More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)

[nmoerbeek]

The notion that Fatima in its entirety being a deception (either human or diabolic) would have tremendous consequences:

The Church would have commemorated and promulgated a liturgical feast that was false.
The Church has canonized 2 people who were either ill, or diabolically deceived.
That God allowed one of those two people to have portions of their body that were incorrupt when no heavenly phenomenon took place.
This so called deception has lasted for about 100 years.  The fact we are still talking about Fatima is incredible when you consider that their are other spiritual phenomenon that have occurred in recent years that are spoken of less.

There are other important consequences as well.  One of which concerns the nature of prophesy and the consistent teaching of the Church (St. Anthony of the Desert even spoke about it) is that Devils cannot predict future events.  The Children did most certainly predict in advance the day and time of the Miracle of the Sun.

If we are to go down that road with Fatima, your Faith might be so inclined to start questioning other things, was St. Joan of Arc mad?  If the Church is not a reliable judge on Fatima and the Children maybe the Church  is not on St. Joan of Arc?  Surly a dangerous road to go down, in my opinion. 

We can all agree that Fatima is private revelation. If the Church has approved it we say that the revelation in question is worthy of pious credence.  That does not mean that you have to believe them, but a certain respect, modesty and care should be given in their discussion so when a person is making their critiques they do not imply that they are a higher authority or better judge than the Church herself.

Is there any chance you could be more specific?

The Church has only approved the apparitions of May to October, 1917.  Do you agree that Church approval does not include the angel apparitions, the consecration request and the First Five Saturdays devotion?

It seems that when people refer to the 'message of Fatima', they can be talking about different things.

If the later additions to the 1917 apparitions turn out to be a deception, or a flight of fancy, then what problem would this cause for the Church? None that I can think of.

The choice is not between accepting all of Fatima or denouncing Fatima entirely.  Surely it is perfectly reasonable to accept the 1917 message approved by the Church but not the rest.

As to the Devil's inability to predict future events. Yes, but what if the Devil is the direct cause of those events. If he was planning to put on a light show called the 'miracle of the sun', he would most certainly know the time and place.

Even Satan can appear as an angel of light.

Just answering your point. I'm not saying it happened like that.

The Church has only approved the apparitions of May to October, 1917.  Do you agree that Church approval does not include the angel apparitions, the consecration request and the First Five Saturdays devotion? No, I do not agree but I admit that my inability to agree or disagree about the matter comes from the fact that I do not have the facts to examine or what limitations have been given in terms of approval.  What is available on the internet may be incomplete.

It seems that when people refer to the 'message of Fatima', they can be talking about different things.  I agree

If the later additions to the 1917 apparitions turn out to be a deception, or a flight of fancy, then what problem would this cause for the Church? None that I can think of.  This thread is a lot like a tomato seed when you try to push down on it the seed moves a little.  There is a difference between something being true or untrue as a matter of fact : for example an angel bringing communion to Children or something being evidence used as evidence that something cannot be true: for example saying that an apparition is fake/diabolic because Angels would never bring communion to children.

The choice is not between accepting all of Fatima or denouncing Fatima entirely.  Surely it is perfectly reasonable to accept the 1917 message approved by the Church but not the rest. 

As to the Devil's inability to predict future events. Yes, but what if the Devil is the direct cause of those events. If he was planning to put on a light show called the 'miracle of the sun', he would most certainly know the time and place. A Demon would have had to ask God's permission in advance of those events, they do not have permission to act freely upon our world.  Under your suggestion God would have had to permit a Demon a gift to operate at a specific time and place in future events.  This privilege is something God has bestowed upon the Prophets, Our Lord, and his Saints

Even Satan can appear as an angel of light.

Just answering your point. I'm not saying it happened like that.

[Sojourn]

The notion that Fatima in its entirety being a deception (either human or diabolic) would have tremendous consequences:

The Church would have commemorated and promulgated a liturgical feast that was false.
The Church has canonized 2 people who were either ill, or diabolically deceived.
That God allowed one of those two people to have portions of their body that were incorrupt when no heavenly phenomenon took place.
This so called deception has lasted for about 100 years.  The fact we are still talking about Fatima is incredible when you consider that their are other spiritual phenomenon that have occurred in recent years that are spoken of less.

