Fatima and Russia

Why would the Lord Jesus Christ need His mother to lead us into the fullness of truth in Him? Didn't He Himself say that "the Spirit of truth" would guide us into the truth? Isn't that sufficient? If we have the Holy Spirit, we don't need a mother (capital M?!) to help us.

Don't worship Mary, in whatever form. Worship Christ. And He will not lead you to worship Mary, He will lead you to worship the Father.

But Mary's heart was as incurably wicked as that of all mankind. She was certainly special, but she was a sinful human being, just like everyone else. Her heart was not and never has been immaculate, capitalized or not.
She needed Christ to die for her, no?

Please check your facts more thoroughly! No doubt there are apocalyptics and "Fatimists" who revel in more extreme predictions. I am not one of them. But the questions a mainstream Italian reporter, Antonio Socci, raises are very credible, and they were published in the mainstream Italian press. And they have not been answered. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for the points he raises -- he hoped for one too -- but we have not heard it.

To ???
God never changes. He picked Our Lady once to bring Christ to us. He does not cast off those who work for Him. So why can't he use Mary to continue to bring Christ to us now? Do you question that God can use whatever means He wishes, to give us Christ. It is not worship, but a proper understanding of the Gospels and Scripture. She told us to "Do whatever He tells you." He told us "Behold your mother." The Christian family like all families needs a good mother to look after us. Christianity is enriched by devotion (not worship as you falsely accused us of doing.) to Our Lady. She has much to teach us. She leads us to Christ. In the Old Testament it was the Kings Mother who held the most power next to the King, not the Kings wife. The Kings Mother sat on the right hand of the King. Nothing in Sacred Scripture is insignificant. Open your heart and Behold your Mother.

Rod:

I think you steal a few bases with this post. I don’t think I would call you crazy, but I do think that you detour wildly from logic and history.

You believe that the prophecy foretold the fall of communist Russia. And you cite as evidence—“miraculous” evidence, no less—that six years after the consecration, the mighty Soviet empire fell and was no more. Of course, a superficial reading of this event would point to a miracle. However, to sustain this “miracle” would be to ignore more than 40 years of Cold War politics and a steady hollowing out of a corrupt and broken system. It also ignores the subsequent ascension of a former KGB officer named Vladimir Putin, who, since becoming President, has moved his nation back to autocracy. And let us not forget the ultimate folly of nuclear weapons. America and Russia continue to point thousands of these terrible weapons at each others’ cities. A single mistake or misunderstanding could drive the human species to the brink of extinction in a matter of minutes.

You also grant the prophesy credit for predicting a period of relative peace in the years following the end of the Cold War. How grand that memory would be if it were only true. The 1990s, unfortunately, were a time of enormous bloodshed, including the Balkan wars, the Rwandan genocide, war in the Congo, Mogadishu, the first Gulf War, various incidents of international terrorism and the Oklahoma City bombing. This was also the time when India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons and have nearly used them on each other several times. Finally, of course, the late1990s were the years in which Al-Queda began planning and funding the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Is this the peace foretold in the Fatima revelation?

I understand the need for religion to employ prophesy and the supernatural. However, even a cursory examination of history and the lack of even the slightest smidgen of evidence that these were indeed supernatural prophesies should give anyone pause that anything to do with Fatima could be defined as a supernatural miracle.

Tad, thanks for your comment.
[By the way, to Rod and his readers, I do not at all want to come across as if I am "trolling," so if I go to far in these comments please forgive me, and let me know.]

"So why can't he use Mary to continue to bring Christ to us now?"

I just don't see the need for it. Now that Christ is in resurrection, He can come to us directly through the Holy Spirit. I don't see why God would need Mary as a subsidiary apparition.

"Do you question that God can use whatever means He wishes, to give us Christ."

No, I don't question it. Definitely not. I agree He can use whatever means He wishes. And even though I don't personally respect Fatima or similar appearings, if others are genuinely helped by them, than so much the better.

"It is not worship, but a proper understanding of the Gospels and Scripture."

I just don't see that at all.

"She told us to "Do whatever He tells you." "

No, she told a group of people at a Cana wedding to "do whatever He tells you," after He strongly said to her, "What have I to do with you?" I don't believe her words mean anything other than their straightforward meaning. We should do whatever He tells us. We don't need to wait for her to tell us anything new.

"He told us "Behold your mother." "

No, He said this to John the disciple. And John took her in, for which I am grateful. I believe this was the way the Lord communicated to His disciples, which included His mother, that the relationship of the church is a family relationship. But I don't think this verse should be interpreted as "Mary is the mother of us all." That's a stretch.

"The Christian family like all families needs a good mother to look after us."

To which I reply, "???" Really? We need a mother to look after us, when Christ is already interceding on our behalf before the Father, and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, lives in us and guides us into all truth? On the practical level, the Christian church surely needs mature spiritual women to take care of many needs, who could be considered "Mary's." But not in a mystical way.

