Theory about The Crisis and the chaos

[awkwardcustomer]

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?

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.

[awkwardcustomer]

In her Second Memoir, written in 1937, Sr Lucy describes how her mother arranged for them to visit their parish priest after morning Mass, in an effort to make Lucia confess that she had invented the story of the apparitions.

"Don't annoy me any more! Tell the Reverend Father now that you lied, so that on Sunday he can say in the church that it was all a lie, and that will be the end of the whole affair. A nice business, this is! All this crowd running to the Cova da Iria, just to pray in front of a holm oak bush!"

Without more ado, she knocked on the door. The good priest's sister opened the door and invited us to sit down on a bench and wait a while. At last, the parish priest appeared. He took us into his study, motioned my mother to a seat, and beckoned me over to his desk. When I found that His Reverence was questioning me quite calmly, and with such a kindly manner, I was amazed. I was still fearful, however, of what was yet to come. The interrogation was very minute and, I would even venture to say, tiresome. His Reverence concluded with this brief observation:

"It doesn't seem to me like a revelation from heaven. It is usual in such cases for Our Lord to tell the souls to whom He makes such communications to give their confessor or parish priest an account of what has happened. But this child, on the contrary, keeps it to herself as far as she can. This may also be a deceit of the devil. We shall see. The future will show us what we are to think about it all."

http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf
p.85

Interestingly, Sr Lucy describes the interrogation by her parish priest as "tiresome". 

[awkwardcustomer]

Sr Lucy's mother remained convinced that her daughter had fabricated her accounts of the apparitions and repeatedly urged her to confess this, as Sr Lucy explained in her Second Memoir.

My poor mother worried more and more, as she saw the crowds who came flocking from all parts. "These poor people," she said, "come here, taken in by your trickery, you can be sure of that, and I really don't know what I can do to undeceive them."

A poor man who boasted of making fun of us, of insulting us and of even going so far as to beat us, asked my mother one day: "Well, ma'am, what have you got to say about your daughter's visions?"

" I don't know," she answered. "lt seems to me that she's nothing but a fake, who is leading half the world astray."

Sr Lucy's mother also voiced many concerns about the effects of so many visitors trampling over the Cova da Iria and interfering with the family's ability to cultivate their land.

9.  Trouble  in  Lucia's  Family

In the intimacy of my own family, there was fresh trouble, and the blame for this was thrown on me. The Cova da Iria was a piece of land belonging to my parents. In the hollow, it was more fertile, and there we cultivated maize, greens, peas and other vegetables. On the slopes grew olive trees, oaks and holm oaks. Now, ever since the people began to go there, we had been unable to cultivate anything at all. Everything was trampled on. As the majority came mounted, their animals ate up all they could find and wrecked the whole place. My mother bewailed her loss: "You, now," she said to me, "when you want something to eat, go and ask the Lady for it!" My sisters chimed in with: "Yes, you can have what grows in the Cova da Iria!"

p90

Sr Lucy's attitude to priests and the men of the Church is evident throughout her Memoirs.  Here, having describe how she and her cousins avoided some visitors who had come to see them, she explains how they would also hide when priests came to visit, something the priest of their parish "bitterly complained" about.

Another day, we were sitting in the shade of two fig trees overhanging the road that runs by my cousins' house. Francisco began to play a little way off. He saw several ladies coming towards us and ran back to warn us. We promptly climbed up the fig trees. In those days it was the fashion to wear hats with brims as wide as a sieve, and we were sure that with such headgear, those people would never catch sight of us up there. As soon as the ladies had gone by, we came down as fast as we could, took to our heels and hid in a cornfield.

This habit we had of making good our escape, whenever possible, was yet another cause for complaint on the part of the parish priest. He bitterly complained of  the way we tried to avoid priests in particular. His Reverence was cerlainly right. It was priests especially who put us through the most rigorous cross-examinations, and then returned to question us all over again. Whenever we found ourselves in the presence of a priest, we prepared to offer to God one of our greatest sacrifices!

p 106

http://www.pastorinhos.com/_wp/wp-content/uploads/MemoriasI_en.pdf

[mikemac]

I don't know if you are aware of it or not awkwardcustomer but most if not all of what you posted on this page can be seen in the 1952 Warner Brothers production of 'The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima'.  If anyone is interested they can watch the full movie in color from this page.  It's pretty good.

https://gloria.tv/video/GAbERtuDr7ym31nUEw6iRBnGH

[Tales]

I cannot imagine what people would say and think about who I am were they to pick through details of my life.

[Miriam_M]

I cannot imagine what people would say and think about who I am were they to pick through details of my life.

Well I can imagine what people would say and think about me, and the prospect of that is quite humbling.

Awkward,
I'm sure if any of us were to receive private revelation, most people, even sincerely devout Catholics, would doubt us -- but when it comes to family members, the bond and concern are more intense; there is much more enmeshment and intimacy.  Thus, just because Lucy's mother urged this and that does not in itself make me doubt that Lucy received private revelation.  If it were that doubtful, that shrouded in suspicion and lack of credibility as to the basics, the Church would not have included Fatima among what are called "approved Marian apparitions."  Again, though, however, the faithful are not bound to assent to and be devoted to any private revelation.  But a private, legitimate doubt does not rise to the objective level of untruth that you seem to insist on pressing for.

