More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)

Started by Gerard, June 15, 2017, 11:37:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Michael Wilson

jmjZellie stated:
QuoteI am the one who was asking about the complicated nature of the consecration, but to be fair, I made no assertions. I was asking questions. And thus far, I haven't seen anyone answer them directly.

Why do Fatima devotees point to the authority of the Church to declare the apparitions of 1917 worthy of belief, and then also reject the assertion by that same authority that the last consecration was accepted?

Why is it that, according to Fatima devotees, the consecration formula is so exacting that none of the attempts by various popes are sufficient, again according to Fatima devotees?

When it looks increasingly unlikely that a pope would be able to command all the bishops to cooperate with him and simultaneously consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and yet Fatima devotees assert that THIS is the key to restoring peace to the world, I think my questions are fair ones. Why is the ending of the Cold War and the ending of the threat of encroaching communism in Europe not considered sufficient fulfillment of the prophecy? That is huge; I remember these events and I remember the rapt attention of the world as we watched these terrifying threats collapse.

Our Lady never promised that period of peace would last forever. She only promised a period of peace. The only true and lasting peace will be at the end of history.
On the question as to why trads do not accept that the Consecration has been accepted: It wasn't the hierarchy or the Pope that stated that the Consecration had not been done according to Our Lady's request, it was Sr. Lucy. She was asked if the Consecration had been done and she responded in the negative all the way up to 1989; then she changed her response to "affirmative".
Re. The simultaneous consecration: Sister Lucy responded that it would be enough if the Pope ordered the bishops to do it. Whether all of them complied or not, was not important.
Why, none of the Consecrations have been sufficient: Because Our Blessed Mother asked for a collegial Consecration i.e. The Pope in union with all the world's bishops; that it had to be of Russia and that it had to be to Her Immaculate Heart.
If one were to look at each consecration, one of the required conditions is missing.
Our Lady promised that if Her request was fulfilled, Russia would be converted and a period of peace would be granted to the world. "Conversion" in the normal sense, means conversion to the Catholic faith. This has not occurred. Also, the ending of the Cold War, did not bring a period of peace to the world; rather it shifted the conflict from Capitalism vs Communism to Capitalism vs. Mohammedanism.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Kaesekopf

Quote from: jmjZelie on June 21, 2017, 12:03:11 PM
Wow. I was asking questions about Fatima and expressed my appreciation for Catholicism and its beautiful and coherent explanations. So I am now at a near occasion of sin and should leave and not come back?

I will consider what you say. You might be right that I shouldn't participate here.

Eh, I'd not listen to him.  While a number of us are cradles, we have a decent amount of converts. 
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.

Gerard

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 21, 2017, 12:06:15 PM
jmjZellie stated:
QuoteI am the one who was asking about the complicated nature of the consecration, but to be fair, I made no assertions. I was asking questions. And thus far, I haven't seen anyone answer them directly.

Why do Fatima devotees point to the authority of the Church to declare the apparitions of 1917 worthy of belief, and then also reject the assertion by that same authority that the last consecration was accepted?

Why is it that, according to Fatima devotees, the consecration formula is so exacting that none of the attempts by various popes are sufficient, again according to Fatima devotees?

When it looks increasingly unlikely that a pope would be able to command all the bishops to cooperate with him and simultaneously consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and yet Fatima devotees assert that THIS is the key to restoring peace to the world, I think my questions are fair ones. Why is the ending of the Cold War and the ending of the threat of encroaching communism in Europe not considered sufficient fulfillment of the prophecy? That is huge; I remember these events and I remember the rapt attention of the world as we watched these terrifying threats collapse.

Our Lady never promised that period of peace would last forever. She only promised a period of peace. The only true and lasting peace will be at the end of history.
On the question as to why trads do not accept that the Consecration has been accepted: It wasn't the hierarchy or the Pope that stated that the Consecration had not been done according to Our Lady's request, it was Sr. Lucy. She was asked if the Consecration had been done and she responded in the negative all the way up to 1989; then she changed her response to "affirmative".
Re. The simultaneous consecration: Sister Lucy responded that it would be enough if the Pope ordered the bishops to do it. Whether all of them complied or not, was not important.
Why, none of the Consecrations have been sufficient: Because Our Blessed Mother asked for a collegial Consecration i.e. The Pope in union with all the world's bishops; that it had to be of Russia and that it had to be to Her Immaculate Heart.
If one were to look at each consecration, one of the required conditions is missing.
Our Lady promised that if Her request was fulfilled, Russia would be converted and a period of peace would be granted to the world. "Conversion" in the normal sense, means conversion to the Catholic faith. This has not occurred. Also, the ending of the Cold War, did not bring a period of peace to the world; rather it shifted the conflict from Capitalism vs Communism to Capitalism vs. Mohammedanism.

