New Fatima Documentary to Air, Critical of Vatican

[itsjustdave1988]

A consecration is simply a prayer. A prayer cannot be invalid as if it were a Holy Sacrament. With such a prayer, any grace bestowed by God comes ex opere operantis. It is not like a Holy Sacrament, which requires valid form, matter, and intent for the grace to be bestowed ex opere operato. So the whole argument of validity is absurd.

Either the pope consecrated Russia or he did not. The pope said he did, and did so quite publically. Opinions regarding validity are irrelevant and make no theological sense.

[dominicsavio]

peace be with you!

as to whoever posted about the anonymous Vatican official telling her to "change" her statements about the 1984 Consecration...I personally find it very hard to believe that someone like Lucia who would have willing gave her life as a testimony to the truth of the Fatima messages at the age of 10 would now just change her mind because some anonymous official told her too. Everyone was telling her too when she was 10. She was threatened with being boiled alive and willingly accepted to suffer death rather than lie. I don't think someone could pressure her now to do just that regarding other statements. I don't think that story is true based on what we know of Sr. Lucia.

[Jim ov Cov]

If Russia was consecrated in the manner Our Lady requested over 20 years ago, where is the much vaunted 'conversion'? If anything, things are getting worse. Abortion is still the usual means of birth prevention, Catholics are still restricted, Russia still has it's armaments, and still interferes in the affairs of it's neighbours (Ukraine, Belarus). It is patently obvious that Russia is not converted, there has not been a period of peace granted to the world, and Our Lady has not received the acknowledgement that God desires. Ergo, the consecration has not been done in the manner Our Lady requested.

If the Mother of God comes to earth and prophecys the time and place of a great miracle, perhaps the greatest public miracle since Our Lord's time, and then performs the miracle for believers and unbelievers alike, then everyone, the Holy Father included, better take notice. The solemn requests of the Mother of God can not just be dismissed as a 'private revelation'. Either it is reasonable to believe that the Fatima revelations are true (they don't have to be De Fide to be true) or it isn't. If it is reasonable to believe, as most of us seem to, then it equally reasonable to expect that Our Lady's requests should be faithfully fulfilled. What are we saying otherwise? "Sorry Holy Mother, we don't need your heavenly assistance thank you very much." We should rejoice that the Church has been granted such a great favour, and we should be eager to follow the plan provided by Heaven for true peace in the world. How many of us unthinkingly live and act on 'private revelations' without so much as a quibble? All of us. Every single last one of us. The Rosary, the Divine Mercy, the Miraculous medal, the brown scapular, Lourdes water, St. Juan Diego's Tilma, the fifteen prayers of St. Bridget, St. Anthony's brief, the green scapular, the list is endless. Why suddenly decide that the same criterion doesn't apply to Fatima? It reveals something very wrong in our modern, Catholic pysche concerning Fatima.

The Consecration of Russia (not the world, or humanity or anything else) MUST be done, publicly, solemnly, by the Holy father, in unison with all the bishops of the world, right now. Why wait?

[Edwin1961]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Fatima, as all apparitions, is a private revelation.

I looked in the Catechism and there is nothing regarding "general" revelations.

Fatima is not part of the Deposit of Faith.

Just because we recognize the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Fatima does not require any belief in the message/apparitions of Fatima.

I agree with David on this one, and always have. Private revelations, IMO, are meant to be just that 'private'. (Just like the supposed number of Popes we are to have before Christ's return). Satan can take many forms and even mimic holy images and quote Scripture. Satan is using 'this particular revelation' and pitting it against the Church and fueling the fire and support for the Protestants.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, is supposed to LEAD us to Jesus Christ, not be equal or above Jesus Christ. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the ONLY human being given the graces TO BE the Mother of God, NOT God!

I just don't understand why people want to put Mary higher than God when it comes to these private revelations? BVM is our heavenly Mother and helps us to pray to her son, Jesus. Yes, she has been given special graces to communicate to earth on behalf of her Son, but not to be final subject of the messages.

I pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary for help and guidance, so her may direct my prayers toward her Son. Yet, I don't ask her to DO the request, then we'd be precisely doing what the Protestants 'say' we are doing...idol worshipping her!

Go with God!
Edwin

[misericordie]

Originally Posted by DominvsVobiscvm

Their main argument, so far as I understand, is that Sister Lucia several times stated that the "Consecration" was invalid, and only later under pressure said it was.

And there actually seems to be some truth to this. At least, I've never seen an orthodox Catholic reply to these accusations, and the documentation produced in support of them.

I agree!! UMMMMM, may be some masons WITHIN the vatican?? In any event, i cannot wait to see the documentary.

