The secrets of Fatima, can be reconciled to a loving God (theodicity)?

Garabandal.... should a Catholic be offended when charged with fundamentalism ? I couldnt care less, almost a badge of honor in these modern insane times.

 

You should check out Michael Coren on utube, Mac. He is amazing.​

 

Thanks for the link Padraig , I watched it all and now have more links to Catholic truths. Its just so sad you cannot link me to the 'PRINCES OF THE CHURCH' and I HAVE TO LISTEN TO LAY MEN instead of Bishops to feed my faith.Something has gone horribly wrong.

 

....as predicted by Our Lady

 

“Satan rules even in the highest positions and determines the direction of things. He will succeed in worming his way even into the highest summits of the Church…” ​

“But this will be a time of great trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals. Bishops will oppose bishops. Satan will walk in their ranks. In Rome, there will be great changes. What is rotten will fall and what will fall will never rise again. Darkness will envelope the Church and the world will be thrown into a panic.” ​

Our Lady of Fatima​

​

“The Church will be punished because the majority of Her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until She will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, She will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.” ​

St. John Bosco (19th century)
​

I saw also the relationship between the two popes… I saw how baleful (evil; harmful) would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size;2 heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome)3 … Once more I saw the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect (Masonry), while storms were damaging it.”

“I saw a secret sect relentlessly undermining the great Church… When the Church had been for the most part destroyed (by the secret sect), and when only the sanctuary and the altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers (of the secret sect) enter the Church with the Beast.” ​

“I saw an apparition of the Mother of God, and she said that the tribulation would be very great. She added that these people must pray fervently with outstretched arms… They must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome.” ​

​

“The Church is in great danger… I see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there will hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. The great devastation is now at hand.” ​

“When I saw the Church of St. Peter in ruins, and the manner in which so many of the clergy were themselves busy at this work of destruction – none of them wishing to do it openly in front of others – I was in such distress that I cried out to Jesus with all my might, imploring His mercy. Then, I saw before me the Heavenly Spouse… He said, among other things, that this translation of the Church from one place to another meant that She would seem to be in complete decline. But She would rise again; even if there remained but one Catholic, the Church would conquer again because She does not rest on human counsels and intelligence. It was also shown to me that there were almost no Christians left in the old acceptation of the word.”4 ​

“The Church is completely isolated and as if completely deserted. It seems that everyone is running away.” ​

“Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head. Others had only a head, their bodies and hearts were like thick vapors. Some were lame; others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering.” ​

“I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound…” ​

“Then I saw that everything that pertained to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence…” ​

“In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.” ​

“I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church…” ​

“I heard that Lucifer (if I am not mistaken) will be freed again for awhile fifty or sixty years before the year 2,000 AD.” ​

Venerable Anna Katarina Emmerick​

​

http://www.marienfried.com/catholic teachings/prophecy of apostasy.html​

​

​

 

Padraig, do you have an opinion on the missing words of Our Ladys 3rd secret? It was meant to be released in 1960 'BECAUSE IT WOULD BE MORE CLEAR THEN'
some kind of warning about VaticanII?

 

I feel kind of sad at yuor question Mac. Because there was a time , in my innocense I did not believe clerics in the Vatican would lie or be decietful about something as important as this. However one of the things that changed my mind was a deeper understanding of how so many of them had very,very badly treated St Padre Pio (to whom I have a very deep devotion) for decades.

There are so many stories of the Third Scrert it is difficult to know what to believe. But if it is true part of it , perhaps its most significant part is being held back then the big question is; why should they do such a thing? I remeber every one used to believe it was because of a prediction of a nuclear war, linked to an article in a German Magazine, 'Derr Stern', whch supposedly pointed to this.

My own belief is that it was not published because it was embarrassing to the Monsignori in the Vatican. It could be partly Vatican 2 but more directly against , I suspect worng doing in the Vatican itself.

But I am only guessing. But if you take Our Lady of Fatima's previous words,

“Satan rules even in the highest positions and determines the direction of things. He will succeed in worming his way even into the highest summits of the Church…” ​

​

Then the clearest implication is that the bad guys were in the process of taking control of the Vatican. If Our Lady was pointing the finger more directly at this then of course they would stop it being broadcast by brying the secret..​

​

Poor St Sr Lucia. She must have know all them years that she was completley at their mercy. The only thing that really protected her was that in the first place she was safely tucked away in a Carmel and secondly Fatima had become too famous for them to mess with her too openly.​

 

Agreed, it is a sad question.
I have heard of the nuclear war theory, and yes that fits in well with the cold war issues around 1960, It was even speculated the 3rd secret may give the soviets some kind of tactical advantage.Thus not released.
But given the first words of Our Lady, 'In Portugal the Dogma of the faith......'
We can surely assume there is a crisis of faith, If not in Dogma at least in practice?
Another thing I think may be in there would have to do with all this sexual abuse scandal.Benedict XVI came out with something like 'Whoever thinks the prophetic mission of Fatima is over is deceiving himself' right at the time the world media was hounding him over these scandals.

