Centenary of the Miracle of Fatima

realitykeeper

I noticed the centenary date of the Miracle of Fatima will be on Friday 13th October, this year. This time a hundred years ago the Bolsheviks were on the cusp of taking power in Russia. From what I understand, the third Fatima secret included a warning that Bolshevism will spread around the world causing famines, wars and destitution.

Friday, 13 October 1307, was the date Philip IV of France arrested hundreds of the Knights Templar. This is one theory has to how Friday 13th came to be associated with misfortune.

Still, irrespective of superstitions and co-incidences, I have always believed the Miracle of Fatima was a true miracle and a warning from Our Lady.

Peregrinus

The Third Secret was committed to writing by the last surviving visionary in 1944, and was published by the Vatican in 2000. You can read the full published text in the Wikipedia article on the subject. It doesn't explicitly mention Bolshevism or famine; it's best summarised as apocalyptic imagery of a war (cause unstated) in which the church suffers persecution.

I think you can read it as referring to Bolshevism if you wish to but, frankly, it's capable of a wide diversity of readings. A commentary published at the time by Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) discouraged attempts to map the vision onto historical events, and suggested that the imagery in the vision was likely drawn from the devotional books which which the visionaries were already familiar.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Third Secret was committed to writing by the last surviving visionary in 1944, and was published by the Vatican in 2000. You can read the full published text in the Wikipedia article on the subject. It doesn't explicitly mention Bolshevism or famine; it's best summarised as apocalyptic imagery of a war (cause unstated) in which the church suffers persecution.

I think you can read it as referring to Bolshevism if you wish to but, frankly, it's capable of a wide diversity of readings. A commentary published at the time by Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) discouraged attempts to map the vision onto historical events, and suggested that the imagery in the vision was likely drawn from the devotional books which which the visionaries were already familiar.

I recall when Pope John Paul II revealed the third Fatima secret (in 2005 I think) he interpreted it as the rise of Bolshevism. This would be in keeping with earlier warnings regarding Bolshevism, and of course Bolshevism would also be in keeping with the persecution of the church. I also remember people saying there has to be more to the 3rd Fatima secret because at the time, Communism had already risen, had its day and collapsed. Therefore if Pope John Paul II is correct in his interpretation, the rise of Bolshevism is a future event.

Looking to the future, is it conceivable that Bolshevism (Communism) could make a strong comeback in the near or the foreseeable future? I believe the answer is yes because I believe the QE experiment will fail in the US, EU, UK and Japan. This will have massive socio/economic consequences around the world.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

I recall when Pope John Paul II revealed the third Fatima secret (in 2005 I think) he interpreted it as the rise of Bolshevism. This would be in keeping with earlier warnings regarding Bolshevism, and of course Bolshevism would also be in keeping with the persecution of the church. I also remember people saying there has to be more to the 3rd Fatima secret because at the time, Communism had already risen, had its day and collapsed. Therefore if Pope John Paul II is correct in his interpretation, the rise of Bolshevism is a future event.

Looking to the future, is it conceivable that Bolshevism (Communism) could make a strong comeback in the near or the foreseeable future? I believe the answer is yes because I believe the QE experiment will fail in the US, EU, UK and Japan. This will have massive socio/economic consequences around the world.

The Third Secret was disclosed in 2000. My recollection, for what it's worth, is that Pope John Paul II saw it as prefiguring the assassination attempt on himself, which had happened twenty years earlier (but, of course, 63 years after the Fatima visions). There is a theory that that attempt was ultimately orchstrated by the KGB, which would provide a link to Bolshevism if you really want one, but that's just one of many theories.

Even if we choose to view the Third Secret as referring to Bolshevism, there is no reason at all to assume that it relates to events still to unfold after the year 2000. If it refers to particular events at all (which, as already noted, Ratzinger thought it did not) why should it not refer to events which unfolded between 1917 and 2000? Or indeed to events which unfolded before 1917?

hinault

realitykeeper wrote: »

I noticed the centenary date of the Miracle of Fatima will be on Friday 13th October, this year. This time a hundred years ago the Bolsheviks were on the cusp of taking power in Russia. From what I understand, the third Fatima secret included a warning that Bolshevism will spread around the world causing famines, wars and destitution.

Friday, 13 October 1307, was the date Philip IV of France arrested hundreds of the Knights Templar. This is one theory has to how Friday 13th came to be associated with misfortune.

Still, irrespective of superstitions and co-incidences, I have always believed the Miracle of Fatima was a true miracle and a warning from Our Lady.

In October 1517, 500 years ago, the heretic Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral.

Officially the Freemason grand lodge of England was founded 300 years ago
in 1717.

A lot of anniversaries converge in 2017.:(

realitykeeper

hinault wrote: »

In October 1517, 500 years ago, the heretic Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral.

Officially the Freemason grand lodge of England was founded 300 years ago
in 1717.

A lot of anniversaries converge in 2017.:(

Yes but I`ve just discovered another connection between the centenary and Friday 13th October, this year. Be warned, this is the stuff of nightmares:

Exactly 33 years to the day prior to the great Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, that is, on October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere. When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh.

