www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Interesting Conference

Dear Forum Members,
Slava Esusu Khrystu!

Below is a link to a very good conference given in Rome by Fr. Paul Kramer in May about the changes in the Roman Liturgy after the Second Vatican Council-a series of conferences sponsored by the Fatima Center given in May were well attended by both Roman and Eastern Catholic bishops(including Cardinal Martino), priests, and laity.

Whether or not one agrees with everything Father says, or about the consecration of Russia, he makes some good points and brings up some interesting history:

Interestingly, I chanced upon this essay outlining an Orthodox reaction to the events at Fatima:

http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

I'm a Roman Catholic and for a long time I have had concerns about Fatima and other similar paranormal phenomena that my Church enthusiastically promotes for some reason that wholly escapes me.

While I think the tenor of this essay might be a bit strident, I nevertheless found it interesting as it put into words some of my own thoughts concerning the alleged Fatima events, although it never occurred to me that my thoughts should have so harmonized with the mind of Orthodoxy. I would be lying if I said it hasn't caused me to wonder.

I have encountered Nicholas Gruner's Fatima Crusade "up close and personal" so to speak. To say that this organization is "out there" is to stop well short of characterizing what it really is, for charity's sake . I genuinely pity the Catholics I have met who are caught up in this group, many of whom seem to have succumbed to mental health issues to one degree or another. It's a very sad thing to have observed.

No need to follow popular devotions (and excesses thereof) but trust and follow the Church with confidence.

The Fatima of the Catholic Church says no more than "Most Holy Theotokos, save us!"

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Nicholas Gruener has misled many people from a spiritual direction from Christ's blessed Mother and turned it into ecclesiastical politics, to put it politely. May God have mercy on his soul.

I respecfully disagree with Fr Deacon Anthony's statement "no need to follow popular devotions." They are popular because they inspire people and help one's metanoia. There are good and bad points about everything; prayer and discernment are not optional.

Well, it says a little more than that, but I think the thrust of the essay I read was the concern that Fatima does, indeed, seem to imply something along the lines of "Mary, save us!" as opposed to "Jesus, save us!" "Most Holy Theotokos, save us," is not the same theological idea as "through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Saviour, save us!" Sometimes, in fact, these apparitions seem to say "Mary, save us from Jesus!" Jesus being represented as a wrathful Lord who wants to wipe out sinners with a vengeful arm, whereas Mary holds back that arm, wanting to save us from His fury.

I don't mean to unfairly characterize anything that might be authentic, but that's the impression one comes away with and it's just the sort of thing that leads some to wonder about the authenticity of private revelations. Then there are the contradicting private revelations. Catherine of Siena received a revelation wherein it was "revealed" to her that Mary was not immaculately conceived vs. Bernadette Soubirous who received a "revelation" that Mary was, indeed, immaculately conceived. Both women are canonized saints. Both claimed private revelations. But only one of them can be right whereas the other must be wrong. And no matter which of them is right and which is wrong (as a Roman Catholic I'm bound to reject St. Catherine of Siena's revelation and to accept St. Bernadette's take on the matter), it's still possible that neither of their revelations was authentic or divine.

I don't know...perhaps it's only me, but when I read the words of Jesus Christ in various private revelations, I don't seem to "hear" the same voice I "hear" when I read the Gospels. It's like the Jesus Christ of the scriptures and the Jesus Christ of the modern private revalations are two different entities speaking. That goes doubly for the quiet and hidden Mary of scripture who suddenly becomes ever so talkative according to so many of these private revelations, and usually with such a strange tinge of desperation. And she's always pointing to herself.

"In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph!"

Forgive me, but I would not expect the Virgin Mary that we encounter in the scriptures to ever assert such a thing. Rather, I would expect the quote to be, "In the end, my Divine Son Jesus Christ will triumph."

I should say that this skepticism of mine concerning modern private revelations subtracts nothing from my confidence in the intercessory power of the authentic Mary. I only need to reflect upon how the Lord's first miracle at Cana came about. Quite apart from his intention to work no miracle that day, Jesus Christ worked a miracle anyhow...because his mother asked him to. "Do whatever he tells you." That's the message of the Mary I know.

