Have we forgotten fatima?

How can we be sure that our Bishops carried out their part of the conseration, publically in their cathedrals, as the pope requested. Can this ever be proven ? If not, then it was not fullfilled.

How could such ever be proven, then? The best you can ever do is go by someone’s word, unless you’re omniscient.

:rolleyes:

[quote=Sanosuke]I wish Catholic religion classes taught anything of value. :confused: Forgive me if others have had different experiences, but I spent seven years in Catholic religion classes that kept repeating that Jesus loves each and every one of us. While this is true, and God’s love for us is both a reality and a fundamental teaching in Christian theology, the teachings of the Church are much deeper than that.

I empathize with you, SueG. Only recently did I download a rather lengthy document from ewtn.com on Fatima, and only then did I find out what all the fuss was about. My school, which has a small scene depicting Our Lady of Fatima in front of the three children, never informed its students of anything that was revealed there.

Just like I was never taught about Fatima, I also learned very little from the Catechism, studied two saints in seven years, and did not even know the ante-Nicean Fathers existed until last year.

My mother teaches summer school of religion for the public school students at my parish. When they were going over lesson plans with the administration, the layman in charge of the circus advised my mom to stay away from the topic of sin and stick to how much Jesus loves all of us. No offense to this particular layman, but Catholic schools can keep saying that until they are blue in the face, but something as deep as God’s love cannot be understood unless one understands the Cross, and the Cross cannot be understood until one understands sin. The only evidence of love is sacrifice, and Jesus made the greatest sacrifice for our iniquities.

I leave my high school this year disappointed that my classmates will walk away not knowing anything about their faiths. And when they finally do begin to care about Christ in the future, they won’t know where to look: the Catechism was rarely ever pulled off the shelf (except by one sterling Libyan deacon).

In addition to Fatima I would love to see the Fathers, the Bible, Church history, the saints, basic theology, philosophy, the Catechism and many other things taught in religion classes. I found my religion classes lacking much. And since Fatima’s message was so urgent, our schools’ responses should be equally as urgent. Let’s always keep our educators in our prayers so that they may teach the beauty of our faith.
[/quote]

I agree, and then we would see the Faith grow in our Country.

[quote=quasimodo]We must be careful to remember that Fatima is only private revelation not Public Revelation. It is worthy of belief nothing more. Belief in it has no bearing on Salvation.
[/quote]

It can and should have a powerful effect on our faith and that WILL have a wonderful bearing on our Salvation… Several Popes have said that Fatima is a “Re-affirmation of the Gospels”. Just what do you think “Worthy of Belief” means??? Jesus did not send His Mother to us just to have us brush her aside.

I have always found John Paul II’s love for Fatima and Our Lady especially edifying. I can not see the Fatima message being lost in his pontificate. I believe he scheduled to make one more trip there soon if his health holds up.

My family has been envolved in the Fatima First Saturadys since the early 50’s. My own parish has the devotions of the Rosary and prayers after every mass during the week.

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Wrong, Hananiah.

Sister Lucia says Russia was indeed consecrated, in union with all the world’s bishops. She recently reaffirmed this in an interview.

So, who are we to believe?

The Holy Father, John Paul II, the Pope of Rome; and the Fatima Seer herself?

Or some quasi-schismatic who believes the sun revolves around the earth?
[/quote]

First, that the Holy Father can be wrong on this matter is evident in the fact that previous Popes have tried to fulfill Our Lady’s requests yet failed. Second, the Fatima Seer herself has given contradictory testimony on this matter. Between 1984-1989 she stated 5 times that the consecration was not fulfilled because Russia was not mentioned by name. She has since said three times that the consecration was fulfilled. Which is it? Third, I challenge you to find anything bordering on schismatic in Sungenis’ writings. He assosiates with people whom I would consider quasi-schismatic, I will grant you that much, but he himself is not. Fourth, that he is a geocentrist has no bearing on the issue at hand. That is simply ad homenim. Try to deal with his arguments on their merits.

Between 1984-1989 she stated 5 times that the consecration was not fulfilled because Russia was not mentioned by name.

Documentation, please?

Yes…I’m very interested in seeing the proof of these statements.

[quote=Hananiah]First, that the Holy Father can be wrong on this matter is evident in the fact that previous Popes have tried to fulfill Our Lady’s requests yet failed. Second, the Fatima Seer herself has given contradictory testimony on this matter. Between 1984-1989 she stated 5 times that the consecration was not fulfilled because Russia was not mentioned by name. She has since said three times that the consecration was fulfilled. Which is it? Third, I challenge you to find anything bordering on schismatic in Sungenis’ writings. He assosiates with people whom I would consider quasi-schismatic, I will grant you that much, but he himself is not. Fourth, that he is a geocentrist has no bearing on the issue at hand. That is simply ad homenim. Try to deal with his arguments on their merits.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but I think all of this is pretty silly. Do we really think that so much hinges on whether the Pope performs this non-sacramental ceremony “correctly”? That the right “magic words” are used? Come on! Don’t we believe in a God Who can read the intentions of our hearts, Who isn’t bound by formulas and incantations? This whole preoccupation strikes me as legalistic in the extreme. If you’re so concerned with the spiritual health of Russia, you can pray for her yourself, send financial support, or even go over there as a relief worker or missionary.

