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

[JMJ_coder]

Excuse me, but I intrest to know if Russion Orthodox and Greek Orthodox have similar “declaration” in force. Please note I am open-minded so feel free to be critic here. I perhaps qualify last statement by saying, I open-minded not empty-headed, and note with intrest that it took over 1250yrs for that declaration to be made, so tell me please what happen to all Christians before that date? Again I say, (if necessary) please correct me in true spirit of oecumenism bearing in mind that in regard to Christianity I am fellow traveller. Regard, O.N.

The simple answer is…no, the Orthodox don’t have a similar statement.

 

[JMJ_coder]

*Dear Victorious,

Thank you for your response. I do remember reading earlier in this thread that St. Lucia also said some thing to the effect that the interpretation of the messages was up to the Church.
I believe this is why I was wondering if the Church had ever said what the errors are.

In regards to the ones in history. Do you know what all the errors are that Russia did in fact spread?

The two biggest errors would appear to have been communism and atheism. Both spread like wildfire to cover at least 1/3 of the globe within 50 years. Russia, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Their error of atheism would seem to have had a greater reach then communism, though its debatable how much the dramatic rise in atheism in the West is due to Russia’s influence and how much stems from areas such as the Enlightenment and intellectual pride.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Hmm… Second Secret:
"“The war is going to end; if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will beak out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Pope Benedict at Fatima Shrine in May of 2010 this year: “May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.”
catholicnewsagency.com/portugal10/resource.php?res_id=1412

Something doesn’t click here. I’ve avoided these discussions on Fatima always asserting if Lucia and the Pope state the consecration was done, then it was done. Don’t disobey Rome! Stay away from Gruner and his organization which I note of late is sending out quite vigorous fund raising demands to its Crusader subscribers (many of them elderly, like my aunt, who is shocked and flustered for an older lady as to the financial demands she seems to continually receive in the mail from that organization). I don’t like what Chrisopher Ferrara writes, and the tone he takes to the Vatican and Holy Father. Not good.

I also believe the Catholic Church is NOT to be a church of apparitions. Nobody is obligated to believe in them, even if church-approved. We have the deposit of faith without apparitions. Quite simple.

If the current Pope is saying we are still waiting for the Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart, that would seem to suggest we are still in the days, technically, of the 2nd Secret, never mind the 3rd. Not that I fret. Personal revelation does not need by accepted by any Catholic.

But that was the first difference I noticed that has changed since I last posted on Fatima. For some reason, the Fatima Message is no longer one for the past apparently now and only dealing with the 20th Century as Cardinal Bertone’s (was it) exegesis had it.

Plus, I have always found it puzzling that the Second Secret was not revealed until after the beginning of World War Two, meaning that the faithful were not even given the chance to consider what the secret consisted of until after the World War Two had already started. Why on God’s earth wouldn’t it be revealed prior to WW2 to warn people to “cease offending God,” to prevent WW2, since this was the secret’s intention. Doesn’t make sense.

How does one guarantee the Secret allegedly made in 1917 was the same revealed during WW2? And why the wait. The lights over Europe were in 1938. The Second Secret was revealed after the fact.

This has sort of troubled me. And it also troubles me when people start looking for overly-elaborate “plots” to explain what the Vatican is up to with Fatima. Again, if the Virgin Mary really had a firm message, why is there so much paranoia and why so much laity suspecting their Cardinals?

Anyway, haven’t posted under Trad Forum for a while.

I tried to ask some questions, being quite familiar with the subject matter and not convinced one way or other or wishing to over analyze it.

 

[ORD_NASILA]

Did you ever read the infallible Word of God which tells us in Galatians 1:8 that even if an angel from heaven contradicts the teachings of the Church, they should be condemned to hell.

Surely, Gal. 1:15 - 17 makes it plain that the gospel that St Paul was talking about was his gospel received NOT from " flesh and blood " (the Church) seeing that verses 16 & 17 tell us that he had no contact with " …them which were apostles before me;…" , but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. I sorry if this incorrect, but I do not have Douay Rheims Bible to compare with KJV. However, I am ardent beleiver in oecumenism so I welcome constructive critic. Regard, O.N.