You could also look at it as Sr. Lucy using the the mealy mouthed wording of a bluff having been called. 

The Pope doesn't jump through the hoops for whatever reason good or ill and now it has to be cleared with UberPope  Lucy. 




Michael Wilson

Gerard,
I'm starting to get the impression that you are not a big fan of Fatima....
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Gerard

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 21, 2017, 12:18:05 PM
Gerard,
I'm starting to get the impression that you are not a big fan of Fatima....

It's kind of ironic that you say that since I'm sitting at my desk with a framed picture of Fatima that I can see with my peripheral vision while I type this. 

A month ago, I had never given a contrary thought to Fatima and I blithely supported the consecration and accepted it all unquestioningly. 

I will say that my skepticism was probably primed during Lent of 2015 when I attempted tho read some "mystics" visions of Mary as a Lenten practice.  It was there that I learned just how "off" the Church can be when it comes to approval of visionaries.  But I hadn't even related it to approved apparitions. 

Maybe now that we are at the 100 year mark, a permitted period of "diabolical disorientation" is coming to an end and people are starting to see things a little more clearly where they had a blind spot before. 


Quaremerepulisti

With regard to private revelations, a sensible approach is to accept what the Church has officially approved (or declared "worthy of belief", etc.), reserving judgment on the rest.  That it's job, after all; not only to encourage devotion to true private revelation for the benefits that will ensue but also to prohibit and prevent devotion to false revelation due to the potential for harm.

Now the Church has, indeed, declared worthy of belief the appearances of the Blessed Virgin to the children at the Cova from May to October 1917 and approved devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. 

QuoteIn virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby:

1. Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.

2. Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/bishapprov.asp

Accordingly, I accept that.  It has not, however, said anything regarding the apparitions of the angel, which occurred in 1916.  Nor any of the other stuff associated with Fatima.  It might be true, or it might not.  Personally, some of it looks quite hoakie to me.

You may be of a different opinion, as is your right, but you do not have the right to accuse me or anyone else of any type of sin for not accepting what the Church hasn't officially approved because it hasn't officially approved it.  It is possible for Satan to "piggyback", so to speak, on a real apparition, and add lots of false stuff to lead people astray.  The possibility of this danger is not sufficiently appreciated IMO.


GeorgeT

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on June 21, 2017, 01:40:36 PM
With regard to private revelations, a sensible approach is to accept what the Church has officially approved (or declared "worthy of belief", etc.), reserving judgment on the rest.  That it's job, after all; not only to encourage devotion to true private revelation for the benefits that will ensue but also to prohibit and prevent devotion to false revelation due to the potential for harm.

Now the Church has, indeed, declared worthy of belief the appearances of the Blessed Virgin to the children at the Cova from May to October 1917 and approved devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. 

QuoteIn virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby:

1. Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.

2. Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/bishapprov.asp

Accordingly, I accept that.  It has not, however, said anything regarding the apparitions of the angel, which occurred in 1916.  Nor any of the other stuff associated with Fatima.  It might be true, or it might not.  Personally, some of it looks quite hoakie to me.

You may be of a different opinion, as is your right, but you do not have the right to accuse me or anyone else of any type of sin for not accepting what the Church hasn't officially approved because it hasn't officially approved it.  It is possible for Satan to "piggyback", so to speak, on a real apparition, and add lots of false stuff to lead people astray.  The possibility of this danger is not sufficiently appreciated IMO.
What you wrote here was good.

I would say, though, it's less than likely for Satan to piggyback onto a real apparition. Holy things usually surround holy things. This is why we read writings by saints.

The writings of St Augustine are not binding, right? So, sure, Satan could piggyback into a book by St. Augustine. Is it likely? Not really.
Check out my Lives of the saints comics!

http://tautkusstudio.com/pb/wp_8bec74cf/wp_8bec74cf.html

PerEvangelicaDicta

#247
Quaremerepulisti, you summarized my thoughts on this precisely, especially the piggybacking of all kinds of things on a narrow approval window.

To this end, WHY has the novus ordo hierarchy supported and promoted Fatima, especially the areas referred to as Fatima II?  This has nagged at me for years. 

What's in it for the modernist wrechovators?   

WAF is the World Apostolate of Fatima, formerly Our Lady's Blue Army:
QuoteThe WAF/Blue Army has long broadcast the Vatican's Party Line on Fatima. Now an International Public Association of Pontifical Right, it claims it's "the only Fatima organization in the world which speaks 'in the name of the Church' and 'with the authority of the Church' on Fatima."