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord:"I can destroy your Church."The gentle voice of Our Lord:"You can? Then go ahead and do so."Satan:"To do so, I need more time and more power."Our Lord:"How much time? How much power?Satan:"75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."Our Lord:"You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."

Here is the link: http://www.stjosephschurch.net/leoxiii.htm

hinault

realitykeeper wrote: »

Yes but I`ve just discovered another connection between the centenary and Friday 13th October, this year. Be warned, this is the stuff of nightmares:

Exactly 33 years to the day prior to the great Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, that is, on October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere. When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh.

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord:"I can destroy your Church."The gentle voice of Our Lord:"You can? Then go ahead and do so."Satan:"To do so, I need more time and more power."Our Lord:"How much time? How much power?Satan:"75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."Our Lord:"You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."

Here is the link: http://www.stjosephschurch.net/leoxiii.htm

Wow!
I had never heard of this before reading your post. What you've recounted here is fascinating. Thanks for posting this.

hinault

2017 marks the tenth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, issued in 2007.

Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict makes clear there is one Roman Rite, with two forms, an ordinary form (according to the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, last revised in 2002), and an extraordinary form (according to the Missal of 1962). These two forms should peacefully co-exist.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Wow!
I had never heard of this before reading your post. What you've recounted here is fascinating . . .

. . . but not necessarily true. There's no record that Leo XIII ever related this vision to anybody, and accounts of the vision really only start to appear about 30 years ago - i.e. about a hundred years after the vision is supposed to have happened. None of the accounts offer any source for the story - who says that Pope Leo had such a vision, and how does that person know about it - and while they tend to mirror one another on such dramatic details as the gutteral voice of Satan, they tend to differ on more significant details such as when and where the event is supposed to have occurred, and who was present on the occasion.

Myself, I'm not convinced (to put it mildly).

solodeogloria

hinault wrote: »

In October 1517, 500 years ago, the heretic Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral.

Good morning!

Corrected your post!

I'd argue that the Protestant Reformation is much much more important than Fatima and the alleged apparition.

I'm looking forward to going to Wittenberg for the centenary in October and visiting some of the other heartland of the Reformation including places like Leipzig and Erfurt.

Putting the Bible in the hands of the people was exactly what the Lord Jesus would have wanted. Johann Tetzel couldn't have been allowed to sell indulgences unchallenged. The Roman Catholic church couldn't have been allowed to keep chaining God's word from the people by using Latin. The Reformation was hugely important for that reason.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Putting the Bible in the hands of the people was exactly what the Lord Jesus would have wanted. Johann Tetzel couldn't have been allowed to sell indulgences unchallenged.

Well, not to pick nits or anything, but he wasn't allowed to sell indulgences unchallenged. That's why the Reformation happened.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Roman Catholic church couldn't have been allowed to keep chaining God's word from the people by using Latin. The Reformation was hugely important for that reason.

No offence, but I think you may have this the wrong way around.

The scriptures weren't translated, widely distributed, etc because of the Reformation. Rather, the Reformation happened (in part) because the scriptures were translated and widely distributed, and this was mainly the result of the invention of the printing press. Printers printed the bible not because they were filled with evangelical zeal but simply because they knew they could sell it; there was a market for it.

As for translation, that's a little bit of a red herring here because, at the time of which we are speaking, practically everybody who could read at all could read Latin. The barrier for most people to reading the scriptures was not lack of Latin, but lack of the ability to read.

The Gutenberg bible was first printed in the early 1450s, nearly 70 years before Luther, and it was an immediate best-seller.

It was in Latin, but that wasn't because no German translation was available, or because translations into German were forbidden. On the contrary, the bible had been translated into Frankish in the ninth century, and into German in the fourteenth century. A German-language bible, the Mentel bible, was printed in 1466. It sold quite well, and several other German translations were produced before Luther came along, but in fact the Gutenberg, and other Latin bibles, sold much more strongly, since they could reach an international market, and even the domestic market preferred Latin bibles to German bibles. Similarly, long before Luther came along, the bible had been printed in French, in Greek (as you'd expect), in Italian and in many other languages, but Latin printings outsold them all.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . but not necessarily true. There's no record that Leo XIII ever related this vision to anybody, and accounts of the vision really only start to appear about 30 years ago - i.e. about a hundred years after the vision is supposed to have happened. None of the accounts offer any source for the story - who says that Pope Leo had such a vision, and how does that person know about it - and while they tend to mirror one another on such dramatic details as the gutteral voice of Satan, they tend to differ on more significant details such as when and where the event is supposed to have occurred, and who was present on the occasion.

Myself, I'm not convinced (to put it mildly).

Fair points, Peregrinus.

Without corroborating evidence, it is difficult to verify the details of the account contained in realitykeepers post.

I simply don't know enough about the event referred to, to be able to comment as to it's veracity. It is interesting that what is said to have happened did so 33 years prior to 1917 Fatima visions. Is what is said to have happened in 1884 tied in to 1917 Fatima visions? I'll need to do a bit more reading about this interesting event.

realitykeeper

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Corrected your post!

I'd argue that the Protestant Reformation is much much more important than Fatima and the alleged apparition.

