Posted on 10/13/2015 8:08:21 AM PDT by Salvation
This week on October 13 and 14th I am in Fatima. Such a profound apparition occurred there, and so accurately prophetic of our times!
Our Lady’s warnings of the consequences if we did not pray and convert have proven to be sadly accurate. She warned of another, more terrible war (World War II). She spoke of great lights in the sky that would serve as a final warning before the terrible war. (They appeared all over Europe just before Hitler invaded Poland, in the form of a stunning display of the Aurora Borealis.) She said that Russia would spread her errors, that the Church would have much to suffer, and she warned of a pope who would be struck down.
A final and belated prophecy from Fatima seems to have come in the form of a letter written by Sister Lucia to Cardinal Carlo Caffara. He had written to her asking for her prayers as he had been commissioned by Pope John Paul II to establish the Pontifical Institute for the Studies on Marriage and the Family. The year was 1981. According to Cardinal Caffara, she wrote back with the following:
[T]he final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Don’t be afraid, she added, because anyone who operates for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be contended and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. And then she concluded: however, Our Lady has already crushed its head. [*]
Thus, from Fatima comes one accurate prophecy after another. Here we are today, locked in a terrible battle over the most basic units of any civilization: families and the marriages that form them. Fatima, the great prophecy of our time and a summons to sobriety and prayer!
Something else that has always intrigued me about Fatima is the name of the town itself. Fatima is a town bearing the name of the daughter of Mohammed; this is so stunning! Why of all places would Mary appear there? Is it just coincidence? If you think so, you have not pondered that everything about the apparition of Fatima is prophetic.
The great Archbishop Fulton Sheen, in his book The World’s First Love, reflected on its significance and posed a few questions. Please note that the book was written in 1952 and therefore some of the spellings are not the modern ones. Here are some excerpts:
The Koran, which is the Bible of the Moslems, has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First of all, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception, and also, in her Virgin Birth … The Koran also has verses on the Annunciation, Visitation, and Nativity. Angels are pictured as accompanying the Blessed Mother and saying, Oh Mary, God has chosen you and purified you, and elected you above all the women of the earth. In the 19th chapter of the Koran there are 41 verses on Jesus and Mary. There is such a strong defense of the virginity of Mary here that the Koran in the fourth book, attributes the condemnation of the Jews to their monstrous calumny against the Virgin Mary.
Mary, then, is for the Moslems the true Sayyida, or Lady. The only possible serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed himself. But after the death of Fatima, Mohammed wrote: Thou shalt be the most blessed of women in Paradise, after Mary. In a variant of the text Fatima is made to say; I surpass all the women, except Mary.
This brings us to our second point; namely, why the Blessed Mother, in this 20th Century should have revealed herself in the significant little village of Fatima, so that to all future generations she would be known as “Our Lady of Fatima.” Since nothing ever happens out of Heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as “Our Lady of Fatima” as pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people, and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her divine Son too.
Evidence to support these views is found in the historical fact that the Moslems occupied Portugal for centuries. At the time when they were finally driven out, the last Moslem chief had a beautiful daughter by the name of Fatima. A Catholic boy fell in love with her, and for him she not only stayed behind when the Moslems left, but even embraced the Faith. The young husband was so much in love with her that he changed the name of the town where he lived to Fatima. Thus the very place where our Lady appeared in 1917 bears a historical connection to Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed.
Missionaries, in the future will, more and more, see that their apostolate among the Moslems will be successful in the measure that they preach Our Lady of Fatima. Mary is the advent of Christ, bringing Christ to the people before Christ himself is born. In any apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which the people already accept. Because the Moslems have devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and develop that devotion, with the full realization that our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her divine Son. She is forever a “traitor,” in the sense that she will not accept any devotion for herself, bit will always bring anyone who is devoted to her to her divine Son.
A beautiful reflection by Archbishop Sheen and one we can surely hope will come to pass! Relations are much tenser between Christians and Muslims today than in 1952. But Fatima is the apparition that just keeps prophesying.
It is nothing less than astonishing that Mary should appear in a town with the name of Fatima. Surely this is no mere coincidence. As Sheen points out, Heaven does nothing without purpose. It is very clear to me that we are not to pass over this detail. “Our Lady of Fatima” has a different ring to it when we consider that Fatima is more than a place; Fatima is the daughter of Muhammad and the greatest woman in Islam. “Our Lady of Fatima” sounds and feels so different when it is heard in this context of person rather than place. It is hugely significant.
It seems clear that Mary will play an important role in the years ahead as the Muslim/Christian conflict likely grows sharper. Perhaps, as Sheen notes, she will be the bridge that connects two vastly different cultures; the common mother who keeps her children talking. Right now this connection seems little pursued, even (as far as I can tell) by the Vatican.
