What do Evangelicals say about Fatima?

[Contarini]

As for Bible Idolatry, my boss here at work is a Bible Idolater and he does not even realize it. He takes his Bible everywhere. This adoration toward an inaminate object of paper and ink is disturbing.

That seems like a weird accusation. Are you similarly disturbed by Catholics who wear scapulars or carry rosaries everywhere?

I take the point that fundamentalists venerate the Bible in a way that is idolatrous by *their *standards, but surely we both agree that their standards are wrong? Fundamentalists are not wrong in venerating the Bible–they are wrong in thinking that veneration of the means of grace is idolatrous.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I I am not much into Marian devotion, but I would have to punch the guy and tell him “You better show a little more respect to the one that Jesus suckled upon as a babe”.

Me too!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi,
I get your point. As someone pointed out about Satan in another thread, he is cunning and sneaky.

And for that very reason, the only way to oppose him is with simplicity. What promotes faith in Christ and a holy life cannot come from Satan, period.

The timing of when it happened(fairly recently)makes me think it may have not been from God because I didnt think that stuff happened anymore(visions)after apostolic age(at least from God anyway).

On what do you base this opinion? I find nothing in Scripture to support it. (The best I’ve heard is 1 Cor. 13, which speaks of prophecy and tongues ceasing, but that seems clearly to be speaking of the Second Coming and the Beatific Vision–Calvinists interpret it to mean the completion of the canon, but I think that’s nonsense.)

Edwin

 

[deb1]

I haven’t seen the film, but I think I’ve read the book in question. And in all fairness, the whole book mostly blasts Peretti’s own Pentecostal tradition. This young man in question is the product of an abusive family (his dad was a backwoods Pentecostal minister who basically tortured him in the name of God) and later a heartless megachurch that was all about money and power. The book is a scathing exposure of the worst side of Pentecostalism. If he takes some swipes at Catholicism in the process (I don’t remember this scene in the book, but it may well have been there), I think he should be excused.

Edwin

Normally, I would read the book before seeing the movie and I really wanted to purchase this particular book(can’t remember the name) It has left a bad taste in my mouth for this novel.

As far as taking swipes at Catholicism, that is emotionally hard for me to excuse. -as you can imagine.

I wonder if the filmmaker is more at fault then the author on this account. There didn’t seem to be much against Pentecostalism. Perhaps the producer put his own spin on the book

 

[Contarini]

Normally, I would read the book before seeing the movie and I really wanted to purchase this particular book(can’t remember the name) It has left a bad taste in my mouth for this novel.

As far as taking swipes at Catholicism, that is emotionally hard for me to excuse. -as you can imagine.

I wonder if the filmmaker is more at fault then the author on this account. There didn’t seem to be much against Pentecostalism. Perhaps the producer put his own spin on the book

I did a bit of Googling and recalled a bit more about the book (The Visitation, right?). There was a scene near the beginning where a Catholic guy is cured by tears from a statue. But I don’t recall this being spun in a way that was particularly negative toward Catholicism–the Protestant characters also experience what they think are miracles but turn out to be of demonic origin. The book is a general warning against the way religious experience can be counterfeit. As I said, it focuses far more on Pentecostalism than on Catholicism. But the movie may be different.

I certainly don’t blame you for not wanting to read the book. Peretti is eminently missable anyway. Michael O’Brien is much better if you want to read contemporary religious thrillers. . . .

Edwin

 

[JoeyWarren]

That seems like a weird accusation. Are you similarly disturbed by Catholics who wear scapulars or carry rosaries everywhere?

I take the point that fundamentalists venerate the Bible in a way that is idolatrous by *their *standards, but surely we both agree that their standards are wrong? Fundamentalists are not wrong in venerating the Bible–they are wrong in thinking that veneration of the means of grace is idolatrous.

Edwin

Yes it is wierd accusation. My intention was to point out that some do without knowing it, they do what they accuse us of.

I carry rosary in one pocket and carry a rosary ring in the other.

Do I say the Hail Mary? yes and no.