There are other important consequences as well.  One of which concerns the nature of prophesy and the consistent teaching of the Church (St. Anthony of the Desert even spoke about it) is that Devils cannot predict future events.  The Children did most certainly predict in advance the day and time of the Miracle of the Sun.

If we are to go down that road with Fatima, your Faith might be so inclined to start questioning other things, was St. Joan of Arc mad?  If the Church is not a reliable judge on Fatima and the Children maybe the Church  is not on St. Joan of Arc?  Surly a dangerous road to go down, in my opinion. 

We can all agree that Fatima is private revelation. If the Church has approved it we say that the revelation in question is worthy of pious credence.  That does not mean that you have to believe them, but a certain respect, modesty and care should be given in their discussion so when a person is making their critiques they do not imply that they are a higher authority or better judge than the Church herself.

Is there any chance you could be more specific?

The Church has only approved the apparitions of May to October, 1917.  Do you agree that Church approval does not include the angel apparitions, the consecration request and the First Five Saturdays devotion?

It seems that when people refer to the 'message of Fatima', they can be talking about different things.

If the later additions to the 1917 apparitions turn out to be a deception, or a flight of fancy, then what problem would this cause for the Church? None that I can think of.

The choice is not between accepting all of Fatima or denouncing Fatima entirely.  Surely it is perfectly reasonable to accept the 1917 message approved by the Church but not the rest.

As to the Devil's inability to predict future events. Yes, but what if the Devil is the direct cause of those events. If he was planning to put on a light show called the 'miracle of the sun', he would most certainly know the time and place.

Even Satan can appear as an angel of light.

Just answering your point. I'm not saying it happened like that.

It is not within the Devil's power to perform pseudo major prodigies that could stir confusion. The events at Fatima are supernatural in origin. There are also numerous miraculous healings approved by the Church that were gained through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima.

[nmoerbeek]

Thank you Gerard and awkwardcustomer for giving me lots to think about. I have had some reservations about Fatima, and had noticed some things that seemed like red flags, but as a convert, it was impressed upon me that "Catholics are devoted to the Fatima message", so I squashed my concerns. As a result of the two threads on Fatima, and some reading and discussion with my husband, who converted with me, we have both come to the conclusion that we are of two minds here.

Either Fatima was real and it has been fulfilled already. The EWTN timeline presenting the fulfillment events of the military and nuclear and political disasters leading to the fall of the USSR and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall was extremely compelling to me that these events fulfilled Fatima, especially since I lived through them at a time when I was young enough to be impressed but old enough to understand.

Or...Fatima was an unfortunate deception of sweet innocent children and their spiritual and natural authorities. Or Fatima was real but accretions got mixed in with the true core and it is hard to pick out the truths.

Either way, we no longer believe that we are still waiting for a proper consecration. We agree that numerous popes made every possible attempt to fulfill the request. And we believe that the same Church that approved Fatima has also declared that the consecration was accepted and that the attempted assasination of Pope John Paul II and the fall of the Berlin Wall were both partial fulfillments of the prophecies of Fatima.

This excessive focus upon Fatima has been very distracting, especially to us as converts. The basic principles of prayer, penance, conversion of life, availing oneself of the sacraments, catechesis and Bible study, and genuine Christian fellowship (which is extremely hard to find) is timeless and truly beneficial to the spiritual life. For my family, that is what we are going to focus upon now, and set aside all this Fatima business.

I agree with your spiritual plan and if you want to start down that road of avoiding Fatima in favor of other things I also understand if you don't read this message.

I hope that you can discard the idea that Fatima was a deception. 

The notion that Fatima in its entirety being a deception (either human or diabolic) would have tremendous consequences:

The Church would have commemorated and promulgated a liturgical feast that was false.
The Church has canonized 2 people who were either ill, or diabolically deceived.
That God allowed one of those two people to have portions of their body that were incorrupt when no heavenly phenomenon took place.
This so called deception has lasted for about 100 years.  The fact we are still talking about Fatima is incredible when you consider that their are other spiritual phenomenon that have occurred in recent years that are spoken of less.

There are other important consequences as well.  One of which concerns the nature of prophesy and the consistent teaching of the Church (St. Anthony of the Desert even spoke about it) is that Devils cannot predict future events.  The Children did most certainly predict in advance the day and time of the Miracle of the Sun.