"Christianity is enriched by devotion (not worship as you falsely accused us of doing.) to Our Lady."

I apologize for saying anything false. I personally don't see the distinction (between worship and devotion), but I don't want to suggest something that's inaccurate or offensive. I disagree with your perspective that Christianity has been enriched by devotion to Mary. I would use the word "distracted." Our focus should be on Christ alone.

"She has much to teach us. She leads us to Christ."

I don't believe that, or see that in the New Testament. When I became a Christian, I came to Christ directly. I believe that in the Gospels the Lord makes it clear that this is because of the Father "wills to reveal Him (Christ)." The Father reveals the Son. I don't need Mary to help Him (the Father) out. And can you name one thing that Mary has taught that is valid that can't already be found in the Bible itself?

"In the Old Testament it was the Kings Mother who held the most power next to the King, not the Kings wife. The Kings Mother sat on the right hand of the King. Nothing in Sacred Scripture is insignificant."

I don't see how that applies in the New Testament. I actually don't even know where in the Old Testament you are referring to. Did David or Solomon hold less power than their mothers? I don't see that anywhere. Please show me where the kings mother sat on the right hand of a King in the Old Testament. (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember that.)

"Open your heart and Behold your Mother."

In all sincerity, what if I open my heart and she's not there, because she's not my mother? But the Lord is surely there, and has never told me anything about Mary that can't already be found in Scripture. As the Father said when Moses and Elijah appeared to speak with Jesus at His transfiguration, "Hear Him!" Hear Jesus, not Moses, or Elijah, and certainly not Mary.

I should add, I've had a similar conversation before on a comment thread on this blog. I was posting as "not in Cleveland anymore." I'd like to quote my last words to 'Cleveland,' who debated with me these sorts of issues:

"Ultimately what matters (in my opinion) is that we both love Jesus and wish to live in a manner pleasing to Him. I fully believe that is as possible for you as a Catholic as it is for me as an evangelical. I really don't have animosity towards you or your church. That is, I don't consider myself anti-Catholic. (I also think Hagee is a loon.) I just disagree with some of the Church's doctrines.
I do believe that Jesus was without sin, not because of Mary, but solely because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
We'll leave it at that. Much grace to you."

The thread is here, if you have the time and interest:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/01/chambers-vs-reagan.html.comments.html

What Cardinal Bertone says I simply do not agree with theologically. All Conversion goes toward the Catholic Church. At least in a Mystical sense. I don't believe one should separate the Mission of the Church from authentic Conversion. So I don't like how Cardinal Bertone separates the Catholic Church from the Conversion of Russia. The details are something else, but I don't believe there was or could be such a great separation in terms of Our Lady's intention and Our Lord's intention in the context of the Prophecy. Otherwise there would appear to be a break with the theological Mission of the Church.

When Our Lady appeared at Fatima she said "God wishes to spread devotion to My Immaculate Heart." I don't see this devotion being
spread in Russia at all. Instead I see more millitarism and tyranny being spread.When Our Lady said "Russia would be converted"I believe
She did not mean back to schism but back to the one and only true
faith and not back to error which the Orthodox professes.They reject
Papal Supremacy and The Immaculate Conception or anything the Pope
says infallibely.
Henry DeBonis

"We don't need her."

Yes we do. Jesus is God made man, born of a woman. If Jesus had not been born of a woman, if Mary had not agreed to be his mother, then where would we be?

It follows logically: Man needs Jesus. Jesus was born to Mary. Please open your eyes to her very critical role in our salvation history.

No, she is not God. But she is very critical to the Kingdom of God. And since the beginning of Christianity, she has been honored as the Mother of God. It is a relatively new innovation to dismiss her, and it ignores a very important part of what it means to be Christian.

In considering ???'s comments, yes, Luther and many of the Anglican reformers continued to address Mary as Mother of God (not God the Father, but God the Son, the Eternal Word who became flesh -- there was never a time that the Son was not God) and defended her perpetual Virginity.

As one raised in a family of Lutherans and Catholics (converted to Catholicism ten years ago) if one tries to view Mary outside of the Communion of Saints (of which she is the outstanding member) and fails to grasp the tremendous significance of her consent to become the Mother of the Savior (God knew that Mary would say "yes", but Mary didn't know it until she was asked and freely gave her consent).

Mary has been called "our tainted nature's solitary boast" because of the Annunication of the Angel. She is holy because Christ is holy and it was by his Passion that she was given the singular privilege of becoming the Mother of God.

In the wacky sixties and seventies some radical Christians would militantly affirm that "we have Christ, we don't need Mary" to which one humble and wise parishioner commented "Well, Jesus certainly needed her." Without her consent the Incarnation could not have happened. She truly is his first disciple.