I say a modified version of the Hail Mary…

 

[rr1213]

Do I say the Hail Mary? yes and no.

I say a modified version of the Hail Mary…

If you don’t mind me asking, how is it modified?

 

[JoeyWarren]

If you don’t mind me asking, how is it modified?

no I don’t mind at all.

Let me state this. There is no correct way or no wrong way to say the Rosary. One does not have to contemplate the known mysteries. One can create their own to suit their needs. Or one can just contemplate on a specific prayer.

I actually have two version. The latter is used when I have a Monstrous as a visual focal point or a Nativity Scene as a visual focal point.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Jesus,
Redeemer of the World,
Deliver us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.

Hail Jesus,
Son of God,
You are with me.
Blessed thou Conception
and blessed is the fruit
of thy Crucifixion, Redemption.
Holy Jesus,
Redeemer of the World,
Deliver us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death

 

[rr1213]

no I don’t mind at all.

Let me state this. There is no correct way or no wrong way to say the Rosary. One does not have to contemplate the known mysteries. One can create their own to suit their needs. Or one can just contemplate on a specific prayer.

I actually have two version. The latter is used when I have a Monstrous as a visual focal point or a Nativity Scene as a visual focal point.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Jesus,
Redeemer of the World,
Deliver us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.

Hail Jesus,
Son of God,
You are with me.
Blessed thou Conception
and blessed is the fruit
of thy Crucifixion, Redemption.
Holy Jesus,
Redeemer of the World,
Deliver us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death

Thanks for posting this. Very Christ centered.

 

[flameburns623]

I haven’t seen the film, but I think I’ve read the book in question. And in all fairness, the whole book mostly blasts Peretti’s own Pentecostal tradition. This young man in question is the product of an abusive family (his dad was a backwoods Pentecostal minister who basically tortured him in the name of God) and later a heartless mega church that was all about money and power. The book is a scathing exposure of the worst side of Pentecostalism. If he takes some swipes at Catholicism in the process (I don’t remember this scene in the book, but it may well have been there), I think he should be excused.

Edwin

I have to second this opinion of Peretti’s novel “The Visitation”. I think it is important to realize that the few Catholics which appear in this novel are portrayed pretty sympathetically. There is the caretaker/maintenance man who is reasonably devout but almost overwhelmed with pain from arthritis. When he sees the statue of Christ on the crucifix weeping, he climbs a ladder to investigate and is ‘cured’ of his pain when he comes into contact with the ‘tears’. Having been thus relieved of his suffering, he is not portrayed as becoming wild-eyed or outrageous in proclaiming his ‘miracle’–in fact this particular ‘miracle’ is never really directly associated with the other ‘miraculous’ goings-on which begin to happen in town as a young man who looks like and dresses like Jesus–and who bears marks of a crucifixion–begins appearing and performing healings.

At that point, it is the Protestants, mainly Pentecostals, who become outlandish in their adulation of the “Second Coming of Jesus”. It appears to me that it is mainly Protestants who virtually take over the Catholic church containing the ‘weeping crucifix’, and–in a frenzy to touch the statue when it weeps again–destroy the crucifix and damage the church. The local Catholic priest who appears mebbe twice in the whole book is rather restrained and thoughtful about the whole situation; when the maintenance man’s arthritis ultimately returns after the destruction of the church, the priest comforts him and reminds him that he is no worse off than he was before the crucifix wept.

As I say, it is not really clear from the book that the ‘healings’ in the Catholic Church were not actually of God–the maintenance man, after all, opened the story by praying that God grant him ‘a little less’ pain and suffering–which is exactly what he got. One could read the weeping statue as an answer to that prayer as well as Divine grief over the false Christ foisting himself on the local scene. I say this tentatively, since I have never actually heard of God granting a ‘temporary’ miracle, per se. On the other hand, I expect that even the people whom Jesus personally healed eventually died of something, so in one sense every healing is temporary: we all die of our last illness or injury.