[itsjustdave1988]

If Russia was consecrated in the manner Our Lady requested over 20 years ago, where is the much vaunted 'conversion'?

It's a prayer. Not by our will and not in our time, but by the will of the Father will it be answered. Your criteria for this prayer being answered is, in my opinion, absurd. For many, the proof was the fall of the USSR. An atheist nation, by policy, has now allowed increased religious freedom. Hmmmm.... perhaps your understanding of Our Lady's intent is different than Our Lady's.

[itsjustdave1988]

I think prayers are being answered ...

Religious Freedom in Russia Today
by Vladimir Feodorov, Oct 1998
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...50/ai_53631773

[katolik]

Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988

I think prayers are being answered ...

Religious Freedom in Russia Today
by Vladimir Feodorov, Oct 1998
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...50/ai_53631773

Do you think Our Lady would want to support Evangelicals and other Protestants who call people with a devotion to Mary,Mother of God, idolaters? Who view the crucifix and statue of Our Lady of Fatima as idols?

[TNT]

The only items of Fatima that are in controversy in the Catholic mileau is:
1. Was the 3rd secret fully revealed in 2000.
2. Was Russia's consecration done as Lucy desired in accord with the instructions from the Lady in the apparition.

All the rest is accepted by Catholics everywhere. This includes an authentic apparition and the greatest public miracle since the loaves and fishes.

You have to wonder why God would put together such a program. What was so important that it be done in the first place. Personally, I connect it with the survival of the Church of Christ in the future sometime after 1917.
Let us wait to see what the documentary has to say on the controversies.

PAX is a small outfit, but I don't think the mainline channels would accept the Fatima doc. any more than they did the "Passion of the Christ".
I will venture to say that PAX will put on Mel's film long before the Mainline channels, unless Mel holds out for big $. That would say nothing of the value of Mel's film, would it?

Question:
Am I or am I not permitted to criticize the "Vatican", whatever that means? Can the Vatican make bad judgements or not? If they can, then they can be criticized.
For instance, when the Vatican said it was OK to receive the host in the hand, was that a great idea? If so, what great good came from it? After all, Vatican Popes b4 have condemned it. Exactly when did this condemnation become voila a good act?

WMI

[TNT]

Originally Posted by puzzleannie

....the Church declared the original Fatima message permissible for belief and veneration of Our Lady of Fatima permissible under that title.

Pronouncements, curses, deprecations, defiance and detraction issued against the Pope by certain adherents of this cultus enjoy no such approval and lead to schism and even outright heresy. Which is precisely why the Church is so reluctanct to give credence to private revelation.

Defiance of the Pope on this issue is as scandalous and sinful as defiance on issues such as abortion, women priests, adherence to liturgical norms and other issues of far graver importance. Frances Kissling move over, you've got company.

Actually, I believe the Church says WORTHY of belief, not just permissable.
Who, exactly in the Catholic members cursed the pope? What curse did they say? Where is that recorded? I'd like to have a word with them.

Actually, the Church is not reluctant on apparitions out of fear for schism or heresy.
It has a well thought out and historically successful method of discernment. Step by step. If it is authentic, it is pronounced as worthy of belief. If not, then it is either ignored as not worthy, or condemned by the bishop in authority as Mejagorie was about 3 times over in order to dispel confusion of the faithful. If the apparition claim can't get passed the bishop it's DOA.
Finally, there has always been defiance of the pope on some subject or another. The modernist defies the dogma of inerrancy of Scripture, the other end defies the primacy of the papacy (Eastern orthodox). Some have defied the pope merely on disciplinary matters, but these have no equivalence to abortion, female priests as you join them. One is questionable or ambiguous opinions or discipline and the other is Revelation.
If one agrees only to attend a Traditional Mass, and avoid the Novus Ordo, is that defiance? The pope says both are agreeable to him. Yet the Novus Ordo is rejected by some. Is that defiance?
Is the Novus Ordo Mass revelation?
Can one pope defy a previous pope on a teaching of the Catholic Church? Or is the current pontiff a supreme authority that stands alone, disconnected from previous papal teachings as the Mormons would tell you about their "Apostle/Prophets"?
ps. Is there a spell checker on this message board or am I on my own?
WMI

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Actually, I believe the Church says WORTHY of belief, not just permissable.

In Catholic lingo, they are one and the same thing. Any number of non-Biblical miraculous events are proposed by the Church for inspiration and permissible belief, but none are required.

[john654]

Hi,
This has got the SSPX written all over it!

John

[TNT]

Originally Posted by DominvsVobiscvm

In Catholic lingo, they are one and the same thing. Any number of non-Biblical miraculous events are proposed by the Church for inspiration and permissible belief, but none are required.

