Replies

I do not, though I believe, in this instance, that there is abundant evidence for legitimacy. But that's not why I posted. I posted because your original comment "assumes" the opposite must be at play here. This, I would point out, is just as wrong as assuming, without evidence, that such apparitions are legitimate.

You juxtaposed "coming to Jesus" with what Mary is believed to have said at Fatima. you were, therefore, trying to make the two statements mutually exclusive. I sought to point out that they do not have to be. If you choose not to take any stock in what is said to have taken place at Fatima, that's okay. Even Catholics are not required to believe it. But you certainly seemed to dismiss it out-of-hand as netherworldly inspired. Again, my intent was not to convince you of Fatima's legitimacy, but to show that an appearance of Mary is no different than an appearance of other non-divine beings clearly described in Scripture. If those manifestations were "legitimate," it is simply false to cite John 14:6 as a proof-text against Fatima. Much more is required, and an honest study of Fatima probably would bring you to a different conclusion than the one you now have assumed.

So, while it is wrong, as you say, to assume that everything that claims to be from God really is, you might consider that the opposite is also true. Not everything that claims to be from God isn't. Informed discernment, in all such things, is always necessary.