If we are to go down that road with Fatima, your Faith might be so inclined to start questioning other things, was St. Joan of Arc mad?  If the Church is not a reliable judge on Fatima and the Children maybe the Church  is not on St. Joan of Arc?  Surly a dangerous road to go down, in my opinion. 

We can all agree that Fatima is private revelation. If the Church has approved it we say that the revelation in question is worthy of pious credence.  That does not mean that you have to believe them, but a certain respect, modesty and care should be given in their discussion so when a person is making their critiques they do not imply that they are a higher authority or better judge than the Church herself.

I have no intention of proving Fatima was a deception. And your comment about giving respect, modesty and care to "their" discussion to avoid implying "they are" a higher authority than the Church is attacking a straw man.  I implied no such thing. In fact, reading my post would suggest just the opposite. The same Church that pronounced Fatima as worthy of belief also used that authority to say that multiple consecrations were done, the last of which was accepted. Many Fatima devotees refuse to accept that second part.

Secondly, many people in traditional Catholicism question not only a liturgical feast that was promulgated, but they question a Liturgy itself: the Novus Ordo Missae. Many people in traditional Catholicism question the newer canonization process and several recent canonizations. I have seen canonizations of JPII and Mother Teresa doubted, and the beatification of Paul VI challenged, just off the top of my head.

Finally, saying that questioning Fatima might lead to questioning St. Joan of Arc, is a non sequitor. It does not follow that doubts about what is actually true and what is not true regarding an apparition that was fairly rapidly pronounced worthy of belief, as communicated by Fatima devotees who often deny a valid consecration having been done, would necessarily lead to questioning the sanity and sanctity of a woman who was burned at the stake and yet her heart was untouched, and whose mission was accomplished over a discrete and short period of time. Many devotees of Fatima claim that more conditions need to be fulfilled despite the Church already saying the conditions were fulfilled. It is simply not the same, and having concerns over the one cannot possibly lead to doubting the other.

Perhaps I am reading your tone incorrectly but it appears I have offended you, and perhaps you have read my reply in a manner which I did not intend to impress on you.  I was trying to be helpful, but I am afraid I have failed to do so.

I have made some replies

I have no intention of proving Fatima was a deception.  I didn't think that you did, you did list it though has a possiblity And your comment about giving respect, modesty and care to "their" discussion to avoid implying "they are" a higher authority than the Church is attacking a straw man.  It wasn't meant to attack anyone.  I was just stating what my understanding is in terms of the discussion and evaluation of private revelation after it has been approved.  In my reading of this and the Bishop in white thread, I felt that there has been at times a lack of modesty and contempt for the Church's investigation of Fatima.  Even to the point of comparing the investigation of Fatima to that of the Church tolerating a man today like Rahner  I implied no such thing. I'm sorry you thought I was attacking youIn fact, reading my post would suggest just the opposite. The same Church that pronounced Fatima as worthy of belief also used that authority to say that multiple consecrations were done, the last of which was accepted. Many Fatima devotees refuse to accept that second part.  If you look through my posting history you will see that I actually believe in what you referred to as the EWTN timeline.  I am probably one of the few on this forum that does.

Secondly, many people in traditional Catholicism question not only a liturgical feast that was promulgated, but they question a Liturgy itself: the Novus Ordo Missae. Many people in traditional Catholicism question the newer canonization process and several recent canonizations. I have seen canonizations of JPII and Mother Teresa doubted, and the beatification of Paul VI challenged, just off the top of my head. Yes, and those people struggle with the nature of Church, its marks, if it can defect, what the nature of a defection is, even if the current Pope is the pope.  They have much bigger problems than if Fatima is true or not.

Finally, saying that questioning Fatima might lead to questioning St. Joan of Arc, is a non sequitor.  I don't think it is absurd to the point of being comedic. I like to think of it as a slippery slope argument myself, but slippery slope arguements are effective because they are often true.  If the Church cannot legally evaluate a miracle and determine it to be of supernatural origin in the case of Fatima, then previously conclusions may also be false as well. It does not follow that doubts about what is actually true and what is not true regarding an apparition that was fairly rapidly pronounced worthy of belief, as communicated by Fatima devotees who often deny a valid consecration having been done, would necessarily lead to questioning the sanity and sanctity of a woman who was burned at the stake and yet her heart was untouched, and whose mission was accomplished over a discrete and short period of time.  Once again, I feel that a position has shifted.  I was discussing those who say that Fatima is entirely false or diabolic and not worthy of belief, not those who question the events surrounding the consecration.  Many devotees of Fatima claim that more conditions need to be fulfilled despite the Church already saying the conditions were fulfilled.  I would say certain members of the Hiearchy have offered their opinions, however the liturgical promulgation of a feast, decrees of canonization, and approval of appartions, and the particular wording of consecrations that are done are legal acts distinct from the offering of opinion It is simply not the same, and having concerns over the one cannot possibly lead to doubting the other.  Cannot possibly lead, no.  However it is not likely to