One issue I have never seen addressed by people who write about the consecration and claim it has not been accomplished:

The consecration is supposed to have been performed by the Pope in cooperation with “all” the bishops of the world. There are more than 3,000 bishops today. Are we to understand that if even one bishop failed to join in the consecration that it wouldn’t “take”?

What if one bishop refused to participate, was too ill to participate, maybe didn’t even hear about the impending consecration until after the fact?

Would such a situation mean the consecration failed? How could we know whether it did or didn’t, no matter what form of words the Pope chose to use, no matter how explicit he was about naming Russia?

There would be no way to track down each bishop and verify that he had participated. This would leave us unable to have any confidence that the consecration had occurred, and it would mean that Mary had asked for something that, by its nature, could not be verified to have happened.

If the answer is that all that is necessary is a “moral unanimity” of the bishops, then wouldn’t that argue that all that is necessary on the Pope’s part is the equivalent–and that it would be enough on his part to consecrate the whole world to the Immaculate Heart, on the theory that Russia is part of the world?

[quote=Karl Keating]One issue I have never seen addressed by people who write about the consecration and claim it has not been accomplished:

[/quote]

I had always understood it to be in Spiritual Communion with the Pope. Those who are physically or not physically able was not a criteria. They need only be loyal to Holy Mother Church. A matter which of course only God can know. The Bishops were not required to be present nor did they have to repeat a special set of prayers to complete their participation, was my understanding. John Paul II spoke about this in March at a Papal audience.

Another issue:

Some who say the Pope’s 1984 consecration was insufficient say the proof is that Russia is not yet Catholic. Mary promised that Russia would be converted, and we have not yet seen a conversion. Therefore, there has been no consecration.

This presumes two things:

  1. The conversion mentioned is to the Catholic faith. … Maybe not, say some. They speculate that, inasmuch as the errors spread by Russia were in the form of communism, it is possible that the message meant conversion away from communism but not necessarily or immediately to the Catholic faith.

  2. The conversion is to be immediate. … Even if the conversion is to be understood as to the Catholic faith, there is nothing in the message of Fatima that says when the conversion will occur. It is to occur after the consecration, but no timeline is given. When Central and Eastern Europe converted to Catholicism, the conversion took place over centuries. There is no recorded instance of whole countries converting to the faith in a handful of years, and there is no reason to think that the Fatima message implies an instantaneous conversion.

Karl,

Even if the conversion is to be understood as to the Catholic faith, there is nothing in the message of Fatima that says when the conversion will occur.

The Blessed Mother does say “In the end” Her Immaculate Heart would triumph and Russia would be converted. What She meant by “in the end” is anybody’s guess.

God bless you

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm].

So, who are we to believe?

The Holy Father, John Paul II, the Pope of Rome; and the Fatima Seer herself?

Or some quasi-schismatic who believes the sun revolves around the earth?
[/quote]

Or a schismatic seKKKt whose followers worship the mirror? :slight_smile:

[quote=Karl Keating]There is no recorded instance of whole countries converting to the faith in a handful of years, and there is no reason to think that the Fatima message implies an instantaneous conversion.
[/quote]

This is not true after Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego there was a mass conversion.

“The conversion of Mexico from devil-worship to the Catholic Faith is the most sudden and spectacular mass conversion in all of history. In Aztec Mexico, before the arrival of Hernan Cortes and the Spanish, human sacrifice was practiced on a far greater scale than anywhere else in history. Hundreds of victims were slaughtered every day. Cortes’ conquest, against odds of ten thousand to one, ended the human sacrifice, but over the next ten years only a small part of the the Mexican people accepted Christianity. But after Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to Blessed Juan Diego and left her portrait with him, still miraculously preserved in Mexico, nine million Mexicans were baptized in the next twenty years. Mexico became and has remained a Catholic country.”

See reference:
straphael.net/pl/pages/community/articles/details.html?ra=1;id=119

Russia has had twenty years and there is nothing like that going on over there.

The Communion of Reparation is needed! We all have to do are part!

[quote=Adam]Can someone please recommend me a good book on Fatima?.
[/quote]

“Our Lady Of Fatima” by William Thomas Walsh is one of the classics on Fatima.