I should note that I have read the book and seen the movie, and the movie puts a slightly spin on the story than does the book. In the book, the emphasis is upon the shallowness and emptiness of pop-culture Christianity, and how such a Christian faith proves unable to sustain the hero of the novel (a backslidden Pentecostal preacher on the cusp of unbelief after losing his wife to cancer). The movie doesn’t put so much emphasis on this but focuses instead on the failure of Christians to recognize the need of and to help the young man who impostures himself as Jesus.

I do have to take exception to Contarini’s opinion of Frank Peretti, who I think is one of the great contemporary Christian popular novelists. I would not claim he is writing great literature, but his novels create very realistic and believable characters, usually dealing with overtly supernatural themes. And this book, IMHO, is his best, largely because he asks so many hard questions without giving simple answers. I will have to look up Michael O’Brien and see how I like his novels.

 

[mo3]

Miracles don’t prove anything.

This miracle proved that 3 little children weren’t lying.

It has nothing to do with the sun dancing.

The sun dancing is what turned this from a private to a public apparition. Without the miracle, the message would not be as public and we would not be discussing it 89 years later.
If fundamentalists study and discover that Fatima was real, and that the Blessed Virgin Mary asked people to pray the rosary, then it would make them look at Catholicism in a whole new way.

Do you think any of the 70,000 who witnessed this miracle became Fundamentalist!

 

[deb1]

I have to second this opinion of Peretti’s novel “The Visitation”. I think it is important to realize that the few Catholics which appear in this novel are portrayed pretty sympathetically. There is the caretaker/maintenance man who is reasonably devout but almost overwhelmed with pain from arthritis. When he sees the statue of Christ on the crucifix weeping, he climbs a ladder to investigate and is ‘cured’ of his pain when he comes into contact with the ‘tears’. Having been thus relieved of his suffering, he is not portrayed as becoming wild-eyed or outrageous in proclaiming his ‘miracle’–in fact this particular ‘miracle’ is never really directly associated with the other ‘miraculous’ goings-on which begin to happen in town as a young man who looks like and dresses like Jesus–and who bears marks of a crucifixion–begins appearing and performing healings.

At that point, it is the Protestants, mainly Pentecostals, who become outlandish in their adulation of the “Second Coming of Jesus”. It appears to me that it is mainly Protestants who virtually take over the Catholic church containing the ‘weeping crucifix’, and–in a frenzy to touch the statue when it weeps again–destroy the crucifix and damage the church. The local Catholic priest who appears mebbe twice in the whole book is rather restrained and thoughtful about the whole situation; when the maintenance man’s arthritis ultimately returns after the destruction of the church, the priest comforts him and reminds him that he is no worse off than he was before the crucifix wept.

As I say, it is not really clear from the book that the ‘healings’ in the Catholic Church were not actually of God–the maintenance man, after all, opened the story by praying that God grant him ‘a little less’ pain and suffering–which is exactly what he got. One could read the weeping statue as an answer to that prayer as well as Divine grief over the false Christ foisting himself on the local scene. I say this tentatively, since I have never actually heard of God granting a ‘temporary’ miracle, per se. On the other hand, I expect that even the people whom Jesus personally healed eventually died of something, so in one sense every healing is temporary: we all die of our last illness or injury.

I should note that I have read the book and seen the movie, and the movie puts a slightly spin on the story than does the book. In the book, the emphasis is upon the shallowness and emptiness of pop-culture Christianity, and how such a Christian faith proves unable to sustain the hero of the novel (a backslidden Pentecostal preacher on the cusp of unbelief after losing his wife to cancer). The movie doesn’t put so much emphasis on this but focuses instead on the failure of Christians to recognize the need of and to help the young man who impostures himself as Jesus.

I do have to take exception to Contarini’s opinion of Frank Peretti, who I think is one of the great contemporary Christian popular novelists. I would not claim he is writing great literature, but his novels create very realistic and believable characters, usually dealing with overtly supernatural themes. And this book, IMHO, is his best, largely because he asks so many hard questions without giving simple answers. I will have to look up Michael O’Brien and see how I like his novels.