[Pheo]

ETA: On second thought... <snip>

[jmjZelie]

Thank you Gerard and awkwardcustomer for giving me lots to think about. I have had some reservations about Fatima, and had noticed some things that seemed like red flags, but as a convert, it was impressed upon me that "Catholics are devoted to the Fatima message", so I squashed my concerns. As a result of the two threads on Fatima, and some reading and discussion with my husband, who converted with me, we have both come to the conclusion that we are of two minds here.

Either Fatima was real and it has been fulfilled already. The EWTN timeline presenting the fulfillment events of the military and nuclear and political disasters leading to the fall of the USSR and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall was extremely compelling to me that these events fulfilled Fatima, especially since I lived through them at a time when I was young enough to be impressed but old enough to understand.

Or...Fatima was an unfortunate deception of sweet innocent children and their spiritual and natural authorities. Or Fatima was real but accretions got mixed in with the true core and it is hard to pick out the truths.

Either way, we no longer believe that we are still waiting for a proper consecration. We agree that numerous popes made every possible attempt to fulfill the request. And we believe that the same Church that approved Fatima has also declared that the consecration was accepted and that the attempted assasination of Pope John Paul II and the fall of the Berlin Wall were both partial fulfillments of the prophecies of Fatima.

This excessive focus upon Fatima has been very distracting, especially to us as converts. The basic principles of prayer, penance, conversion of life, availing oneself of the sacraments, catechesis and Bible study, and genuine Christian fellowship (which is extremely hard to find) is timeless and truly beneficial to the spiritual life. For my family, that is what we are going to focus upon now, and set aside all this Fatima business.

I agree with your spiritual plan and if you want to start down that road of avoiding Fatima in favor of other things I also understand if you don't read this message.

I hope that you can discard the idea that Fatima was a deception. 

The notion that Fatima in its entirety being a deception (either human or diabolic) would have tremendous consequences:

The Church would have commemorated and promulgated a liturgical feast that was false.
The Church has canonized 2 people who were either ill, or diabolically deceived.
That God allowed one of those two people to have portions of their body that were incorrupt when no heavenly phenomenon took place.
This so called deception has lasted for about 100 years.  The fact we are still talking about Fatima is incredible when you consider that their are other spiritual phenomenon that have occurred in recent years that are spoken of less.

There are other important consequences as well.  One of which concerns the nature of prophesy and the consistent teaching of the Church (St. Anthony of the Desert even spoke about it) is that Devils cannot predict future events.  The Children did most certainly predict in advance the day and time of the Miracle of the Sun.

If we are to go down that road with Fatima, your Faith might be so inclined to start questioning other things, was St. Joan of Arc mad?  If the Church is not a reliable judge on Fatima and the Children maybe the Church  is not on St. Joan of Arc?  Surly a dangerous road to go down, in my opinion. 

We can all agree that Fatima is private revelation. If the Church has approved it we say that the revelation in question is worthy of pious credence.  That does not mean that you have to believe them, but a certain respect, modesty and care should be given in their discussion so when a person is making their critiques they do not imply that they are a higher authority or better judge than the Church herself.

I have no intention of proving Fatima was a deception. And your comment about giving respect, modesty and care to "their" discussion to avoid implying "they are" a higher authority than the Church is attacking a straw man.  I implied no such thing. In fact, reading my post would suggest just the opposite. The same Church that pronounced Fatima as worthy of belief also used that authority to say that multiple consecrations were done, the last of which was accepted. Many Fatima devotees refuse to accept that second part.

Secondly, many people in traditional Catholicism question not only a liturgical feast that was promulgated, but they question a Liturgy itself: the Novus Ordo Missae. Many people in traditional Catholicism question the newer canonization process and several recent canonizations. I have seen canonizations of JPII and Mother Teresa doubted, and the beatification of Paul VI challenged, just off the top of my head.