The Guadalupe connection – I wonder, too, if the history of Our Lady of Guadalupe presents some historical parallels to our current struggle with the Muslim world. In the early 16th Century in Mexico, missionaries had made only meager progress in bringing the Aztec people to Christ. This was a combination of the sometimes rude and cruel treatment of the indigenous people by the Spanish soldiers, and also of the fearful superstition surrounding the Aztec gods. The people were locked in with the fear that unless they fed these gods with horrific human sacrifices, their greatest god, the sun, would no longer shine.
Into this fearful and suspicious setting entered Mother Mary. The miraculous image she left in 1531 was richly symbolic. Her face is that of a mother: gentle and compassionate, unlike the appearance of the frightening Aztec gods, who wore fierce masks. Her features seem to be both Aztec and European, two cultures combined in kindness and peace. Her attitude is one of humble prayer, so she is clearly not a god(dess). She is a merciful mother who consoles and prays for us. She is to be honored but not adored. The black band around her waist means that she is with child and offers Jesus to the people. Her message is about Him. The sun was the greatest of the Aztec gods, so by standing in front of it, Mary shows that she is greater than even their greatest god. To the Aztecs, the moon represented the god of darkness and death. That Mary is standing on the moon is a sign that these powers, too, are defeated by the Son she bears.
Mary brought the breakthrough. Within ten years, over twelve million Mexicans came to Christ and entered the Catholic Church.
This history is paralleled in many ways today in the current tensions with the Muslim World. In many Muslim lands today, conversions are few. Part of the reason for this is a strong aversion to the Western culture from which Catholicism comes. Many Muslims also hold grievances due to alleged American and Western “mistreatment.” Finally, a large factor is fear. In many parts of the Muslim world, leaving the Muslim faith is likely to get one killed. So, it is a combination of a wide cultural gulf, grievances, and fear that keep conversions low. All of this is not unlike the situation in 16th century Mexico.
Is Mary key to this? It took Mary to bridge all these similar gaps between the Aztecs and the Christian missionaries. Might Mary also be that bridge today when similar gaps divide people? Time will tell, but one of her greatest modern titles is “Our Lady of Fatima.” And then there is the crescent moon, upon which Mary stands in the image of Guadalupe. In modern times the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. By God’s grace, and with love and humility, Mother Mary of Guadalupe was victorious in overcoming the false religion of the Aztecs.
Might this crescent moon on which Our Lady of Guadalupe stands also point to our times and the crescent moon of Islam? Might it indicate that her victories, by God’s grace, are not at an end? Perhaps we can hope that what our Lady of Guadalupe was to the Aztec people of Mexico, Our Lady of Fatima will be to the Muslim people of the world.
As always, I invite your comments and answers to my questions.
Here is “Immaculate Mary,” sung in Arabic:
It was made up like a fairy tale - a total air ball.
Those of us who study the early church fathers know better than that...Hope you don't choke on it...Well, yes I do...
Irenaeus believed and taught the Rapture of the church...
Cyprian believed and taught the Rapture of the church...
Ephraim believed and taught the Rapture of the church...
And no doubt many others wrote about the Rapture whose works were likely destroyed...
And PAUL wrote the details!
Your error may be a attributable to poor catechization.... Here's the proof from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.""
Looks like it says exactly what it says.
Hoss
BOOKMARK
Bingo. Thanks MHG, I was just going to tell Iscool that Paul believed to too, but you just did. 😂😇😆
Have a lovely day.
Do you think creating a non-Biblical Mary is a sign of the One True CHURCH; having the ONLY way to HEaven?
My 'church' has 'approved' zero.
I thought you believed in the Trinity, my mistake.
The first recorded apparition of the BVM was to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wherein she explained the doctrine of the Trinity that we hold till this very day.
There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever.
Oh that's right, YOUR 'church' wasn't around back then...
Sorry, I'm feeling particularly snarky this AM.
I look forward to seeing how context explains a different message than what is apparent from the quote.
HossB86 is usually accurate with his assessments.
NorthMountain, are you going to give us more detail? What is the rest of the story? What does the Holy Roman Catholic Church teach about comparisons of Allah and God?
I don't think it's fair to say that Hoss is inaccurate and then simply walk away.
Also, what does "I have committed to error in this matter." mean?
Thanks.
On a somewhat related note, our older adult group visited St. Mary of Victories Church in South St. Louis yesterday, a beautiful church built by German immigrants in the 1840’s. The link below takes one to a photo gallery of the church.
http://smov.info/index.php/home/photo-gallery
And just who and where is a Prot arguing for his veracity based upon the premise of superior holiness (or ensured infallibility)? That is a Catholicism.
i will continue to use logic, history and and God’s own teaching church, Sacred Tradition, and the Word, as history has shown repeatedly, to be the truth.
Then you are not a faithful RC, for ascertaining the veracity of teaching based upon your judgment of what historical statements say is essentially what RCs condemn when evangelicals do so and find the unique claims of Catholicism to be unwarranted.
For instead,
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
— ...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
We are even told that we cannot know what Scripture is without placing faith in Rome:
Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72;
It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
So are you telling me that you ascertain the veracity of Cath. teaching based upon your judgment of what historical sources teach, or do you assent to it based upon the premise of ensured ecclesiastical veracity?
