Author Topic: error of fatimism (Read 1935 times)

spouse of Jesus · « **on:** May 03, 2009, 08:17:38 PM »

http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq10.txt
One of the best comments on Fatima, which is totally consonant with
the traditional teaching of the Church on private revelation, was published
in the year that Pope Pius XII died, under the imprimatur of His Grace John
Carroll, Primate of Ireland at the time, in a tome directed to Catholic
priests:

Private devotion to Our Lady of Fatima may, with due precautions,
be permitted.... The approval given by the Holy See to this, as to
all private revelations, means simply that the Church does not
oppose belief in it; the faithful are allowed to believe in it with
due caution.

Everything must be kept in perspective. There is nothing in Fatima
opposed to the faith if one wishes to believe. However, as private
revelation, it can never be compulsory in belief.

As to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a goddess equal to
Christ the Lord is blasphemy, a blasphemy that the Virgin would be the first
to condemn.

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0711.htm

Even Fatima, which has become a mania for those Charismatics who hold Fatima equal to Sacred Scripture (actually, this is heresy), was barely discussed before Vatican II, whereas Lourdes, hardly mentioned today, was held popularly as the primary apparition.

Many Catholics seem ignorant of the Catholic Church's teaching on "private revelation." The Church uses the term to refer to any purported revelation after the close of Public Revelation, which ended with the death of St. John the Apostle. The term "private revelation" has nothing to do with how many people may have seen the purported revelation or how much it may have been publicized. Nor does the Church have any power to "approve" or "confirm" private revelation. All it can do is find that, in the case of any purported private revelation, nothing is contained therein that is contrary to the Faith. Thus, the Church has condemned thousands and thousands of false "private revelations," but has "confirmed" none.

It is a common misconception that Fatima, whether one believes it or not, is "public" revelation. It is not. According to the dogma of the Church, it is, at best, a private revelation. Nothing in purported private revelation is a matter of Faith. No Catholic is obliged to believe any private revelation. It is the Catholic dogma, to deny which is heresy, that the Public Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and ended with the death of St. John, the last living Apostle, around A.D. 110.

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2009, 09:03:05 PM »

Thank you Spouse as I have been very confused over Fatima. It is then a private revelation which is not considered a Dogmatic Article Of Faith. Am I getting this correct?

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2009, 09:37:40 PM »

This is very shaky ground, which I don't have time to address right now.

It's temerious (or foolhardy) to dismiss an approved apparition with such grave import for the world, and attended by such public miracles.

It would be a hop, skip, and a jump away from the skepticism of atheist scientists.

The Miracle of the Sun was in the secular newspaper of the time, for crying out loud! This is an apparition we can't ignore. Let's not downplay it too much.

Matthew

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2009, 10:33:09 PM »

What I comprede from the above is that there is a difference between a private and a public revelation and as such, the faithful are not bound by law to dogmaticlly accept a private one.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2009, 11:42:50 PM »

Yes, but then again Our Lady did not reveal any new dogmas at Fatima.

What part of Fatima's message would someone "choose not to believe"? Prayer and penance?

People who worry about "private vs public revelation" really miss the point. Anyone who has a problem with Fatima really needs to enter into himself, and wonder what is amiss with his Catholic sense.

It's really quite simple -- offer up prayer and sacrifices for sinners, as our Lady asked, and you will be part of the solution. If not, you're part of the problem.

Matthew

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** May 04, 2009, 12:15:32 AM »

I have no prob with prayer or penance however from what little I know about Fatima it involves prophesy and this alone is risky business. What are we bound to believe w respect to Russia?

It is helpful to know that The Virgin did not reveal any new dogmas.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #6 on:** May 04, 2009, 12:55:57 AM »

Some "former" novus ordo catholic said they based their faith on fatima, and said something about "UFO people" getting their hands on the "original testimony" of the children, and something about the children being coached, and something about the lady they saw was "wearing a short dress and earrings." :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

Sounded really nutty to me. Proceeded to prove he was totally a victim of insipid modernity, and that he has no faith at all.

I reiterated the same thing to him though, "Well, it's private revelation, you don't have to believe it to be a Catholic."

I don't know why people would base the entire foundation of their faith on a visible sign that they weren't there to see. I mean, Christ was here, and we believe, and that's more miraculous than Our Lady (and I'm sure she would agree) appearing at Fatima.