Finally, saying that questioning Fatima might lead to questioning St. Joan of Arc, is a non sequitor. It does not follow that doubts about what is actually true and what is not true regarding an apparition that was fairly rapidly pronounced worthy of belief, as communicated by Fatima devotees who often deny a valid consecration having been done, would necessarily lead to questioning the sanity and sanctity of a woman who was burned at the stake and yet her heart was untouched, and whose mission was accomplished over a discrete and short period of time. Many devotees of Fatima claim that more conditions need to be fulfilled despite the Church already saying the conditions were fulfilled. It is simply not the same, and having concerns over the one cannot possibly lead to doubting the other.

Perhaps I am reading your tone incorrectly but it appears I have offended you, and perhaps you have read my reply in a manner which I did not intend to impress on you.  I was trying to be helpful, but I am afraid I have failed to do so.

I have made some replies

I have no intention of proving Fatima was a deception.  I didn't think that you did, you did list it though has a possiblity And your comment about giving respect, modesty and care to "their" discussion to avoid implying "they are" a higher authority than the Church is attacking a straw man.  It wasn't meant to attack anyone.  I was just stating what my understanding is in terms of the discussion and evaluation of private revelation after it has been approved.  In my reading of this and the Bishop in white thread, I felt that there has been at times a lack of modesty and contempt for the Church's investigation of Fatima.  Even to the point of comparing the investigation of Fatima to that of the Church tolerating a man today like Rahner  I implied no such thing. I'm sorry you thought I was attacking youIn fact, reading my post would suggest just the opposite. The same Church that pronounced Fatima as worthy of belief also used that authority to say that multiple consecrations were done, the last of which was accepted. Many Fatima devotees refuse to accept that second part.  If you look through my posting history you will see that I actually believe in what you referred to as the EWTN timeline.  I am probably one of the few on this forum that does.

Secondly, many people in traditional Catholicism question not only a liturgical feast that was promulgated, but they question a Liturgy itself: the Novus Ordo Missae. Many people in traditional Catholicism question the newer canonization process and several recent canonizations. I have seen canonizations of JPII and Mother Teresa doubted, and the beatification of Paul VI challenged, just off the top of my head. Yes, and those people struggle with the nature of Church, its marks, if it can defect, what the nature of a defection is, even if the current Pope is the pope.  They have much bigger problems than if Fatima is true or not.

Finally, saying that questioning Fatima might lead to questioning St. Joan of Arc, is a non sequitor.  I don't think it is absurd to the point of being comedic. I like to think of it as a slippery slope argument myself, but slippery slope arguements are effective because they are often true.  If the Church cannot legally evaluate a miracle and determine it to be of supernatural origin in the case of Fatima, then previously conclusions may also be false as well. It does not follow that doubts about what is actually true and what is not true regarding an apparition that was fairly rapidly pronounced worthy of belief, as communicated by Fatima devotees who often deny a valid consecration having been done, would necessarily lead to questioning the sanity and sanctity of a woman who was burned at the stake and yet her heart was untouched, and whose mission was accomplished over a discrete and short period of time.  Once again, I feel that a position has shifted.  I was discussing those who say that Fatima is entirely false or diabolic and not worthy of belief, not those who question the events surrounding the consecration.  Many devotees of Fatima claim that more conditions need to be fulfilled despite the Church already saying the conditions were fulfilled.  I would say certain members of the Hiearchy have offered their opinions, however the liturgical promulgation of a feast, decrees of canonization, and approval of appartions, and the particular wording of consecrations that are done are legal acts distinct from the offering of opinion It is simply not the same, and having concerns over the one cannot possibly lead to doubting the other.  Cannot possibly lead, no.  However it is not likely to