I'm looking forward to going to Wittenberg for the centenary in October and visiting some of the other heartland of the Reformation including places like Leipzig and Erfurt.

Putting the Bible in the hands of the people was exactly what the Lord Jesus would have wanted. Johann Tetzel couldn't have been allowed to sell indulgences unchallenged. The Roman Catholic church couldn't have been allowed to keep chaining God's word from the people by using Latin. The Reformation was hugely important for that reason.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

As a Catholic I think there were both good and bad aspects to the Protestant Reformation. I assume you belong to one of the Protestant Churches and if so Wittenberg will probably have some significance to you.

It is a bit unfair to say the purpose of Latin was to keep God`s word from the people. Latin was kind of like the Esperanto of its day and English was not yet a major world language. Also, printing was still in its infancy.

1917 was a major Shemitah year (which comes every 49 years). This is significant given that Our Lady was also an Israelite. If Fatima was a warning, then this may be the year the apocalypse will begin.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not to pick nits or anything, but he wasn't allowed to sell indulgences unchallenged. That's why the Reformation happened.

Indeed - but the Reformation was hardly welcomed by the Papacy. Had it been I guess Martin Luther wouldn't have fled and a large proportion of Protestants would be Catholics.

My point is without the Reformation these things weren't challenged. The Reformation was a good thing for that reason.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, but I think you may have this the wrong way around.

The scriptures weren't translated, widely distributed, etc because of the Reformation. Rather, the Reformation happened (in part) because the scriptures were translated and widely distributed, and this was mainly the result of the invention of the printing press. Printers printed the bible not because they were filled with evangelical zeal but simply because they knew they could sell it; there was a market for it.

I disagree. Literacy increased as a result of the Reformation as people longed for people to understand the Bible. That's why there was increased efforts right up to the present day both to translate the Bible into more languages and to teach people how to read.

The Reformation mostly took traction through preaching in the vernacular and translations becoming more widely available. The Reformers understood Latin for the most part. Martin Luther translated the Bible into German and Tyndale did this from the Greek and Hebrew. To say that firstly that the Bible became more desirable to buy as a result of the Reformation is a no brainer. I never said anything about publishers and profits. That's not what I said. I said that the Bible became more widely available as a result of the Reformation. That's the truth. People like William Tyndale fled to Antwerp to illegally ship Bibles into England and was burnt for not recanting. Wycliffe of course translated the Bible earlier and as a result was routinely denounced as a heretic and when people found out that he was already dead they dug up his grave to burn his bones.

The Reformation made the Bible available. Both to read and to hear. The Catholic Church has a progressive attitude to the reading of Scripture today because of the legacy the Reformation set. That shouldn't be forgotten.

hinault should be thanking the Reformers as much as I do. In return I'll happily point out that the Reformers were fallible and made mistakes.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for translation, that's a little bit of a red herring here because, at the time of which we are speaking, practically everybody who could read at all could read Latin. The barrier for most people to reading the scriptures was not lack of Latin, but lack of the ability to read.

No. It's not a red herring. Firstly because the Reformation improved literacy and people could hear the Bible read in church in their own tongue. That's so important and something we take for granted.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Gutenberg bible was first printed in the early 1450s, nearly 70 years before Luther, and it was an immediate best-seller.

It was in Latin, but that wasn't because no German translation was available, or because translations into German were forbidden. On the contrary, the bible had been translated into Frankish in the ninth century, and into German in the fourteenth century. A German-language bible, the Mentel bible, was printed in 1466. It sold quite well, and several other German translations were produced before Luther came along, but in fact the Gutenberg, and other Latin bibles, sold much more strongly, since they could reach an international market, and even the domestic market preferred Latin bibles to German bibles. Similarly, long before Luther came along, the bible had been printed in French, in Greek (as you'd expect), in Italian and in many other languages, but Latin printings outsold them all.

I'm not referring to booksellers here. I'm referring to the fact that the Reformation made the Bible available to the masses in a way that reading it in Latin did not. Even if most people's were illiterate - which improved in part because of the Reformation - even being able to hear it read and understand it is hugely important.

You mention that translating the Bible was prohibited? Why was that?

I'd argue because the church wanted to have authority over how people understood it.

realitykeeper wrote: »

As a Catholic I think there were both good and bad aspects to the Protestant Reformation. I assume you belong to one of the Protestant Churches and if so Wittenberg will probably have some significance to you.

It is a bit unfair to say the purpose of Latin was to keep God`s word from the people. Latin was kind of like the Esperanto of its day and English was not yet a major world language. Also, printing was still in its infancy.

1917 was a major Shemitah year (which comes every 49 years). This is significant given that Our Lady was also an Israelite. If Fatima was a warning, then this may be the year the apocalypse will begin.

The Reformation has had a huge impact on Catholicism too. Most Catholics would value reading and hearing the Bible in their own language. What happened in Wittenberg affects us all. It changed Catholicism as well as Christianity as a whole.

People died to translate the Bible. You can't argue that they died because nobody wanted to stop it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

realitykeeper

solodeogloria wrote: »

People died to translate the Bible. You can't argue that they died because nobody wanted to stop it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The Catholic Church was not opposed to translating the bible. As far as I am aware they have always supported that.