Remember, without reinterpreting, please tell us all what the bible says it the pillar and foundation of all truth...
Actually, the issue is what it supports, which is the Truth, which only Scripture is said to be the wholly inspired of God source of.
And if any reinterpreting is prevalent then it is by RCs (who also imagine that SS means only the Bible can be used, or that it contains all that can ever be known). For without reinterpreting, please tell us all where the Bible says the church is the basis of, and or the uniquely infallible authority on truth, which somehow Caths construe "pillar and foundation of truth" to mean. Else why do they quote it so much in support of that false premise?
And just the Greek words in this text (1Tim. 3:15b) say "ekklēsia zaō theos stulos kai hedraiōma ho / hē / to alētheia," which words are typically translated "church living God, pillar and ground the truth," with "hedraiōma" being a word only occurring here in the NT, undocumented either in the LXX or Hellenistic Jewish or secular Greek, (http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=6581518&postcount=11) coming from a derivative of hedraios, which is from a derivative of hezomai (to sit); sedentary (Strong's), but beware of the root word fallacy .
Hedraios itself does occur 3 times in the NT, and is translated as "stedfast" twice (1Co. 7:37; 15:58) and as "settled" once Col. 1:23, referring to believers being firm or or exhorting them to be firm.
In addition, along with the absence of "the" for "the pillar," the word usually translated "of" is also missing in "of the truth."
Thus both stulos and hedraiōma denote support, and could refer to the church being a pillar and base for the Truth, since it began upon Truth. Note that most of Scripture preceded the church, and which was established Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. It might also be postulated that as this is part of an exhortation to Timothy knowing how to conduct himself "in the church of the living God," perhaps 1Tim. 3:15b could refer to how Timothy conducting himself in the church, supporting and stedfast upon on the Truth.
Both of which is supported by the rest of Scripture, than using an obscure word (hedraiōma) to infer that the church is the basis of Truth or infallible authority on Truth, which is not stated.
The only sense in which the church is the pillar and ground of the truth is the way Israel was, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:2) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)
But which is contrary to what 1Tim. 3:15 of so often used by RCs to support, that being the church of Rome being the basis and infallible authority on Truth, since nowhere is the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility seen, promised or necessary in Scripture.
Instead, God provided and preserved Truth without this magisterium, and the the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead souls followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
It is all about Him! It should!
And the more one knows, the more one can see what He is preparing Israel for- The Kingdom. And that is why the enemy likes things like Thor’s Day..
It disrupts and changes how one thinks about the Creator and Redeemer - something that our Creator built into things like ‘1st Day’ of the month, etc, so we wouldn’t be able to take our minds off of who it is we are to serve.
Teach us to number our days, so that we may present to you a heart of wisdom. Psalm 90:12
Lots of wisdom out there to be revealed.
When I began to number my days and tell time like He does in Scripture, I saw numbers like 1260,1290 and 1335 pop off the pages.. Same for 30,60,100 in His Parable of the Sower.
Those are numbers that would be a blessing to understand in new ways, if one is seeking the Kingdom.
The 30,60,100 as segments of ‘time’ is something Judaism and Christianity can’t teach.
And they miss a foundational principle, in a foundational parable of His Kingdom, because of it..
Oh, if people saw it!
Mathew 13:52 -therefore every scribe who has been trained for the Kingdom of Heaen is like a householder who brings in out of his treasure what is new and what is old.
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
It means that I have committed no error in this matter.
Please play your "gotcha" games with someone else. I have zero interest in discussing this matter with you or anyone else like you.
Have a lovely day.
Big difference...We believe in the Trinity because God shows us the Trinity in His book...That's why we don't debate it...If the Trinity wasn't to be found in the scriptures you can be we would be ridiculing your fable of the Trinity...
No one showed this Gregory anything...If he believed in the Trinity it's because he read it in the scriptures...And then made up a nice little story to elevate himself and the goddess of heaven...
Funny thing, someone on this thread claimed Catholics don't have to believe in these Mary ghost stories...It's not required to believe them...
So, it's not required that you guys believe in the Trinity...Interesting...
Well, the issue here isn't my taking something out of context -- it's plainly written in CCC 841....
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.""
Please note the bolding. Does "together with us" mean some other group than Roman Catholics? Does "Muslims" mean something other than Mohammedans? Does "together" mean something other than RCs and Muslims together adore the "one merciful God,..."?
If Muslims and Roman Catholics, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, adore the ONE MERCIFUL GOD does that not mean either:
Muslims worship Yahweh? or;
Roman Catholics worship Allah?
Seriously -- it must be one or the other. If one studies what Muslims believe, one comes to learn that they do NOT worship Yahweh... they do NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God.... these are not negotiable with Muslims. So....
Please tell me the out context issue that you seem to see but that the CCC does not present? 841 is plainly written and simple to read.
Hoss
Catholics and Muslims "adore the one Merciful God" -- "together with us" is hard to take out of context when it's written in plain language.
Like you, I'd love to hear the context.
Hoss
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.