Skip to comments.Sr. Lucia, Fatima, and Islam
Posted on 02/15/2005 7:39:20 AM PST by Destro
Sr. Lucia, Fatima, and Islam
Matt C. Abbott
February 13, 2005
Hearing the sad news of the death of Sister Lucia of Fatima (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/13/193343.shtml), I again wonder: what was the significance of the Blessed Virgin Mary appearing in that small village in Portugal? After all, nothing from Heaven happens by accident, right?
For decades, Communism was the biggest threat in the world, followed closely by Nazism. Now, it is militant Islam that poses the threat (in addition, of course, to legalized abortion, euthanasia, pornography, and the other aspects of what Pope John Paul II has called the "culture of death").
But is there a connection between the Virgin of Fatima and Islam? In short, yes.
Francis Johnston, in his book, Fatima: The Great Sign, explains the connection:
"The Muslims, who have a certain devotion to Our Lady and recognize her Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception, were intrigued by the fact that Mary had appeared at Fatima, which was the name of Mohammed's favorite daughter and regarded by the prophet as the highest woman in Heaven after our Lady. In Zanzibar, the Muslim sultan placed a wreath of flowers at the [Fatima] statue's feet, while the Muslim chief of the Ismaeli tribe in Mozambique placed a golden necklace about the statue's neck saying: 'Thank you, Our Lady of Fatima for the work of love you are accomplishing in Africa' " (p. 126).
Could the Virgin of Fatima play a role in the eventual elimination of militant Islam? I wouldn't be surprised.
One thing is all but certain: Sister Lucia will get to Heaven a heck of a lot faster than most of us.
May she rest in the peace of Christ.
Matt C. Abbott is the former executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee and the former director of public affairs for the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League. He is a Catholic journalist and commentator. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© Copyright 2005 by Matt C. Abbott
I was not aware of the daughter being name 'Fatima'. Interesting connection.
I read on a thread yesterday, that Portugal will survive as a Catholic European nation.
I'm a skeptic but I posted this for Catholic Freepers.
I think that it is not Islam that is the problem. Instead, it is the New Age "spirituality" and the call for unification of all religions that is undermining the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. It is my belief that the Third Secret referred to this.
I find it ironic that the death of Sister Lucia has been ignored by mainstream media. Perhaps it is simply indicative of the above.
Why did you assume she should be covered more by the media (beyond the current level of coverage)? Many (even religous people) don't accept the Fatima visions and she was not a public figure like Mother Teresa.
Because there has been renewed discussion of religion in mainstream media. There was a movie about the visions at Fatima. And it's a little more important than the death of rapper "Old Dirty B******," someone I'd never heard of.
Perceptions are a tricky thing. I find the Sister's death well covered via Google news it. I disagree with you and would not assume the Sister's death at a very old age death would be a front page headline.
I didn't suggest that it would be front page news, simply that I haven't heard one word on network or cable news.
You say "perceptions are a tricky thing." I'm not sure what you are referring to. Perceptions of what?
And what are you disagreeing with? The idea that it merits some mention on televised news? Or with something else?
The Catholic Church has proclaimed that the visions did occur after between 40,000 and 70,000 witnessed the sign at Fatima.
I am pretty sure the cable news networks covered this news. Maybe in your perception the media did not cover it enough - but it was covered. That is fine for Catholics to view the Fatima visions as such - but many Catholics are also skeptical of Fatima and non-Catholics have no Fatima reference for this to matter to them. So in this case I am defending the media because the balance of coverage of the Sister's death seems about right to me.
OK. If the media mentioned Sister Lucia's death, then I missed it completely. I first read the news here and when I googled it the 13th and early the 14th, I saw nothing except a memo or two in foreign or Catholic news services. If you say you think it was, in fact, mentioned on televised news, then I believe you and apologize for my error.
All miracles are not of God, so keep that in mind.
The NYT had two articles online. Both referred to Sr. Lucy as the survivor who "allegedly" saw Mary. Grrrrr. It was just recycled AP b/s.
Thanks, Jaded :) NY Times...probably why I missed it...and obviously I didn't miss much...figgers, doesn't it? Appreciate the help.
Thanks, tessalu. I am well aware. However, considering that I humbly agree with the probable message of the Third Secret, I don't think the Evil One was responsible for the miracle.
And this is not to say that I think John Paul II was correct in his insistance that the vision had to do with the attempt on his life. I think that the Pope, represnting the Church, is "murdered" (betrayed) by those who have accepted the false Messiah; the anti-christ who leads the New Age unified religion which glorifies Lucifer.
A former public school teacher, turned tax accountant, Sharyl Jackson is an Associate Editor of Children of the New Earth Magazine (www.childrenofthenewearth.com ), as well as Editor of the Children of the New Earth section on www.PlanetLightworker.com .
A fount of knowledge on the new children, Sharyl not only acts as an advisor to many children and parents via her highly popular Letters to Sharyl sections in the Children of the New Earth magazine, and on www.PlanetLightworker.com, she is herself a mother to many grown children and a host of a weekly meditation group in Seattle, Washington. She can be contacted at email@example.com .
"More information on these family members can be found at the links page of Lightworker.com. A special heartfelt thanks to the Circles of Light all over the globe. Gatherings large or small, no matter what name you use, when we hold hands together we create miracles."
"The cosmic joke is that you are the 'God' that you seek so desperately. The times ahead are full of possibilities. You are creating the New Game. This is the most exciting time on the Gameboard of Free Choice. Human evolution is at hand. Re-member Atlantis proudly. You are here to make a difference both individually and collectively and that you will accomplish. The days ahead will give you ample opportunity to get comfortable with your power. In the interim we ask you to re-member two simple points: 1. You are God and have a responsibility to use your powers of creation. 2. You are not the only God. We hear your laughter and we hope you hear ours. It is with the most sincere honor and deepest love that we ask you to treat each other with respect, nurture one another and play well together. the Group"
"The Lucifer Experiment At one point in your development, humanity became so captivated with the negative and the illusion of fear, that it was necessary for us to create the illusion of polarity consciousness in Heaven.
Not an easy task for darkness is a creation of duality and does not exist in Heaven. Yet, in order for us in the angelic realm to reflect your magnificence, it was even necessary for us to create the illusion of darkness on the other side of the veil.
Thus began the Lucifer Experiment. Lucifer was a great angel; an angel of love and his energy was such that he could switch to something that was the illusion of negative energy. He was the one angel strong enough to hold the illusion of darkness in Heaven. Imagine what it would be like to have all the beings of Earth looking at you in disgust and using your image to motivate them. In fact he was the angel who helped to define light through his willingness to play that role. As that negative energy of fear came in to him, he was able to express it with the most beautiful love as what you call darkness. And he did so out of complete sacrifice, knowing perfectly well that this energy would be transmitted to all the beings on Earth and that he would not be revered, but would be hated and feared. What a gift. What a beauty of darkness. Thus he was and still is referred to as the prince of darkness.
That gift of darkness allowed that gap to be filled and it was necessary to continue the illusion of the Lucifer Experiment for eons of time on your game board. Lucifer's gift of darkness allowed you to clearly see the light. Even though your advancement was moving a little bit every day, it was moving ever so slowly.
But now that has changed for you have begun taking these quantum steps into evolution. You have begun standing on your own feet, stepping into the second wave of empowerment. As you do that, everything changes and the work of Lucifer is complete. The energy of everything now measured as an expression of light. Once you understand that, you defined it all in the field of heaven for as we have told you many times before, Lucifer has returned Home. He was greeted with thunderous applauds and open arms as the hero he is.
The Lucifer Experiment was a success and in the alternate universe he is seen clearly as the angel of light."
The Lightworkers are a United Nations-affiliated NGO.
I don't have a problem with secular journalists using the word "allegedly" to describe if the visions took place. It is actually ethical to use that language.
It was just weird considering how many witnesses (40,000 to 70,000) there were for the last appearance and it's "alleged".
I am not trying to undermine your faith - far from it - but the secular world has to use such neutral language. This is one of the rare times I have defended the press.
Very perceptive of you. Indifferentism was a menace that Pope Leo XIII condemned as a heresy over 100 years ago, but that has not stemmed the tide of its adherents, especially in America, but more and more all over the world. To speak out against it today invites the scorn of the general public, most of whom would think that indifferent attitude toward religious beliefs is some kind of virtue. I say "would" because they might not have any clue to what real virtue is.
I have no doubt that the 3rd Secret of Fatima mentions this cancerous malignancy of the Faith. The whole point of the Fatima message is one of conversion, and why would that be important if it didn't matter toward what religion one was converting? Oh, oh, I know: "change is good." So then, changing religions should be like changing socks, by that twisted logic.
As for the ignoring, I agree. You can hardly blame the media for not covering something that wouldn't draw viewers. But I think this would draw viewers, if it was given a chance. I happened to see MSN news interviewing Fr. Nicholas Gruner for about two minutes, and then cut him off in the middle of his response so they could jump to coverage of some lewd conduct of some over-rich entertainer. Yes, the media at large abhor virtue and traditional Catholicsm, as they do mention of Our Lady or the saints. Don't worry about being wrong about this. I know people from the Industry who unanimously adhere to the same proposition, nor are they even Catholics. It doesn't take belonging to the Church to notice the discrimination against it.
This is to inform you that your information is a "little off." The observers mentioned (Oct. 13th, 1917) did not merely "see strange lights." They experienced the instantaneous drying of their clothes and the muddy ground they walked on as the the sun scared them, appearing to careen toward the earth after casting off colorful lights. Any normal person there would have lost bladder and/or bowel control, but all such mess was equally obliterated in the public and prophetic miracle you pompously refer to merely as "strange lights."
Furthermore, you are not "more accurate" but LESS accurate stating that Jacinta Marto could not hear nor understand the Lady's words. She COULD hear them, but she could not reply. Only Lucia spoke to Our Lady in that apparition. But Jacinta had visions of her own later in which she held conversation without her cousin present.
Furthermore, it was Jacinta's clearer comprehension of the whole message of Our Lady to which Lucia had been known to, and continued to, rely upon for her own answers in regards to several topics then, and over the next few years. Lucia dos Santos suffered a tremendous loss upon the death of her cousins, for she was truly left alone with no one to help her in this natural world; although Our Lady had promised to always be there for her and to be her consolation. This poor girl lived some 80 years more, offering all these sacrifices for our relief.
When we hear of this dry martyrdom, the only decent response is abject gratitude, because we don't deserve it.
And now, we who do not deserve it are left without her in this grim moment before the tribulation.
Not to demean journalists, who sometimes get it more correct than people who should know better do. But remember that those who control what gets on the air are generally doing all they can to squelch this kind of thing. If not for their own adherence to such an agenda, then by their intimate understanding of the rules from their supervisors. Oh, and don't think that the top dogs of networks don't have supervisors. The ones who have the real power are the ones that can go to shopping malls and public events without being recognized.
How about the "skeptics" that were there at the time? Are their words of no present value? If so, then there is no use in reading the writings of any historians because what they experienced in their day, even if they had no prior intent to say those things, has no value for those today who would simply refuse to give them any credibility. In fact, there could never be any court trial with witnesses, because what they saw and heard, etc., at the time in question would have no value for the jury, whose desire to believe even what happens before their own eyes is non-existent by way of their "skepticism."
A journalist could say, allegedly, but if he uses other words based on the universal testimony of contemporary witnesses, should he be fired from his job? Does relating what the historical record presents amount to some kind of ethical violation or something? Or does the possibility that someone's sensibility or feelings might be offended by objective language demand words that even an ideological opponent would approve?
If you want to believe that "mass hysteria" can effect the drying of ankle-deep mud under the feet of 70,000 people and the cleaning of their clothes in a few brief moments, it's your decision. That's your privilege as a person with free will.
I would ask you, however, if you know of any similar events, even say, 10 people making their clothes clean and dry while standing in the mud that dries too, by engaging in "mass hysteria"? What exactly do you mean, by the way, by mass hysteria? Is it like a football game or the Rose Parade? What game or parade ever ended with the rained-on crowd all dry and clean?
I hope you're not overwhelmed with the volume of my words. You might not want to discuss this. I'm not trying to stir up anxiety or inflict gratuitous offense. It simply seems so clear to me that I would be ill at ease not to attempt to make some kind of explanation. It is most certainly not a personal issue with me, but I would warn you that it IS a personal issue between you and God. So beware. I would be remiss not to say this. I understand that you are not alone. Even priests, bishops and cardinals whom I know have sentiments akin to yours, and I fear for their eternal damnation. I am telling you this in hopes you may one day have a change of heart, but if you refuse to discuss this and seek the truth, all I can do is pray for you.
Please understand I am defending the journalist's use of the term "allegedly" for the reasons outlined - I am in no way challenging your faith. I hope you can understand the distinction.
For example, many claim that the sighting did happen but it was a UFO event - the drying due to microwaves. So journalists need keep clear of speculations they can't prove.