Prophesies are usually well understood in retrospect. We ‘ll probably know about all the facts of this prophesy long after the prophesy have been fulfilled. We should not gruple with the fine details of a prophesy, especially about when something will take place, but follow what the main message is. In any case the messages of all apparitions are not in conflict with the Gospel Remember, at Jesus’ time people were trying to find out when the Messiah would come. Yet he was right there with them.

Two sources for Sr. Lucia’s switch:

Sol de Fatima (September 1985)
Fatima, Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 172-173)

I guess I’ll have to learn Portuguese to check on that first one.

Are there any (short) online articles?

None that I know of, but the relevant section from Sungenis’ essay is fairly short.

Second, in an interview which appeared in Sol de Fatima (September 1985), Sister Lucia was asked if the Pope fulfilled the request made by Our Lady at Tuy, Spain, when he consecrated the world on March 25, 1984. Sister Lucia answered: “There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia.” The interviewer then asked, “So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?” Sister Lucia answered: “No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act.” [This coincides with the previous statement cited from John Paul II that he did not consecrate Russia though he “tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances”]. On March 22, 1984, Sister Lucia was celebrating her seventy-seventh birthday at the Carmel of Coimbra. Her long-time friend, Eugenia Pestana, visited her, as was her annual custom. Eugenia asked her: “Lucia, Sunday is the Consecration?” referring to the March 25 date. Having already read the text of the Pope’s speech, Sister Lucia answered: “That consecration cannot have a decisive character because Russia does not appear in it as the sole object of consecration.” (Fatima, Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 172-173).

During this time, Cardinal Gagnon, in an interview with Fr. Caillon, states that the consecration of Russia has not been accomplished. In 1986, Maria do Fetal, cousin to Sister Lucia, publicly quotes Sister Lucia as saying that the consecration of Russia has not been performed. But similar to Fr. Coelho’s reversal (previously cited), Maria will also mysteriously change her mind in 1989. In addition, in 1988, Cardinal Gagnon will castigate Fr. Nicholas Gruner for publishing his remarks in the Fatima Crusader, claiming they were not meant for publication.

Third, after interviewing Sister Lucia outside her convent, Enrico Romero publishes the contents on July 20, 1987. He reports that Sister Lucia again stated that the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima had not been accomplished. This is followed on October 25, 1987 with an acknowledgment by Cardinal Mayer, in front of an audience of a dozen Catholic leaders, that the consecration of Russia had not been accomplished.

Fourth, prior to July 1989, Cardinal Law of Boston is reported to have visited Sister Lucia to ask her about the consecration of Russia. Sister Lucia remarked: “Has it been done on the narrow road of collegial consecration that Our Lady demanded and has been wanting? No, that has not been done.”

…After achieving her silence, Archbishop Bertone then produces a four-page, typewritten statement, purportedly typed and signed by Sister Lucia herself on November 8, 1989, that the consecration of Russia had been accomplished.

…Many point out, however, that Sister Lucia has never stated, privately or publicly, that she composed the statement, let alone sign it. She has never been known to type a letter, since all her correspondence thus far has been from her own handwriting. Her own blood-sister, Carolina, indicates that Sister Lucia does not even know how to type. And certainly, an admission by Sister Lucia that the March 25, 1984 consecration satisfied Our Lady’s request would completely contradict every statement she has made on the requirements for the consecration over the previous sixty years, including her five denials of 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989, respectively.

Other aspects of the November 8, 1989 letter also cause suspicion. First, in its June 26, 2000 press release, the Vatican does not provide the source of the November 1989 letter. Only the date is provided. Thus, it is not known to whom Sister Lucia was writing the letter; nor what prompted her to write it. The most obvious reason the Vatican wishes not to reveal the source is that they are quite aware that on October 22, 1990, a court-accredited forensic scientist who analyzed the signature on the four-page typewritten statement stated, in writing, that the person who signed it was not the same person who signed Sister Lucia’s memoirs. If so, then this is a case of forgery perpetrated by the Vatican itself. The Vatican purports that Sister Lucia wrote the letter to a man named Walter Noelcker.
www.catholicintl.com, Fatima: Consecration or Coverup?

Dear SueG,

Judging by the path this thread took, and the fact that many people pay no attention to Fatima, I think the answer to your question is “Yes.” Those of us who should be paying attention to what the Blessed Virgin said to us (living a life of penance, prayer, virtue) pay more attention to what is the concern of the Pope and Bishops (secrets and consecrations). I, for one, have a long way to go before I can start telling the Holy Father how he should do what Mary said–I’m not doing what Mary said! We need to get our Fatima priorities in order, certainly.

This is why I strongly suggest that everyone who wants to put Our Lady’s message into practice read Sr. Lucy’s book “‘Calls’ From the Message of Fatima” which is distributed by The Ravengate Press, Box 49, Still River MA 01467. The ISBN is 972-8524-23-4.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.