Eyewitness testimony: Fatima

[foudroyant]

Timeless Theist,

Yes, you "dealt with it" but you weren't able to defend the heresy of engaging in such an abominable act. Not then and certainly not now....nor will you ever.

[Manw� S�limo]

If I ask a person on earth to intercede on my behalf can that person:
a. Know exactly what I am asking for every time I ask if I ask silently? (prayer can be done silently)
b. Know exactly what I am asking for if 100 million other people were to ask at the same time as me?

It's not the same thing nor is it even close to being the same thing.

The idea is God approves of this kind of back-and-forth arrangement and would equip the saints in Heaven to "know" when people are praying to them and have the, erm, "mental" capacity to handle several thousand prayers at the same time. Expanded knowledge isn't the same as omniscience.

[foudroyant]

Ok so it is not anywhere near the same thing as asking a friend to intercede for you. (Post #43)

In terms of your assertion that "God approves of this kind of back-and-forth arrangement" can you please cite somewhere in the Bible as your support?

If Mary and other saints were to know the hearts behind all these prayers then that is omniscience. If they don't know the hearts behind these prayers then why are they the object of prayer since they can be deceived?

Prayer defined:
1. NIDNTT: It is significant that, wherever the NT speaks of requests made to God, it emphasizes that such requests are heard (cf. Matt. 6:8; 7:7-11; 18:19; 21:22; Jn. 14:13f.; 15:7, 16; 16:23f., 26; 1 Jn. 3:22; 5:14f.; Jas. 1:5). It is as if the NT witnesses wished particularly to encourage men to pray, by assuring the suppliant that his requests are heard by God. The NT is aware that this certainty keeps all prayer alive; let such certainty become weakened or diminished through doubt, and prayer dies...In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).
2. NIDOTTE: Prayer is, indeed a serious matter. It is regarded in the Bible as the most fundamental of all expressions of religion. It concerns the deepest feelings and most central motivation of the persons who are offering their prayer to their God, and it concerns the covenant relationship, with its blessings and sanctions, as the inevitable fabric of the living communion between the people and their God. To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God, who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P.A. Verhoef).

[Manw� S�limo]

Ok so it is not anywhere near the same thing as asking a friend to intercede for you. (Post #43)

It's the exact same principle, except the person interceding on your behalf is with God.

In terms of your assertion that "God approves of this kind of back-and-forth arrangement" can you please cite somewhere in the Bible as your support?

Ask a Catholic or an Orthodox, I'm neither.

If Mary and other saints were to know the hearts behind all these prayers then that is omniscience.

No, it's not. Mary doesn't suddenly know everything about everything ever if God grants her this kind of expanded knowledge. She can have more knowledge than us, and still have nothing compared to God.

If they don't know the hearts behind these prayers then why are they the object of prayer since they can be deceived?

For one thing, ultimately, you're praying to God only....with their help. And the idea, again, is that God would insure that they can't be mistaken about the content of your prayers they're helping you make.

If one can believe that God would approve of such an arrangement, it's no big jump to assume God would gift the necessary saints with the necessary skills to do their part.

[foudroyant]

1. It's not the same principal. A person can not exactly know what I want if I say it silently and even if I did speak audibly they can't fully understand me if I accompanied by 100 million people speaking to them at the same time with various needs.

2. So you assert that God approves of this but when I ask for biblical support you don't offer anything.

3. Where in Scripture does it teach departed people help me "make" my prayers? I know Romans 8:26-27 attributes this to God the Holy Spirit proving once again (like knowing what our hearts are = omniscience) they are attributing to her that which belongs to God alone.

[Leonhard]

If I ask a person on earth to intercede on my behalf can that person:
a. Know exactly what I am asking for every time I ask if I ask silently? (prayer can be done silently)
b. Know exactly what I am asking for if 100 million other people were to ask at the same time as me?

It's not the same thing nor is it even close to being the same thing.

You know foudroyant you're dragging this topic off-track. Go and open a thread and title it "Can we pray to saints in heaven." We've already dealt with this though in another thread, and I no one here is interested in watching you replicate your answers.

[Leonhard]

As to the OP it wasn't what got me into the Catholic Church, but that was mostly for doubt of some of the aspects of the miracle. I think these stories should at least make people other denominations interested, but beyond that they don't form the solid core. No one, not even Catholics are morally culpable for failing to hold Fatima as a genuine miracle.

Now that I am a Catholic however Fatima is intensely interesting. As soon as I got over the idea that praying or venerating Maria is worship, and that it's very clear that seeking her help and doing the things she wants us to do is very good, I wanted to seek out all that I could about her. Fatima is part of that. I think most catholics who recite the rosary add the Fatima Prayer to the end of the decades.

It is however one of the most well attested miracles of recent history, even non-believers saw it and were converted. If it was satanic, then Satan is working against himself. That leaves human delusion and it being genuine as the options on the table to decide between.

[KingsGambit]

It is however one of the most well attested miracles of recent history, even non-believers saw it and were converted. If it was satanic, then Satan is working against himself. That leaves human delusion and it being genuine as the options on the table to decide between.

I agree with this. It is unclear to me why Satan would want to pull this one out. (If I believed that Catholicism was not authentically Christianity, then it would make sense, but then it would also seem to disprove Christianity itself because Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against the church and at one point it was really the only game in town.)

[Cow Poke]

I agree with this. It is unclear to me why Satan would want to pull this one out. (If I believed that Catholicism was not authentically Christianity, then it would make sense, but then it would also seem to disprove Christianity itself because Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against the church and at one point it was really the only game in town.)

Just curious -- When would the current Catholic Church have been "the only game in town"?

[KingsGambit]

Just curious -- When would the current Catholic Church have been "the only game in town"?

Not the current Catholic church... I mean in the first centuries of Christianity.

[Cow Poke]

Not the current Catholic church... I mean in the first centuries of Christianity.

So, the current Catholic Church is not the same as the one in the first centuries of Christianity?

[KingsGambit]

So, the current Catholic Church is not the same as the one in the first centuries of Christianity?

You said the current Catholic church... I'm getting a little confused here.

[Cow Poke]

You said the current Catholic church... I'm getting a little confused here.

Yeah, this probably needs to be in its own thread, but I'm not interested enough to start one.

Is the current Catholic Church the SAME Church as the one you referred to a being the one that was "the only game in town" in the first centuries of Christianity?

I've always heard the claim that the Catholic Church goes "way back to Peter as the first Pope", but I've never heard the claim that the Catholic Church was "the only game in town".

[robrecht]

Yeah, this probably needs to be in its own thread, but I'm not interested enough to start one.

Is the current Catholic Church the SAME Church as the one you referred to a being the one that was "the only game in town" in the first centuries of Christianity?

I've always heard the claim that the Catholic Church goes "way back to Peter as the first Pope", but I've never heard the claim that the Catholic Church was "the only game in town".

By definition, the catholic church is the only game in town, but, of course, I do not mean to endorse the modern convention of capitalization.

[Cow Poke]

By definition, the catholic church is the only game in town,

Absolutely

but, of course, I do not mean to endorse the modern convention of capitalization.

So, perhaps I should be asking more specifically about the RCC?