Then it seems that we are actually in agreement after all. I admitted only the possibility that Fatima 1917 or its later additions were false as a counter to my first statement of believing the EWTN timeline et al to be the most compelling assertions. If I cannot rely upon the Church saying that the last consecration was accepted, then I cannot rely upon Her pronouncement that Fatima 1917 is worthy of belief. I do not rely, however, upon various later sayings any more. Society has so far degraded that many faithful Christians are poring over every detail, every turn of phrase, in prophecies and apparitions, even by visionaries long after the apparition is over, for some explanation, some clue, that will offer them hope of a radical turnabout. I think that is spiritually dangerous. I remember Hal Lindsay's The Late Great Planet Earth and all the "pretribulation rapture" nonsense being clung to and talked about in the 80s and 90s when I was growing up in a Protestant sect. This Fatima devotion that has become so feverish in the last year scares me because it forcefully recalls to my mind how many people set their hopes in something that was never going to happen anyway. They had a fundamental misunderstanding. It seems that many Fatima devotees today believe that society will be restored and a temporary utopia will emerge in the world and in the Church if only the consecration will be done. But I believe the Church who says the consecration has been done and accepted. I do not believe any further consecration is required (although I see several leaders in the Church and the world have been renewing it or restating it, which is beautiful).  I do not believe that the Five First Saturdays devotion is required of every Catholic, either, as some have suggested, although once again it seems a beautiful devotion. And I do personally have other devotions to the Blessed Virgin that refer to her Immaculate Heart.

[Asbury Fox]

Francisco was born June 11,1908. Jacinta was born March 11, 1910. When the angel appeared and gave them Holy Communion in the autumn of 1916, Francisco was 8 and Jacinta 6. Jacinta did not need the sacrament of penance and first confession because she had not yet reached the age of reason. The age of reason generally agreed on being the age of 7. I don't know the custom for the age of first confession was at the time in Portugal, but it had to be at least at the age of reason at the earliest. Don't know when Francisco had to do it, but in any case, Heaven allowed him to receive Holy Communion because he was not in a state of mortal sin. Heaven wanted these two seers to receive the Sacred Host for the first time through the Church.

[aquinas138]

Francisco was born June 11,1908. Jacinta was born March 11, 1910. When the angel appeared and gave them Holy Communion in the autumn of 1916, Francisco was 8 and Jacinta 6. Jacinta did not need the sacrament of penance and first confession because she had not yet reached the age of reason. The age of reason generally agreed on being the age of 7. I don't know the custom for the age of first confession was at the time in Portugal, but it had to be at least at the age of reason at the earliest. Don't know when Francisco had to do it, but in any case, Heaven allowed him to receive Holy Communion because he was not in a state of mortal sin. Heaven wanted these two seers to receive the Sacred Host for the first time through the Church.

But doesn't this imply that the Host is "more" Eucharist than the Precious Blood, which is Gerard's primary objection to this aspect of the episode? Per the Council of Trent, the "whole Christ" is received under either species.

[awkwardcustomer]

Since the quotes get longer and longer -

Nmoerbeek, 
You made the point that the Devil would have needed God's permission to perform a deception like the miracle of the sun. But according to the vision of Pope Leo XIII, the Devil was given 100 years to destroy the Church.  Couldn't this blanket permission have included permission for the Fatima 'miracle of the sun'?

While the 1917 Fatima message refers to prayer and penance, the later additions seem to have resulted in little other than endless anger and suspicion being hurled at the Vatican, which will suit the Devil just fine, don't you think

Sojourn,
You claimed it is not within the Devil's power to perform pseudo major prodigies. But it wouldn't take much , would it, to convince a lot of avid, expectant people looking for signs and wonders that they had seen something. Stare at even a hazy, cloudy sun for not very long and strange visual effects are guaranteed.

Look at the video from Knock on the other thread and from the Philippines. See how many are convinced they are seeing something.

[jmjZelie]

Here is a question I have had...

Why would a request from heaven be so complicated and difficult to carry out to completion?

For the consecration, it was done what, like half a dozen times by different popes, all trying to fulfill the request to the best of their abilities, with what cooperation they had from the bishops and others? And even then, Fatima devotees often say that the last one, which Sr. Lucia told JPII was accepted, was not done properly and many are clamoring for it to be done still to this day. It is not actually as simple a request as it might first seem.

For the Five First Saturdays devotion, others here at SD have mentioned their difficulties in fulfilling all the steps that go into it, sometimes taking multiple attempts over years to complete. For my own family, we have never been able to do it, despite our intention to do so. Again, it seems like such a simple request, and yet it is in reality quite difficult and even impossible for many Catholics.

I am aware of the fact that there are differences of opinion on how to fulfill the consecration and how to complete the FFS devotion. But isn't that uncertainty and disagreement also a sign that there is a problem?