A Catholic who has received a private revelation is bound by it, but no one else is.  That is, if he or she receives a visitation and is commanded to do X, she'd better do X.  If a declaration or prophecy (rather than a command) is part of the revelation, the receiver is bound to believe it.  The real problem emerges if what is commanded involves coming forward publicly, involves public figures, etc.  It's only one of many reasons why I'm so glad I've never received any private revelations, and it's unlikely I ever will!  I say "glad" because, again, it would be hard to convince most others of the genuine nature of the experience -- for most of us.

[Gardener]

The receiver also has an obligation to obey the dictates of Church authority in full honesty during proceedings.

If they are being "led" to not doing that, they should probably seriously question such an apparition's legitimacy from heaven.

[Miriam_M]

The receiver also has an obligation to obey the dictates of Church authority in full honesty during proceedings.

If they are being "led" to not doing that, they should probably seriously question such an apparition's legitimacy from heaven.

Or question that particular aspect of an apparition, rather than the entire event. 

Sometimes what is reported in a revelation sounds vague to the receiver, not to mention to later hearers of it.  I'm sure that in some cases, zeal on the part of the receiver could cause him or her to over-interpret and step over the line.

[Miriam_M]

I think the point is that neither our faith nor our spirituality should revolve around any private revelation or all of them put together.  They should supplement (or not) as the Holy Spirit leads us to respond.  The way I regard them, individually and together, is this:

Visits, visitations, apparitions, etc., when given to others, confirm our faith relative to their genuine aspects.  If they challenge the faith, or cause us to question/doubt what is orthodox, or to obsess about them but not about what is universal to Catholicism, then it seems to me we could be fostering something unhealthy.  I said "could be."  We should just be on alert that the drama of private revelation is sometimes more appealing or more persuasive than the truths we are always called to live, were there no private revelations.

Just remember that many of the traditional saints we revere so much were gifted with private revelations.  Others were merely given mystical (unitive) experiences, but many of these revelations and experiences they wrote about.  Yet we probably wouldn't call into question the veracity of those saints just because their own private revelations may seem fanciful.  And some of those revelations happened during their childhoods.

I think one problem with Fatima is the level of scrutiny it has received, which tends to subject it and Sr. Lucy to exceptional analysis, dissection, verification, and doubt.  But that's precisely because Fatima is so popular and visible.  I don't think La Salette, Akita, and many other apparitions have suffered this level of examination.  And when any public figure or public moment is scrutinized "to death," controversy inevitably arises, and with controversy, conflict.

I'm still hopeful we can get back to the subject of the article I posted.

[awkwardcustomer]

The receiver also has an obligation to obey the dictates of Church authority in full honesty during proceedings.

If they are being "led" to not doing that, they should probably seriously question such an apparition's legitimacy from heaven.

Yes, Sr Lucy should have questioned the apparition's instruction to disobey and mislead the Church.

And so should everyone else.  But they don't.

The question is - why?

Of course, Sr Lucy didn't admit much later that she had lied to the Canonical Enquiry.  Alarm bells should have rung loud and clear when she wrote this in her Fourth Memoir of 1941.

Firstly, I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and secondly, I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name. 

And this.

"Whom should I obey? God or His representative?"

Obey the instructions of an apparition first and the men of the Church second!!  This goes against just about everything.

Fatimists everywhere have an obligation to explain this.

[awkwardcustomer]

I think the point is that neither our faith nor our spirituality should revolve around any private revelation or all of them put together.  They should supplement (or not) as the Holy Spirit leads us to respond.  The way I regard them, individually and together, is this:

Visits, visitations, apparitions, etc., when given to others, confirm our faith relative to their genuine aspects.  If they challenge the faith, or cause us to question/doubt what is orthodox, or to obsess about them but not about what is universal to Catholicism, then it seems to me we could be fostering something unhealthy.  I said "could be."  We should just be on alert that the drama of private revelation is sometimes more appealing or more persuasive than the truths we are always called to live, were there no private revelations.

Just remember that many of the traditional saints we revere so much were gifted with private revelations.  Others were merely given mystical (unitive) experiences, but many of these revelations and experiences they wrote about.  Yet we probably wouldn't call into question the veracity of those saints just because their own private revelations may seem fanciful.  And some of those revelations happened during their childhoods.

I think one problem with Fatima is the level of scrutiny it has received, which tends to subject it and Sr. Lucy to exceptional analysis, dissection, verification, and doubt.  But that's precisely because Fatima is so popular and visible.  I don't think La Salette, Akita, and many other apparitions have suffered this level of examination.  And when any public figure or public moment is scrutinized "to death," controversy inevitably arises, and with controversy, conflict.

I'm still hopeful we can get back to the subject of the article I posted.

Miriam, why are you glossing over this?

