Our Lady of Fatima predicted WWI would end October 19, 1918. But… it didn’t. How is this explainable?
I did not know that. But, then again I dont believe in it anyway.
This is because Our Lady NEVER stated specifically when WWI would end; She simply stated that, “The war (WWI was then raging) is going to end. But, if people do not stop offending God, a worse war will break out in the pontificate of Pius XI.”
I would be interested in finding out where you found this specific failed prophecy, JuanCarlos. It sounds a little suspicious to me.
It was a Catholic book I read. The ironic thing was the caption under “October 19, 1918”, read “WWI ends, to the day Our Lady predicted.” But any other historian will tell you that it ended many months later, teh following year. This failed prophecy was confirmed in another book I read.
And WWII began in the reign of of Pius XII. Go to wikipedia and type in WWII and it’ll tell you when it started
Hang on - wasn’t the Armistice (official document ordering cease fire) signed November 11, 1918? That’s celebrated in many countries as the date on which the war ended.
I think we can forgive our Lady for being less than 30 days off!
I’m no expert on Fatima, however it was Oct 13 1917 when our Lady said “the war will end soon.” Never gave a date. And Hitler invaded Austria in 1938 which would cover the pontificat of Pius XI - some historians say that the war did not start until Sept.'39 when the nazis went into Poland.
I guess it depends Juan on who to talk to!:hmmm:
well i’m sure if we asked the Austrians THEY would tell us when the war started.
I dont see why this date right wrong a bit off or otherwise is an issue anyway.
Can’t agree more.
Approved apparitions are about reinforcing the truths of the Gospel, not about predictions and dates.
Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively **by volunteers **from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles **can be edited by anyone **with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. The name Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites.
In every article, links will guide you to associated articles, often with additional information. **Anyone is welcome to add **information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia’s editing policies and to an appropriate standard. One need not fear accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia’s software, known as MediaWiki, is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.
Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while **newer articles may still contain significant misinformation, **unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed. (See Researching with Wikipedia for more details.) However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias
At the risk of hijacking the thread, while I enjoy reading Wikipedia, as a professor myself, I never allow Wikipedia entries in my students’ bibliographies, especially theses. I tell them to go straight to the actual source.
My professors said the same thing, and I agree. Wikipedia is great for finding out who was the runner up for season 3 of American Idol, but I don’t know if I’d really trust it for anything else, other than an incredibly cursory understanding of an issue.
The question in the OP is meaningless, and I say this with no offense to the poster intended.
The Madonna, speaking on July 13, 1917, three years into World War I and more than a year from the war’s end, told the children: “If what I will tell you is carried out, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is coming to an end. But if they do not cease offending the Lord, in the reign of Pius XI will begin another, worse war…” Two decades later, in 1939, World War II broke out.
Private revelations such as happened at Fatima, though approved by the Church, are not necessary for Catholics to believe. One can be Catholic and choose to take private revelations with a grain of salt if you are so inclined.
Peace be with you,
P.S. Perhaps you should go to THE source.
Regarding the “catholic” book, I can only speculate that the author cited an unknown/unreliable source. As for Wikipedia stating that World War II began during the pontificate of Pius XII, maybe the shooting war began during Pius XII’s pontificate, but Japan’s invasion of Manchuria occuring in 1931, while Pius
XI was still alive.
Which leads to an interesting situation. The referencing system does not permit the student to acknowledge the real source of his information. It is turned into a sort of game, where the idea is to be within the approved circle and then collect references.
About fifty percent of claims in published peer-reviewed literature are later either retracted or contradicted by other publications. Whilst primary literature has its place, it is not as a source of unbiased facts for students.
Yes. Nevertheless, because of the highly fluid nature of Wikipedia, I consider it an unsuitable source of scholarly information. I therefore demand removal of all Wikipedia bibliographic entries and tell them to find other sources.