as Our Lady requested step by step - what would be the negative of it? In fact - with the latest Scandal - it might even be a good thing for the Church to do to lift us out of the contempt which the secularists are using to defame our religion. That is what I see. And no , I am not going to argue about specifics. Why bother. Some of you are entrenched in your belief that it has been done and I an many others are not. I think we will just agree to disagree on this. I remain unconvinced.

You are confusing Impeccability (living without sinning) with Infallibility (teaching without error). Nowhere did Jesus promise that His Holy Spirit would guide them in righteousness. Instead, the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. When they teach on matters of faith and morals, it is the Holy Spirit talking through them. I refer you to Matt. 23:2-3 … Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and a brood of vipers but at the same time commanded the people to obey them telling the crowd to do as they say but not as they do – showing that a person’s personal sinfulness has no bearing on their lawful authority. The official Church (not individual members) can not error when they teach on matters of the faith.

I have observed that you have yet to address my earlier question. If you are correct and the consecration of Russia was not done when the Pope said that it was, and Jesus promises us in Matt. 10:20 & Luke 12:12 that when the apostles and their successors speak, it is not them who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them, then either **(A) **Jesus LIED about His Holy Spirit guiding His Church leaders in matters of faith & morals or (B) the Holy Spirit of God has guided them FALSELY and is not to be trusted. Which do you believe it to be?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I thank you for your indepth reply to my serious question. I am learning a lot from this website, Keep up your good work. Regard, O.N.

Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad I was able to be of help.

 

[RichardJS]

I beg your pardon, but, you will get nowhere without first going through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Say all you want, express all your graphics, everyone MUST first go though Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven and earth. Therefore, the question is one of obedience. And, priests and Bishops and Pope’s who do not obey do not go to heaven.

 

[simple_soul]

Here’s a link to the Vatican information on Fatima: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

*Dear JMJ_coder,

Thank you so much for this. It is most insightful.
I believe I understand more clearly and in general agree with what you are saying.

This paragraph seems to say volumes exspecialy the part that I put in bold:
*

The first and second parts of the “secret” of Fatima have already been so amply discussed in the relative literature that there is no need to deal with them again here. I would just like to recall briefly the most significant point. For one terrible moment, the children were given a vision of hell. They saw the fall of “the souls of poor sinners”. And now they are told why they have been exposed to this moment: “in order to save souls”—to show the way to salvation. The words of the First Letter of Peter come to mind: “As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls” (1:9). To reach this goal, the way indicated —surprisingly for people from the Anglo-Saxon and German cultural world—is devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.** A brief comment may suffice to explain this. In biblical language, the “heart” indicates the centre of human life, the point where reason, will, temperament and sensitivity converge, where the person finds his unity and his interior orientation. According to Matthew 5:8, the “immaculate heart” is a heart which, with God’s grace, has come to perfect interior unity and therefore “sees God”. To be “devoted” to the Immaculate Heart of Mary means therefore to embrace this attitude of heart, which makes the fiat—“your will be done”—the defining centre of one’s whole life. It might be objected that we should not place a human being between ourselves and Christ. But then we remember that Paul did not hesitate to say to his communities: “imitate me” (1 Cor 4:16; Phil 3:17; 1 Th 1:6; 2 Th 3:7, 9). In the Apostle they could see concretely what it meant to follow Christ. But from whom might we better learn in every age than from the Mother of the Lord?**

*I believe the reason why this paragraph stood out the most is because I believe we have such a hard time conforming our hearts to be like the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The way I see it, the whole reason of praying and doing penance, is so that we do, through God’s Love and Mercy, conform our hearts to be like the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

[simple_soul]

I beg your pardon, but, you will get nowhere without first going through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Say all you want, express all your graphics, everyone MUST first go though Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven and earth. Therefore, the question is one of obedience. And, priests and Bishops and Pope’s who do not obey do not go to heaven.

*Dear Richard,
I am not exactly sure who you are addressing this to but I would like to respectfuly ask a couple of questions regarding what you said here.

First, what do you mean when you say one must go through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
Second, it has been my understanding that to obey the teachings of the Bishop’s and Pope’s is to obey God so if I am obeying them how am I not obeying God?

 

[latin_rite]

I think another reason that discounts “mass hysteria” as the reason people saw something that day. Is the fact, a lot of people who went to see this “event” went with strong doubts in their hearts. I think its fair to say, there were just as many people who were present there that day. Who didn’t want to see something as there was those who desperately wanted to see something that day. A lot of people seem to forget the ridicule and scorn these kids use to get, about these visions. If we can;t count on what thousands of people see. Then how can be sure we see anything?

 

[Robert_Burns]

You are confusing Impeccability (living without sinning) with Infallibility (teaching without error). Nowhere did Jesus promise that His Holy Spirit would guide them in righteousness. Instead, the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. When they teach on matters of faith and morals, it is the Holy Spirit talking through them. I refer you to Matt. 23:2-3 … Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and a brood of vipers but at the same time commanded the people to obey them telling the crowd to do as they say but not as they do – showing that a person’s personal sinfulness has no bearing on their lawful authority. The official Church (not individual members) can not error when they teach on matters of the faith.