Brinimartini

There was no miracle of Fatima or Knock or medjugorge.....all <snip>

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Catholic Church was not opposed to translating the bible. As far as I am aware they have always supported that.

Well, "always" might be a bit strong. There were times when they - or some of them - doubted the wisdom of the translation enterprise.

Quick thumbnail sketch; since, like, forever Bible translations into vernacular langauges have been produced for missionary and educational purposes. (The Vulgate was produced in the first instance because Latin was the language spoken by the majority of western Christians at the time.) And we've already seen that the Bible was translated into German, into French, into Italian, etc long before the Reformation.

But this wasn't enough to make it widely accessible, for two reasons. First, most people couldn't read. Secondly, most of those who could read couldn't afford a manuscript bible which, because of the labour involved in producing it, was a phenomenally expensive product. A middle class person might own a psalter, or a gospel-book, and this would be a valuable family heirloom. Buying a bible was simply unimaginable for all but the very wealthy.

The invention of printing helped to tackle the second problem. Bibles, both in the original languages and in translation, became increasingly accessible to those who could read, most of whom were from the wealthier classes or from the growing class of merchants and traders. (The peasantry, and the urban workforce, were still almost entirely illiterate.)

There's no doubt that the increasing accessibility of the scriptures was one of the drivers of the Reformation, and it's at this point, unsurprisingly, that some within the Catholic church begin to doubt the wisdom of translating and publishing the scriptures. There are attempts to stop this, or to control it (i.e. only church-approved translations are allowed to be printed) but, to be honest, this phase doesn't last very long. By the mid-sixteenth century - say, 50 years after Luther - the Catholic church is no longer in the business of supressing bible translation/production, either because they have concluded that this is wrong in principle, or because they feel that it's ineffective in practice. The result is that by the second half of the sixteenth century both the Catholics and the Reformers are enthusiastically producing and distributing (rival) translations of the scriptures.

We're still left with the problem that most people can't read, and there's not much point in giving Bibles to the illiterate. For this reason the Catholics and the Reformers both feel that teaching people to read is A Good Thing, but in fact the Catholics are a bit more effective at achieving this. Why? Because as another aspect of Reform the Reformers are closing monasteries and convents, supressing religious orders and turning their property over to the state and/or to wealthy laymen. And this is the infrastructure that the Catholics turn to the task of education. In the very years that Henry VIII is suppressing the English monasteries, the first of the great teaching orders, the Ursulines, is founded in Italy (for the education of women, no less). Protestant efforts are much more limited by comparison; they don't devote anything like the same resources to education. And for the next 300 years the Catholic countries of Europe are going to demonstrate generally higher levels of literacy than their Protestant counterparts. Protestant countries don't really catch up until, under the influence of rationalism and liberalism, the state makes a major commitment to universal education in the nineteenth century.

realitykeeper

Brinimartini wrote: »

There was no miracle of Fatima or Knock or medjugorge.....all <snip>.

I would encourage you to start reciting the rosary daily. This year, I hope to do the first Fridays and first Saturdays. That said, I have been reticent in encouraging people I know about returning to God because attitudes and reactions vary.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Third Secret was disclosed in 2000. My recollection, for what it's worth, is that Pope John Paul II saw it as prefiguring the assassination attempt on himself, which had happened twenty years earlier (but, of course, 63 years after the Fatima visions). There is a theory that that attempt was ultimately orchstrated by the KGB, which would provide a link to Bolshevism if you really want one, but that's just one of many theories.

Even if we choose to view the Third Secret as referring to Bolshevism, there is no reason at all to assume that it relates to events still to unfold after the year 2000. If it refers to particular events at all (which, as already noted, Ratzinger thought it did not) why should it not refer to events which unfolded between 1917 and 2000? Or indeed to events which unfolded before 1917?

Pope John Paul II revealed the third Fatima secret in two parts, the first pertained to the attempted assassination of himself (that was already a historic event). The second part was revealed three days later, which in itself suggests the second part of the third Fatima secret refers to a future event.

Advbrd

hinault wrote: »

In October 1517, 500 years ago, the heretic Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral.

Officially the Freemason grand lodge of England was founded 300 years ago
in 1717.

A lot of anniversaries converge in 2017.:(

The heretic Martin Luther? Do you not think he had a point in objecting to the practices of the rotten Catholic church, particularly the selling of indulgences?
I think you will find that a lot of anniversaries converge every year.

...And Justice

realitykeeper wrote: »

Pope John Paul II revealed the third Fatima secret in two parts, the first pertained to the attempted assassination of himself (that was already a historic event). The second part was revealed three days later, which in itself suggests the second part of the third Fatima secret refers to a future event.

Didn't Malachi Martin allegedly reveal the full text of the third secret? He said it wasn't what was revealed by Pope John Paul II. I know he appeared on a few controversial radio shows in the 1990's talking about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi_Martin

Advbrd

You can read what you want into secrets of fatima as you can into the prophesies of nostradamus. Because they fit what happened after the fact or are so vague that they can be interpreted in a number of ways does not make them real.

I predict that there will be a major global conflict and I predict that it will end.

Advbrd

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Corrected your post!