For Catholics and many other Christians she is indeed our Mother in the order of grace.

She does not supersede Christ whose sacrifice alone merits our salvation. But she is the beloved daughter of the Father who conceived the Son by the Holy Spirit and for countless Christians across the centuries has become our spiritual Mother who prays with and for the Church.

But I fully understand where ??? is coming from. I once held the same beliefs. For those Christians who adhere to sola scriptura there is little alternative.

>>>
Mary has been called "our tainted nature's solitary boast" because of the Annunication of the Angel.
>>>

I thought that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception declared that Mary did not share our tainted nature because she did not share the stain of Original Sin.

I'm afraid that I do not understand the utility of this argument.

One side claims that it is right to revere the mother of Jesus, while another says that while her service to Christianity should be duly noted, she no longer fills any useful purpose. All fine and good, except that no one has addressed the central problem of this argument: neither side has contributed anything other than their unsubtantiated beliefs to this discussion. The evidence of Mary's "sin" is, to my mind, exactly the same as eviddence of her purity: there is no evidence.

Let's say we have two people discussing what sort of politics an advanced alien civilization might have adopted. Person A may argue that the aliens would have a collectivized system. Person B may argue that the aliens would certainly prefer a privitized system. Who is right? Well, you could pick a side based on many factors, including your personal ideology, the respective outcomes of collectivization and privitization on Earth, and so on. Yet no one could pick a "winner" based on the argument's premise, because the alien civilization in question has not been discovered and observed. It's fun to guess, but all it would be is a guess. There would be no right or wrong answer, at least until we made contact with an alien civilization and, well, asked them.

Similarly, arguing the absence or presence of "sin" in a Middle Eastern woman who live 2,000 years ago, and for whom there is very little historical evidence for, is fraught with peril and, frankly, not worth debating about.

Flash. I'm pretty sure that was resolved years ago.

May God have mercy on my geeky soul.

However, to sustain this “miracle” would be to ignore more than 40 years of Cold War politics and a steady hollowing out of a corrupt and broken system. It also ignores the subsequent ascension of a former KGB officer named Vladimir Putin, who, since becoming President, has moved his nation back to autocracy.

Our Lady keeps her promises. And she never promised democracy in Russia, just an end to the evils that she told Sr. Lucia in _early_ 1917 would soon emanate from it.

"It is impossible to argue for the purity (or importance) of the figure of Mary simply because, outside of the Gospels, we know almost nothing about her."

Her importance is noted in the Tradition, in the Creed, and in the Liturgical life of the Church, both E and W. To say that it is impossible to debate the role of Mary is to say that none of these things has any import in the discussion. That is a reductionist view that Catholics, Orthodox, and many Anglicans and Lutherans reject.

Response to Mike:

"Yes we do [need Mary]."

No, we don't. Not anymore. She has fulfilled her role. Now we only need Him.

"Jesus is God made man, born of a woman. If Jesus had not been born of a woman, if Mary had not agreed to be his mother, then where would we be?"

We'd certainly be in trouble. Similar to what Paul said about if there were no resurrection, "we are of all men most miserable." I'm glad Mary existed, so that the Incarnation could occur. (Does anyone here remember the Apostle Paul? I don't think he said much if anything about Mary. Please explain why this would be.)

"It follows logically: Man needs Jesus. Jesus was born to Mary."

Yes, it follows logically. It does not follow logically, "So now we need to be devoted to Mary, and once every few decades she will appear to a select group of people somewhere in the world and will give new revelation."

"Please open your eyes to her very critical role in our salvation history."

If by "open your eyes," you mean study church history, I've done so. She's critical only in bringing forth Christ as a child. That should never be underestimated. But once Christ is born, all the focus is on Him. Nowhere in the book of Acts, the true early church, was Mary given more significance than she deserved. But they preached the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Lord.

"No, she is not God. But she is very critical to the Kingdom of God. And since the beginning of Christianity, she has been honored as the Mother of God."

Again, read the book of Acts. And where in the Bible is she given a capital 'M'? Why didn't the apostles Paul or John describe her as critical? Were they ignorant? Did the Lord not reveal this to them, the writers of Scripture? How come Peter in his epistles said nothing about Mary?

"It is a relatively new innovation to dismiss her, and it ignores a very important part of what it means to be Christian."

Not really. A person can be a faithful and mature Christian and have no concerns or thoughts about Mary at all. It is wrong to "dismiss" her, but it is also wrong to exalt her.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude - which one of these New Testament writers considered Mary in the way that you describe as so important? They are not new innovators.

Mike, you won't get anywhere with a sola scripturist discussing the Blessed Virgin. ???'s problem isn't with Mary, it's with his faulty understanding of the Bible and the Church. It's like trying to teach algebra to someone who doesn't know their times tables yet.