 

[simple_soul]

The two biggest errors would appear to have been communism and atheism. Both spread like wildfire to cover at least 1/3 of the globe within 50 years. Russia, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Their error of atheism would seem to have had a greater reach then communism, though its debatable how much the dramatic rise in atheism in the West is due to Russia’s influence and how much stems from areas such as the Enlightenment and intellectual pride.

*OK, so what is it about communism that makes it have errors?
From what I understand the root problem with communism is that it recognizes human’s as being self achieving even to the extent that they even achieve eternity on their own intellectual power. Thus it would seem that it also believes that Enlightenment is something that one, on there own, accomplishes through the intellect.
Is this an accurate understanding? *

 

[Sir_Knight]

Surely, Gal. 1:15 - 17 makes it plain that the gospel that St Paul was talking about was his gospel received NOT from " flesh and blood " (the Church) seeing that verses 16 & 17 tell us that he had no contact with " …them which were apostles before me;…" , but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. I sorry if this incorrect, but I do not have Douay Rheims Bible to compare with KJV. However, I am ardent beleiver in oecumenism so I welcome constructive critic. Regard, O.N.

The teaching of Galatians 1:8 is that the Church, through the Apostles, has the final say on the teachings of Christ – even if someone came down from heaven, if what they said conflicted with the teachings of the Church, the Church is whom the faithful should follow …
[bibledrb]Galatians 1:8[/bibledrb]

 

[Sir_Knight]

I also believe the Catholic Church is NOT to be a church of apparitions. Nobody is obligated to believe in them, even if church-approved. We have the deposit of faith without apparitions. Quite simple.

Bravo! Excellent point.

This has sort of troubled me. And it also troubles me when people start looking for overly-elaborate “plots” to explain what the Vatican is up to with Fatima. Again, if the Virgin Mary really had a firm message, why is there so much paranoia and why so much laity suspecting their Cardinals?

I’ve often wondered about this myself. Scripture tells us that our God is NOT the God of doubt and confusion. Jesus, Himself, tells us that a house divided against itself can not stand.

Yet Fatima, or other forces using Fatima for their own purposes, is causing doubt, confusion and division among the faithful.

 

[simple_soul]

:
I’ve often wondered about this myself. Scripture tells us that our God is NOT the God of doubt and confusion. Jesus, Himself, tells us that a house divided against itself can not stand.

Yet Fatima, or other forces using Fatima for their own purposes, is causing doubt, confusion and division among the faithful.

And we all know how the “devil” loves confusion.
While I do believe there is much to the messages of Fatima I have to wonder if “Russia’s errors” can all be traced back to the one thing that causes the most confusion of all. Our stubborn pride!

 

[Hunter53]

You’re right, I really don’t know your uncle. That’s why I ask. He could be Bishop Williams for all I know. Or, he could be Cardinal Levada for all I know. Or, you could just be blowing smoke for all I know. I just don’t know, hence I ask. You really can’t just drop a name or a title as an appeal to authority and not expect a question of credentials (so to speak). It’s no different than if you said “the Pope once said xyz” – really? which Pope, where, when, how about a citation, etc.

So, who is your uncle?

I am not going to give out names online. That to me is foolish. If you don’t believe me about my uncle then that is your choice. What is wrong with Bishop Williams any way?

 

[ORD_NASILA]

The teaching of Galatians 1:8 is that the Church, through the Apostles, has the final say on the teachings of Christ – even if someone came down from heaven, if what they said conflicted with the teachings of the Church, the Church is whom the faithful should follow …
[bibledrb]Galatians 1:8[/bibledrb]

Thank you, Sir Knight. It just appeared to me that Paul was warning his readers about false bretheren, and false doctrines that were creeping into the Church of his day.
In I John 2:18 & 19 we see a similar warning being given about so-called brethen, (within the Church) who were trying to lead the faithful astray. So, to my way of thinking Paul, who claimed to have a gospel not of men, but of revelation and therefore not liable to be influenced by the then current teaching, was warning them not to accept anything at face value even if from an angel. Regard, O.N.