Does it? I'm not saying believe everything anyone writes but what the Church has investigated and approved. At most, I believe, the Catholic Church judges that an apparition is "worthy of belief" without affirming particular forms of devotion; see, for instance, this link [en.wikipedia.org]:


Regarding the pdf with the Orthodox comments, “Most Holy Theotokos save us,” is at the end of the Byzantine (Orthodox and Catholic) service of Vespers:

The priest exits the royal doors, faces the congregation, and states, “Christ our God, the one who is, is blessed always now and ever and unto the ages of ages.” After the people respond, the priest turns to the icon of the Theotokos and says, “Most Holy Theotokos save us.” The people again sing a response, “More honorable than the Cherubim....”

Or, for a devotional instance, see link [youtube.com].

Dear Roman,

I'm sorry that your impressions have been so tainted by misrepresentations of the Fatima visions. Regarding conflicting visions, even the Gospel itself has seemingly conflicting teachings. For example, a rich man can't enter heaven, or the cursed fig tree. These are "opposed by the teaching of the Father's mercy, "ask you you shall receive." And how many angels were at the tomb of Christ at the Resurrection...one or two?

We are fortunate that people believe in visions through Christian history....take the various visions regarding St Nicholas....if skeptics abounded then Nicholas would never have become a bishop. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/nicholas.html

Visions (apparitions) have been guiding both the Eastern and Western Churches since the earliest days of Christianity (Peter's vision of the unclean foods, Ananias and St Paul's conversion, etc.

Have our hearts hardened in this era that we won't even give credit to the power of prayer for the unexpected collapse of Communism? Instead of giving thanks to God we give credit to Pres Reagan! Surely you don't believe that he did it without the help of the Hand of God and the intercession of Christ's Beloved Mother?

I haven't commented at all on the events surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union so I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with the price of eggs. However, precisely what hand the Mother of God had in the collapse of the Soviet Union and its replacement by a different sort of secular government is impossible for anyone to guage, whereas historical facts do allow us to know precisely how much of a hand the policies of the Reagan Administration had in it. Private revelations, being what they are, cannot be relied upon infallibly as historical data.

Now, I'm not saying that prayer and Divine Providence had no role in the Soviet Union's collapse, but your response sort of underscores part of what concerns me about private apparitions at times, namely, that they tend to generate an insistence amongst those who embrace them that those who do not embrace them are somehow deficient in their Christian encounter. This sort of insistence, with respect to the Fatima events, finds its most robust manifestation in Nicholas Gruner's Fatima Crusade.

Here, you have encountered someone on these forums (me) who has expressed misgivings about a certain private revelation, and your first instinct is to express your sorrow over what you perceive as my mischaracterization of the private revelation in question (in this case Fatima), as if it were somehow tragic that one should not experience the fullness of your own understanding of it and thus embrace it as surely as you do. Why should a different perspective on something so non-essential as a private revelation so dismay you? Please don't think I'm attacking you or picking on you by saying as much, far from it. It's hardly as if you're alone and I know your intentions are upright.

I'm not sure, however, that your contention that there are things that (apparently) contradict one another in Scripture is necessarily useful, to be honest. It certainly doesn't serve to provide any greater credibility to modern private revelations to say, "well, there are alot of Scriptures that do not seem to harmonize with other Scriptures." Okay...but how does that bolster the credibility of contradictory private revelations?

Now, needless to say, it isn't the various messages of prayer and repentance that may subsist within these various phenomena that I don't accept (for what they are). Surely those are good messages that can be found throughout the Christian experience. But modern private apparitions never really sort of stop there, do they? They include predictions that sometimes come true and sometimes do not (Fatima contains predictions of events written down after the fact) as well as other messages that aren't necessarily so clear and comprehensible. What, for example, does something like "in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph" actually mean? Personally, I find myself unable to attach a meaning to it in the context of a reality in which Jesus Christ is Messiah, Saviour, Priest, King, and Victor. Furthermore, does that sound like the Mary we encounter in scripture? It doesn't to me. If it does to you or to others, so be it. I speak only for myself, of course, and I do not dismiss the possibility hat I am missing something entirely that others can see clearly. Nevertheless I take comfort in that the Church gives me the complete freedom to entirely disregard private revelations that I can't seem to reconcile with Gospel and traditional Christianity.

In all of this am I going so far as to say that Fatima most certainly is not authentic? No. It's well above my paygrade to make such a judgment. I stop well short of any such insistence, going only so far as to say that I don't seem to find myself, personally, persuaded by it, for a variety of reasons. And the Church tells me that it's just fine to react to a private revelation that way.

Whatever my take on the events of Fatima, however, I can say with certainty that the Fatima Crusade is real, and that the spirit and mentality within that particular organization is alarmingly unhealthy, and that those who are trapped within it should be prayed for.