The Church is for everyone, and salvation is not limited to only those that are able to jump through certain hoops. As an example, Gnosticism was a condemned heresy that asserted that seeking after hidden knowledge would lead to salvation. The Church insisted that hidden knowledge is not of God. So I am confused as to why such difficult and precise requests were asked of the pope and the faithful. I know it is not a perfect analogy, but I hope that it makes sense at least.

This is a question that I am asking in all sincerity. What am I missing here and why does it seem that fulfilling these requests are so out of reach? And was the implication that the consecration must be done according to a specific formula and the FFS devotion done by all Catholics, or else the disasters would not be averted?

[tradical]

Francisco was born June 11,1908. Jacinta was born March 11, 1910. When the angel appeared and gave them Holy Communion in the autumn of 1916, Francisco was 8 and Jacinta 6. Jacinta did not need the sacrament of penance and first confession because she had not yet reached the age of reason. The age of reason generally agreed on being the age of 7. I don't know the custom for the age of first confession was at the time in Portugal, but it had to be at least at the age of reason at the earliest. Don't know when Francisco had to do it, but in any case, Heaven allowed him to receive Holy Communion because he was not in a state of mortal sin. Heaven wanted these two seers to receive the Sacred Host for the first time through the Church.

But doesn't this imply that the Host is "more" Eucharist than the Precious Blood, which is Gerard's primary objection to this aspect of the episode? Per the Council of Trent, the "whole Christ" is received under either species.

Just reread the memoirs.  Jacinta and Francisco did not receive sacramentally.  They received the blood directly - not as wine.  In other words, they did not received the Blood of Christ under the form of wine.

[nmoerbeek]

Since the quotes get longer and longer -

Nmoerbeek, 
You made the point that the Devil would have needed God's permission to perform a deception like the miracle of the sun. But according to the vision of Pope Leo XIII, the Devil was given 100 years to destroy the Church.  Couldn't this blanket permission have included permission for the Fatima 'miracle of the sun'?

While the 1917 Fatima message refers to prayer and penance, the later additions seem to have resulted in little other than endless anger and suspicion being hurled at the Vatican, which will suit the Devil just fine, don't you think

Sojourn,
You claimed it is not within the Devil's power to perform pseudo major prodigies. But it wouldn't take much , would it, to convince a lot of avid, expectant people looking for signs and wonders that they had seen something. Stare at even a hazy, cloudy sun for not very long and strange visual effects are guaranteed.

Look at the video from Knock on the other thread and from the Philippines. See how many are convinced they are seeing something.

As to your point about anger and suspicion at the Vatican, I would strictly be speculating.  I am generally against the idea of using public pressure, marches and rallies to obtain spiritual goals. 

The Devil may have received such permission that is to afflict the Church like he received permission to afflict Job, but to my understanding of the nature of true prophesy the Devil would not be granted the ability to foretell a future event even if he wanted to, just like the Devil could never be given the privilege to perform a true healing of body.  Could he perform a deceptive act, yes.  Could he predict that he would do so months in advance at a specific time and date?  No. 

It is one of the reasons why the Church when evaluating medical miracles tries to make sure that the disease does not come back.  The devil could fake a false healing only to have it return (the disease) with a vengeance.     

I also think that it is important to not overlook a few facts about the Fatima Miracle of the Sun:

The miracle was viewed over a large radius, including those not gathered with the Children.
It had been raining intensely, and after the miracles, the ground and the clothes where all dry.
It was viewed by many hostile witnesses who where there to Mock the faithful.

It is a unique event compared to the other examples you provided, especially because of the drying out of everything.  The amount of energy and the weather anomaly of such an event is truly unique and miraculous.

[Gerard]

Just reread the memoirs.  Jacinta and Francisco did not receive sacramentally.  They received the blood directly - not as wine.  In other words, they did not received the Blood of Christ under the form of wine.

That's an inference you are drawing from the narrative which is even more unhinged.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent calls eating human flesh and drinking human blood "revolting" and God in His infinite wisdom made the administration of His body and blood in the form or bread and wine. 

So, the Angels has the kids engage in hematophagy.  And the kids are deprived of the essential mystery of faith and the fittingness of every theological reasoning supporting transubstantiation.

In a quick search I found an article by a Fr. William Wagner ORC.

http://www.opusangelorum.org/English/Fatimaeucharist.html


Interesting how Fatima is interpreted by different people.  It's almost like a Rorschach test.