Thank you. I will have to read both The Visitation, and make up my own mind ,and Michael O’Brien.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Thanks for posting this. Very Christ centered.

Your welcome.

 

[Contarini]

I do have to take exception to Contarini’s opinion of Frank Peretti, who I think is one of the great contemporary Christian popular novelists. I would not claim he is writing great literature, but his novels create very realistic and believable characters, usually dealing with overtly supernatural themes. And this book, IMHO, is his best, largely because he asks so many hard questions without giving simple answers. I will have to look up Michael O’Brien and see how I like his novels.

Well, I admit that *The Visitation *raised my opinion of Peretti considerably. I liked Prophet as well. I suppose it’s unfair to compare my general impression of his books, formed largely by the *Darkness *books on which his fame was founded, with O’Brien’s one novel that I’ve read (Father Elijah). I still think FE is better than either *Visitation *or *Prophet, *but not necessarily in a whole different league. It is leagues better than the *Darkness *books. But Peretti has matured greatly since then.

O’Brien isn’t a great novelist either, and in fact FE is more propagandistic than *Visitation *by a long shot. Stylistically he is much better, but that’s not the only thing by which a novel should be judged.

To be honest, I shot off that opinion because I knew it would please the Catholics around here. I don’t mean that I was dishonest–I do have a better opinion of O’Brien than of Peretti on the whole–but the thought crossed my mind “do you really think Peretti’s later books are so much worse than O’Brien” and I didn’t bother considering it further. I apologize to Peretti in absentia!

Edwin

 

[glimmer]

When I’ve talked to fundamentalists about Marian apparitions, they dismiss them as Satanic counterfeits

For me it really would depend. Usually, I often pick up something that seems to contradict the Bible and, when presented with two different revelations, I am going to go with the Apostles.

 

[glimmer]

They can probably deny it like this:

1. No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have “danced”, and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than forty miles out from Cova da Iria.
2. The… solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere…there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon…
3. Some ascribe the “miracle” to Satan (all this according to wikipedia).

It’s not the scientific proof that would validate it for me. There have been cases of reincarnation and ghosts that have been just as proven. For me, the scientific proofs might establish whether it were a real supernatural manifestation, but to know whether God was behind it would be easier to establish against His revealed character and His intent and purposes in the universe.

For instance, 1) I would want to know from the spirit itself whether it agrees that Jesus Christ, who is God, came in the flesh and defeated Satan, and 2) Does the spirit speak of itself and how does its message glorify God in the earth? Fulfilled prophecies and supernatural knowledge alone do not suffice, as Satan himself possesses extensive knowledge of the Bible, prophecy and secret information about people, places and history.

The one thing Satanic spirits cannot admit and stick around for is that God gave Mankind dominion over all the works of His hands, and that included Satan. One of God’s goals is to indwell humans and express Himself through them. Saturation by God is a process requiring death to self. Adam failed, but Jesus, the second Adam, fulfilled the mission. We are to follow after Him, and Satan doesn’t want us to remember that part. The next time you are contacted by any spirit, put it to the test and do not assume it’s from God just because it is pretty, supernatural or because the crowds are excited over it. Dare to be the one who questions, who hesitates to jump on the bandwagon of popular sentiment.

Why am I so hardnosed about this? Because I have been around demonic deception and exorcisms. It is not pretty. I would about rather be shot than lead someone astray because I was more titillated over phenomena than over Jesus Christ. One day He will call us to account over the people we affected.

Pro 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

 

[glimmer]

For Protestants, a book (albeit the bible) has replaced the living Holy Spirit, Saints and Angels. There is no room to teach Protestants anything new, even via a spectacular miracle.

I grew up loosely in the “Protestant” camp (mostly unchurched, though) and only found out this year that other people might call me an “Evangelical”–funny, I always thought they were somebody else. All Protestants do not share the same ideas, though.

You want miracles? I want Jesus Christ, with or without the miracles, but if it’s miracles you want… In my family, my grandfather was instantaneously healed of a heart arrhythmia and smoking. Then he had a tooth miraculously healed with tooth material.

