Theory about The Crisis and the chaos

[Miriam_M]

I take it you have nothing to say on the difference between being fancifull and being misleading.

You can interpret my comment (again) to mean that I have no intention of allowing you to manipulate me into artificially extreme debate points, particularly given how relatively subordinate Fatima is to The Crisis. (4th time now: topic of the thread.)

[Gerard]

"Logic" which depends upon premises which are not objectively determined facts.

I'm not a Fatima cultist, I don't intend on making a pilgrimage, I don't say its prayers after my Rosary, and I don't feel shaken or offended by some of the idiotic reasoning being thrown at it (e.g., my favourite: Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request - completele, mind-shattering logic fail and totally subjective impression). I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.

Interesting that you don't actually demonstrate the validity of any or your criticisms.   There's a lot of hyperbole and "mind-shattering" assertions but not a single proof.  That's a bit of a "fail" on your part.

Luckily, I just happened to appear here today in order to stop you from making any further blunders. 

I'm going to be charitable about it and give you a chance to obtain mercy. 

Here's what you are going to do.....

1) You are going to believe my position on Fatima. 

2) You are going to honor my position on Fatima.

3) You are going to make reparations for those that besmirch my position on Fatima. 

4) And you're going to get me a jelly of the month club subscription. 

If you do these things, I'll give you an incredible gift by stopping a hit man contracted by the Mafia from taking out you and your family. (You just have to trust me, there will be  a contract taken out and only through my intercession will it be stopped.) 

If you don't do these things...the Mob will take that contract out on you and your family will be snuffed out..and you're personally going to suffer much. 

And I want my instructions followed exactly.  I want jelly, not preserves, not jam, only jelly, not jelly and preserves, with marmalade and jam or any combination, I've "requested" specifically, "jelly."

Do what I tell you or suffer.....and remember...this is not a threat, I'm "saving" you, be grateful.

[Kreuzritter]

I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.

"Apparant fact"?  Really?

You've made a study, have you?  You have evidence?  Or just your own speculation?

What part of "apparent" do you not understand? It's anecdote based in my own observations - obviously, if you know how to read English.

You assume the right to threaten anyone who questions Sr Lucy or the Fatimists with a loss of their Faith? This is appalling behaviour.

As for your other comments above.  I'll just add it to my list of vicious replies.

Now I've "threatened" someone? What?

[Kreuzritter]

"Logic" which depends upon premises which are not objectively determined facts.

I'm not a Fatima cultist, I don't intend on making a pilgrimage, I don't say its prayers after my Rosary, and I don't feel shaken or offended by some of the idiotic reasoning being thrown at it (e.g., my favourite: Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request - completele, mind-shattering logic fail and totally subjective impression). I'm simply pointing out the apparent fact of what seems to follow this anti-Fatima bug in several instances, just as it does with the zealous defenders of evolutionism, namely erosion and eventual loss of faith.

Interesting that you don't actually demonstrate the validity of any or your criticisms.   There's a lot of hyperbole and "mind-shattering" assertions but not a single proof.  That's a bit of a "fail" on your part.

The claim that Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request is a non sequitur. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, which is why you can't write out a deductive proof of it showing the rules of inference employed at each step. A mere warning of consequences of inaction is in principle distinct from a threat in that the latter is of the form "if you don't do x then I will cause y", the former "if you don't do x then y will happen", which does not imply y is caused by the one giving the warning. This is a fact, whose truth I have demonstrated, and any child over the age of reason should be able to understand this, provided he doesn't count to potato.

threat: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done

The criteria for that definition are simply not explicitly expressed in nor logically implied by the words of Our Lady of Fatima, in particular, an intention to inflict the negative consequences of not following her request. End of. Any "threat" perceived in her words is not an objective fact but a subjective impression.

I already dealt with this elsewhere, as I dealt with the pathetic attempts to "prove" the contrary by some anologies about a kidnapped wife.

Luckily, I just happened to appear here today in order to stop you from making any further blunders. 