Fine, Rob G, explain it to me. I don't say that rhetorically. I enjoy this blog because of the high quality of the comments, from a diversity of readers. Rod D. brought up a Fatima appearance, and I don't take it seriously as a Christian. Please show me in the Bible (and from the Church, if you must) where the "times tables" are. I sincerely invite you to correct my faulty understanding, or to refer me to a person or work that can.
Of course, there's always the chance that algebra comes easy to me. It's alchemy and astrology that I haven't quite learned yet.

Actually John E., that's not strictly accurate. No one is arguing that the events of Russia's history occured because of the Fatima revelation, only that the seeming correspondence of history to those revelations evidences their veracity. Any dealing with "prophecy" is much the same. If Prophet X seems to predict that events A, B, C, and D will occur-- and I can argue persuasively that A,B, and C all did occur, then it seems reasonable to believe that event D will occur as well.

Whether any of this is actually logical or not, I won't say. But it's not strictly the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

That was a very good article. I have to admit, in the past I didn't want to hear any more about Fatima, because I was tired of "Fatimists" who seemed to live for the Third Secret, and seemed to hope it would be of an apocalyptic disaster never before heard of by the world.
I am glad the Third Secret is revealed and over, and especially that Pope John Paul II survived his terrible ordeal, and lived to be a model of forgiveness for me and a lot of people. I also got a good laugh from Cardinal Bertone's comment. Thanks for this story.

Mike, thank you for your comments. Very well put.
I only have a brief moment and then I will be busy for the rest of the evening. So I'll just say that I find it very odd that the Bible seems so silent on this issue, if it is of such supreme importance. I don't want to sound like a narrow-minded Protestant who has no respect for church history or tradition. It just seems to me fairly obvious that if we really were benefitted by praying to Mary directly, or if we really were able to come to the Son through her, then much more would have been said about this in Scripture. I believe the Lord Jesus Himself would have been much more explicit about it, and that the Apostles who wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would have had much more to say about it. Instead: silence.
I have to go, but please say more and I'll try to respond when I can. I do enjoy this, and hope it is a mutually beneficial discussion.

There are two ways of dealing with Fatima's apparitions:
1/ You can accept all the comments and interpretations coming from the Vatican through the official channels, even when they are contradictory. Don't think, don't question the issue, it was pre-digested, ready to swallow by the humble and ignorant faithfuls.
2/ You dig in the matter and you find that there are such a number of discrepancies and contradictions that you say: I cannot swallow all the stuff without getting a few clear answers from the Fatima's pundits.
The problem is that the pundits are shocked that somebody may question the official truth and decline to discuss the issue: Take the whole as it is and shut up.
I am not a Fatimist and I have no connection with these people but the simple fact to dare to contest some points makes that I am classified as such.
Since I lost hope to get these answers, I diverted my interest on other Marian apparitions, and peculiarly on those of Akita in Japan. These apparitions were officially approved by the Church.
I heard of comments on these apparitions made by then Card. Ratzinger before he became Pope. These comments were reported by mr Howard Dee former ambassador of Philippines Republic to the Holy See.
Card. Ratzinger told Mr Dee that Akita's and Fatima's messages are (I quote) "essentially the same".
Now I believe I got my answers!

Maybe Plan A was Diana of the Ephesians.

I believe in The Holy Father and his direction.

Please pray for the enthronement of Our Lady of America and learn all you can at ourladyofamerica.com and www.oltiv.org

Rob G.: "In fact, I've heard Orthodox theologians ... state that we really shouldn't even debate the Virgin Mary with those who aren't in the Church, because her role cannot be profitably discussed outside that context."

Am I in the Church? I believe in Jesus, He died for my sins, I've received Him, I am thus a child of God. I am a member of the Body of Christ, the church. Why can't Mary's role be discussed with me? What is it that I can't understand?
I think your definition of "church" may be exclusive rather than inclusive of all the believers in Christ. Does Mary only have something to do with some of the believers but not all?

???, a couple of thoughts. They are somewhat lengthy, just because you deserve as thorough of an answer as can be provided in this forum. First:

It just seems to me fairly obvious that if we really were benefitted by praying to Mary directly, or if we really were able to come to the Son through her, then much more would have been said about this in Scripture. I believe the Lord Jesus Himself would have been much more explicit about it, and that the Apostles who wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would have had much more to say about it. Instead: silence.