I have observed that you have yet to address my earlier question. If you are correct and the consecration of Russia was not done when the Pope said that it was, and Jesus promises us in Matt. 10:20 & Luke 12:12 that when the apostles and their successors speak, it is not them who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them, then either **(A) **Jesus LIED about His Holy Spirit guiding His Church leaders in matters of faith & morals or (B) the Holy Spirit of God has guided them FALSELY and is not to be trusted. Which do you believe it to be?

I simply dont believe the Pope was speaking ex cathedra when he claimed it was done as you appear to be claiming. One Priest I spoke with recently (His opinion) told me the last Ex Cathedra pronouncement was by Pope Pius the XII - the Assumption. You forget - when a POPE Speaks he doesnt always teach Ex Cathedra De Fide so while we agree that the Pope has this power - we disagreee that it was used in this particular case.

 

[Victorious]

One Priest I spoke with recently (His opinion) told me the last Ex Cathedra pronouncement was by Pope Pius the XII - the Assumption.

A brief digression:

Not to pass judgment on this particular priest, but every time I have ever heard this statement about ex cathedra pronouncements, it has been advanced by proponents of women’s ordination, for the particular purpose of discrediting John Paul II’s 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he declares definitively that all the faithful are to hold to the judgment that the Church has no authority to admit women to Holy Orders. So this opinion regarding ex cathedra pronouncements holds no water.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Robert_Burns]

A brief digression:

Not to pass judgment on this particular priest, but every time I have ever heard this statement about ex cathedra pronouncements, it has been advanced by proponents of women’s ordination, for the particular purpose of discrediting John Paul II’s 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he declares definitively that all the faithful are to hold to the judgment that the Church has no authority to admit women to Holy Orders. So this opinion regarding ex cathedra pronouncements holds no water.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Thats why I said it was his opinion. But my point remains. I am unconvinced that the Pope was teaching Ex Cathedra in regards to the Consecration. One mans opinion.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I simply dont believe the Pope was speaking ex cathedra when he claimed it was done as you appear to be claiming. One Priest I spoke with recently (His opinion) told me the last Ex Cathedra pronouncement was by Pope Pius the XII - the Assumption. You forget - when a POPE Speaks he doesnt always teach Ex Cathedra De Fide so while we agree that the Pope has this power - we disagreee that it was used in this particular case.

For one, according to the Catechism:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”(LG 25.) which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Secondly, why would you question the Pope’s word. If he said he did something, who are you to question that. Or in other words, why in the world should I take your word over the word of the Holy Father?

 

[JMJ_coder]

A brief digression:

Not to pass judgment on this particular priest, but every time I have ever heard this statement about ex cathedra pronouncements, it has been advanced by proponents of women’s ordination, for the particular purpose of discrediting John Paul II’s 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he declares definitively that all the faithful are to hold to the judgment that the Church has no authority to admit women to Holy Orders. So this opinion regarding ex cathedra pronouncements holds no water.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

In that particular instance, the Holy Father after words explicitly said it was not an ex cathedra statement. What was the Holy Father’s reason for declaring such? He said because it had already been definitively taught by the Magisterium of the Church and he was merely restating an already decided fact.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Sorry, but I cannot extend you that “courtesy.” You are asking me to lie to you. The consecrated bread and wine are not symbols. They are truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, whether you believe it or not.

Vic: This individual does not have access to validly ordained preists so, in reality, the “communion” in which he partakes is only symbolic.

Peace!

 

[RichardJS]

An ordinary person can sin and be forgiven before death. Priests and Bishops and Pope’s who disobey the Queen of Heaven and earth don’t even think they have a duty to obey or even understand their disobediance. It is almost as bad as thinking up an excuse to disobey, “to keep holy the sabbath”, and then to play bingo on Sunday. Just as Mary obeyed, we must go through Her spirit and obey also.

 

[Robert_Burns]

For one, according to the Catechism:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”(LG 25.) which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Secondly, why would you question the Pope’s word. If he said he did something, who are you to question that. Or in other words, why in the world should I take your word over the word of the Holy Father?

I agree completely with the first paragraph as posted. It remains beside the point.

Secondly - every single utterance of the POPE is not intended to be Ex Cathedra de Fide.

Here is an example of an ex Cathedra pronouncement :

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII. Bull Unam Sanctam 1302)

Now can you produce something similar in regards to the Consecration of Russia Where the Pope said : "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that the Consecration was done?

Obviously not… So I remain unconvinced that it has been done. The Fruits say otherwise.

 

[simple_soul]

An ordinary person can sin and be forgiven before death. Priests and Bishops and Pope’s who disobey the Queen of Heaven and earth don’t even think they have a duty to obey or even understand their disobediance. It is almost as bad as thinking up an excuse to disobey, “to keep holy the sabbath”, and then to play bingo on Sunday. Just as Mary obeyed, we must go through Her spirit and obey also.

*Dear Richard, again you raise what I believe to be two very important questions regarding what you say here.
1 Who did Mary obey?
2 How do we go through Her spirit to obey also?

 

[simple_soul]

*I do not know if it will help any in this thread but there is a discussion on this other thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466474 that is regarding when the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra that might be helpful. I believe you have to go to page seven to read it.

I do not know how it may or may not help this thread but maybe it can.*