As the title would indicate, I have begun to have serious doubts about the Fatima apparitions and am thinking even that They could be diabolic. While I'm open to having my mind changed and do not doubt the very public physicality of what thousands saw, I have nagging and ever-increasing doubts. I will express these doubts now and deal with each in subsequent posts. They are;
1. The prophesy that if people did not cease offending God, a worse war would break out DURING the reign of Pope Pius XI. Sorry folks, this did not happen. The great light was indeed seen by many in 1938, but that was the warning of the war about to start, not the war itself. Nothing can change the FACT that Pius XI died several months BEFORE the start of World War II. This indicates a false prophesy, no matter how Catholic seeming and seductive It is.
2. That if the Pope and all the World's bishops did not consecrate Russia specifically to the Immaculate Heart of Mary no later than 1960, Communism would overcome every country in the world. This is what Sr. Lucy told William Walsh in 1949, and this has not happened. In fact, Communism has pretty much collapsed. This too seems to be false prophesy.
3. In the 60's, possible texts of the Third secret leaked out and they inferred apocalyptic tales of Nuclear war and the like. Wojtyla in Fulda, Gemany told people about the Third Secret in 1981 and gave no indication it was about an asassination attempt on him, and actually talked of great natural disasters striking the Earth. Ratzinger was inteviewed in the early 1980's too and suggested vaguely that it had to do with the faith of the individual christian. Then in 2000 the story of course changed and a Vision was described that to be honest is devoid of any meaningful context or sense at all. This makes the whole thing not pass the smell test, honestly.
4. And finally, the end of the Second part of the text ends with the famous 'In Portugal, the Dogma of Faith will always be preserved.' This too is false, as their is no indication that Portugal is any less infected with the loss of the pure doctrine of Christ than any other region or country in the world.
If anyone can reasonably address these concerns, please tell me because FATIMA is sounding more and more like the very 'diabolical disorientation' that Sr. Lucy said was afflicting the Church, that would 'if possible decieve the very Elect' as Our Lord warned us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting about the prophecies. I had never considered that, although I do believe that Fatima was heretical. How can an angel give the kids 'communion' unless he stole it from a priest, or a Church? He can't have confected it himself, since it is a dogma (defined at Lateran IV, by pope Innocent III) that only a priest can do so. In any of the Fatima literature, is there anything about a priest having confected the Eucharist for this angel?
ReplyDeleteFinally, I would like to charitably admonish you in your use of swearing. While it does get the point across, it can be done using proper language. What saint would speak like that? Would the Blessed Virgin Mary speak like that?
I'm only saying it because I care.
Well, I thank you for the admonishment of my language, and I ask forgiveness of you and others who may have seen the display of bad language. I do not necessarily reject Fatima, it's just that so many problems such as i've mentioned make me remember to 'test the spirits'. It is possible to answer each of my questions in a light favorable to Fatima, and yours as well. It could be that the Angel did indeed bring the Euchrist for the children from a Priest-perhaps the great High Priest Jesus Christ? And i'm working on a scenario that makes the name 'Pius XI' NOT an indication of Fatima being false prophesy...Stay tuned. Thank you again and God Bless you my friend-for a true friend is a Christian brother who will admonish a sinning fellow Christian.
ReplyDeleteTo Willing Catholic Martyr,
ReplyDeleteIf you read the lives of the saints, you will find many instances of miraculous communions. St. Catherine of Siena, St. Pascal of Baylon, St. Bonaventure, St. Stanislaus Kostka, St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi. Many of them recieved communion from angels, but some received communion from Jesus Himself. Are you going to reject all of those?
Who's to say that the angel didn't appear to a priest and ask for a host? If you don't want to believe that, then I'm sure you've hear of "once a priest, always a priest". Who's to say an angel can't recieve a consecrated host from a holy priest in heaven? Or even from God Himself? Is it impossible for God to consecrate a host? Because I SEEM to recall something about Jesus and a Last Supper.
It seems like you really don't think anything through before making these hasty decisions. Or maybe you don't do thorough research. I've been guilty of this myself, unfortunately.
Oh, and technically, he's guilty of vulgarity, not swearing. Chris, please remove that filthy word and replace it with "nonsense", "rubish", "malarkey", "horseradish" etc. Pick whatever you like.
ReplyDeleteJWO, you're absolutely right about Christ's eternal priesthood, not to mention priests in heaven. I don't deny that. But it seems to raise questions for an angel to give communion rather than the priest himself, don't you agree?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes you're right - that word has to be removed, there is no place for that on what claims to be a traditional Catholic blog.
