Fatima is demonic

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

If we assume for argument's sake that the blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima and requested the consecration, and backed it up with the miracle of the sun, how should the popes react?

The BVM is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Does it follow that the Pope can refuse her request? Is the servant greater than the Queen?

In this instance we have the pope being asked to exercise his public authority on the basis of a private experience. Can the pope's public authority be subject to a private revelation? Even one the pope may experience himself?

Does God still communicate with us today? Yes. Does that communication contradict what he's said before? No, absolutely not. So what's the responsibilities and obligations of the Petrine office? Does the Fatima request contradict the Petrine ministry?

This might have been a point worth debating before the Church accepted Fatima. But once accepted, it seems illogical for the Church to then neglect its messages. And ultimately, why all the hand wringing? It was a request for a consecration; a seemingly good idea regardless. It is really that difficult for the pope to perform this without it becoming a 100 year debate?

Yes, but doesn't this go back to what the Church actually approved?  It was a narrow scope, restricted to the apparitions at Cova da Iria in 1917. (Fatima 1) As AC pointed out, "the contents of the first and second secrets were not known at the time. Sister Lucy didn't commit them to paper until 1941."  (Fatima 2).  This includes the 1916 angel apparitions.
I am devoted to 'Fatima 1'.  F2 doesn't make sense to me due to all the inconsistencies.  Gerard's argument only supplements it.

In spite of my devotion, I am very troubled that Fatima has morphed into quasi public revelation.

[Reader]

If we assume for argument's sake that the blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima and requested the consecration, and backed it up with the miracle of the sun, how should the popes react?

The BVM is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Does it follow that the Pope can refuse her request? Is the servant greater than the Queen?

In this instance we have the pope being asked to exercise his public authority on the basis of a private experience. Can the pope's public authority be subject to a private revelation? Even one the pope may experience himself?

Does God still communicate with us today? Yes. Does that communication contradict what he's said before? No, absolutely not. So what's the responsibilities and obligations of the Petrine office? Does the Fatima request contradict the Petrine ministry?

This might have been a point worth debating before the Church accepted Fatima. But once accepted, it seems illogical for the Church to then neglect its messages. And ultimately, why all the hand wringing? It was a request for a consecration; a seemingly good idea regardless. It is really that difficult for the pope to perform this without it becoming a 100 year debate?

Yes, but doesn't this go back to what the Church actually approved?  It was a narrow scope, restricted to the apparitions at Cova da Iria in 1917. (Fatima 1) As AC pointed out, "the contents of the first and second secrets were not known at the time. Sister Lucy didn't commit them to paper until 1941."  (Fatima 2).  This includes the 1916 angel apparitions.
I am devoted to 'Fatima 1'.  F2 doesn't make sense to me due to all the inconsistencies.  Gerard's argument only supplements it.

In spite of my devotion, I am very troubled that Fatima has morphed into quasi public revelation.

To me, this seems like a little bit of hair-splitting. The Church believes Sister Lucia is a seer of the BVM in one case, but not in another. However, if the Church did indeed intend to split Fatima into F1 and F2, why weren't two (or more) determinations made? If what you suggest is correct, then the Church should make a formal statement on F2 and end debate. However, given the fact that the Church claims to have already done the consecration, it stands to reason She accepts F2.

Also, Sister Lucia didn't write down the secrets given her in 1917 because she was illiterate. Once she could write, I'm not sure why she would've written them down. I personally can't remember ever being told a secret and committing it to paper; seems counter-intuitive.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

If we assume for argument's sake that the blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima and requested the consecration, and backed it up with the miracle of the sun, how should the popes react?

The BVM is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Does it follow that the Pope can refuse her request? Is the servant greater than the Queen?

In this instance we have the pope being asked to exercise his public authority on the basis of a private experience. Can the pope's public authority be subject to a private revelation? Even one the pope may experience himself?

Does God still communicate with us today? Yes. Does that communication contradict what he's said before? No, absolutely not. So what's the responsibilities and obligations of the Petrine office? Does the Fatima request contradict the Petrine ministry?

This might have been a point worth debating before the Church accepted Fatima. But once accepted, it seems illogical for the Church to then neglect its messages. And ultimately, why all the hand wringing? It was a request for a consecration; a seemingly good idea regardless. It is really that difficult for the pope to perform this without it becoming a 100 year debate?