I'd argue that the Protestant Reformation is much much more important than Fatima and the alleged apparition.

I'm looking forward to going to Wittenberg for the centenary in October and visiting some of the other heartland of the Reformation including places like Leipzig and Erfurt.

Putting the Bible in the hands of the people was exactly what the Lord Jesus would have wanted. Johann Tetzel couldn't have been allowed to sell indulgences unchallenged. The Roman Catholic church couldn't have been allowed to keep chaining God's word from the people by using Latin. The Reformation was hugely important for that reason.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I don't follow any structured religion. I find them quite bizarre as they are effectively manmade. However I do agree with the above for those who do, on both sides of the great Christian divide..

Peregrinus

...And Justice wrote: »

Didn't Malachi Martin allegedly reveal the full text of the third secret? He said it wasn't what was revealed by Pope John Paul II. I know he appeared on a few controversial radio shows in the 1990's talking about it.

He must have had the gift of prophecy, so, since John Paul II didn't publish the Third Secret until 2000.

Seriously, people; the Third Secret of Fatima is, at best, a private revelation. Nobody is obliged to pay any attention to it, or to attach any significance to it. Those who do are generally counselled by the Catholic tradition against any attempt to map it onto historical events, whether past or yet to come. And exactly the same goes for the vision of Leo XIII, if indeed it ever happened.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Peregrinus:
I would need to see sources for comparing Catholic vs Protestant commitment to literacy. But to be sure the Reformation was a huge driver of it.

I disagree that increased availability of the Scriptures was achieved before the Reformation. Yes, there were more Latin translations to the point that learned people like Martin Luther could access them. But the Bible wasn't read in the vernacular at church services either. That's why in England people interrupted church services in protest to read God's word in English to those who were interested.

To whitewash suppression of translation isn't an honest portrayal of what happened. William Tyndale amongst others was burned and people tried to kill Martin Luther. That shouldn't be forgotten.

More to realitykeeper's original point here:
You can't claim that Catholicism always supported translating the Bible when people were killed so that the church could control it's understanding. It's fair to refer to that as chaining God's word.

I'm thankful the Reformation challenged that.

realitykeeper: Without using language as colourful as Brinimartini - I also don't believe that Mary appeared at Fatima. Even if she did I don't regard it as hugely important. God has already spoken in these last days through His Son (Hebrews 1:1)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Peregrinus:
I would need to see sources for comparing Catholic vs Protestant commitment to literacy. But to be sure the Reformation was a huge driver of it.

As for sources, there’s not much available online. Plus, there’s a degree of conjecture involved. Until the modern era, reading and writing were regarded as separate skills, and most of the historic measures of literacy we have from earlier times are compiled by methods like looking at church registers or the records of trade or merchants associations, and seeing how many people sign versus how many people make a mark. In other words, they measure people’s ability to sign their name, and treat that as proxy for general literacy. But that’s a very crude proxy, and a lot of social historians argue that many people who never learned to sign their name (because they had no need of this particular skill) could nevertheless read. So retrospective attempts to measure literacy are all a bit speculative.

What we do know is that Catholic countries were, in general, better organised and resourced when it came to providing education, because they had a network of monasteries, a staff of teaching orders, etc. Protestant countries, by contrast, generally dismantled this. Libraries were broken up; schools, hospitals and hostels for the poor were closed, etc. These services were supposed to be taken on by parishes, who were to establish parochial schools, and provide poor relief, etc, but this was patchy at best; most of the resources that the monasteries had had were not diverted to the parishes, and the parishes struggles to provide even a fraction of the social mission that the monasteries had provided.

I entirely agree with you that the Reformation was a huge driver of literacy. But this was one of the aspects of the Reformation that the Catholic church took whole-heartedly on board in the counter-reformation, and once they had taken it on board the Catholics were generally more effective at delivering it, because they had better infrastructure. The education of women in particular was almost wholly neglected in Protestant countries; the parochial and grammar schools that were established in most towns were confined to boys (this was one way of rationing scarce educational resources) while Catholic areas benefitted from a network of nunneries and female teaching orders.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree that increased availability of the Scriptures was achieved before the Reformation. Yes, there were more Latin translations to the point that learned people like Martin Luther could access them. But the Bible wasn't read in the vernacular at church services either. That's why in England people interrupted church services in protest to read God's word in English to those who were interested.

Actually, there weren’t more Latin translations; the Vulgate was the dominant translation and I don’t think anybody bothered to produce rivals to it or, if they did, those rivals did not enjoy much currency. What there was was a huge growth in vernacular translations. You’re correct that the bible continued to be read in Latin at church services, and that some Reformers protested about this by interrupting to proclaim the scriptures in English, However courageous a form of witness this may have been, it wasn’t a terribly effective method of promoting knowledge of the scriptures, since relatively few such interruptions happened, and the interrupters were typically silenced fairly promptly.

solodeogloria wrote: »

To whitewash suppression of translation isn't an honest portrayal of what happened. William Tyndale amongst others was burned and people tried to kill Martin Luther. That shouldn't be forgotten.