Sr Lucy wasn't being, or seeming, merely "fanciful".

Sr Lucy mislead the Church.  She lied to the Canonical Enquiry.

Name a single saint who would obey an apparition first and the men of the Church second to the extent of breaking an oath as Sr Lucy admits she did.

When you, or anyone else can do that, then you can compare Sr Lucy to the traditional saints.

[Innocent Smith]

I think one problem with Fatima is the level of scrutiny it has received, which tends to subject it and Sr. Lucy to exceptional analysis, dissection, verification, and doubt.  But that's precisely because Fatima is so popular and visible.  I don't think La Salette, Akita, and many other apparitions have suffered this level of examination.  And when any public figure or public moment is scrutinized "to death," controversy inevitably arises, and with controversy, conflict.

Who began the intense scrutiny? In my view it was the rad trads who wanted to use Fatima and our Lady as a battering ram against post-Conciliar popes and the Novus Ordo Mass. When it is pointed out that Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass without a complaint for 40 years, or that she testified to the consecration as being valid, the two Lucy theory then materializes.

In the past those who might begin to doubt Fatima, if properly scrutinized, most likely took it as a nice story and believed it. Reason being an outside agenda had not yet been attached to it. So you can thank the collective of people like Father Gruner, Michael Matt, and Chris Ferrara for that.

There is plenty of constructive criticism that can be leveled at post-Conciliar popes, the Novus Ordo Mass, and the state of the Church from reason and Tradition alone.

What follows is going to sound harsh but I believe it is 100% true.

Wilhelm Reich, father of the sexual revolution, noticed that he could not make properly formed Catholics doubt their faith by engaging in theological arguments. So he took an end run around it all by encouraging sexual sin like masturbation. Teach a boy to masturbate and he will soon forget to pray or simply drop the practice out of guilt.

I think the same is true of our trio of Catholic "heroes" mentioned above. Ferrara and Matt do engage in some high level analysis. Or at least higher level arguments that are intelligent. But for whatever reason, and it may have even been an unconscious choice, they also chose to bring along those who have not put in the time, nor have the intellectual gifts, to protest the current state of the Church outside of shaking their fists at popes and demanding a consecration. After all, revolutionary protest movements are great tactics for mobilizing those who don't do a lot of thinking.

You have to hand it to them as this is great propaganda. They managed to create a movement that even the most simple of people can understand and one in which the herd can always fall back on in order to reenergize during dull periods in the action. This is even better than the popular music that was adopted by the protest movements during the '60s. Those people eventually moved on and gave up on creating their version of utopia. But not so for the Fatimists who want their own personal utopia to come one day in the form of a "Period of Peace".

In my view this entire episode is an example of what Hegel would refer to as the cunning of reason in operation. The scrutiny over Fatima started by rad trads out of laziness, or wanting to build up a movement as fast as possible, has blown up in their faces as people now doubt the entire thing.

Ferrara and Matt better watch out or they may even end up putting all those trinket sellers out of business at the Shrine.


   

[Miriam_M]

Miriam, why are you glossing over this?

Because I am not obligated to participate in your personal cause, that's the simple answer.  You want to command others to "take sides," and the Church would not necessarily suggest such a thing over an optional devotion -- optional both as to belief and practice.

Fatima is not dogma.  But it seems that you would like to make everything about the modern church a referendum about Fatima.  Neither rejecting Fatima (or "proving" it false) nor elevating an apparition to the level of dogma (without authority to do so) will undo the chaos in the Church. (Topic of this thread)  However, prayer just might do that, and perhaps that's why the devotion is important or at least helpful to some Catholics.

The sanctification of the Church Militant through prayer and virtue is probably a more sure way to work toward the restoration than arguing over the "facts" of Fatima.  We will not have confirmation regarding what of any of it is genuine until Heaven. It's a waste of time to get into the equivalent of proof-texting.

[awkwardcustomer]

Miriam, why are you glossing over this?

Because I am not obligated to participate in your personal cause, that's the simple answer.  You want to command others to "take sides," and the Church would not necessarily suggest such a thing over an optional devotion -- optional both as to belief and practice.

Fatima is not dogma.  But it seems that you would like to make everything about the modern church a referendum about Fatima.  Neither rejecting Fatima (or "proving" it false) nor elevating an apparition to the level of dogma (without authority to do so) will undo the chaos in the Church. (Topic of this thread)  However, prayer just might do that, and perhaps that's why the devotion is important or at least helpful to some Catholics.

The sanctification of the Church Militant through prayer and virtue is probably a more sure way to work toward the restoration than arguing over the "facts" of Fatima.  We will not have confirmation regarding what of any of it is genuine until Heaven. It's a waste of time to get into the equivalent of proof-texting.

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

[awkwardcustomer]

The sanctification of the Church Militant through prayer and virtue is probably a more sure way to work toward the restoration than arguing over the "facts" of Fatima.

Surely the sanctification of the Church Militant requires that falsehoods be exposed. 

At some point prayer and virtue have to translate into action if circumstances demand it.