This assumes that Scripture, the New Testament, was intended to be a more-or-less complete "how-to" manual; what one might call the lower-case c "catholic" tradition (which would include Roman Catholics, Orthodox both Eastern and Oriental, and to some extent some number of Anglicans) has a very different view, which is perhaps best summed up by saying "the books of the NT are the addenda, not the blueprints" (Steve Robinson, www.ourlifeinchrist.com). That is, they are correctives to churches already presumed to be functioning and living, and doing so for some time before the NT was written. St. Paul certainly doesn't claim his letters to be exhaustive; 2 Thess 2:15 specifically excludes this idea, saying that the church is to hold fast to the traditions ("paradosis" in Greek, "that which is handed down" from "paradidomi", "to hand down" or "to hand over"; "tradition" is merely the Latinate form of the same word) which were received by word or epistle. If they're correctives to communities which are already functioning, we would expect silence on issues that didn't need correcting. Therefore, in this case, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

It also assumes that the English translation you're reading is a) accurate and/or b) hasn't been influenced by doctrinal bias. The plain meaning of "paradosis" in 2 Thess 2:15 is "tradition"; most Protestant Bibles render that instance as "teaching" rather than "tradition", presumably because they can't imagine tradition being mentioned positively in the New Testament--but there it is, and it's not the only instance. In Luke 11:27, the word usually translated as "rather" is better rendered as "Yes, indeed" or "more than that", so as to amplify rather than negate. I'll let you look it up so that you can decide what the implications of that may or may not be. I might also mention that reading Luke in Greek, which I had the eye-opening experience of getting to do this last fall for the first time, makes it crystal clear how scriptural the term "Mother of God" actually is--there is nothing else Elizabeth can possibly mean in Luke 1:43.

Am I in the Church? I believe in Jesus, He died for my sins, I've received Him, I am thus a child of God. I am a member of the Body of Christ, the church. Why can't Mary's role be discussed with me? What is it that I can't understand?

And may He remember you in His kingdom! If you have been faithful to what you have received, then may God tell you at the end, "Well done, good and faithful servant." I nonetheless have to challenge your definition of "church". The epistles are written to local churches, to be sure, but Acts shows that they are subject to the same authority (Acts 15). 2 Timothy is a witness to the practice of apostles laying hands on their successors (2 Tim 1:6, "Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands"), who then themselves appoint successors (2 Tim 2:1, "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also"). St. Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd bishop of Antioch and appointed by Peter, gives a more detailed witness to what this looks like, saying that "Where the bishop (episkopos, "overseer") is, there is the catholic (complete, in this case, "according to the whole") church"--but bishops are in communion with other bishops. The whole church is the local community gathering around the bishop to celebrate the Eucharist, but then the bishops themselves, as successors to the apostles, are part of a community themselves. And so on. Communion, in this model, is based on unity of faith, which is therefore inherently conservative; innovation and novelty do not lend themselves to unity of faith being preserved.

The sins of Arius and Nestorius were died for by Christ as well, and they certainly professed Him as Lord and Savior, but they were nonetheless most certainly not part of the church. (Incidentally, the problem with Nestorius was that he wouldn't use the "Theotokos" title; he taught that what Mary carried in her womb was not God in essence, that Christ in his humanity was all that she gave birth to. Note that "Theotokos" does not carry with it the implication that divinity was somehow originate with Mary, only that it was what she carried in her womb and what she gave birth to.) I'm not comparing you to them by any means; what I suggest, however, is that your assumption about what "the church" means is predicated on the formulations of men who had to figure out fast how to get around no longer being in visible communion with the church of history. Not that it is completely untrue, but neither is it the whole truth.

(And before you or anybody else says it, no, none of this addresses the Catholic vs. Orthodox issue, nor is it meant to. Before that can even be talked about, there has to be something of a baseline understanding of the commonalities we *do* share.)

Hope some of this helps in some way.

Richard

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss godisaheritic,

Does it not bother you that your posts are even more hackneyed and ignored than mine?

You remind of a "Deep Thoughts: by Jack Handy" from SNL...

"Probably the saddest thing you'll ever see is a mosquito sucking on a mummy. Forget it, little friend."

Richard,
Thank you very much for such a thoughtful post. I will look into it.

You would do well to read a report written by Robert Sungenis, M. A.
President of Catholic Apologetics International (October 31, 2002). It is a scholarly report and gives a detailed analysis of the "consecration" of Russia. There was an obvious reason why Sr. Lucy was put under obedience by the Church not to speak about Fatima. She had to be silenced until death, because, given the opportunity, she would have told the truth.

You would do well to read a report written by Robert Sungenis, M. A.
President of Catholic Apologetics International (October 31, 2002)

That guy is unhealthily obsessed by Jews, to put it charitably, and believes the solar system is geocentric. See here. Even his bishop told him to knock off his anti-Semitic stuff. As a matter of logic, that doesn't make him wrong about Fatima. But it does undermine his authority.