Yes, but doesn't this go back to what the Church actually approved?  It was a narrow scope, restricted to the apparitions at Cova da Iria in 1917. (Fatima 1) As AC pointed out, "the contents of the first and second secrets were not known at the time. Sister Lucy didn't commit them to paper until 1941."  (Fatima 2).  This includes the 1916 angel apparitions.
I am devoted to 'Fatima 1'.  F2 doesn't make sense to me due to all the inconsistencies.  Gerard's argument only supplements it.

In spite of my devotion, I am very troubled that Fatima has morphed into quasi public revelation.

To me, this seems like a little bit of hair-splitting. The Church believes Sister Lucia is a seer of the BVM in one case, but not in another. However, if the Church did indeed intend to split Fatima into F1 and F2, why weren't two (or more) determinations made? If what you suggest is correct, then the Church should make a formal statement on F2 and end debate. However, given the fact that the Church claims to have already done the consecration, it stands to reason She accepts F2.

Also, Sister Lucia didn't write down the secrets given her in 1917 because she was illiterate. Once she could write, I'm not sure why she would've written them down. I personally can't remember ever being told a secret and committing it to paper; seems counter-intuitive.

F1 and F2 are a whole 'nother issue , used by some to explain the many problems with Sr. Lucy's accounts after Church approval.   I only introduced that reasoning to explain my troubles and how I found reconciliation with the inconsistencies.

"Official' Church approval of Fatima is restricted to the apparitions of 1917 at Cova da Iria. Does this by default cover everything?  I don't think that's how Church approval works, but I certainly can be wrong.  To your argument, why hasn't the Church officially approved all the other claims by Sr. Lucy?  If Fatima 2 is the prophecy claimed, shouldn't this be deemed official?  Goodness, if true, it's as important as the apparitions in 1917.  But that hasn't happened.

As to her illiteracy, with respect, I don't believe that's an argument.  Someone could have transcribed.  It's deduced that clergy may have known something, but info is scant, restricted to hints. We're given F2 dogma decades after it happened, and it's all odd and confusing and dates don't align. 

[Larry]

If we assume for argument's sake that the blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima and requested the consecration, and backed it up with the miracle of the sun, how should the popes react?

The BVM is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Does it follow that the Pope can refuse her request? Is the servant greater than the Queen?

In this instance we have the pope being asked to exercise his public authority on the basis of a private experience. Can the pope's public authority be subject to a private revelation? Even one the pope may experience himself?

Does God still communicate with us today? Yes. Does that communication contradict what he's said before? No, absolutely not. So what's the responsibilities and obligations of the Petrine office? Does the Fatima request contradict the Petrine ministry?

This might have been a point worth debating before the Church accepted Fatima. But once accepted, it seems illogical for the Church to then neglect its messages. And ultimately, why all the hand wringing? It was a request for a consecration; a seemingly good idea regardless. It is really that difficult for the pope to perform this without it becoming a 100 year debate?

Yes, but doesn't this go back to what the Church actually approved?  It was a narrow scope, restricted to the apparitions at Cova da Iria in 1917. (Fatima 1) As AC pointed out, "the contents of the first and second secrets were not known at the time. Sister Lucy didn't commit them to paper until 1941."  (Fatima 2).  This includes the 1916 angel apparitions.
I am devoted to 'Fatima 1'.  F2 doesn't make sense to me due to all the inconsistencies.  Gerard's argument only supplements it.

In spite of my devotion, I am very troubled that Fatima has morphed into quasi public revelation.

To me, this seems like a little bit of hair-splitting. The Church believes Sister Lucia is a seer of the BVM in one case, but not in another. However, if the Church did indeed intend to split Fatima into F1 and F2, why weren't two (or more) determinations made? If what you suggest is correct, then the Church should make a formal statement on F2 and end debate. However, given the fact that the Church claims to have already done the consecration, it stands to reason She accepts F2.

Also, Sister Lucia didn't write down the secrets given her in 1917 because she was illiterate. Once she could write, I'm not sure why she would've written them down. I personally can't remember ever being told a secret and committing it to paper; seems counter-intuitive.

Lucia's Bishop ordered her to write down the Secret.