I'm going to be charitable about it and give you a chance to obtain mercy. 

Here's what you are going to do.....

1) You are going to believe my position on Fatima. 

2) You are going to honor my position on Fatima.

3) You are going to make reparations for those that besmirch my position on Fatima. 

4) And you're going to get me a jelly of the month club subscription. 

If you do these things, I'll give you an incredible gift by stopping a hit man contracted by the Mafia from taking out you and your family. (You just have to trust me, there will be  a contract taken out and only through my intercession will it be stopped.) 

If you don't do these things...the Mob will take that contract out on you and your family will be snuffed out..and you're personally going to suffer much. 

And I want my instructions followed exactly.  I want jelly, not preserves, not jam, only jelly, not jelly and preserves, with marmalade and jam or any combination, I've "requested" specifically, "jelly."

Do what I tell you or suffer.....and remember...this is not a threat, I'm "saving" you, be grateful.

Whether this utterly bizarre rambling is meant to be sarcastic or not, it screams "lunatic".

[awkwardcustomer]

You can interpret my comment (again) to mean that I have no intention of allowing you to manipulate me into artificially extreme debate points, particularly given how relatively subordinate Fatima is to The Crisis. (4th time now: topic of the thread.)

Oh for goodness sake.  You do this a lot.  You address a point directly to me, I respond in a way that questions your point, and you respond with nothing short of rudeness.

You made no distinction between the fancifullness of some traditional saints and the way Sr Lucy mislead the Church.  Instead of explaining this, you launch into yet another round of insults.  You still haven't addressed the point and now you accuse me of trying to manipulate you.

If you don't want to address the point - don't.  But kindly stop making absurd insults. 

What was that you said earlier about prayer and virtue saving the Church?

[King Wenceslas]

Those who reject Fatima. Go pound sand.

No better than Protestants who say it is from the devil.

33 AD. Our Lord returns Lazarus to life. Observant Jews: It is by the power of Beelzebub.

1917 AD. The miracle of the sun. Traditionalist: It is by the power of the devil.

[Gardener]

So you are saying public revelation extended beyond the death of St. John the Apostle?

[Gerard]

The claim that Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request is a non sequitur.

To claim it is simply a "warning" and a "request" (when no actual petition was ever made to the Pope) is what is a non-sequitur.

An alleged seer of an apparition simply claimed a disaster was coming.

The apparition allegedly wants to extract a price from the Pope for aid. 

If the Pope refuses to give the apparition what it wants, the Pope will personally suffer.   (Coercion)

Nothing of course happens and nothing is independently verifiable. 

It's simply a protection racket scheme with a carrot and stick approach. 

The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, which is why you can't write out a deductive proof of it showing the rules of inference employed at each step.

If  you want a deductive argument, we can start from any number of premises. 

Here's one. 

1) The Pope has Supreme power over the Church on Earth.   The Blessed Virgin Mary is incapable of attempting to usurp power from the Pope. The apparition at Fatima attempts to usurp that power through coercion. Therefore Fatima is not an apparition of the BVM. 

A mere warning of consequences of inaction is in principle distinct from a threat in that the latter is of the form "if you don't do x then I will cause y", the former "if you don't do x then y will happen", which does not imply y is caused by the one giving the warning.

You're wrong. There are multiple types of threats not simply one that is convenient for your denial.  Direct, Indirect, Veiled and Conditional are all common types of threats.

Your premise is false so, your conclusion is naturally false. 

Do you know anything at all about coercion?  Have you ever heard of a "protection racket?" 

The "warning" (ie. threat of danger) is conditional and  has no origin beyond the claimant of the danger: the apparition. 

The threat only has existence in relation to the response of the target of coercion.  In this case, the Pope.  It is not some objectively verifiable danger that is inevitable.   

It was/is an either /or proposition which directly exerts intimidation in the form of threats of suffering personally to the Pope and many innocents. 