Our Blessed Mother asked that the pope and the bishops in union concecrate Russia on a special day. When the concecration of the world was done Sister Lucy was asked on a few ocassions if this was what our Lady asked for....Her responce was always....NO NOT THE WORLD RUSSIA RUSSIA! As we all know Sister Lucy was silenced.Even John Paul prayed in front of the statue of our Lady at Fatima reconfirming that her children were still awaiting the consecration.This prayer by pope John Paul was said after the so called consecration and was reported in a popular news paper in Rome.Now when Sister Lucy is asked if the concecration was done is a play on words.She was asked if the consecration of the world was accepted by Heaven...Lucy answered yes. Of course I would think any consecration done to our Lady would be accepted. This over the years has been veiled to mean the conceration of Russia. When in fact the consecration requirements as our Lady has asked for has still not yet been done.It seems to me that consecrating the world to our Ladys Immaculate Heart is a slick way not to offend any particullar country namely RUSSIA! It also seems to me that this world consecration was a half measure avoiding mentioning Russia. I don't think we can bargan with God! This surley shows a lack of faith and the weakness of the faith. So where a half measure is given it looks like a half measure has been given back! Sure it "appears" that communisim has subsided in Russia but where is the conversion? From the immorall acts I see going on in Russia that appears to be spreading throughout the world does not look like a conversion to me. By the way I can back up with all I say here....but it may take some time and reading. Go to triple w dot fatima dot org. This site is run by a true and faithfull Catholic priest in good standing....and does not have as many spelling errors as I do.

As I said earlier, thanks to all who responded to some of my questions. (That includes you, Rob G, for recommending some reading - I forgot to mention that when I thanked Richard earlier.)
I will look into this more, because I find it fascinating. Obviously I am not Catholic or Orthodox, but Protestant, so I will have a different point of view. But I do believe that dialogue between Christians of various persuasions is extremely important, and it is one of the reasons I enjoy this blog (and the commenters).

A few comments:

1) The Bible was canonized by the early church. Would not church fathers like Athanasius and Augustine insist that the books of the New Testament (along with the Old Testament books, as in the Septuagint) were complete? In other words, people here are insisting that we need to look at the church fathers, and church tradition. But that includes the early church saying, "This, and nothing else, is sacred Scripture."

2) I can see why there would be concern with someone like me focusing entirely on the Bible. But what I see in some of the comments is an opposite extreme: focusing almost exclusively on church tradition. Perhaps there is a healthy middle ground to be discerned.

3) "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." That to me is the reason I focus on Scripture as opposed to church tradition. Nowhere does the apostle Paul say something similar about the traditions of the church, i.e. "All..." May I humbly suggest that many church fathers and historical saints are not as deserving of respect as we might think? The Lord knows, and He will judge His people.

4) To all those who have commented on my own posts, may I ask in all sincerity, how many times have you read through the New Testament in its entirety, cover to cover (Matthew to Revelation) on your own and without any commentary? My honest belief is that you would find many things there that directly contradict your church tradition. In such a case, I believe that we need to reject tradition and cleave to the Word of God. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "You have invalidated the Word of God for the sake of your tradition." This is a warning we (including myself) must pay heed to.

"When our previous popes met St. Peter at the pearly gates, I am sure he said, “you just wait till you mother comes home today” and I am sure when our Lady met them she said, “I told you what to do, why didn’t you listen to me, are you hard of hearing”? "

Actually, Dianna, I'm certain that no such thing took place. St. Peter is not standing at the pearly gates. That's superstition. And even if he were, he would not say to any pope, "you just wait till your mother comes home today" (home from where?).

Will someone please explain what it means to "consecrate Russia to the heart of Mary"? Based on the comments above, there seem to be a lot of hoops that someone ( the Pope?) was expected to jump through in order for the people of Russia to return to Christianity. Why not just pray for the Russians to believe in Christ? The directions that the children at Fatima received seem awfully legalistic.

And I, like ??? (commenter above) have to wonder why so much focus is placed on Mary. I can understand honoring her, because Jesus certainly did, but the question is how, and to what extent, which is where the big disagreement is.

???, this is again lengthy, but again, your comments deserve a thorough answering.

The Bible was canonized by the early church. Would not church fathers like Athanasius and Augustine insist that the books of the New Testament (along with the Old Testament books, as in the Septuagint) were complete? In other words, people here are insisting that we need to look at the church fathers, and church tradition. But that includes the early church saying, "This, and nothing else, is sacred Scripture."

True enough as far as it goes (if something of an overstatement), but what does that mean? There were (and still are) other books which were viewed as sources of teaching, some of which were even read liturgically in the churches as scripture and argued by some to be scripture (such as the Didache, some of the letters of Ignatius, etc.). That they ultimately were not "canonized" (again, an oversimplification) wasn't a rejection of their contents; rather, simply an acknowledgment that they were not directly of apostolic provenance.

I can see why there would be concern with someone like me focusing entirely on the Bible. But what I see in some of the comments is an opposite extreme: focusing almost exclusively on church tradition. Perhaps there is a healthy middle ground to be discerned.