It’s important to be accurate here. Tyndale was killed, but not for translating the Bible into English. While his bible was condemned and burned in England, it was produced in Antwerp, where Tyndale lived at the time and where you could translate and print the Bible freely. When Tyndale was arrested and tried (and strangled) by the Imperial authorities in Antwerp it was not for translating the Bible but for heresy, and evidence for the supposed heresy was found not in his translation of the Bible but in his extensive biblical commentaries. It was his interpretation, not his translation, that was the subject of his trial. And while the English authorities probably encouraged the Imperial authorities to move against Tyndale, this wasn’t because of his translating activities so much as because he was writing pamphlets against Henry VIII’s divorce from Katherine of Aragon and marriage to Anne Boleyn, which Tyndale considered unscriptural.

As for Luther, yes, he was attacked, but this happened before his translation of the Bible, so it was hardly a reaction to his translating activities. In fact, if I remember rightly, after the attack on him he sought the protection of the Elector of Saxony, and it was while he was effectively confined in the Elector’s castle at Wartburg (for safety) that he embarked on the translation.

solodeogloria wrote: »

More to realitykeeper's original point here:
You can't claim that Catholicism always supported translating the Bible when people were killed so that the church could control it's understanding. It's fair to refer to that as chaining God's word.

I'm thankful the Reformation challenged that.

Just to be clear, I’m not denying that there was an attempt - a brutal attempt - by the Catholic church to suppress bible translations during the early Reformation. My point is that this was an aberration; a panicked response to the emergence of the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation there had been many, many translations of scripture into many, many languages; it was when translations began to circulate more widely (due to the printing press) and Reforming ideas began to emerge as a result that there was a period of attempted suppression. But that period did not last long; by the second half of the sixteenth century the church was back into promoting vernacular translations. The fact that the Reformers and the Catholics were both basically doing the same thing in this regard is shown in the ability of the scholars today to trace the influence of Tyndale’s (banned) translation on the (Catholic) Douay translation, and the influence of the Douay translation on the (Protestant) King James translation.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

Seriously, people; the Third Secret of Fatima is, at best, a private revelation. Nobody is obliged to pay any attention to it, or to attach any significance to it. Those who do are generally counselled by the Catholic tradition against any attempt to map it onto historical events, whether past or yet to come. And exactly the same goes for the vision of Leo XIII, if indeed it ever happened.

Sr Lucia said it was the wish of Our Lady that the Third Fatima secret should be published by 1960. That being the case, it was not a private revelation. In any case the miracle at Fatima in 1917 would not have been necessary if it was a private matter.

Not paying attention to it does seem an unusual response and also an inappropriate one.

realitykeeper

solodeogloria wrote: »

To whitewash suppression of translation isn't an honest portrayal of what happened. William Tyndale amongst others was burned and people tried to kill Martin Luther. That shouldn't be forgotten.

Agreed, but for balance such things should be remembered alongside the penal laws in Ireland for example. I think the separation of good and evil ought to take precedence over tribal loyalties. This tribe good, that tribe bad is not conducive to world peace.

solodeogloria wrote: »

realitykeeper: Without using language as colourful as Brinimartini - I also don't believe that Mary appeared at Fatima. Even if she did I don't regard it as hugely important. God has already spoken in these last days through His Son (Hebrews 1:1)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The reason I believe it is extremely important is precisely because I believe it happened. Based on that premise, the reasons it happened must be important, I mean if it were not important it would not have happened. So, why was this apparition necessary? I believe it was necessary because it was urgent. This is the centenary year and it is happening as all the geopolitical/socio-economic risks are converging to create a very ominous outlook. The decline in Christianity and the surge in secularism and militant Islam are also factors. (The town of Fatima was named after a Muslim princess who converted to Christianity).

sing_dumb

Our Lady has stated emphatically that Fatima & present day Medjugorje are interlinked. And that "what was started in Fatima will end definitely in Medjugorje". There is huge disquiet that this March 18th ( 2017) is a day that will be burned into the memories of all people (of all faiths & none) when a harrowing event is to happen, connected to the fullmillment of the prophesy / secret. This was revealed to Mirijana Soldo, one of the visionaries. Check it out, but it seems very ominous.

pauldla

sing_dumb wrote: »

Our Lady has stated emphatically that Fatima & present day Medjugorje are interlinked. And that "what was started in Fatima will end definitely in Medjugorje". There is huge disquiet that this March 18th ( 2017) is a day that will be burned into the memories of all people (of all faiths & none) when a harrowing event is to happen, connected to the fullmillment of the prophesy / secret. This was revealed to Mirijana Soldo, one of the visionaries. Check it out, but it seems very ominous.

Ireland will meet England in the Six Nations on March 18th. Just sayin'....

NIMAN

sing_dumb wrote: »

Our Lady has stated emphatically that Fatima & present day Medjugorje are interlinked. And that "what was started in Fatima will end definitely in Medjugorje". There is huge disquiet that this March 18th ( 2017) is a day that will be burned into the memories of all people (of all faiths & none) when a harrowing event is to happen, connected to the fullmillment of the prophesy / secret. This was revealed to Mirijana Soldo, one of the visionaries. Check it out, but it seems very ominous.