Really? I did not know that. I just never could find any official pronouncement on an apparition that used the word permissable. That does not mean it is not there somewhere. Could you tell me where you found it?
Gratefully,
WMI

Worthy:
Webster's Revised Unabridged
Wor"thy (?), a. [Compar.Worthier(); superl. Worthiest.] [OE. worthi, wurþi, from worth, wurþ, n.; cf. Icel. ver\'ebugr, D. waardig, G. w\'81rdig, OHG. wirdīg. See Worth, n.]

Having worth or excellence; possessing merit; valuable; deserving; estimable; excellent; virtuous.

Permissible:

Per*mis"si*ble (?), a. That may be permitted; allowable; admissible. -- Per*mis"si*ble*ness, n. -- Per*mis"si*bly, adv.

If the RCC co-mingles these words as being the same, then I'm still confused.. or are you? I always thought the RCC was known for precision as opposed to ambiguity or informality in its pronouncements.

[TNT]

Originally Posted by john654

Hi,
This has got the SSPX written all over it!

John

SSPX may encourage it but they are UNlikely behind it. I have no bones to pick for or against the SSPX, except they sometimes seem illogical. I would not question their sincerity or devotion to the RCC. BUT...

I would rather guess that it is Fr Gruner's apostolate (www.fatima.org) that is behind this. Their whole reason for existing is the "Consecration of Russia" via Lucy's later private revelation. You might try that site and see how they promote the upcoming broadcast. That should give the clue. In any case I plan to record it for study.

Also, I believe the instructions to Lucy by the Lady of the apparition was not until about 1929 concerning the consecration request. I think that fulfilled a promise by the Lady in 1917 to return.

I do not know if the Church found this later apparition as "worthy of belief" in any official pronouncement. Does anyone have more on this?
WMI

[Gottle of Geer]

Originally Posted by Jim ov Cov

If Russia was consecrated in the manner Our Lady requested over 20 years ago, where is the much vaunted 'conversion'? If anything, things are getting worse. Abortion is still the usual means of birth prevention, Catholics are still restricted, Russia still has it's armaments, and still interferes in the affairs of it's neighbours (Ukraine, Belarus). It is patently obvious that Russia is not converted, there has not been a period of peace granted to the world, and Our Lady has not received the acknowledgement that God desires. Ergo, the consecration has not been done in the manner Our Lady requested.

If the Mother of God comes to earth and prophecys the time and place of a great miracle, perhaps the greatest public miracle since Our Lord's time, and then performs the miracle for believers and unbelievers alike, then everyone, the Holy Father included, better take notice. The solemn requests of the Mother of God can not just be dismissed as a 'private revelation'. Either it is reasonable to believe that the Fatima revelations are true (they don't have to be De Fide to be true) or it isn't.

## This is one of the difficulties in accepting them - they are called private, yet require to be treated as though they were more cetainly genuine than merely private revelations. They are in a sort of limbo between being divinely revealed therefore certainly genuine, and privately revealed, therefore not certainly genuine in all respects. One solution would be to treat the distinctions as purely artificial, and to canonise the revelations at Fatima as the 28th book of the NT. Since they are preached on, they are for all practical purposes "Holy writ" already.

If the Mother of God comes to earth and prophecys the time and place of a great miracle, perhaps the greatest public miracle since Our Lord's time, and then performs the miracle for believers and unbelievers alike, then everyone, the Holy Father included, better take notice. The solemn requests of the Mother of God can not just be dismissed as a 'private revelation'. Either it is reasonable to believe that the Fatima revelations are true (they don't have to be De Fide to be true) or it isn't. If it is reasonable to believe, as most of us seem to, then it equally reasonable to expect that Our Lady's requests should be faithfully fulfilled. What are we saying otherwise? "Sorry Holy Mother, we don't need your heavenly assistance thank you very much." We should rejoice that the Church has been granted such a great favour, and we should be eager to follow the plan provided by Heaven for true peace in the world. How many of us unthinkingly live and act on 'private revelations' without so much as a quibble? All of us. Every single last one of us. The Rosary, the Divine Mercy, the Miraculous medal, the brown scapular, Lourdes water, St. Juan Diego's Tilma, the fifteen prayers of St. Bridget, St. Anthony's brief, the green scapular, the list is endless. Why suddenly decide that the same criterion doesn't apply to Fatima? It reveals something very wrong in our modern, Catholic pysche concerning Fatima.

The Consecration of Russia (not the world, or humanity or anything else) MUST be done, publicly, solemnly, by the Holy father, in unison with all the bishops of the world, right now. Why wait?