 

I just spent three hours last night listening to old interviews of Fr. Malachi Martin's life. He not only quoted Cardinal Razinger saying that 'the third Fatima secret was the same as Akita', but spoke of Fr. Amorth being near Pope John Paul II when he consecrated the world in 1990's. (we talked about that on another thread recently). I wrote on my blog last night about it and put some links up that are very good!

www.theheavenlygaze.com

 

I am so glad you are still sticking with the blog, Marti. But where you find the time I do not know. Just reading about your goings on exhausts me.

 

I think she is super human--I know my brain doesn't work that well!!!

 

I saw relationships between the 2 popes the in Don Bosco above --could you explain this -I know there is masonry etc but what about the 2 popes.??

 

Yes ,any more on two pope prophecy? really seems to be for our times. Does not 'Garabandal' expect a schism to take place shortly? [before the warning or miracle]

 

By, 'Two' Popes neither Catherine Emmerich or St John Bosco mean two REAL Popes , what they mean is one real Pope plus one false one.

However the false guy is the one the world and the media will idolise (surprise, surprise) while the real Pope has to go into hiding.

I am not sure about Garabandal , you would need to check with Glenn, but as far as I recall it does mention the schism.

 

I was very sorry to see Jose leave the forum. I valued his viewpoint as practising scientist.
A suitable 'valediction' has presented itself today:

On the BBC there has been a program aired on the extraordinary life of the physicist R Feynman. A very attractive person. It made me go away and google what his religious viewpoint was. Sadly he turned out to be on the scientist side of the ' science v religion ' conflict.

I've c&p 'ed a couple of articles that stood out for me.

Unfortunately, The Meaning of It All does not show Feynman at his best. These are lectures Feynman gave at the University of Washington in 1963, as taken directly from the tape recording, without being edited or expanded by Feynman. Most of what he says is sensible, but unremarkable. He tells a few good stories, though. For instance, one day when Feynman was an undergraduate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology he was typing a paper on philosophy, and suddenly there came into his mind a powerful impression that his grandmother had just died. Immediately after that the telephone rang. The call was for someone else. Nothing was wrong with his grandmother. The point is, of course, that you cannot judge the possibility of clairvoyance unless you take into account all the times when it did not work.
The part of this book that will probably attract most attention is Feynman's discussion of the conflict between science and religion. No, Feynman does not think that science can disprove the existence of God, but he does think there is a psychological conflict between science and conventional religion. One source of the conflict is doubt. The young scientist learns that in science it is valuable to doubt, and often begins also to question the truths of his or her religion. Another source of psychological conflict is the chill that comes with what we learn from science - that people are recent arrivals in a universe that is billions of years old, that we are closely related to the animals that were here before us and that the earth on which we live circles a star that is just one of billions of stars in one of billions of galaxies. None of this proves anything about God but, as Feynman says, "the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."
The result, according to Feynman (and in my own experience), is that many scientists (including Feynman himself) become atheists. Fortunately, as Feynman says, the loss of religious belief need not mean the loss of moral principles. I think that Feynman is correct that knowledge about the universe can sometimes teach us to get what we want, but has nothing to tell us about what we ought to want. He notes that, as Christianity has retreated from its position that the earth is at the centre of a universe created a few thousand years ago, it has not thereby become less moral. But although the loss of religion does not logically imply a loss of morality, Feynman points out that it does entail a loss of inspiration, an inspiration that is responsible for much great art, and that serves as a source of moral principles for many people. Feynman regrets the loss of the inspiration provided by religion and is honest enough to admit he does not know what to do about it.

Pasted from <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/162756.article>

 

THE RELATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Some fresh observations on an old problem

by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

"The Relation of Science and Religion" is a transcript of a talk given by Dr. Feynman at the Caltech YMCA Lunch Forum on May 2, 1956.

In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another.The great problems of the relations between one and another aspect of human activity have for this reason been discussed less and less in public.When we look at the past great debates on these subjects we feel jealous of those times, for we should have liked the excitement of such argument.The old problems, such as the relation of science and religion, are still with us, and I believe present as difficult dilemmas as ever, but they are not often publicly discussed because of the limitations of specialization.