[Larry]

Infants and little children receive from the Chalice in the Eastern Church.

[Elizabeth]

Our Lady of Fatima is not demonic.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


The Luciferians have overtaken the Fatima Shrine, extensively covered by John Venarri years ago.
We are in the time of the 3rd Secret.

That's why we have "2 Co-Popes in the Synodal Church", for example.

IMO.

[Greg]

We don't even know what the Third Secret is.

So how can we possibly be "in the time of it"?

[LausTibiChriste]

Lack of prophecy is definitely a point in favour of the Orthodox.

They may have their own problems, but man - can't blame 'em for having problems with papal authority with this kind of back and forth bitching, can you?

[Kaesekopf]

Infants and little children receive from the Chalice in the Eastern Church.

But that's the east. 

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

[Larry]

Infants and little children receive from the Chalice in the Eastern Church.

But that's the east. 

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

It's also part of the Catholic Church. The ancient practice of the Church was that infants receive the Blessed Sacrament under the form of wine. Also when St. Plus X was Pope, he gave Holy Communion to a little boy younger than Jacinta and Francisco, and he received the Sacrament without having to confess first.
Canon Law was created for us, not God. He can do as He pleases and is not bound to our laws. All of the nitpicking about the angel usurping the role of the priest and what the law says about such things is bordering on being Pharisaical(that's not addressed to you, Kaes, just this thread in general).

[Jon Paul]

Regarsing the communication: perhaps we reconcile this by viewing it as a spiritual communion combined with a mystical experience. I'm sure the canons don't specify an age limit on spiritual communion.

[awkwardcustomer]

The Church approved the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria with their message of penance and the Rosary.

Only after this 1930 approval did Sr Lucy reveal the contents of the first and second secrets and the details of the 1916 angel apparitions.

It's a classic bait and switch manoevre. Wait for the 1917 message of penance and the Rosary to be approved. Then land the Church with the secrets and the consecration request.

As a child, Sister Lucy had problems with the truth according to her parents. She described herself as a great story teller with a magnetic personality.

Fatimism, the obssession with the consecration and the vitriol hurled at the Vatican for refusing to "obey"  is based entirely on the word of Sr Lucy. And no-one else.

Why do so many people hang their faith on the words of a single individual who had problems with the truth, told great stories and had a "magnetic personality?
Narcissists and con artists tend to have magnetic personalities.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

The Church approved the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria with their message of penance and the Rosary.

Only after this 1930 approval did Sr Lucy reveal the contents of the first and second secrets and the details of the 1916 angel apparitions.

I've read that the first and second secrets were revealed by Lucia in 1927, and the third not until later (1940s).  Is that incorrect? 

I'm not intending to argue one way or another with regard to Fatima, just wondering why the descrepancies between "revelation" dates and from what sources the various dates are coming from ... ?

[awkwardcustomer]

The Church approved the 1917 apparitions in the Cova da Iria with their message of penance and the Rosary.

Only after this 1930 approval did Sr Lucy reveal the contents of the first and second secrets and the details of the 1916 angel apparitions.

I've read that the first and second secrets were revealed by Lucia in 1927, and the third not until later (1940s).  Is that incorrect? 

I'm not intending to argue one way or another with regard to Fatima, just wondering why the descrepancies between "revelation" dates and from what sources the various dates are coming from ... ?

Where did you read that Lucia revealed the first and second secrets in 1927?

Every source I've read puts 1941 as the year in which Lucia revealed the first and second secrets, in her written memoirs.

[Elizabeth]

We don't even know what the Third Secret is.

So how can we possibly be "in the time of it"?

Personally, I believe Malachi Martin wove the 3rd Secret into his interviews and books in true Jesuitical manner, staying just shy of keeping his oath of secrecy.  This is too complicated for me to describe, and would take an enormous amount of time for me to make any type of good argument, and I am sick of MM fights.  But he stressed repeatedly that the Luciferian's ultimate goal, as he called it the Booty, is to hijack the Papacy, to alter the function, job description, to change beyond recognition what a Pope is, and his purpose. 

How could a doomer like myself possibly NOT think we are in the time of the punishments of ignoring the 3rd Secret?  (Either way, we are all here in the precise time for us to be able to save our souls of course.)