 

[ORD_NASILA]

Hmm… Second Secret:
"“The war is going to end; if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will beak out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

How does one guarantee the Secret allegedly made in 1917 was the same revealed during WW2? And why the wait. The lights over Europe were in 1938. The Second Secret was revealed after the fact.
This has sort of troubled me./QUOTE].

ORD NASILA post start here:

Not that I beleive in the Fatima apparitions, but seeing that many people do I think I can put your minds at rest in as much as, " The lights over Europe were in 1938 ", but WW2 did not start until September,1939, you can take my word for it, I was there! So, to cut long story short, your much talked about Second Secret was revealed BEFORE the fact.
Hope this not offend anyone, because that not my intention. Regard, O.N.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I am not going to give out names online. That to me is foolish. If you don’t believe me about my uncle then that is your choice. What is wrong with Bishop Williams any way?

I don’t blame you one bit in that regard (I probably wouldn’t either). But, I also hope you won’t blame me if I don’t automatically just take your word on it in this regard. It’s just a non-starter in this context (you can’t appeal to an undisclosed authority), and there’s nowhere to go down this road in the dialogue – we’ll just have to stick to the other paths (so to speak).

As for Bishop Williamson (sorry, I think I misspelled it earlier), he is one of the Bishops who Archbishop Lefebvre illictly consecrated in 1988. He has also come under fire recently for certain statements pertaining to the Holocaust (though, I personally think he got a raw deal on that one).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Not that I beleive in the Fatima apparitions, but seeing that many people do I think I can put your minds at rest in as much as, " The lights over Europe were in 1938 ", but WW2 did not start until September,1939, you can take my word for it, I was there! So, to cut long story short, your much talked about Second Secret was revealed BEFORE the fact.
Hope this not offend anyone, because that not my intention. Regard, O.N.

The lights were to be on the eve of a great new trial and punishment (war was one of those). The luminous spectacle reportedly occurred on January 25, 1938. In March of 1938 Germany began annexing countries, beginning with Austria. In September 1939 Britain and France finally had enough of Germany swallowing nations and formally declared war.

You can draw your own conclusions, or the lack thereof.

 

[MarkThompson]

As for Bishop Williamson (sorry, I think I misspelled it earlier), he is one of the Bishops who Archbishop Lefebvre illictly consecrated in 1988.

That makes more sense. I had wondered if you meant Rowan Williams.

 

[ORD_NASILA]

The lights were to be on the eve of a great new trial and punishment (war was one of those). The luminous spectacle reportedly occurred on January 25, 1938. In March of 1938 Germany began annexing countries, beginning with Austria. In September 1939 Britain and France finally had enough of Germany swallowing nations and formally declared war.

You can draw your own conclusions, or the lack thereof.

I agree with all of that. The events of 1938 were just “rumours of war” and 1939 was the actual WW2. I was actually born in 1938 and I believe that my family was bombed out a couple of times during the infamous Blitz. I was of course evacuated to the countryside during that terrible time. Not pleasant memories for anyone. Regard, O.N.

 

[Robert_Burns]

One wouldn’t expect (nor would one expect that it could be so) that the Pope would issue an ex cathedra statement on something of this nature. Would you expect the Pope to issue an ex cathedra stating he celebrated the Corpus Christi Mass and had a procession afterwards or one that stated he said a novena for such and such an intention? No, we simply take the Pope at his word on such matters.

So you now agree that it wasnt ex Cathedra? I see. And thus non binding.

 

[Robert_Burns]

As was pointed out earlier … CCC892 = 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.

Why would a Catholic question the Pope’s word? If he said he did something, who are we to say otherwise?

Because the POPE has not used his POWER as POPE to bind us in this particular case. IMO.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Or in other words, to those who claim the Consecration has not yet happened, why should I take your (the naysayers) word over the word of the Holy Father and all the Bishops in communion with him?