But I have been interested in this problem for a long time and would like to discuss it.In view of my very evident lack of knowledge and understanding of religion (a lack which will grow more apparent as we proceed), I will organize the discussion in this way: I will suppose that not one man but a group of men are discussing the problem, that the group consists of specialists in many fields – the various sciences, the various religions and so on – and that we are going to discuss the problem from various sides, like a panel.Each is to give his point of view, which may be molded and modified by the later discussion.Further, I imagine that someone has been chosen by lot to be the first to present his views, and I am he so chosen.

I would start by presenting the panel with a problem: A young man, brought up in a religious family, studies a science, and as a result he comes to doubt – and perhaps later to disbelieve in – his father's God.Now, this is not an isolated example; it happens time and time again.Although I have no statistics on this, I believe that many scientists – in fact, I actually believe that more than half of the scientists – really disbelieve in their father's God; that is, they don't believe in a God in a conventional sense.

Now, since the belief in a God is a central feature of religion, this problem that I have selected points up most strongly the problem of the relation of science and religion.Why does this young man come to disbelieve?

The first answer we might hear is very simple: You see, he is taught by scientists, and (as I have just pointed out) they are all atheists at heart, so the evil is spread from one to another.But if you can entertain this view, I think you know less of science than I know of religion.

Another answer may be that a little knowledge is dangerous; this young man has learned a little bit and thinks he knows it all, but soon he will grow out of this sophomoric sophistication and come to realize that the world is more complicated, and he will begin again to understand that there must be a God.

I don't think it is necessary that he come out of it.There are many scientists – men who hope to call themselves mature – who still don't believe in God.In fact, as I would like to explain later, the answer is not that the young man thinks he knows it all – it is the exact opposite.

A third answer you might get is that this young man really doesn't understand science correctly.I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible.And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God – an ordinary God of religion — a consistent possibility?

Yes, it is consistent.Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don't believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it.

When I say "believe in God," of course, it is always a puzzle – what is God?What I mean is the kind of personal God, characteristic of the western religions, to whom you pray and who has something to do with creating the universe and guiding you in morals.

For the student, when he learns about science, there are two sources of difficulty in trying to weld science and religion together.The first source of difficulty is this – that it is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature.To make progress in understanding we must remain modest and allow that we do not know.Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt.You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.

That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty: "It is very much more likely that so and so is true than that it is not true;" or "such and such is almost certain but there is still a little bit of doubt;" or – at the other extreme – "well, we really don't know."Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth.

It is necessary, I believe, to accept this idea, not only for science, but also for other things; it is of great value to acknowledge ignorance.It is a fact that when we make decisions in our life we don't necessarily know that we are making them correctly; we only think that we are doing the best we can – and that is what we should do.

Pasted from <http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm>

 

Jerry that is all fair enough but I suggest the problem is not really the God of our fathers but the Christianity of our fathers.

Deism was quite palatable to the new scientists of the enlightenment (in fact they "invented" the Deistic God to make Him compatible with Cartesian/Newtonian Physics). But the Deistic God is remote from the world and acts through the ongoing mechanical causality inherent in the original creation. He isn't allowed back in the room now! So it isn't really Christianity but it is a God.

And Judaism still has a very pertinent criticism of Christianity that is probably the same for many post Christian scientists today. That is, neither can accept an incarnate God, that to them is a logical contradiction. Spirit and matter are two distinct realms and neither the twain shall meet in a God-Man. (Judaism of course still denies Deism because Judaism is very comfortable with God poking his nose into history to do whatever he likes whenever He wants for his Chosen People. But they won't go as far as God actually becoming a man).

 

I think that the main reason people loose their Faith is that they do not pray. It is, I suspect the main reason why people get divorced that they do not relate.

Our Lady said to me one time, 'Prayer is the bread of Faith , pray , pray the rosary'

It seems to me that in describing prayer as the bread of Faith Mary said something very deep and significant.

John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

I think when you meet someone who prays, I mean not just a few , I have to do it prays , on Sunday; but someone who has a living day to day prayer life, you can really see it right away, they glow.

We had a young priest come to us in the parish a few years ago , right out of seminary and I became concerned about him right away. He did not have that glow, that vibrancy. I noticed this in particular when I went to him in confession. I should have prayed for him more, we should all have prayed in our Parish for him. But suddenly he left the priesthood. We all need to pray but priests especially need to pray.


I notice one of the priests talking about Pope Francis before he was made Pope in his home in Argentina. He said the Holy Father looked very tired and was very much looking forward to his retirement.

But he was amazed when he met him again in Rome. He seems now to be a man on fire and full of energy.

I put this down to the prayers of the faithful. ..and other Popes have commented on this.

 

Padraig,
Do you believe that the entire third secret of Fatima has been released? Personnally I do not believe that it has, and if I'm correct what would that mean?

 

The grace of state also Padraig?
The opposite must also be true, did you notice how quickly Benedict went down hill ,after resigning.