I would point to Malachi Martin (deceased in 1999) and ask you to listen to what he had to say about the secret. If you go on YouTube, you can hear his interviews by Art Bell (yeah I know, the UFO guy, but he has multiple interviews with Father Martin, including one about demonic possession, that is quite valuable, and the one on Fatima.) He personally was allowed to read it, and explained that the message "wasn't meant for the pope. It was meant for the people!" Sadly, his silence followed him to the grave. He did answer questions about it though, he just couldn't read or say verbatim what the prophecy was, only could answer questions (of course, and be unable to lie) about whether they were relevant to the secret or not. I bet he was dying to tell what it said, and wished people would ask him more specific questions.

I think you'll find a lot of what the message contains if you listen to what he's said on the matter. Incidentally, at the end of his life, he was writing a book called: "Primacy:How the Institutionalized Roman Catholic Church Became a Creature of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr." Not kidding, that was the title of the book.

He coined the term "FACTion," as opposed to "Fiction." A few of the more popular novels he wrote were written as fiction, but were based completely on fact. He said that 90% of "Windswept House" was completely true, one of his very controversial books, and one of the last (if not the last one) works that was published of his.

I would strongly question anything pertaining to Fatima coming out of the Vatican.

First, (and as Malachi Martin affirmed) "John XXIII" claimed the children were lying, and that they didn't know what they were talking about, and that they were "prophets of gloom,' in the opening statement of "vatican II."

Second, the secret was supposed to be revealed, contrary to the popular myth "NO LATER than 1960."

Third, the stuff pertaining to Fatima coming from the vatican, stinks of a cover-up. The secret "meant for the people!" as said by Sister Lucy herself back when she originally wrote it down in the 1930's, was not given to the people, indicative that whatever happened in the secret already was going on, and that probably the culprits mentioned in the secret were in power and had control of said secret.

Lastly, and I think the most damning, was the fact that Sister Lucy was murdered (IMO) according to the pictorial evidence listed here, in 1958, and if you haven't already seen the fraudulent Sister Lucy, put in her place, who mysteriously emerged after a "silence" of 16 years.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g11htTwoSisterLucys_Horvat.htm

It's not difficult to see anymore that Russia is still a huge threat to the world. In 1987, an ex-KGB agent came out and said this:(Keep in mind that their agenda is usually 20+ years in advance of their goal, and they are always moving forward with it.)

I'll go into more detail later, but I think this is enough to swallow for those unfamiliar with the goings on.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 04, 2009, 01:44:21 AM »

auuuch, Don't speak about penance. Many MMMMMMMMMMMMaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyy catholics will tell you that it is ruin of a sacrament and therefore ruin of society."He will be displeased if I dress modestly in the streets" Or " He wants a chubby wife, moderate eating will ruin our marriage". people are FUN aholic, CHOCOLATE aholic, VANITY aholic just because they are called to marriage!
(Hope you are not like them)

trad123 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 04, 2009, 05:22:17 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

I have no prob with prayer or penance however from what little I know about Fatima it involves prophesy and this alone is risky business. What are we bound to believe w respect to Russia?

It is helpful to know that The Virgin did not reveal any new dogmas.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7064&min=15&num=15

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: parentsfortruth
I really think Russia has a lot to do with all of this, and I don't think Our Lady meant the Jєωs. I think she meant Russia. The KGB is alive and well, and lots of them are in our own government (incidentally, they're in the Israeli government, too.)

Look it up for yourself.

Concerning our Lady of Fatima and Russia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacro_Vergente

Quote
Sacro Vergente anno (July 7, 1952) is an Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius XII to all people of Russia. In it Pope consecrates all the people of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Pope Pius consecrated Russia as requested, but didn't do it in union with all the bishops of the world at the time.

trad123 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2009, 05:40:32 AM »

Quote from: Roscoe

I know about Fatima it involves prophesy and this alone is risky business.

I find nothing to object to when it comes to Fatima, but the "Three Days of Darkness" is something I don't think is really going to happen. The soul is greater than the body, as far as the Heavens are above the Earth, so too is the current spiritual chastisement the Church is going through all the greater than any physical chastisement that could take place. I know the analogy of the time of Moses and the painting of the blood of the lamb on the doors of the houses of the Israelites, but that was symbolizing the Blood of Christ. Is the blessed beeswax candle then to symbolize the Holy Ghost? Seems very likely to me. But then again, private revelation does not require the consent of the faithful.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #10 on:** May 04, 2009, 03:19:39 PM »

Quote from: Uriel

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Some "former" novus ordo catholic said they based their faith on fatima, and said something about "UFO people" getting their hands on the "original testimony" of the children, and something about the children being coached, and something about the lady they saw was "wearing a short dress and earrings." :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

Sounded really nutty to me. Proceeded to prove he was totally a victim of insipid modernity, and that he has no faith at all.