With this, I very much agree (with sadness).

May the Holy Spirit guide you on your pilgrimage here on earth.

Although I have been to Fatima twice, a LOT having to do with the Fatima apparitions gives me the creeps. The only thing which strikes my attention is the "miracle of the sun" and the prediction that "Russia would spread her errors throughout the world". I take this to mean Communism...it bothers me that Our Lady lays so much emphasis on praying the Rosary. It's like she's saying, "Pray to ME! Pray to ME! Pray to ME!". As if she were going to save us, not Jesus...she could just as well have said, "Pray the Akathist to ME every day" - of course, the shepherd children would not have known what that is...also showing them a vison of hell savours to me of child-abuse.

I hate to say this about any person raised to the honours of the altar but little Bl. Jacinta and Bl. Francisco Marto are two of the most chilling and unappealing little children I have ever heard of.

Then we have that business of "the conversion of Russia". Conversion to WHAT? Roman Catholicism?(forget THAT). Or re-conversion to Christianity as Orthodox Christians? Or WHAT?

And I agree that Father (?) N. Gruner is unbalanced. BTW, is he even a priest in good standing, or is he simply "Mr. Gruner" now?

Religiosity can be so weird...

He says some things with which I'd agree, but his à la carte -- and I'd say also very biased -- treatment of the data, and the lack of any coherent synthesis, has me giving him a thumbs down. It disappoints me even more to realized that he has a following.

You echo a number of my own concerns about Fatima. A more recent concern I have is the continual re-interpretation of what it all was supposed to have meant in order to maintain Fatima's relevance. Since the Russians obviously did not convert en-masse to Roman Catholicism after Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (as Sr. Lucia confirmed he did, to the Blessed Virgin's satisfaction), it is now said by many "ahhh...what was meant is that Russia would convert back to Orthodox Christianity from Communism, since we see that happening, now."

Um...okay...so why should the appeal have been to the Pope of Rome in that case via three Roman Catholic children in Portugal? What has the Pope got to do with Orthodoxy in Russia? Why not appear in say, oh, I don't know...Russia...instead of Portugal, or at least in some place where the Orthodox Church dominates, and request that the Orthodox Patriarchs consecrate Russia to Mary? Why the Pope?

And the emphasis on the Rosary would, of course, be a strange one, considering that it is a Western devotion that doesn't factor so much in Eastern Christianity. How do you tell entire swathes of Christians unfamiliar with the Rosary that they need to pray the Rosary more often?

You raise a number of questions and all I can reply to them is by means of this quote attributed - to of all people - Gertrude Stein:

"There ain't no answer. There ain't going to any answer. There never has been an answer. THAT'S the answer."

This quote can apply to many questions and puzzling situations...even in "churchy" affairs.

Glory to Jesus Christ,

I apologize for possible being argumentative, but...
I first heard of Fatima when I was a child back in the late 50's; then and since then I NEVER assumed that the "conversion" would be to Roman Catholic. I think your strong western influence is unduly distorting your view.

God's ways are not our own; part of Eastern spirituality is not to pigeonhole God's ways into human terms and reasoning. Communism fell; Christianity is growing; what is there to fault?

Paul:

I don't take you as being argumentative (I hope you don't take me that way, either); we're all just having a polite discussion on a discussion forum, right? That's the way I see it, anyhow.

But as to your point that you never imagined that Russia's conversion would be to Roman Catholicism I can only re-iterate my last point: why, in that case, did everything about Fatima hinge upon an action to be taken by the Pope?

If it wasn't about Russia converting to Roman Catholicism, why did the apparitions happen to Roman Catholic children in a Roman Catholic country? Why did the "Lady in White" request that people pray a Roman Catholic devotion (the Rosary) that non-Latin Rite Roman Catholics do not pray, and further request that the Roman Catholic Pope consecrate Orthodox Russia to Mary under a Roman Catholic devotional title (Immaculate Heart of Mary)?

In Russia, is there any sort of a sense amongst the now free Orthodox people of "well, thank heavens the Pope of Rome liberated us by consecrating our country to the Immaculate Heart of Mary like that Portuguese nun told him to!" I don't mean to be flippent, but I would be surprised if, amongst Orthodox Russia, there exists a recognition by the Christian people that the Pope and Fatima were responsible for the Soviet Union's collapse and the liberation of Orthodoxy.

It all just doesn't seem to make much sense.