Its "charisma" is "the New Evangelization of the world through the authentic Message of Fatima." Its "responsibility" is to "guard the purity of the message."

The WAF summarizes the Vatican's corrupted Message of Fatima (evident in Card. Burke's talk) as follows:

"A new effort is needed to save the world and make possible a new era of peace and hope, promised at Fatima. To achieve this, the New Evangelization of the world is the main pastoral objective of the Universal Church for the XXI century and the new millennium."

"... the Message of Fatima continues to be crucial in the building of a better world, 'a civilization of love, a new springtime for the Church, a New Marian Pentecost.'"



The official post-V2 Church Fatima mouthpiece conveys that they are using the (primarily F2) messages for world wide equalization of religions.  Of course, we've all seen this coming for decades, but now it's so proudly proclaimed.
They shall not be confounded in the evil time; and in the days of famine they shall be filled
Psalms 36:19

Non Nobis

Quote from: jmjZelie on June 21, 2017, 10:53:35 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on June 21, 2017, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: jmjZelie on June 21, 2017, 07:59:03 AM
Quote from: christulsa on June 20, 2017, 11:02:00 PM
4. The Sun didn't literally dance and fall from the sky.  God miraculously made it look like it was for the pilgrims who took the time to go to Fatima. 

Regarding #4

So it was an illusion that the Sun danced and God dried out their clothes and the ground by different means?

If the sun really danced and fell from the sky, God would be working other miracles so that it wasn't noticed anywhere else on earth, and wouldn't completely mess up planetary orbits, wouldn't fry everything within a given radius from Fatima due to the increased radiation, and so on.

Or, the miracle God worked was the illusion the sun really danced and fell from the sky.

Either is, of course, completely within the power of an omnipotent God to do.  There is no slam-dunk argument for or against either explanation.

Could it have been a seraphim perhaps that people only saw as a Sun? I am told that seraphim means burning ones, and that it might have been a seraphim in the burning bush that Moses saw...

I don't know if this could be the explanation, but it is more satisfying than saying it was a mere "illusion".  Of course this is not proof.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Non Nobis

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on June 21, 2017, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: jmjZelie on June 21, 2017, 07:59:03 AM
Quote from: christulsa on June 20, 2017, 11:02:00 PM
4. The Sun didn't literally dance and fall from the sky.  God miraculously made it look like it was for the pilgrims who took the time to go to Fatima. 

Regarding #4

So it was an illusion that the Sun danced and God dried out their clothes and the ground by different means?

If the sun really danced and fell from the sky, God would be working other miracles so that it wasn't noticed anywhere else on earth, and wouldn't completely mess up planetary orbits, wouldn't fry everything within a given radius from Fatima due to the increased radiation, and so on.

Or, the miracle God worked was the illusion the sun really danced and fell from the sky.

Either is, of course, completely within the power of an omnipotent God to do.  There is no slam-dunk argument for or against either explanation.

But surely the drying of everyone's clothing was not an illusion. 
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

christulsa

A few more points:

1. Gerard, can you give a quote from the Fatima messages that proves your opinion that the pope was being commanded or bound to the consecration and that it was an if/then ultimatum?

2. Why would the devil orchestrate such a major apparition in order to get a tiny group of Fatimist extremists to "undermine the papacy"?   Especially considering how Fatima has actually inspired many conversions?

3. Communism not originating in Russia doesn't logically mean that Russia wasn't the main nation to spread the errors of communism around the world.


Michael Wilson

#251
P.E.D. Stated:
QuoteTo this end, WHY has the novus ordo hierarchy supported and promoted Fatima, especially the areas referred to as Fatima II?  This has nagged at me for years. 
I think that this needs to be addressed; it was a modernist priest, Fr. Dhanis S.J. That invented the "Fatima II" theory in order to diminish or undermine the Fatima apparitions and the necessity of performing the Colegial Consecration. He said, all Fatima states is that we must do prayer and penance, forget about Communism, the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Consecration, that is all inventions of Sr. Lucy. The N.O. hierarchy has pretty much repeated this same message again and again. Refusal to perform the Consecration because it would first offend the Communist government, and then the Orthodox, who after all do not need to convert to Catholicism. Then the steadfast refusal to release the third part of the Secret and finally releasing an obvious fabrication. Cardinal Ratzinger stated in an interview with an Italian magazine "Jesus" that the third part of the Secret (which he had read), did not speak of wars, atomic bombs or natural disasters, but of of the dangers threatening the faith of Christians. He said it was because this message was liable to be "sensationalized" (by whom?), that the Popes had refused to release it. Latter in publishing the complete interview in a book that was entitled "The Ratzinger Report"; the Cardinal carefully edited out those words; he had said and revealed too much! http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret/ratzinger.asp
Quote    One of the four sections of the Congregation (for the Doctrine of the Faith) concerns itself with Marian apparitions;