To start with, she stated emphatically to who exactly? Its very easy to say that Mary told you something with, it appears, people asking for no proof whatsoever. Emphatically for me would mean telling us all about it, not a select few who we are all then meant to believe.

I look forward to 18/03/2017, to see exactly what this major, harrowing event is going to be. I would hazard a guess that nothing will happen, although like all people who believe this stuff, they will find something in the news to fit the agenda and say "I told you so", whereas what they really will be doing will be no better than these 'mediums' who stand in a theatre of 2000 people and ask questions like "does anyone in here know a John".:rolleyes:

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Sr Lucia said it was the wish of Our Lady that the Third Fatima secret should be published by 1960. That being the case, it was not a private revelation . . .

That's still a private revelation, realitykeeper. Public revelation is that which God has revealed in the scriptures, in sacred tradition and in the person of Jesus Christ. Everything else is private revelation.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not paying attention to it does seem an unusual response and also an inappropriate one.

Public revelation contains everything necessary for salvation. Even if private revelations are approved by the church, this is merely a statement that they contain nothing contrary to Catholic faith or morals, not an affirmation that they are true or even that they occurred at all. Those who accept private revelations as having truly occurred do so as a matter of human faith, not divine faith. Catholics are free to disregard claims about private revelations, and frequently do so on the basis that they are not convinced that the revelations occurred, or are genuine. Catholics who choose to accept that a private revelation has occurred and is genuine must decide for themselves what it signifies, and may choose to disregard the revelation on the basis that they are unsure as to what it signifies. They are certainly free to disregard or dismiss others' interpretation of what a particular private regulation signifies.

Advbrd

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's still a private revelation, realitykeeper. Public revelation is that which God has revealed in the scriptures, in sacred tradition and in the person of Jesus Christ. Everything else is private revelation.


Public revelation contains everything necessary for salvation. Even if private revelations are approved by the church, this is merely a statement that they contain nothing contrary to Catholic faith or morals, not an affirmation that they are true or even that they occurred at all. Those who accept private revelations as having truly occurred do so as a matter of human faith, not divine faith. Catholics are free to disregard claims about private revelations, and frequently do so on the basis that they are not convinced that the revelations occurred, or are genuine. Catholics who choose to accept that a private revelation has occurred and is genuine must decide for themselves what it signifies, and may choose to disregard the revelation on the basis that they are unsure as to what it signifies. They are certainly free to disregard or dismiss others' interpretation of what a particular private regulation signifies.

I chose to reject public as well as private revelations.

Peregrinus

Advbrd wrote: »

I chose to reject public as well as private revelations.

Thank you for revealing that to us. :rolleyes:

Advbrd

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thank you for revealing that to us. :rolleyes:

I meant that to be private.

Peregrinus

Advbrd wrote: »

I meant that to be private.

In that case I shall disregard it, as I'm not sure that it signifies anything.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's still a private revelation, realitykeeper.

Belief or non belief is one matter. Public or private is another.

For those who do believe in the Fatima revelations, it could not be more obvious that this was intended for the whole world. Faith is required for belief in scriptures certainly but the very fact that many of the faithful do not believe in the revelations of Fatima shows that Fatima did not negate the necessity of faith.

As for the non believers, nothing short of empirical evidence or a Hollywood blockbuster style parting of the sea would grab their attention.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Belief or non belief is one matter. Public or private is another.

For those who do believe in the Fatima revelations, it could not be more obvious that this was intended for the whole world . . .

It could, actually. Whatever truth you think is embodied in the Fatima revelations could have been revealed to the whole world by being embodied in public revelation, and it would then be more obviously intended for the whole world.

The fact is that the church sees the revelations of Fatima as private revelations, to which the faithful are free to pay as much or as little attention as they think fit.

realitykeeper wrote: »

As for the non believers, nothing short of empirical evidence or a Hollywood blockbuster style parting of the sea would grab their attention.

If by non-believers you mean non-believers in the revelations of Fatima, I think you're being unfair to them. Accounts of the events at Fatima are pretty remarkable; they'd certainly grab anybody's attention. But it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for anybody to say "spectacular though this seems to be, it is ultimately a sideshow; it is nothing compared to what is revealed in Jesus Christ and in the scriptures, and that is where I shall devote my attention".

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

It could, actually. Whatever truth you think is embodied in the Fatima revelations could have been revealed to the whole world by being embodied in public revelation, and it would then be more obviously intended for the whole world.

The fact is that the church sees the revelations of Fatima as private revelations, to which the faithful are free to pay as much or as little attention as they think fit.


If by non-believers you mean non-believers in the revelations of Fatima, I think you're being unfair to them. Accounts of the events at Fatima are pretty remarkable; they'd certainly grab anybody's attention. But it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for anybody to say "spectacular though this seems to be, it is ultimately a sideshow; it is nothing compared to what is revealed in Jesus Christ and in the scriptures, and that is where I shall devote my attention".

Unfortunately, most of the world does not live by scriptures. That is why I believe it was necessary and why I believe it was intended for the whole world.

Peregrinus

People who pay no attention to the gospel will pay no attention to Fatima.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

People who pay no attention to the gospel will pay no attention to Fatima.

