Author Topic: Fatima Is A False Apparition (Read 9684 times)

fkpagnanelli · « **on:** February 02, 2010, 05:43:49 AM »

TheD,

Fatima is a false apparition. I know you have raised the apparition to the level of a dogma in your mind, but there are several ways we know Fatima is a false apparition:

(1) It occurred during the reign of antipope Benedict XV, without the "lady" condemning the visionaries' communion with an antipope;

(2) The "angel" allegedly gave First Communion to two visionaries that had not yet received First Communion in the Catholic Church, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;

(3) The "angel" allegedly gave the Precious Blood to two visionaries, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;

(4) The prophesies about Russia's conversion, the era of peace, and Portugal never losing the Faith all never came true;

(5) The Blessed Mother doesn't come to give "secrets", but instead comes to publicly urge the Faithful to repentance;

and

(6) Sister Lucia is an apostate who claimed communion with the Vatican II church, a church that believes Allah will judge mankind.

I know, I know, many believe that I have blasphemed with this post because how dare I denounce Fatima, because isn't it a dogma that the Blessed Virgin appeared there? NO.

It's dogma that you can't be justified without sacramental water baptism. It's dogma that a heretic is not a Catholic, let alone a Catholic pope. It's dogma that you don't receive the sacraments from non-Catholic priests. These are dogmas. Fatima is NOT a dogma. Fatima was most certainly a trick of the devil designed to keep the gullible hoping in vain for a restoration of the Vatican. Sorry to break the news to you people, that spiritual and theological restoration of the Vatican buildings isn't about to happen any time soon, if at all.

This is the Great Apostasy that Our Lord spoke of when He said, "If the time had not been shortened there would be no flesh saved." So those who are so bold as to laugh at the few Catholics left in the word, you laugh to your own damnations.

The dogmas are clear. It is your pride that obscures things.

Clovis · « **Reply #1 on:** February 02, 2010, 08:22:47 AM »

Quote from: fkpagnanelli

(3) The "angel" allegedly gave the Precious Blood to two visionaries, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;

In both the Coptic and the Byzantine rites the laity recieve the Precious Blood.

However you do raise many valid points. I know I what can be said maybe justly or unjustly against me saying this but my first reaction was to think that at the end of the day the events at Fatima are not that important...No one has declared belief in them De Fide and therefore it is pointless bringing it up in a theological debate as proof of anything as some people here have been doing.

fkpagnanelli · « **Reply #2 on:** February 02, 2010, 08:29:57 AM »

Quote from: Clovis

Quote from: fkpagnanelli
(3) The "angel" allegedly gave the Precious Blood to two visionaries, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;

In both the Coptic and the Byzantine rites the laity recieve the Precious Blood.

Thanks for pointing that out. It would then depend under what bishop (a Latin rite or other rite) had jurisdiction over the visionaries. If the bishop allow for it, then the alleged angel would not have done anything wrong in this regard.

Thanks again and good point.

fkpagnanelli · « **Reply #3 on:** February 02, 2010, 09:02:14 AM »

Quote from: Clovis

... my first reaction was to think that at the end of the day the events at Fatima are not that important...No one has declared belief in them De Fide and therefore it is pointless bringing it up in a theological debate as proof of anything as some people here have been doing.

Not true. Just like a Catholic would be forced to rejected an alleged apparition of, say, Martin Luther, because if Jesus or Mary appeared to Luther it would have been to denounce and convert him, so too must a Catholic denounce Fatima because Mary would never have appeared to a schismatic child (remember Lucy was above the age of reason) without denouncing her and warning her of antipope Benedict XV.

And most certainly, Holy Communion could never, ever have been given to a schismatic Lucy, who was claiming allegiance to an antipope. It is indirectly a denial of many dogmas to claim belief or even the allowed belief in Fatima as an authentic apparition.

Catholics must absolutely, in every detail, defend the Faith with precision and zeal, else heresies creep in. Fatima must be denounced.

TheD · « **Reply #4 on:** February 02, 2010, 09:12:24 AM »

1.) Which came first the chicken or the egg. Do you hate Fatima because you first hated Benedict XV or did you reject B XV because you first despised Fatima?
For pts 2.)-3.) I wonder why no Priest ever questioned that at the time. I guess they were outsmarted by three preschool age childeren.
4.) The consecration has yet to be done.
5.)What is your evidence, Our Lady does what the Lord commands.
6.) So did Fr. Feeney.

In the end 'Pope' Augustine could invent something just as convincing in his basement.