He writes: 

Communion Under Both Species
It is further noteworthy that the Angel offered the Eucharist to the children under the species of the bread and wine, that is to say, he offered Lucy the Host, the Body of Christ, and the chalice of the Precious Blood to Jacinta and Francisco. Hence, we may say that it was the Angel of Fatima who 'reintroduced' Communion under both species back into the Western Church. The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have always maintained Communion under both species, perhaps in part, because they have almost always suffered persecutions, whereas this is not the case in the Latin rite. It is, of course, true that we receive the whole of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity under each species, as the Church has always taught. Beyond this, if we may seek a symbolic reason, it would be this: The bread is a symbol of life, the staff of love, and therefore a communion in the life of Christ; while the Blood, "which has been poured out for you" better symbolizes the sacrifice and death of Jesus.
"

So the Angel is teaching us according to the Remnant to avoid Communion under both kinds and according to Fr. Wagner the Angel reintroduced Communion under both kinds to the Western Church.

If we add in Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and First Communion without First Penance.  Fatima is virtually the pre-cursor and the herald of Vatican II's innovations. 

[Gerard]

Francisco was born June 11,1908. Jacinta was born March 11, 1910. When the angel appeared and gave them Holy Communion in the autumn of 1916, Francisco was 8 and Jacinta 6. Jacinta did not need the sacrament of penance and first confession because she had not yet reached the age of reason. The age of reason generally agreed on being the age of 7. I don't know the custom for the age of first confession was at the time in Portugal, but it had to be at least at the age of reason at the earliest. Don't know when Francisco had to do it, but in any case, Heaven allowed him to receive Holy Communion because he was not in a state of mortal sin. Heaven wanted these two seers to receive the Sacred Host for the first time through the Church.

Here's the problem, you are assuming that the event was real and that it was from Heaven and you judge everything else as submitting to that truth.  These are red flags that you keep ignoring.  They are the things by which you judge an apparition to be in line with common sense and Catholic sense or not.  They are evidence that the event is not genuine, not "exceptions" because Heaven says so. 

The idea that the children didn't receive Confession was because they didn't have the age of reason is a smack in the face to the authority of the St. Pius X who just a few years earlier specifically lowered the age of receiving Communion to the earliest indication of reaching the age of reason. 

If we take the speculation a bit further, it could very well be, if Fatima is not from Heaven and part of the 100 year freedom the Devil was given to attack the Church, the events were planned out specifically after the death of that miraculous Pope.  He might have quashed it immediately. 

[Pheo]

This is getting ridiculous

[Gerard]

As to your point about anger and suspicion at the Vatican, I would strictly be speculating.  I am generally against the idea of using public pressure, marches and rallies to obtain spiritual goals. 

The Devil may have received such permission that is to afflict the Church like he received permission to afflict Job, but to my understanding of the nature of true prophesy the Devil would not be granted the ability to foretell a future event even if he wanted to, just like the Devil could never be given the privilege to perform a true healing of body.  Could he perform a deceptive act, yes.  Could he predict that he would do so months in advance at a specific time and date?  No. 

It is one of the reasons why the Church when evaluating medical miracles tries to make sure that the disease does not come back.  The devil could fake a false healing only to have it return (the disease) with a vengeance.     

I also think that it is important to not overlook a few facts about the Fatima Miracle of the Sun:

The miracle was viewed over a large radius, including those not gathered with the Children.
It had been raining intensely, and after the miracles, the ground and the clothes where all dry.
It was viewed by many hostile witnesses who where there to Mock the faithful.

It is a unique event compared to the other examples you provided, especially because of the drying out of everything.  The amount of energy and the weather anomaly of such an event is truly unique and miraculous.

But according to the vision of Leo XIII the Devil was given permission to bring down the Church with a 100 year time frame.  We know that Lucifer was an angel of light,  "the star of the dawn" and we know he can make of himself the appearance of an "angel of light" according to the scriptures. 

We also don't know the exact rank of Lucifer or the scale of power he has but we know he ranked at the highest of levels, Cherubim or Seraphim.  Angels of knowledge and fire.

The angels are the pillars of creation.  Their levels of power could be enough to move galaxies or affect Black Holes or even other things.  Demons don't lose their abilities that they had as Angels. God just keeps them on a leash, so they don't ruin His creation. 

So, I think the "miracle of the Sun" could easily fall  into the capability of Lucifer other powerful demons.