If they used the POWERS of the Magisterium - we couldnt. In this case - it remains to be seen that they have.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Catholic history is full of ‘private revelations’ from God (nice little mental box I think using that term you’re putting things in, a little too small) warning the Popes and the Church about this, that, and the other thing.

Reminiscent of the prophets of the Old Testament, who often warn Israel.

Sometimes the Popes listen, sometimes they don’t. Obviously the Popes are not the incarnate person of the Holy Spirit walking on this earth, thus the exagerrated conflict put forth here is against the Faith on such matters. Popes are human too. You can go too far trying to prove a point.

Sometimes God works through them, sometimes He does not.

Which is why I suspect from the methodology used here that you don’t know that much at all about Fatima, and are just feeling very Vatican loyal and suspicious of private revelations, the general approach of someone new to the whole thing who doesn’t know otherwise how to sort it all out yet, because of a lack of experience. A suspicion, that’s all I have, not saying it’s fact. But if it is true, then you really shouldn’t be pontificating on this matter, since it’s a little beyond you.

Loyalty is commendable. I am loyal too. I also acknowledge human limitations. I think that’s most loyal, rather than building up people into more than they are and so tripping them up by impossible expectations.

There are many Cardinals in the Vatican, all with different views, they aren’t a united block. They have different opinions on Fatima. If one who has one opinion is in charge of the right office – or gets the ear of the right person, there you go, there’s a pronouncement. Then perhaps later, like with Padre Pio, (who had his faculties suspended), the Pope later apologizes and says, “I was misinformed.” Or perhaps he doesn’t apologize, but was still mistaken, that happens sometimes too. These things happen. Popes are best served by understanding both where their holiness lies, and where their humanity lies. No leader likes to be made out to be a God when he isn’t, and he would best be served by people who can support him in his humanity as well.

St. Catherine of Siena once wrote Pope Gregory XI, ‘. . . Pardon my presumption in what I have said to you and am saying; I am constrained by the Sweet Primal Truth to say it. His will, father, is this, and thus demands of you. It demands that you execute justice on the abundance of many iniquities committed by those who are fed and pastured in the garden of Holy Church; declaring that brutes should not be fed with the food of men. Since He has given you authority and you have assumed it, you should use your virtue and power: and if you are not willing to use it, it would be better for you to resign what you have assumed; more honour to God and health to your soul would it be.’

In other words, she said that the Pope wasn’t disciplining the Church, and executing justice, and if he wouldn’t exercise his office as Pope, he should resign, for the sake of his soul. Guess what. Pope Gregory XI didn’t listen. I don’t know what happened to him at the judgement but I don’t think it bears thinking about. God has not revealed…

In another revelation, of Our Lady to St. Bridget of Sweden, she warned that any pope who changed Church discipline on celibacy would go to Hell, even if he was as holy as St. Gregory the Great, this was how much God cared about that discipline and how from God it was. So far, no Pope has done it, but you can bet the temptation is there.

Just tracing the history of Fatima you can see the Papal response to it was not entirely what it should have been and was asked for. And so it already displays that there can be a conflict. And why should there not be?

If Fatima is genuine, and all the signs are that it -is-, then, Our Lady vs. the Pope? Our Lady wins obviously. And obviously yes, sometimes Popes can do things that do not please God and Our Lady. On the other hand, Our Lady never displeases Our Lord. Never has, never will.

The Pope has a certain authority, within which he is supreme. In other areas, he isn’t. If Our Lady asks for something, the Pope like everyone else has to hope he has fulfilled it, he doesn’t have the power to by fiat declare that he has.

Precisely. I personally dont see why some people think that every time the POPE opens his mouth its like GOD speaking. Certainly the POPE Can use his Power to Bind and Loose - but he doesnt use this power very often. In reading this thread - it appears that some people hang on his every word as though Jesus is speaking through him 24 / 7.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Excuse me if I offend, but does I Cor. 7:1-9 mean nothing anymore? I welcome critic for how else I learn truth?

Regard, O.N.

No , I think its 1 Cor 11 :5 That means nothing anymore. But thats for another thread.