Good morning!

Can you please explain this comment? It is somewhat bizarre.

I'm a Christian who pays attention to the Gospel and not to Fatima. Marian apparition doesn't make sense from a Reformed perspective.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

I'm not having a go at you, Solo.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that people who pay no attention to the gospel are also likely to pay no attention to claims about what did or didn't happen, what was or wasn't said, at Fatima. People who are unimpressed by the claim that Christ is risen are not going to accept uncritically claims about secrets imparted to visionaries at Fatima. Thus, whatever Fatima is, it certainly is not some kind of supplementary revelation from God to overcome inadequacies of the revelation embodied in Jesus Christ and in the scriptures.

I didn't intend to suggest, and I don't believe, that anyone who does have faith in Jesus Christ, anyone who does take the gospels seriously, must also regard Fatima as a divine revelation and take it equally seriously; not at all. Many faithful Christians either doubt that anything was revealed at Fatima, or they regard the question as an unimportant or uninteresting one, or at any rate one they have no with to explore.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not having a go at you, Solo.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that people who pay no attention to the gospel are also likely to pay no attention to claims about what did or didn't happen, what was or wasn't said, at Fatima. People who are unimpressed by the claim that Christ is risen are not going to accept uncritically claims about secrets imparted to visionaries at Fatima. Thus, whatever Fatima is, it certainly is not some kind of supplementary revelation from God to overcome inadequacies of the revelation embodied in Jesus Christ and in the scriptures.

I didn't intend to suggest, and I don't believe, that anyone who does have faith in Jesus Christ, anyone who does take the gospels seriously, must also regard Fatima as a divine revelation and take it equally seriously; not at all. Many faithful Christians either doubt that anything was revealed at Fatima, or they regard the question as an unimportant or uninteresting one, or at any rate one they have no with to explore.

I agree with this but I think to discount Fatima is unfortunate for those who are not practicing Christians.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

I agree with this but I think to discount Fatima is unfortunate for those who are not practicing Christians.

Why is it unfortunate? From a Christian point of view surely those who are not practicing Christians, and indeed those who are non-practicing Christians have a lot more problems than just not believing in Fatima?

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

People who pay no attention to the gospel will pay no attention to Fatima.

that should read, people who pay attention to the gospels will pay none to Fatima

realitykeeper

1917 was a shemitah/shemitah year, (which comes every 49 years). This is when Jews settle their debts, and have done so since biblical times. One year after Fatima, in October 1918 (the Jubilee year which follows the shemitah) Germany was prepared to agree to an armistice which led to that country being lumbered with an enormous debt leading to hyperinflation and the circumstances which led to the second world war.

Another debt connection is the original October 13th, 1307 in which King Philip IV of France invited and then arrested the leaders of the Knights Templar. The king was heavily indebted to them which may explain way he had them arrested and branded as heretics.

Debt is also very much a contemporary problem for many countries around the world as central banks across the planet seem to have taken leave of their senses and started printing like there is no tomorrow.

I guess the second coming, when it happens will also be a kind of mass settlement of debt.

hinault

realitykeeper wrote: »

1917 was a shemitah/shemitah year, (which comes every 49 years). This is when Jews settle their debts, and have done so since biblical times. One year after Fatima, in October 1918 (the Jubilee year which follows the shemitah) Germany was prepared to agree to an armistice which led to that country being lumbered with an enormous debt leading to hyperinflation and the circumstances which led to the second world war.

Another debt connection is the original October 13th, 1307 in which King Philip IV of France invited and then arrested the leaders of the Knights Templar. The king was heavily indebted to them which may explain way he had them arrested and branded as heretics.

Debt is also very much a contemporary problem for many countries around the world as central banks across the planet seem to have taken leave of their senses and started printing like there is no tomorrow.

I guess the second coming, when it happens will also be a kind of mass settlement of debt.

The financial debt angle is very interesting.

Thanks for posting it.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . but not necessarily true. There's no record that Leo XIII ever related this vision to anybody, and accounts of the vision really only start to appear about 30 years ago - i.e. about a hundred years after the vision is supposed to have happened. None of the accounts offer any source for the story - who says that Pope Leo had such a vision, and how does that person know about it - and while they tend to mirror one another on such dramatic details as the gutteral voice of Satan, they tend to differ on more significant details such as when and where the event is supposed to have occurred, and who was present on the occasion.

Myself, I'm not convinced (to put it mildly).

In matters of faith, evidence is unnecessary. Still, I can give you one piece of anecdotal evidence. After the vision, the Pope is said to have composed a prayer to St Michael the Archangel. That prayer exists, here is the short version:

Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

In matters of faith, evidence is unnecessary. Still, I can give you one piece of anecdotal evidence. After the vision, the Pope is said to have composed a prayer to St Michael the Archangel. That prayer exists, here is the short version:

Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

The prayer exists, but we have no reason to think that is was composed after the vision described, or after any vision.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

The prayer exists, but we have no reason to think that is was composed after the vision described, or after any vision.

You don't accept the testimony of Pope Leo?

Can I ask why?

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept the testimony of Pope Leo?

Can I ask why?

I haven't seen any testimony of Pope Leo. Have you?