|
Fatima
Aug 9, 2010 8:26:10 GMT
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 9, 2010 8:26:10 GMT
|
|
|
Fatima
Aug 9, 2010 9:36:01 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Aug 9, 2010 9:36:01 GMT
Interesting but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it. Luke 13:1-5 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
|
|
|
Fatima
Aug 25, 2010 16:11:45 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Aug 25, 2010 16:11:45 GMT
BTW sceptics of Fatima often comment on the extent to which the apparition was exploited in subsequent decades by the Salazar dictatorship. Has anyone here any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Fatima
Aug 31, 2010 10:10:52 GMT
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 31, 2010 10:10:52 GMT
I didn't know that, but I can see why. It is usually read in a light which is very critical of the pre-Salazar regime.
|
|
|
Fatima
Aug 31, 2010 11:08:12 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Aug 31, 2010 11:08:12 GMT
|
|
|
Fatima
Sept 17, 2010 20:20:24 GMT
Post by secusia on Sept 17, 2010 20:20:24 GMT
".....something quite remarkable happened: there was a small community of Jesuit Fathers living in a presbytery near the parish church, which was situated less than a mile away from detonation point, well within the radius of total devastation. And all eight members of this community escaped virtually unscathed from the effects of the bomb. Their presbytery remained standing, while the buildings all around, virtually as far as the eye could see, were flattened."
Wow! What a miracle! Why on earth NOT put lots and lots of emphasis on Our Lady of Fatima's protection of the priests from atomic destruction....
|
|
|
Fatima
Sept 20, 2010 10:24:47 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Sept 20, 2010 10:24:47 GMT
Perhaps because some people will say that if God intervened to protect the Jesuits, why did He not intervene to protect the rest of the population, many of whom were no doubt equally worthy of protection. God of course has His own reasons for what He does (and I think it quite likely the survival of the Jesuits was a miracle) but we should be wary in making claims. The Sacre Coeur basilica in Paris apparently has a bronze plaque showing how during the war bombs fell in a semi-circle around the basilica but did not hit it. I hate to take Christopher Hitchens seriously, but he has a point when he says in one of his screeds that this claim implies that God diverted the bombs from the basilica onto the densely-populated surrounding areas, thereby causing many civilian casualties. This issue does not really arise in Nagasaki, since the people under the bomb would have died whether or not the Jesuits perished also, but it illustrates that it such events strike different people in different ways and it can be counterproductive to place too much emphasis on them.
|
|
|
Fatima
Sept 25, 2010 20:08:37 GMT
Post by secusia on Sept 25, 2010 20:08:37 GMT
Hibernicus, As you say "God of course has His own reasons for what He does "...precisely, we should not censor His acts. A miracle is just that, an extraordinary event showing the intervention of God.. If God protects a place or people by events outside the normal course of nature, then we should thank Him and adore His inscrutable Providence. Any other course of action suggests bowing to the world. Why on earth should we buy into the logic of a Christopher Hitchens? Naturally he would think that the temporal deaths of civilians was the ultimate disaster, but it's not so in the eyes of God, for Whom spiritual death and sin is the greatest disaster.
|
|
|
Fatima
Sept 27, 2010 16:40:30 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Sept 27, 2010 16:40:30 GMT
But the question is whether these events actually WERE outside the normal course of nature. I am not sure how that is to be or could be established. We should thank God for the workings of His General providence whether achieved by a particular miracle or not. Extra-biblical miracles are not central to our faith, and too great an emphasis on them risks drawing people away from the centre - worse still it may encourage undue credulity towards dubious or fake miracles and lead to scandal.
|
|
|
Fatima
Sept 29, 2010 10:52:32 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2010 10:52:32 GMT
Here's another point which think is highly relevant to Secusia's claim that not to proclaim that the survival of the Jesuit Fathers at Nagasaki was unquestionably a miracle amounts to "censoring God":- When proclaiming the Word of God we are obliged to take notice not only of its intrinsic content but of how it may be misunderstood by the ignorant and unwary, and to do our best to avoid scandalising them by avoidable misunderstandings. The early Christians practised what was called "the discipline of the secret" - that is, they did not publicly proclaim certain aspects of the Church's teaching, even to potential converts who were in the first stages of catechesis, but revealed them only to the baptised (or those about to be baptised). They did this because they knew that some teachings (such as the doctrine of the Eucharist) would appear strange to pagans and be misunderstood (e.g. it was widely believed among pagans that Christians practised cannibalism). Were they "censoring God"? When the first Catholic missionaries went to the Far East some (notably the Jesuits) tried to accustom themselves to the new cultures they encountered and to express the Gospel in their terms. For example, when the Jesuit Matteo Ricci first arrived in Beijing the customs officials, finding a crucifix in his luggage, accused him of being a black magician who wished to bring down a curse on the emperor. Knowing that he could not explain the doctrines of the Incarnation and atonement to them efficaciously under the circumstances, Fr. Ricci said the crucifix represented a great saint of the West who had suffered that terrible death for the love of mankind, and that such representations were made and displayed to honour his sacrifice. Was this "censoring God" - or was it the best way to carry on his mission? (Note that this was not a question of abjuring the Faith but of discretion in explaining it to those of limited understanding.) Now our world today is full of people who are as pagan as the ancient Romans or the Chinese of Matteo Ricci's day if not more so, and the objection which Christopher Hitchens makes to the apparent miraculous preservation of Sacre Coeur will undoubtedly be made by some of them. Under the circumstances, isn't it advisable to take some account of their likely reactions rather than running around proclaiming "A miracle" and being surprised when they are not convinced or even repulsed? I do not say that discretion is always the right course when discussing miracles, but it should certainly be borne in mind and not dismissed out of hand as "censoring God".
|
|
|
Fatima
Oct 1, 2010 22:32:54 GMT
Post by secusia on Oct 1, 2010 22:32:54 GMT
On the point of proof of the miracle: Hibernicus, the article itself makes it clear that the events WERE outside the normal course of nature. I quote: "But in the midst of this terrible carnage, something quite remarkable happened: there was a small community of Jesuit Fathers living in a presbytery near the parish church, which was situated less than a mile away from detonation point, well within the radius of total devastation. And all eight members of this community escaped virtually unscathed from the effects of the bomb. Their presbytery remained standing, while the buildings all around, virtually as far as the eye could see, were flattened."