The dilemma presented has the final result to force the Pope under duress into exercising his unique power of consecration on a universal scale at the direction of another creature. 

And frankly, it is doctrinally nonsensical that horrors will be unleashed on massive amounts of Catholics because of a Pope made a legitimate decision to maintain his autonomy in exercising the Keys to the Kingdom.

The Pope is not subject to the claims of "seers" of dubious apparitions claiming to be the Blessed Mother giving the Pope orders.  Oh...I mean "requests" with "warnings" against him.   

This is a fact, whose truth I have demonstrated, and any child over the age of reason should be able to understand this, provided he doesn't count to potato.

No.  You're wrong.  I've demonstrated above that you're wrong and any child who has a lick of common sense about influence and power can see this unless they are blinded by sentiment....like you. 

threat: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done

That's a narrow and incomplete definition of "threat."  Probably deliberate on your part rather than a real display of ignorance. 

Are you seriously claiming that your single dictionary definition of one type of direct threat is universal in application and no other type of threat exists?   

Are you claiming there is no such thing as a conditional threat? 

How do you justify that smug attitude while displaying such stupid methods of argumentation? 

The criteria for that definition are simply not explicitly expressed in nor logically implied by the words of Our Lady of Fatima, in particular, an intention to inflict the negative consequences of not following her request. End of. Any "threat" perceived in her words is not an objective fact but a subjective impression.

That's an example of cherry-picking your definition rather than engage in a legitimate discussion.  Bad form.

"...for that definition.."   What about "that" definition?  What about a different, more comprehensive and more applicable definition?

The criteria for a conditional threat is explicitly expressed by the claimed words of the alleged apparition.   


The Apparition "intended" on intimidating and coercing the Pope into being extorted into obeying the apparition with the threat of chastisement.  The origin of the tale of suffering of the Pope and annihilated nations is the Apparition itself. 

You can't say the chastisement has nothing to with the Apparition.  No one would entertain any thought of it without the apparition making the unsubstantiated assertion of its approach.

I already dealt with this elsewhere, as I dealt with the pathetic attempts to "prove" the contrary by some anologies about a kidnapped wife.

No.  You didn't.  You may think you have, but your rebuttals sucked. 

Luckily, I just happened to appear here today in order to stop you from making any further blunders. 

I'm going to be charitable about it and give you a chance to obtain mercy. 

Here's what you are going to do.....

1) You are going to believe my position on Fatima. 

2) You are going to honor my position on Fatima.

3) You are going to make reparations for those that besmirch my position on Fatima. 

4) And you're going to get me a jelly of the month club subscription. 

If you do these things, I'll give you an incredible gift by stopping a hit man contracted by the Mafia from taking out you and your family. (You just have to trust me, there will be  a contract taken out and only through my intercession will it be stopped.) 

If you don't do these things...the Mob will take that contract out on you and your family will be snuffed out..and you're personally going to suffer much. 

And I want my instructions followed exactly.  I want jelly, not preserves, not jam, only jelly, not jelly and preserves, with marmalade and jam or any combination, I've "requested" specifically, "jelly."

Do what I tell you or suffer.....and remember...this is not a threat, I'm "saving" you, be grateful.

Whether this utterly bizarre rambling is meant to be sarcastic or not, it screams "lunatic".

No. It doesn't scream "lunatic."  That's just you being a drama queen to avoid the issue.  Considering the model it's built on, I wonder if divorced from your sentiment to Fatima if you would see Fatima as "screaming lunatic."  There's an implicit admission of the truth in your statement. 

It's also not rambling, it's actually concise.  Nor is it bizarre, it demonstrates the nature of the silliness  of calling Fatima's threat a "request." 

It's simply silly for you to mischaracterize it as such. 

I will concede that it is sarcastic but it's also apt as an analog to the subject. 

But I can see how some puffery on your part to dismiss it is necessary to avoid displaying the bankruptcy of your "pathetic" counterargument. 

Either that, or you are simply too dumb to get it.  Should I try to dumb it down to your level? 