The problem here is that for the "catholic tradition", scripture and tradition are not two separate components. Scripture is a part of the greater whole of tradition. The veracity of the books of the NT was judged according to tradition.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

No one is arguing this, but there are two points worth noting: one, that Paul says "profitable," not "sufficient to the exclusion of all else." Two, he was referring to the OT.

That to me is the reason I focus on Scripture as opposed to church tradition.

Which, again, assumes a dichotomy that I would suggest is false.

Nowhere does the apostle Paul say something similar about the traditions of the church, i.e. "All..."

I will again suggest you go back and re-read 2 Thessalonians. "Hold fast to the traditions which you have received from us, either by word or epistle." Did he mean that or didn't he?

May I humbly suggest that many church fathers and historical saints are not as deserving of respect as we might think?

I don't know that anybody would argue they were perfect; they were holy, not infallible. I'd nonetheless gently suggest that there is some amount of hubris in saying that somehow the sixteenth century reformers knew more about Christianity than men like Ignatius or Clement who were ordained by the apostles themselves and died for the faith -- and arguably managed to do so without a leatherbound, red-letter edition NIV sitting on their shelf. To paraphrase Ignatius, the scriptures testify to Christ, not the other way around.

The Lord knows, and He will judge His people.

Indeed.

To all those who have commented on my own posts, may I ask in all sincerity, how many times have you read through the New Testament in its entirety, cover to cover (Matthew to Revelation) on your own and without any commentary?

When you can tell me you've done so in Greek, I'll give that question some more weight, but I will for now suggest that a problem inherent in the question is that a text interprets itself. No text does this; two people who read the Bible are going to come away with two interpretations, and they will likely be mutually exclusive (particularly depending on which translation they're reading). Would that it were otherwise! There is always a hermeneutic, and this is unavoidable. The question is only -- which one? One that was invented more or less out of whole cloth five hundred years ago?

My honest belief is that you would find many things there that directly contradict your church tradition. In such a case, I believe that we need to reject tradition and cleave to the Word of God.

Again, this a) assumes a dichotomy which we believe to be false and b) assumes a hermeneutic which is in contradiction to what has been witnessed to since long before Martin Luther ever picked up a hammer? Another easy example is the word "is" -- the plain meaning of "estin" is "is," and since Greek doesn't require the verb "to be" to express a predicate, the very fact that he's using it when he says "this is my body" emphasizes the literal "is" meaning (which, again, is witnessed to since at least Ignatius). And before you ask if Christ is also literally a door, ego eimi he thura is an "I AM" statement, which has a clear Old Testament connotation.

As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "You have invalidated the Word of God for the sake of your tradition." This is a warning we (including myself) must pay heed to.

No question about it. Nonetheless, 2 Thess 3:6 also says, "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." There is either an internal contradiction here or there is a positive understanding of tradition we are to have and to which we are to cling. The "catholic tradition" believes the latter, so again, you are assuming a dichotomy with which we do not believe is supportable.

This is not to say there haven't been clear deviations from what is acceptable teaching throughout Christian history; there most certainly have been -- they're called "heresies." Arianism. Nestorianism. Monophysitism. Iconoclasm. "Heresy" itself comes from a word meaning "choose" -- in other words, heresy takes something and overemphasizes it to the point of distortion. They have always been identified and dealt with (although virtually all of them are still more-or-less openly practiced today, even if they aren't called that, by some sect or denomination or another), with tradition, that is the whole of Christian teaching, of which scripture is a part, as the criteria.

Richard

"My honest belief is that you would find many things there that directly contradict your church tradition. In such a case, I believe that we need to reject tradition and cleave to the Word of God."

Besides the problem with this idea that Richard mentions is the problem that the early Church Fathers did read the NT books multiple times (some of them even had them memorized) and wrote commentaries on them. They also had a hand in deciding what books made it into the New Testament canon and which ones didn't. Do you really think that they would have approved books that directly contradicted what they believed? Or conversely, wouldn't they have realized that what they believed was in contradiction to the NT and thus, adjusted their beliefs accordingly?

Either way, you've got a problem, holding to the views you do. How do you know that the books that finally made the cut were the right ones, if the Fathers were wrong about what they taught?

But if the early Church was right about the books of the NT, how could it be so wrong about all these other issues?

???, the tone is intentional, but I wonder if you can't see the problem that is emerging.