Hibernicus: if this is not a miracle, well...?!!?
On the point of discretion: Of course when dealing with pagans, one may be circumspect, should occasion demand it- one should not automatically expect that miracles will prove a source of misunderstanding! Frank Duff, founder of the Legion of Mary, actually found miracles (extra-biblical ones) extremely helpful in the conversion of non-Catholics. Another salient fact: we are not actually talking to pagans right now, as was Fr. Ricci: this is a Catholic discussion forum, one might expect to see enthusiasm for this miracle here.
On the point of undue credulity: it's true that a certain vain credulity in miracles, motivated rather by curiosity and spiritual gluttony than by true devotion, can be dangerous; but "abusus non tollit usum"; wrong use does not preclude proper use.
St. Louis de Montfort is excellent on this point. Bear in mind when reading the following that he is referring, not at all to such well-proven, scientifically verifiable events as the one we're discussing, but merely private revelations to trustworthy people; in other words, events for which we have no evidence bar the trustworthiness of the witness:
"Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories. To stories from Holy Scripture we owe divine faith; to stories on non-religious subjects which are not against common sense and are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of human faith; and to stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in any way contrary to reason, to faith or to morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary), we pay the tribute of a pious faith.
I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical, and that we should keep a happy medium in all things in order to find just where truth and virtue lie. But on the other hand, I know equally well that charity easily leads us to believe all that is not contrary to faith or morals: "Charity believes all things,"..."
So. St. Louis would have us pay the tribute of a pious faith to apparitions of Our Lady to a trustworthy person, provided the same be not contrary to faith and morals; how much more should we not pay the tribute of reverence to an authentic, verifiable miracle!
|
|
|
Fatima
Oct 2, 2010 20:25:53 GMT
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 2, 2010 20:25:53 GMT
Secusia isn't following the moderator's instructions on this topic.
|
|
|
Fatima
Oct 2, 2010 22:28:43 GMT
Post by secusia on Oct 2, 2010 22:28:43 GMT
What do you mean, Alaisdair? What instructions?
|
|
|
Fatima
Oct 3, 2010 17:42:00 GMT
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 3, 2010 17:42:00 GMT
What do you mean, Alaisdair? What instructions? See The argument I am currently having with Secusia on the Fatima thread might perhaps be better placed here. Essentially secusia thinks we should give more publicity to present-day ecclesiastical miracles as a means of promoting the faith, whereas I argue that they are ancillary to the faith and we should in general (not necessarily always - it depends on circumstances) follow the "discipline of the secret" in relation ot them - that is, we should be aware that people who are not acclimatised to the overall worldview of the Faith may be scandalised by them and see the, as examples of credulity. (The eighteenth and nineteenth-century debate over ecclesiastical miracles between Catholics and protestants is not an exact parallel since the Protestants acknowledged miracles as a theoretical possibility but claimed they had ceased with the apostolic age.) This is in the thread: Overview: Supernatural/Prenatural Manifestations. The rest of the discussion can be taken up there.
|
|
|
Fatima
Oct 5, 2010 16:14:04 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Oct 5, 2010 16:14:04 GMT
It was a suggestion, not an instruction - I am in a slightly delicate position since I am both the moderator and a participant in this exchange. I will therefore reply to Secusia's specific point on this thread while repeating my suggestion that future discussion should be carried out on the overview thread about supernatural and preternatural manifestations. First, Secusia is talking about cross purposes when she says "we are not among pagans here - this is a catholic forum". I understood secusia to be discussing the question of why this remarkable event is not more widely publicised - i.e. in general, not just on this board. Second, I am not altogether sure from what I have heard about the preservation of the Jesuits that it was unquestionably a miracle. Anyone who has studied the Northern Ireland conflict will know of cases where one person was killed or seriously injured by a bomb and others beside them were uninjured or slightly injured. Are we to say that God intervened specially to protect B while leaving A to die, or are we to say that the natural workings of the blast (perhaps in themselves ultimately shaped by divine foreknowledge) had that effect? I would need to know more about the workings of the Nagasaki blast to say if it represented the working of special - as distinct from general - providence. What distinguishes a Catholic from an atheist board should be an acceptance of the POSSIBILITY of miracles. I would on balance go to the stake for my belief that Our Lady appeared to St Bernadette at Lourdes, based on my knowledge of the history of the apparition - I would not say the same for Fatima, though I take the Church's verdict on it, because I have not examined the case in sufficient detail. I certainly would not do so for the Shroud of Turin, because wonderful as it is legitimate questions have been raised over it. Ecclesiastical miracles do have their use in evangelisation, but they are a two-edged sword. If we convert someone by referring to a miracle which is subsequently disproved or called into question, the conversion may collapse with belief in the miracle (worse still, the convert may be embittered and feel they have been misled or manipulated). Conversely, if we show proper diligence and reserve in dealing with reported miracles, our witness to those of which we are convinced will be that much more convincing to others. St Louis de Montfort represents one school of thought on such matters, but not the only one. I tend to go by the much stricter approach of the late Jesuit hagiologist Fr Herbert Thurston.
|
|