Have a nice day. 
   

[Innocent Smith]

Once again we are treated to a thoughtful, patient, and organized post by Gerard. ^^^

Gerard said:

...any child who has a lick of common sense about influence and power can see this unless they are blinded by sentiment....like you. 

Of course this sentiment or child like faith is also responsible for trying to turn the Church into a democracy since millions of Catholics demand the pope act in a certain way with precise words. By the way, I loved your insistence on jelly, not jam.

If this nonsense stopped with the "fruits" of JPII's consecration of the world to the BVM I think the entire fantasy would have been relatively harmless. For one thing the debate, or massive concern, was actually nothing in the '80s and it would have been thought over for 35 years.

But no, that's when they had to kick up the urgency into high gear. It's been disgusting and one of the reasons I am prone to be defensive when it comes to JPII.

The above I think is objectively true, now I will speculate since I took the trouble to open up a response box.

Much has been made of a "masonic" owned newspaper reporting the Miracle of the Sun. Therefore it must be true. It usually is said like this, "even a masonic newspaper admitted it happened". Implying that anyone who does not believe must have something wrong with them.

To me this screams masonic operation with Jewish influence. I say Jewish influence since they have hated Russia since the 19th Century and still do want to make war on the country. They've already looted it at least twice.

The Miracle of the Sun seems to be sun worship and in a subtle way comparing Jesus Christ the Son, as the Sun. St. Augustine called attention to, and dispelled, that particular heresy in the 5th Century.

[mikemac]

Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out.  You guys are fantastic. 

[awkwardcustomer]

Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out.  You guys are fantastic. 

Popes and the entire Catholic Church adopted Vatican II.

[Kreuzritter]

The claim that Our Lady of Fatima "threatened" the Pope because she warned what would happen as a consequence of failing to carry out her request is a non sequitur.

To claim it is simply a "warning" and a "request" (when no actual petition was ever made to the Pope) is what is a non-sequitur.

A non sequitur is a conclusion not following from its argument - or a characterisation of the argument itself - not a false claim. Please consult a dictionary.

An alleged seer of an apparition simply claimed a disaster was coming.

The apparition allegedly wants to extract a price from the Pope for aid. 

If the Pope refuses to give the apparition what it wants, the Pope will personally suffer.   (Coercion)

In your subjective estimation it is "coercion". There is nothing in the words of the apparition which logically implies that. One more time for the village idiot: without logical implication from the given data, your claim is mere opinion based in a subjective impression.

If  you want a deductive argument, we can start from any number of premises. 

Here's one. 

1) The Pope has Supreme power over the Church on Earth.   The Blessed Virgin Mary is incapable of attempting to usurp power from the Pope. The apparition at Fatima attempts to usurp that power through coercion. Therefore Fatima is not an apparition of the BVM. 

A deductive argument, citing rules of inference employed at each step, showing that the words of the apparition at Fatima constitute a "threat". You haven't provided that  - and you never will. You haven't even got the subject of the argument right - it's not the validity of the apparition.

A mere warning of consequences of inaction is in principle distinct from a threat in that the latter is of the form "if you don't do x then I will cause y", the former "if you don't do x then y will happen", which does not imply y is caused by the one giving the warning.

You're wrong. There are multiple types of threats not simply one that is convenient for your denial.  Direct, Indirect, Veiled and Conditional are all common types of threats.

Learn to read. A threat is,  in principle, of the form "I will cause y", or more fully and as in this supposed case "if you do x then I will cause y" whether the threat, as communicated, is direct, veiled or otherwise implied. What you distinguish does not concern the essence of the concept of a threat but modes of expression of a threat. You insist that what is literally merely a warning is in fact a threat, and the "reasons" you adduce for this are just subjective impressions. A threat may have been intended or it may not have been, but you have not and will never prove the former, and that's just a plain fact.