I reiterated the same thing to him though, "Well, it's private revelation, you don't have to believe it to be a Catholic."

I don't know why people would base the entire foundation of their faith on a visible sign that they weren't there to see. I mean, Christ was here, and we believe, and that's more miraculous than Our Lady (and I'm sure she would agree) appearing at Fatima.

I would point to Malachi Martin (deceased in 1999) and ask you to listen to what he had to say about the secret. If you go on YouTube, you can hear his interviews by Art Bell (yeah I know, the UFO guy, but he has multiple interviews with Father Martin, including one about demonic possession, that is quite valuable, and the one on Fatima.) He personally was allowed to read it, and explained that the message "wasn't meant for the pope. It was meant for the people!" Sadly, his silence followed him to the grave. He did answer questions about it though, he just couldn't read or say verbatim what the prophecy was, only could answer questions (of course, and be unable to lie) about whether they were relevant to the secret or not. I bet he was dying to tell what it said, and wished people would ask him more specific questions.

I think you'll find a lot of what the message contains if you listen to what he's said on the matter. Incidentally, at the end of his life, he was writing a book called: "Primacy:How the Institutionalized Roman Catholic Church Became a Creature of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr." Not kidding, that was the title of the book.

He coined the term "FACTion," as opposed to "Fiction." A few of the more popular novels he wrote were written as fiction, but were based completely on fact. He said that 90% of "Windswept House" was completely true, one of his very controversial books, and one of the last (if not the last one) works that was published of his.

I would strongly question anything pertaining to Fatima coming out of the Vatican.

First, (and as Malachi Martin affirmed) "John XXIII" claimed the children were lying, and that they didn't know what they were talking about, and that they were "prophets of gloom,' in the opening statement of "vatican II."

Second, the secret was supposed to be revealed, contrary to the popular myth "NO LATER than 1960."

Third, the stuff pertaining to Fatima coming from the vatican, stinks of a cover-up. The secret "meant for the people!" as said by Sister Lucy herself back when she originally wrote it down in the 1930's, was not given to the people, indicative that whatever happened in the secret already was going on, and that probably the culprits mentioned in the secret were in power and had control of said secret.

Lastly, and I think the most damning, was the fact that Sister Lucy was murdered (IMO) according to the pictorial evidence listed here, in 1958, and if you haven't already seen the fraudulent Sister Lucy, put in her place, who mysteriously emerged after a "silence" of 16 years.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g11htTwoSisterLucys_Horvat.htm

It's not difficult to see anymore that Russia is still a huge threat to the world. In 1987, an ex-KGB agent came out and said this:(Keep in mind that their agenda is usually 20+ years in advance of their goal, and they are always moving forward with it.)

I'll go into more detail later, but I think this is enough to swallow for those unfamiliar with the goings on.

Look at my link. It appears that the pictures where just mislabeled. No cover up...just poor editing. So much disinformation these days...
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E017_MoreOnLucy.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E017_MoreOnLucy.htm

They still maintain there are two "Sister Lucys."

You made a good contribution to the topic, Mr. S.M. So good that I am inviting Dr. Marian Horvat to write another article with many more photos on the discrepancies of the two Sister Lucys, this time without the good Mother Celina. Let us leave her in peace with her prayers, removed from these worldly concerns.

Regarding your consistency: In the last sentence of your e-mail you confess you believe that there are two Sister Lucys as well. So, we have a common point: you also believe that there is a fraud going on.

trad123 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 04, 2009, 03:25:54 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

They still maintain there are two "Sister Lucys."

I too believe the "Sister Lucy" that was shown to the world with John Paul II was a fraud.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #12 on:** May 04, 2009, 03:44:49 PM »

They're doing some more investigation into this to correct the "mislabeled" pictures from that magazine. I look forward to seeing it.

Also, yes, I maintain that I believe that the true Sister Lucy was murdered in 1958.

Dawn · « **Reply #13 on:** May 04, 2009, 04:45:23 PM »

Yes, I agree that there was a Sr. Lucy imposter. They think they killed her, how egotistical of them. They do nothing without God's permitting will. Our Lady promised her Heaven and she was taken before she had to be tortured anymore by the satanists who were taking control of the Vatican.