Before that, my mother was healed at age 5 in five minutes with a confirmed case of diptheria (there were many witnesses). My grandmother started praying for the doctor’s wife whom she’d never met in her life (I don’t know why) and the lady showed up at church one day out of the blue. It turns out she was going to commit suicide and the Lord told her to start reading the Bible starting at the New Testament. This lady became a believer. My grandmother also laid hands on a little girl who was healed of Leukemia.

My brother had problems with two severely ingrown toenails, one of which the doctor operated on and one which God operated on. Nobody laid hands on him I don’t think. God did the better job.

I was nearly dead and got well after having treatments botched. I’m supposed to be on medicine the rest of my life, but ten years after diagnosis and treatment it was discovered that there is nothing wrong with me. I asked a nurse friend about this. She told me in 35 years she has never seen this happen.

We have collectively had visitations from angels, visitations from the Lord, supernatural answers to prayer, and seen God move in the lives of people we just happen to know.

If I never see another miracle, it will not matter, for I am not chasing miracles, angels, saints or anything else. I have the greatest treasure whom I discovered in the “dark night of the soul”–Jesus Christ the Risen–who is our Life and our Living. He IS the Treasure. I believe that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, not the Bible, Saints, Angels, etc. He is inseparable from the Holy Spirit.

I should add that miracles do not happen to us constantly, though it sounds like a lot when you write it out. If you read the old prophets, it sounds like they had miracles happening left and right. They didn’t. It just sounds like it because such a vivid slice of their lives is recorded in such detail. Most of the time it was boring.

 

[mo3]

It’s not the scientific proof that would validate it for me. There have been cases of reincarnation and ghosts that have been just as proven. For me, the scientific proofs might establish whether it were a real supernatural manifestation, but to know whether God was behind it would be easier to establish against His revealed character and His intent and purposes in the universe.

For instance, 1) I would want to know from the spirit itself whether it agrees that Jesus Christ, who is God, came in the flesh and defeated Satan, and 2) Does the spirit speak of itself and how does its message glorify God in the earth?

If these are your requirements, then you will be amazed, reassured, and you will believe when you learned the whole truth about the Miracle at Fatima.

 

[mo3]

You want miracles? I want Jesus Christ, with or without the miracles, but if it’s miracles you want… In my family, my grandfather was instantaneously healed of a heart arrhythmia and smoking. Then he had a tooth miraculously healed with tooth material.

The miracles you listed are not quite the same type or delivered for the same reasons. The Miracle at Fatima was a message from God meant for the entire world. The message was one of repentance and prayer. Of course it was a public miracle in front of 70,000 people. Thousands of people were converted that day. The message was totally consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the bible.

Some people need miracles to help them believe. Jesus Christ performed many miracles for this reason. I think many Christians forget the apostles had supernatural powers to perform miracles. They were given these powers by Jesus when they started His church.

I think many non-Catholic Christians are very uncomfortable with someone other that Jesus who has supernatural powers, eg. Blessed Virgin Mary, Angles, Saints, Apostles, etc.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The 89th anniversary of the Miracle at Fatima is tomorrow, October 13. Over 70,000 people, including Masons, communists and atheist, witnessed the sun dance in the sky, throw off multi-colors and descend to the earth. They looked directly at the sun for approx. 10 minutes and nobody was blinded! Many newspapers around the world reported it including the New York Times.

I have never asked non-Catholics but what do Evangelicals and Protestants say about this miracle? How can they deny this truth and the message delivered by the Blessed Virgin Mary?

It was also the anniversary of the Apparitions of Mary and Jesus at Conyers, Georgia.

The wife and I went there Friday. We did the full blown saying of the Rosary. 90 minutes! English, Spanish, and some African Dialect of French. It was awesome.

The most touching moment was when the African-French(three of them) sang a song to Mary and Jesus in there language. Was not a dry eye in the place. Did not understand one single word of the song, but I sure understood the song itself…

Awesome!