Still, the prophecies of Fatima have proven to be manifestly false prophecies, so it still smells like monkeypants to me.
Deuteronomy 18:22: "Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him."
St. Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."
To Willing Catholic Martyr,
ReplyDeleteAs questionable as it may seem, since when is it heresy for an angel to distribute communion? The priest being the only person allowed to distribute communion is, at best, a matter of discipline.
Of course, but consider this: To refuse obedience to any discipline of the Church, to reject it's authority, is sinful and at worst schismatic. It seems highly unlikely that a true revelation from heaven would contradict a existing discipline of the Church.
ReplyDeleteAnd around the time of Fatima (even though it is actually not binding on Catholics) the '1917 Code of Canon Law' states:
Canon 845, par. 1.. “The ordinary minister of holy communion is only the priest.”
Canon 845. par. 2. “The extraordinary minister of holy communion is the deacon, with permission of the local bishop or the parish priest, only to be granted for a serious reason, which may legitimately be presumed in a case of emergency.”
Do you have a blog, JWO? I'd be interested in seeing it if you do. Also, do you profess to be Catholic (as I assume from your level of knowledge and interest in this discussion)?
If so, are you a sede, SSPX, Novus Ordo, etc.?
To Willing Catholic Martyr,
ReplyDeleteI think Heaven (GOD) can grant a dispensation for earthly disciplinary laws, don't you? There's also the principle of epikia.
And if the law is not binding, then why quote it? Why not quote something that is binding?
I think you're so dead set on trying to "get" Fatima, that you're resorting to petty legalism. I believe you have some sort of vendetta against Fatima. I don't think you "figured this all out" and then decided Fatima was false. I believe you first decided Fatima was false and now are trying to find any little thing you can to prove it's false.
No Blog.
Sedevacantist.
Oh, and I believe that it's been the discipline of the Church since the time of the Council of Trent that only the priest can touch the Sacred Host. I guess that means St. Pascal of Baylon, St. Mary Magdalene di Pazzi, and poor little St. Stanislaus were actually sinful or schismatic!
ReplyDeleteThe prophecies of Fatima were false. This is undeniable and a BIG sign of something being not from God, as Scripture indicates (Deuteronomy 18:22). Everything else just piles right on and makes it that much worse.
ReplyDeleteAs for those other saints - I know nothing about their private revelations, and yes it is quite possible that they were duped. They are, after all, only human. Why would people who are holy be spared assaults from satan? I would imagine they likely endure more and greater such assaults than worms like me, as they are better able to overcome them (by their greater union with God).
You now use the word "duped", but you don't address your former accusations of sin or schism.
ReplyDeleteYou talk like so many heretics I have debated doctrine with, ignoring the objective sense of a persons words. I said:
ReplyDelete"To refuse obedience to any discipline of the Church, to reject it's authority, is sinful and at worst schismatic."
This statement contains neither falsehood, nor is it directed at any particular individual.
And before you get all twisted up over the first sentence in this post, note the objective sense of it. I didn't call you a heretic, I simply pointed out something you are doing with my words that heretics also do with the words of dogmatic decrees.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell it seems you gentlemen are not seeing eye to eye exactly. I posted this commentary about Fatima because I actually want to believe the Fatima Message, but I do have these nagging doubts that indicate to me that IF Fatima is wrong, then it has to be diabolical by default. However, I have a real problem with that for other reasons, not least of which is the fact of Jacinta being incorrupt-if she is a saint, I have a hard time believing that the process (the Fatima apparitions) that made her sanctified in this life is devilish. Wouldn't you agree?
ReplyDeleteRoncalli is incorrupt too. Think herbs and spices (that's my guess, anyway).
ReplyDeleteRoncalli was embalmed. That's a fact.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Roncalli was embalmed-in fact a few years back Roncalli's physician admitted as much. Now as to Jacinta, there is always the possibility that someone took extraordinary measures to give that illusion, yes, but there comes a point when you look have to look at the facts honestly-and not reject them because of a pet theory. It would indeed be remarkable if devils or delusion produced saintliness..... willingcatholicmartyr, you have confirmed to me my theory that Benedict xv was not a Pope, but you have not proved to me that Fatima is false yet-and I'm a doubter of Fatima. I suggested an alternate possibility regarding Fatima, and I'm open to it and hope you address this possibility.
ReplyDeleteI'm studying Fatima some more. I'll post my findings as soon as I can. Please be patient with me.
ReplyDelete