    "Cardinal Ratzinger, have you read what is called the Third Secret of Fatima: i.e., the one that Sister Lucia had sent to Pope John XXIII and which the latter did not wish to make known and consigned to the Vatican archives?" (In reply, Cardinal Ratzinger said:)

    "Yes, I have read it," (which frank response provoked a further question:)

    "Why has it not been revealed?" (To this the Cardinal gave the following most instructive reply:)

    "Because, according to the judgement of the Popes, it adds nothing (literally: 'nothing different') to what a Christian must know concerning what derives from Revelation: i.e., a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the 'novissimi' (the last events at the end of time). If it is not made public — at least for the time being — it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational (literally: 'for sensationalism'). But the things contained in this 'Third Secret' correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima in what is already known of what its message contains. Conversion and penitence are the essential conditions for 'salvation'."
Comment from the site:
QuoteIn the portion of the text of the interview shown in the photo above, the Cardinal says that the Third Secret contains "religious prophecy" which cannot be revealed "to prevent [its] being mistaken for a quest for the sensational". Yet on June 26, 2000, the same Cardinal Ratzinger says that the Third Secret refers only to events which had already happened (culminating in the attempted assassination of the Pope in 1981) and contains no prophecy concerning the future. What has happened to make Cardinal Ratzinger change his prior testimony? Why does he suggest on June 26, 2000 that the Third Secret could be the result of Sister Lucy's imagination alone? Does he really believe in the Message of Fatima? If not, can his personal interpretation of the Message of Fatima be trusted?

In June 1985, the November 1984 interview in Jesus magazine was published in a book entitled The Ratzinger Report. Key references in the interview concerning the contents of the Third Secret had been mysteriously deleted from the book. The book was published in English, French, German and Italian and reached over 1,000,000 copies in print. Although the revelations concerning the Third Secret had been censored, the book admitted that the crisis of Faith which Father Alonso tells us is predicted in the Third Secret is already upon us, and that it encompasses the whole world.1 [/size][/QUOTE]
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 21, 2017, 03:35:44 PM
I think that this needs to be addressed; it was a modernist priest, Fr. Dhanis S.J. That invented the "Fatima II" theory in order to diminish or undermine the Fatima apparitions and the necessity of performing the Colegial Consecration.

We keep hearing that Fr. Dhanis was a "modernist" but is there any real evidence for the claim?

Michael Wilson

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on June 21, 2017, 04:23:26 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 21, 2017, 03:35:44 PM
I think that this needs to be addressed; it was a modernist priest, Fr. Dhanis S.J. That invented the "Fatima II" theory in order to diminish or undermine the Fatima apparitions and the necessity of performing the Colegial Consecration.

We keep hearing that Fr. Dhanis was a "modernist" but is there any real evidence for the claim?
I no longer have my Fatima trilogy by Frere Michelle of the Holy Trinity, so I will see if there is other information available elsewhere.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Michael Wilson

Here is something from the Angelus' review of Frere Michelle's books: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1494
QuoteEvents had taken this lamentable and generally unexpected turn because of the skillfully fomented opposition to the full implications of Our Lady's requests from within the Church. This work was the work principally of Fr. Edward Dhanis, S.J., a Belgian professor of theology at Louvain, who had published two articles criticizing Fatima as early as 1944. Brother Michel meticulously dissects Dhanis's arguments and concludes that his thesis is "unthinkable, unjustifiable and even scandalous" (p. 144). But tragically for Our Lady's cause, Dhanis was allowed to triumph over Our Lady's advocates in the Civilta Cattolica in May 1953, rose to influential positions in Rome, and henceforward became the authority for all the numerous adversaries of Fatima. Much of Brother Michel's original material is drawn from the numerous articles and books published by the late Fr. Joaquin Alonso, CMF, the renowned Marian theologian who was commissioned to write the definitive history of Fatima by the Bishop of Leiria in 1966. In his work, Fatima y la Critica, Father Alonso cites a very extensive list covering almost 30 pages of all those persons, from almost every country in Europe, who have repeated the deplorable thesis of Dhanis, and concludes: "Dhanis has forged a hypothesis which is as vast as a cathedral, and which can ruin, not only the history of the apparitions of the Angel, but also... absolutely the whole history of Fatima" (p. 200).
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers