Our Lady of Fatima – Her Prophecies and Warnings Remain as Essential as Ever!

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 10-12-15 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[metmom]

You’re bad.....

And funny.....

[Cvengr]

Very well stated.

[metmom]

Which does nothing to refute my point.

While it’s possible the even was a product of mass hypnosis, or hypnosis to begin with, with implanted memories, it very well could have happened.

Nobody is disputing that, especially considering Satan’s power to appear as an angel of light or work wonders.

The burden of proof is on you all to prove that it WAS Mary and it was from God, and so far, you all have not.

We contend that it was a demonic apparition, especially since the apparition posits another way of salvation than through Jesus, a sure sign that the apparition is NOT from God.

Now, the ball is in your court.

Using Scripture, show us that we’re wrong.

Give us Scriptural support to give us reason to believe that the apparition was from God.

And don’t just copy and past a link with no indication of what you’re sending us to.

Do your own work.

[NYer]

The events may have really happened, but that does NOT mean they were from God. Satan is the prince of the power of the air and has the power to do lying wonders and signs.

You are correct in acknowledging that Satan is the great deceiver. Many visions and miracles are recorded in the Scriptures. After the Resurrection, Christ appeared to "Peter and then to the Twelve" (I Cor. 15, 5). Paul spoke of "visions and revelations" from the Lord (II Cor. 12, 1-6), and the deacon Stephen saw the heavens open and Christ at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 7, 55-56).

Throughout Christian history, there has been the grateful reception of miracles and apparitions when they occur, together with the acknowledgment that such phenomena are not a substitute for faith in God. As such, the Catholic Church, over the centuries, has used strict criteria for determining the validity of an apparition.

What criteria have you applied in determining that the Fatima apparition is not from God?

[metmom]

You know your a big boy (or girl) why dont you just google it. Why Catholics jump to every time you ask for proof is beyond me. Search it yourself - it is a matter of published public record.

Because you're the ones making the claims. It's the responsibility of the party making the claim to provide the proof to convince people.

Otherwise, you all are just engaging in global warming science.

We don't have to accept it as true just because you say so.

It's not up to us to provide evidence to support a position you believe in and we don't.

Besides, it works both ways. Don't demand us to back up our claims if you all don't back up yours.

IOW, don't be a hypocrite.

[metmom]

Nothing like creating fiction out if whole cloth.

Well, isn't that the height of irony, on this thread no less.

[metmom]

Wrong question.

What criteria have you applied in determining that the Fatima apparition ***IS*** from God?

We’ve given you the evidence. The primary one that it presents another way to God than Jesus Christ, that is through Mary and praying the rosary.

That’s a false gospel. Any apparition that presents a false gospel, no matter what signs and wonders accompany it, is not from God.

How do you think the anti christ is going to be able to deceive so many? With false wonders and signs.

Now, prove using Scripture, that the apparition is from God.

[daniel1212]

>You know your a big boy (or girl) why dont you just google it.
Why Catholics jump to every time you ask for proof is beyond me. Search it yourself - it is a matter of published public record.<

Indeed, which quickly provides this:

Critical evaluation of the event

Joe Nickell notes: “Not surprisingly, perhaps, Sun Miracles have been reported at other Marian sites—at Lubbock, Texas, in 1989; Mother Cabrini Shrine near Denver, Colorado, in 1992; Conyers, Georgia, in the early to mid-1990s”.[23] Nickell also suggests that the dancing effects witnessed at Fátima may have been due to optical effects resulting from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at such an intense light.[23]

Auguste Meessen, following the work done before him by the Belgian skeptic Marc Hallet,[24] has stated sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[25] Meessen observes that Sun Miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where many people within a crowd of over 10,000 testified to witnessing similar observations as at Fátima.[25] Meessen also cites a British Journal of Ophthalmology article that discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles.[26] While Meessen suggests possible psychological or neurological explanations for the apparitions he notes, “It is impossible to provide any direct evidence for or against the supernatural origin of apparitions”.[25] He also notes that “[t]here may be some exceptions, but in general, the seers are honestly experiencing what they report.” [25]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified “miracle”, the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[27] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[27]

Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun “dance”. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[28] No scientific accounts exist[clarification needed] of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have “danced”, and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria.[29]

Pio Scatizzi, Society of Jesus, described the events of that day on Fátima, and he concluded:

The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere ... there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon ... Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention.[30]

Steuart Campbell, writing for the edition of Journal of Meteorology in 1989, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear to be yellow, blue, and violet, and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reported that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[31]
A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claimed that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[32] He suggested the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or “mock sun”, a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection and refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus clouds or cirrostratus clouds.

Paul Simons, in an article entitled “Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima”, stated that he believes that it is possible that some of the optical effects at Fátima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[33]

Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, since similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis, he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. However, none of the previous phenomena had to do with the sun; the focus, for the most part, was on the little tree where the lady was said to appear. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research that he had done in the previous ten years, although he has not explicitly stated what these contradictions were.[34]

Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle were accurate. However, he alleges inconsistency in the accounts of witnesses, and he suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation, and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses.[35]

Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, a Benedictine priest, and the author of a number of books dealing with the intersection of science and faith, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle.[28] Jaki believed that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.[28] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event

However, it most likely had some real phenomena, and the Scriptural explanation is that this is support for the demonic - almost almighty Mary of Catholicism:

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, (2 Thessalonians 2:9)

And the devil is just warming up:

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, (Revelation 13:13)

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. (Mark 13:22)

The demonic Mary of Catholicism is not the holy, surrendered, Spirit-filled Mary of Scripture, who was blessed among women, but one of whom Caths assert,

“sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Thus, “we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil,” “we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach.” (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).. And indeed, Mary “had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,” “Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins,” thus “We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman.”

For adding to what the word of God says of the virtuous, surrendered, Spirit-filled graced among women, Mary of Scripture and contrary to it, RCs assert of this demonic (yes) demigoddess that “the power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited,” “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,” and is actually “like unto Him.” for “when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His,” and that “ “all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin,” and that “the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived,” for “she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will...”

Thus “he who is under the protection of Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost. “ For “the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse.” “through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified.” And “through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts,” and “it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose.”

Moreover, “Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her.” o that “After God, it is impossible to think of anything greater than His Mother,” to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood...Next to God, she deserves the highest praise....no creature, can ever be compared to her:”

Sources: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/MarySC.html#ascriptions

However, lest we imagine that in Bible times such adulation as kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods) would constitute worship in Scripture, it is asserted that “we must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess.”

This imaginary distinction btwn “hyperdulia” and “latria is consistent with the manner of perverse Cath reasoning by which we are accused of hating the Mary of Scripture by reproving their unScriptural version of her.

[daniel1212]

What criteria have you applied in determining that the Fatima apparition is not from God?

See above. The Mary of Catholicism simply is not the Mary of Scripture.

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Cathsshould only do (and I should do more of) what Mary and every believer in Scripture did in praying to Heaven, which was to pray directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

Instead, Caths basically say,

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

[ealgeone]

I went to bed and cried myself to sleep.

Seriously, what is really sad is the utter lack of an attempt by catholics to square away the comments of the "spirit" with the Word. Instead we get newspaper clippings and name calling.

[Mark17]

😂😇😆😀😄

[ealgeone]

Our Lady of Fatima – Her Prophecies and Warnings Remain as Essential as Ever!

Then I suppose you and every catholic will be hence forth wearing your Brown Scapular as required by the "vision" that appeared at Fatima??

It promised that those who do "would not see the fires of hell"

We also see the "vision" requiring a consecration to her "immaculate heart".....notice...not to Christ.

We also see the "vision" requiring daily sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. Really? Daily sacrifices? Have you offered those today?

The ultimate sacrifice of Christ was not enough apparently.

The "proclamation" of the "vision" at Fatima is in total contrast to the Word which instructs that it is only through Christ that we will have salvation (John 3:16).

Those who follow this "vision" that appeared at Fatima are not following Christ.

[ealgeone]

What criteria have you applied in determining that the Fatima apparition is not from God?

A comparison of what the "vision" said with the Word of God.

See my comments in other posts regarding quotes from the vision and how they compare to Scripture.

We could turn this question around to you and ask, "What criteria have you applied in determining the Fatima apparition is from God?

[HossB86]

(interesting, since there was no ‘bible’ till the catholic church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, put the OT and NT together,at the council of nicea....

O RLY?

Wonder what in the world Jesus referred to when he said, "it is written...."??

Or wonder what Paul and Peter and Matthew and Mark, et. al. wrote and distributed among the NT churches??

The only thing the Roman Catholic Church can truly lay claim to is that they twist, obfuscate, and mostly ignore the Scriptures they tend to lay claim to so closely.

Hoss

[HossB86]

If I thought for a minute that muslims agreed with anything I believe, I'd really take a good hard second look at it, especially if there's no Scriptural support for the doctrine, like virtually all the Marian stuff.

AMEN. And don't forget CCC 841 -- if any "religion" needed to reevaluate, it's Roman Catholicism since they teach that they and Muslims believe in the same "God."

Hoss

[HossB86]

A quote from your link:

As if transformed by a sorcerer’s wand,....

Truly put. Definitely not from God.

Hoss

[delchiante]

Quote-The only thing the Roman Catholic Church can truly lay claim to is that they twist, obfuscate, and mostly ignore the Scriptures they tend to lay claim to so closely.

That can be seen in the gospel Paul taught according to scripture vs. Rome’s, according to their catechism..

But that gospel Rome teaches isn’t exclusive to Roman Catholics- lots of Christians believe Jesus died for our sins on Good Friday and raised Easter Sunday.

That is the problem. Rome has another Jesus and another gospel and all these Fatima things and our lady’s point to a false Jesus-.

These lady’s and things like Fatima aren’t silent on Jesus. That rosary isn’t silent on Bible stuff. The prayers (I think 5) given by Fatima have jesus in them too.

Logic would say if this is a liar or lying prophetess, why would they ever point to Truth? Why would a liar point to Jesus?

Answer- they wouldn’t. Unless they were pointing to a false version..

But a protestant has to believe that the Jesus of Rome is fake, first.
And considering what ‘gospel’ is observed in the church worship (good friday, Easter Sunday) that is a step the Billy Graham’s haven’t taken..

If Rome’s gospel can be proven by scripture to be false- why would one not argue that Christianity all worship Rome’s false Jesus and false gospel?
Gets a little sticky in there the further one tries to test and prove all things..

Paul wouldn’t recognize good Friday or Easter, according to Rome. He would recognize Passover and First Fruits, according to Scripture.

Anyone who doesn’t see a difference won’t ever ask if Rome has another Jesus.

[kinsman redeemer]

You two said,
"It is what it is .. factual, including the miracle of the sun."
and
"The pictures of the dancing sun were in the local newspaper. It is factual."

Other corroborated evidences of Mary supposedly showing up to remind us of her marvelous works:

• "Clearwater Virgin", where an image of Mary was reported to have appeared in the glass façade of a finance building. The building drew an estimated one million visitors over the next several years and was purchased by an Ohio Catholic revivalism group.
• on a fence in Coogee, Australia in 2003;
• at a hospital in Milton, Massachusetts in June 2003;
• in a felled tree in Passaic, New Jersey in 2003;
• on a rock in Ghana;
• on an underpass in Chicago;
• on a lump of firewood in Janesville, Wisconsin;
• on a chocolate factory in Fountain Valley, California;
• on a pizza pan in Houston, Texas;
• and in numerous other apparitions such as, at Our Lady of Assiut in which many people reported a bright image atop a building.

Some of these "factual" evidences may have been motivated by pure greed since a grilled cheese sandwich, a pretzel and a pebble said to resemble images of the Virgin Mary have been offered for sale on internet auction sites.

[daniel1212]

Bring it on, Old Yeller!!! We Catholics have a strong continence, and can refute anything you might say....especially if it’s anti-Mary!! Do so at your own soul’s peril..

What is in evident peril is the souls of those who engage in what in Scripture would be considered idolatry. See 88 (second part) 89 above. /p>

as even the Muslims know that Mary is SUPER SPECIAL!!

I understand that your church claims to worship the same god as that of Islam (you can spare the damage control spin), however invoking the esteem of Islam for Mary, whom, at one point Muhammad thought was part of the Trinity, is hardly a valid argument, as Islam (selectively) asserts esteem for the Bible, as well as characters therein. For invoking such gives an air of validity to falsehood. Yet I have not seen even the Mary Islam affirms as overall being the Mary of Catholicism.

It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority). And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).

As making that distinction itself is presumptuous, the Scriptures do not sanction religiously bowing down to any statue in supplication, nor supplies even one single prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord (crying "Abba, Father," Gal. 4:6; not "Mama, Mother"), nor in instructions on who to pray to ("our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother").

Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

• as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

• as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

• as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

• as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

• as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

• as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

• as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

• as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

• as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

• as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

• as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

• as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

• as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

• as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

• as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

• as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

• and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

• And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4)

Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)

The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25).

The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God

[ealgeone]

The silence from catholicism is deafening.