Your premise is false so, your conclusion is naturally false.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat

Definition of threat

(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

My distinction between threat and warning is sound, and my claim that the words of the Fatima apparition do no logically imply a threat, is true, as is my claim that your reasons for considering it to be such are not matters of objective fact but subjective impression.

Do you know anything at all about coercion?  Have you ever heard of a "protection racket?"

You have yet to prove that the warning issued by the apparition is coercive and that the apparition was threatening to cause what it warned about. Stop begging the question, doofus.

The "warning" (ie. threat of danger) is conditional and  has no origin beyond the claimant of the danger: the apparition. 

The threat only has existence in relation to the response of the target of coercion.  In this case, the Pope.  It is not some objectively verifiable danger that is inevitable.   

If you don't pray for God's salvic grace you will burn in Hell. "Objectively verify" that. There, I just "threatened" you according to the logical structure of your "argument".

Oh...I mean "requests" with "warnings" against him.   

The only true words uttered by you.

No.  You're wrong.  I've demonstrated above that you're wrong and any child who has a lick of common sense about influence and power can see this unless they are blinded by sentiment....like you. 

Oops. Try again.

That's a narrow and incomplete definition of "threat."  Probably deliberate on your part rather than a real display of ignorance. 

No, it's actually the essential definition of the concept of threat as you will find it in both Webster's and the OED. I'm sorry that you really are too dumb to distinguish between the concept of a threat and the concept of types of its expression.

Are you seriously claiming that your single dictionary definition of one type of direct threat is universal in application ...

Yes.

and no other type of threat exists?

No, I didn't address "types of threats" (really ways of expressing a threat) but what a threat is (i.e., what is common to all of them). Are you really too dumb to get this? Well, you were dumb enough to harp on as you have without getting it.

Are you claiming there is no such thing as a conditional threat? 

I'm claiming that the defined concept characterises the essence of every kind of expression of itself, i.e., all kinds of threatening, whether it's just giving someone a look, silently brandishing a knife, telling you I'm going to beat the crap out of you in a bar, or putting an explicit "Pay me 100k or I will murder your daughter. This is a threat!" down on paper and mailing it, signed and sealed, to you.

How do you justify that smug attitude while displaying such stupid methods of argumentation? 

I just did.

The criteria for that definition are simply not explicitly expressed in nor logically implied by the words of Our Lady of Fatima, in particular, an intention to inflict the negative consequences of not following her request. End of. Any "threat" perceived in her words is not an objective fact but a subjective impression.

That's an example of cherry-picking your definition rather than engage in a legitimate discussion.  Bad form.

"...for that definition.."   What about "that" definition?  What about a different, more comprehensive and more applicable definition?

Nope.

The criteria for a conditional threat is explicitly expressed by the claimed words of the alleged apparition.   

Nope.

The Apparition "intended" on intimidating and coercing the Pope into being extorted into obeying the apparition with the threat of chastisement. 

Nope. You haven't demonstrated this. Either the coercion part or the threat part. You have not demonstrated that the literal warning issued of the consequences of inaction by the Pope was in fact a threat of any kind. All you've done is claim it over and over again and then, as now, present as evidence of itself in the topsy turvy world of circular reasoning.

Note especially what he's done above: the criteria for a "conditional threat" were met ... because it's a "threat".

The origin of the tale of suffering of the Pope and annihilated nations is the Apparition itself. 

You can't say the chastisement has nothing to with the Apparition.  No one would entertain any thought of it without the apparition making the unsubstantiated assertion of its approach.

Nowhere does the apparition identify itself as the cause of the calamity of which it forewarns, either explicitly or by any kind of logical implication. It is your subjective impression, and it will forever remain your subjective impression.

No.  You didn't.  You may think you have, but your rebuttals sucked. 

No, in fact have, and your attempts at rebuttals only put on display your woeful command of logic and understanding of the nature of language, truth and logic.

No. It doesn't scream "lunatic." 

No, it's clearly indicative of nutbaggery.

There's an implicit admission of the truth in your statement. 

