Why did Mary specifically mention Russia in Fatima?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Polak said:
How about Popes? As I told you, cardinals, bishops, priests etc. I mean what is ‘the Church’ to you if not the people who make it up?
Click to expand...
The Church is the institutional church. It’s not individual clergy, highly placed though they may be, speaking as individuals. When the church wants to say something as The Church, it generally has formal mechanisms for doing so. It’s not like once you have some percentage of clergy agreeing with something it becomes a declaration of the Church as a whole.
 
Last edited:
So you really don’t care what cardinals, bishops and priests ever say during their sermon, in interviews etc. If it isn’t in the Catechism or in Canon Law, they can talk all they want for all you care.

Also, I wouldn’t consider Popes just ‘individual clergy’. They aren’t even just ‘highly placed’. They are the head of the Church. You don’t care what they have to say unless they put it in writing?
 
Polak said:
So you really don’t care what cardinals, bishops and priests ever say during their sermon, in interviews etc. If it isn’t in the Catechism or in Canon Law, they can talk all they want for all you care.

Also, I wouldn’t consider Popes just ‘individual clergy’. They aren’t even just ‘highly placed’. They are the head of the Church. You don’t care what they have to say unless they put it in writing?
Click to expand...
I never said I “don’t care.” I’m making a much more narrow point. I’m saying that a certain number of clergy believing something does not make it official teaching of the Church. That’s it. It’s really not controversial.

It’s like if Donald Trump and twenty-six members of Congress all endorsed policy x. That would not make x actual United States law. There’s a process for formally codifying things.
 
Last edited:
I’ve made my argument numerous times now so I won’t repeat it. It seems we’re talking past each other on this one, both just repeating our points of view.
 
The word “true” may have limited meaning to the fact that an apparition really has taken place there. Whether the apparition messages “worthy of belief” is a different matter.

I dislike the fact that the message seem to be a fertile ground for possibility to take advantage of religion for “heavy” politics. And each person be left alone to speculate about it, under a pretext of “private revelation”
 
Last edited:
JoyfulTune said:
I dislike the fact that the message seem to be a fertile ground for possibility to take advantage of religion for “heavy” politics. And each person be left alone to speculate about it, under a pretext of “private revelation”
Click to expand...
Every religious expression might be sometimes accused of being used for “heavy” politics. The civil rights movement is an example.

People accuse Catholicism of being overly dogmatic, everything is supposedly Black or White. Private revelations go against that stereotype.

The fact that the Church admittedly does not know some things for certain lends credibility to what the Church claims to know for certain.

Real life is like that. The Secular world demands that everything be declared True or Not True, but sometimes the data is a little different. From a pastoral POV the Church is sometimes cautioning against the tendency to ignore Fatima, and also to dogmatize it.

Thus, whether Fatima is good for a particular person depends on the fruit it nourishes in this person’s life.
 
Last edited:
MasterHaster said:
40.png
commenter:
The fact that the Church admittedly does not know some things for certain lends credibility to what the Church claims to know for certain.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how your conclusion follows from the premise. The fact that astrologers don’t know some things for certain doesn’t lend credibility to what they claim to know for certain.
Click to expand...
I don’t know any astrologers. But among the people I do know, some claim to know the answer for everything, true or false, with full certainty.

Others claim to know that some specific things are definitely true, certain other things definitely false, and a third category where there is some data, but mixed, or inconclusive, at this time.

All things being equal, I tend in general to trust the judgement of that second group more.
 
So Judaism was the vehicle that brought Jesus in to the world. But Judaism didn’t contain Jesus. In fact for the most part it didn’t accept Him. Since everything exists for Jesus then Judaism served its purpose at the time.
 
Thats your opinion as a non believer. People who are educated in ancient languages
and are capable of reading ancient texts can testiy that the birth of Jesus was anticipated f rom antiquity from Chinese literature and all over the world their literature anticipates the Advent of ’ the Great Saint ’
I’m not an expert but Abp Fulton Sheen wrote about the only Person ever pre-announced
 
I go with the Bible and Saint Paul who tells us that the whole of creation bears witness to His existence Romans 1:20 F or since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen - his everlasting power also and divinity- being understood through the things that are made . Amd so they are without excuse… "
 
How do you account for the hundreds of Bible prophesies that have been fulfilled?
 
The Bible goes back six thousand years. Are you claiming that the whole Bible is a fable ? And how would you account for the 700 plus already fulfilled prophesies in the Word of God ?
 
Apart from your opinion what source can you quote for this claim that the Bible has been back-written ?
 
When a previous poster on this thread commented about Czar Nicholas ’ belief in Fatima apparitions you demanded he provide source and citation, which he did.
However when you claim that the Christian Bible is untrue and deceptive you do not expect to be challenged ?
 
I am far from being an expert on Fatima, but Rus, Russia its a Ukraine.
This ancient Ukrainian name was taken by Moscovites and applied to Moscovia as Russia but originally it comes from Ukraine

When there was Kievan Rus, when Kyiv was glorious city there was no Russia, Moscow was wild forests.

The Dutch flag can also be turned over to the other side and called Russian, but the word Rus came from the old, ancient, glorious land which is Ukraine.😊
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top