It is difficult for me to see how one can honestly say, "I think you guys are pretty much on the wrong track at every turn where the fundamentals are concerned" and then turn around and say, "I respect where you're coming from and think there's much to be learned by dialoguing." That kind of "dialogue" devolves into talking past each other (at best) quite quickly, and frankly, more often than not, it is dishonest engagement, well-intentioned or not. Honest engagement with what's being said here, in this case, isn't -- for example -- going back to a Protestant bible, looking up 2 Thess 2:15, seeing that it says "teachings" rather than "traditions", and saying, well, that isn't what my bible says, so I disagree with you. To put it another way, you can't answer the point that a Protestant translation might be doctrinally biased in how it chooses to translate certain things by going back to the Protestant translation for internal support. That's circular at best. Honest "looking into it" isn't, upon your presuppositions being challenged, simply making reflexive comparison of the challenge against your presuppositions and giving your presuppositions the default advantage. If you want to suggest that I'm doing the same thing, what I would tell you is that the fact that I used to have the exact same presuppositions as you, and found them wanting when honestly challenged, is the very reason I am where I'm at now.

By no means am I suggesting that the only evidence of honest engagement would be you changing your position; what I'm saying, with all due respect, is that this is beginning to demonstrate exactly why some might suggest that these kinds of exchanges are ultimately fruitless. We assert related bases for doctrinal authority but have a very different definition of what they mean, to the extent that they may as well be totally different and unrelated bases. An impasse, and that quickly reached, is inevitable. The Patriarch of Constantinople, when Luther's successors attempted to get him on their side, eventually had to tell them to go their own way for exactly these reasons.

None of this is intended to be critical of you, however it may sound; again, if you have been faithful to what you have received, then may you be blessed. But saying what amounts to "I believe you guys got it wrong at virtually every turn, but let's try to learn from each other," is the wrong way to try to heal a centuries-old gap.

Richard

Richard, I'm not trying to heal a centuries-old gap. I'm trying to be well-informed about the faith of my brothers and sisters in Christ. That includes people who identify themselves as Catholic and Orthodox, and believe things that I do not understand. I'm really not trying to "heal" anything. I can't imagine you give me that much credit.

When I say "look into it," I mean just that. You and others have referred me to sources that I have not yet read, and I intend to read them if time allows. That's all. And I can almost guarantee, as you have surmised, that it won't change my opinions. It will just leave me better-informed.

I broke my vow of silence, and have to go back to work. But here are words that I live by, from a man I consider a true "church father" of more recent vintage:

"Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God. Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience. God help me. Amen"
- from you know who, at you know where

Back again, with a minute to post. I really should just quit my job and spend all day posting here, and responding to commenters. Anyone else game?

Anyway, I don't have time to respond to your very long and thoughtful post (11:03 am) that went point by point. So I'll just respond to your most recent one.

The way I view it, the church as the universal Body of Christ transcends time and space. The church includes the names you mentioned (John Chrysostom, Basil, Ignatius, Gregory, etc.) assuming as I do that they were genuine believers in Christ. The church also includes you and I, and everyone at this present moment in time who is a believer in Christ. All of the past and present believers (all of whom I consider "saints") make up the Body of Christ.

I don't believe it makes sense to ask if someone is "Christian enough." To me it's very black and white: either you believe in Christ, and are thus a Christian, or you are not. Of course, upon becoming a Christian, you enter into a life-long process of sanctification, maturity, and conformation to the image of Christ.

So to ask, "Am I actually Christian enough to be in theirs [the church of the ancient fathers]?" is a non-starter. Of course I'm Christian enough to be in their church. That was true the moment I first believed. I'm in the church even if their modern-day followers reject me, because I've believed in the Lord, my sins have been cleansed, I've been regenerated, I've been baptized, etc. There's no such thing as me being "Christian enough" to meet some sort of ancient standard.
I don't believe that any Christian will be judged by their example.

I agree with the apostle Paul: "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord." (Pardon the King James English, I just don't have another online translation handy. Pick your version. That's from 1 Corinthians 4.)

I don't think, when I am judged at the judgment seat of Christ, that I will be measured against the church fathers (or the Protestant reformers, for that matter). I will be measured according to the stature of Christ that is expected of me by Him alone.

On a more personal note, I have found that comparing myself to the great men and women of God from ages past (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox) is not profitable, because it leads to self-condemnation. But if we keep our eyes on Jesus, beholding and reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, then we are transformed into His image. That does not require me to submit to councils from ages past, or place myself into some "historical" church. It requires me only to focus on Him, and be faithful to stay where He leads me.

Enough for now. Back later.

One addendum that may or may not be illuminating:

http://dangreeson.tumblr.com/post/25623914

Richard

Granted, Sr. Lucia said that Pope John Paul II's consecration was valid, and that there was a time of peace, what of the current situation? Communism is now not only returning like wildfire to Russia but is spreading worldwide, including the United States. The world seems to be in such dire straits, and Putin's managed to get his missiles pointed straight at us. Not to mention our Churches and Christians here in America ARE being attacked by homosexuals and drag queens. Could this be because people did not dedicate themselves to the Five First Saturdays Devotion?? She did explicitly say that both the consecration and this devotion were required...
Just some thoughts. The world is certainly looking very bleak. More than ever the center Right in the United States must stand strong together as an example to our country and the world.