Eyewitness testimony: Fatima

[KingsGambit]

I've noticed that some of the arguments used to defend the resurrection of Jesus (including eyewitness testimony of a high number of witnesses) can also be used to defend the historicity of the 1917 claimed miracle at Fatima. If this was a genuine miracle, it would go a long way toward establishing that the RCC is the true Christian church. How do those of you who are not Catholic deal with this?

Out of curiosity, I looked at one skeptical website which concluded that it was a group hallucination (which scholars such as Habermas maintain are not possible).

[TimelessTheist]

I've noticed that some of the arguments used to defend the resurrection of Jesus (including eyewitness testimony of a high number of witnesses) can also be used to defend the historicity of the 1917 claimed miracle at Fatima. If this was a genuine miracle, it would go a long way toward establishing that the RCC is the true Christian church. How do those of you who are not Catholic deal with this?

Out of curiosity, I looked at one skeptical website which concluded that it was a group hallucination (which scholars such as Habermas maintain are not possible).

Heh, that ain't the only Catholic miracle around, either. There's a' many more.

[One Bad Pig]

I've noticed that some of the arguments used to defend the resurrection of Jesus (including eyewitness testimony of a high number of witnesses) can also be used to defend the historicity of the 1917 claimed miracle at Fatima. If this was a genuine miracle, it would go a long way toward establishing that the RCC is the true Christian church. How do those of you who are not Catholic deal with this?

Out of curiosity, I looked at one skeptical website which concluded that it was a group hallucination (which scholars such as Habermas maintain are not possible).

A genuine apparition would not necessarily establish that the RCC is the true Christian church; satan can appear as an angel of light, after all.

[KingsGambit]

A genuine apparition would not necessarily establish that the RCC is the true Christian church; satan can appear as an angel of light, after all.

That is certainly true. I certainly would not want to claim that with confidence as some (Protestant, generally) scholars seem to because it might seem to veer a little close toward risking blaspheming the Holy Spirit in the case it were genuine.

[TimelessTheist]

A genuine apparition would not necessarily establish that the RCC is the true Christian church; satan can appear as an angel of light, after all.

You're ignoring the Miracle of the Sun that came afterwards. Or the prophecy that came true in the Second Secret. Or the incorruptible face of Jacinta, one of the children that Mary appeared to.

[One Bad Pig]

That is certainly true. I certainly would not want to claim that with confidence as some (Protestant, generally) scholars seem to because it might seem to veer a little close toward risking blaspheming the Holy Spirit in the case it were genuine.

Right. We are to test the spirits, though.

When a couple icons started weeping myrrh a couple years ago at a church in my diocese, one of the first things the priest did was an exorcism. They're still weeping today (in fact, I'm planning to go see them next week), and many miracles of healing have been attributed to them.

[Catholicity]

I have no idea what to think about Fatima except that the three children were drawn closer to God because of it. That said I never really have known what to make of Fatima. I was a little more inclined to believe the Lourdes visions. I do think that if the fruit of the vision was pointing people to Christ and leading them to Him then it was more than likely genuine. However it is not the only way to hear Christ. Its hard because even if people have come to God because of it, traditions have been established around it that should not necessarily be established. The question becomes, is this because men idolize what should not be idolized? Or was it false to begin with. Because of the fog surrounding it; its become hard to judge it.

[TimelessTheist]

Right. We are to test the spirits, though.

When a couple icons started weeping myrrh a couple years ago at a church in my diocese, one of the first things the priest did was an exorcism. They're still weeping today (in fact, I'm planning to go see them next week), and many miracles of healing have been attributed to them.

Not that I'm doubting it, but is there a resource I could look at for this?

[Cow Poke]

I know this will come out wrong, but I know MANY Catholics who I believe to be Christians IN SPITE of the Catholic Church. Just because God honors their faithfulness does not automatically endorse the Catholic Church per se.

[Catholicity]

I know this will come out wrong, but I know MANY Catholics who I believe to be Christians IN SPITE of the Catholic Church. Just because God honors their faithfulness does not automatically endorse the Catholic Church per se.

Couldn't we say that about all the churches we belong to though? we are Christian in spite of the (fill in the blank church) because its Jesus that saved us and not the Church?

[Teallaura]

I've noticed that some of the arguments used to defend the resurrection of Jesus (including eyewitness testimony of a high number of witnesses) can also be used to defend the historicity of the 1917 claimed miracle at Fatima. If this was a genuine miracle, it would go a long way toward establishing that the RCC is the true Christian church. How do those of you who are not Catholic deal with this?

Out of curiosity, I looked at one skeptical website which concluded that it was a group hallucination (which scholars such as Habermas maintain are not possible).

It would at best establish a point of doctrine - it would not establish the RCC as the true Church.

Mass hallucination is a myth. I'm not particularly skeptical of Fatima (which isn't the same as accepting it - I just haven't explored it well enough to form a valid opinion) but if I were I still wouldn't accept 'mass hallucination' as an explanation. It's silly. The thing is either legit, a fraud or somehow an accidental deception (that last one being the least likely) but to argue for any of the above requires more research than I've done.

[Cow Poke]

Couldn't we say that about all the churches we belong to though? we are Christian in spite of the (fill in the blank church) because its Jesus that saved us and not the Church?

Yes

[One Bad Pig]

Not that I'm doubting it, but is there a resource I could look at for this?

Well, it's not promoted other than by word of mouth. There are items from the secular press here and here.

Here is the material I adapted for our parish bulletin after I first visited (in February 2012).

[TimelessTheist]

You're ignoring the Miracle of the Sun that came afterwards. Or the prophecy that came true in the Second Secret. Or the incorruptible face of Jacinta, one of the children that Mary appeared to.

Actually, the prophecy was disclosed after the fact, so scratch that. The other stuff though...

[Obsidian]

First of all, I think KingsGambit should have done a better job of summarizing what the miracle is if he is going to make a thread about it.

From what I can find online, it sounds like the ghost of Mary supposedly appeared to some people. However, it seems to me like the ghost of Mary would automatically disprove the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was bodily raptured.

I have no idea what to think about Fatima except that the three children were drawn closer to God because of it.

The children subsequently wore tight cords around their waists, performed self-flagellation using stinging nettles, abstained from drinking water on hot days, and performed other works of penance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lad...al_apparitions