Naturally. What you work with is always "implicit", i.e., subjective impression of the meaning of someone's words someohow becomes an "objective fact" because you repeat it often enough.

It's also not rambling, it's actually concise.  Nor is it bizarre, it demonstrates the nature of the silliness  of calling Fatima's threat a "request." 

It doesn't demonstrate anything. It's just restating, albeit with the mindset of a certifiable lunatic, that your "argument" is "it's a threat because because", and it's ludicrous to see it otherwise, "because because".

It's simply silly for you to mischaracterize it as such. 

It's simply the truth. It's the rambling of a nutbag, but it's not a threat. Now, if a mafioso from an operation that is known to run protection racket shows up at the door of my business demanding payment for such protection, the implication of a threat is actually known to be there.

Have a nice day. 

See you next Tuesday.

[Kreuzritter]

Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out.  You guys are fantastic. 

Indeed, it's funny how no pope, even before Vatican II, saw the apparition's words as threatening them, when they were supposedly the object of these threats.

[Xavier]

Thank you, Xavier. As a convert from atheism I have a dear place in my heart for Fatima.

Wonderful, Josephine. I'm very happy for you. And I know millions of other new Catholics, cradle Catholics and returning Catholics have had the same wonderful experience of Our Lady of Fatima and the Immaculate Heart. Fatima is just an exemplary example where Our Lady Herself directs us to fulfil so many things urged by Popes and Saints for ages - many have noted how Our Lady's emphasis on consecration is similar to the power of consecration to the Twin Hearts emphasized by such Saints as Margaret Mary and Louis Montfort among others.

Fatima is a fully authorized and perfectly traditional devotion. Period.

In her Second Memoir

So, no word about the (1) public miracle (2) on the prophesied date of Oct 13th, 1917 (beside the very year and significance of 1917 and the revolution happening at that time in Russia; Heaven began the counter-attack before it became apparent to other Catholics) (3) the fulfilled prophesies of Communism's influence both in countries and in the Church that was still hidden well into the 40s and 50s (4) the warnings of Bella Dodd (which you've dismissed as exaggerated, but which came true just as she warned, very soon, proving they were right about Soviet infiltration (5) Mother Mary's prophesies against impurity etc being especially urgent.

There are a few other incidental points: (1) the Church took a very strong stance against Communism in large measure because of the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima (2) the more traditional Fathers at Vatican II wanted a dogmatic condemnation of Communism; many also wished explicitly to obey Our Lady's request at that Council (3) among those who did nof want it (and negotiated with the Soviets badly and unfavorably for the Church) and instituted Ostpolotik there were some progressives and modernists opposed to Fatima. So which side are you?

Your other argument is amazing. So, if we have to obey the men of the Church, as you say, in preference to the voice of the Holy Spirit (not that Sr. Lucia ever said she would disobey the Church, but only that that the Holy Spirit would speak through His Church, and vindicate that her mission and prophetic spirit was from Him), then why do you persist in stubbornly disobeying those same men of the Church after they had all their doubts clarified and gave full approval? God speaks by His Spirit through His Church, and He also speaks by His Spirit through His Saints. There is no contradiction in His doing so; the contradiction is in you not wanting to believe that there even are Popes and Bishops any more, while also claiming men of the Church should be obeyed in each and every single thing. Many of those people there were manifestly trying to bully simple and Saintly Sr. Lucia, but the Holy Spirit vindicated His holy and humble seer through His Church. Anti-Fatimists should cease and desist.

[awkwardcustomer]

Popes and the entire Catholic Church for just about a century missed it, but Gerard and his lunatic fringe finally figured it out.  You guys are fantastic. 

Indeed, it's funny how no pope, even before Vatican II, saw the apparition's words as threatening them, when they were supposedly the object of these threats.

How do you know?  Perhaps they did perceive the threat and this explains, partly, why they have not carried out the consecration in the exact form requested by the apparition.

Perhaps  they would have gladly laid Fatima to rest, were it not for the demands of the Fatimists.