The secrets of Fatima, can be reconciled to a loving God (theodicity)?

Fair enough Jose. I remain sceptical of Garabandal. But I will believe when the Church gives full approval.

 

I can directly kill a man or indirectly by not providing the necessary help for him to survive, in either case, those actions required a concrete act, a personal decision of my will.

 

And you will no do anything wrong with it. As I do not do anything wrong if a remain skeptical.

 

Jose said
The secret of Fatima was not even given to the public until 1941. So, there was not much one could do to avoid it.


The secret was for the pope first. Just like the 3rd secret. Pope first ,people after.
And there was plenty for the people to help . The first 5 saturday devotion was promoted since 1925.

 

Upon further research there is a difference in catholic theology between "direct and indirect" action as evidenced in the following:

Since God has not given us the right to deliberately take innocent human life, taking direct action which leads to the death of an innocent may not be used under any circumstances. Thus euthanasia or “mercy killing” is forbidden by Christian moral theology, but stopping or refusing care when someone is terminal and no longer wishes to live is permitted. Jimmy Akin.org

 

This is not what the discussion is about. I just brought an example from thousand of possible ones. The problem is if it is the same, God removing His protective hand or directly punishing humanity.

 

But "people" did not know about this secret until 1941 and, then, only those having access to this information or bought the book! That is in no way the whole "humanity" neither a small part of it!
Mac, do you really think that not accomplishing the first 5 Saturday devotion deserves such a punishment or that we missed the chance to lessen it?

 

Please, do not take me wrong. I am not saying that the Virgin did not appeared in Fatima. What I am doubting is about the messages regarding the wrath of God and divine threats that we can, also today, see overall.

 

While it is true that no catholic is obligated to believe in any private revelation, it is interesting to note that the apparition by Our Lady at Fatima is the only apparition that has a public action demanded/acknowledged by heaven as exemplified by the actions of previous popes and bishops(ie. public consecration).

 

I really do believe that if the Catholic world had made sufficient prayer and sacrifice the pope would have received the strength and grace to accomplish the consecration.
And It all comes down to obedience.The Holy Father should have released the third secret in 1960, but couldnt even do that! let alone make the consecration.

 

I studied at MCD and gained a M.Theol. Where did you study?

It seems you have made the understandable mistake of assuming "heaven" has only one meaning and there is only one "heaven" in ancient literature. In fact there are various definitions of "heaven" and exactly what is being referred to depends on what language your english source was translated from, what book of the Bible you are referring to, what Father of the Church you are referring to, what the exact phrase is etc etc. For example "heavens" (plural) often means no more than "the sky" (in Latin "sky" and "heaven" are exactly the same word, "Caelum"). It can also mean "the dominion of the Air". Then there is also the (created) Empyrean Heaven (aso called 3rd heaven I believe). Then there is the the Divine Heaven (where God properly dwells). There are others as well.

You ask "where did Michael kick them out of?" Traditional Catholicism holds all angels were created into the Empyrean Heaven (natural and created). In some way that we do not understand they were tested by God at the moment of their creation. Those who failed were cast down to lower heavens closer to earth (we say "hell" but that is not completely accurate as fallen angels still maintain "dominion of the Air." "Air" here means the higher part of our natural human universe (i.e. the lowest heaven/sky)). We have to always keep in mind that heaven/hell are not simply "places" (angels are pure spirits afterall and pure spirits do not really dwell in any "place") but also a "state" or condition of soul. See Aquinas on this topic (ST 1a 61,4).

It seems Michael himself (and the good angels) shared this created Empyrean Heaven with Lucifer (and the bad angels) and was where the war was waged. The just angels, by this war, passed the test and "earned" the Beatific Vision (i.e. were lifted higher to Heaven with God).

Further, in Is 14:12-15 we see that Lucifer said in his heart "I will ascend to heaven...you have been cast down to earth..."

This clearly means, before his fall, he was not in Heaven with God (i.e. the Beatific Vision). And after his fall he was confined to Earth (i.e. that higher part of Earth "the Air" where he has dominion over humans). Elsewhere we read Lucifer fell from heaven. Obviously two very different heavens are being spoken of.

It is also a clear teaching of the Catholic Church that those who dwell with/in God in Heaven (Beatific Vision) can no longer sin and therefore cannot fall. Again this means the angels could not have been created into God's Heaven.

You mention "Lucifer was one of the most beautiful of the angels". I do not dispute that. Indeed, in the natural order he is the pinnacle of the created order. Yet the least in the kingdom of God is also greater (and hence more beautiful) than Lucifer. The highest "beauty" is that creature who most fully responds to God's grace and shares in Godf's very own Life. So the most beautiful of all creatures is Mary. Yet even the least human soul in purgatory has more participation in the Divine Life than Lucifer for all his natural greatness (who has a most ugly will opposed to God).
Therefore a very powerful angel estranged from God is the most ugly of all creatures if we understand that supernatural beauty is of far more account than mere created beauty.

 

Fatima, obviously the Russians joining the allies was PART of WWII and nothing I said was contradicting that. My opinion is that the reason 1941 and Pope Pius XI are important is because the allies started helping communist Russia at that time. That is the true start of communist expansion throughout the world. We worked with them to win, even though Churchill and Roosevelt must have been holding their noses, plugging their ears, and humming while meeting with Stalin. After the war, Russia was able to Spread It's Errors by taking over Eastern Europe. The effects of that lasted for decades.

 

Well I read alot of this one and had to giggle a little. My beloved Mom who died 4 years ago really had her own ideas on who God was and what He would or wouldn't do. She used to say "MY God wouldn't do this or "MY God wouldn't do that!" before she got converted and it drove me crazy. Once I said "Mom I certainly hope YOUR God shows up for you when you die, but I'm afraid YOUR God is just someone you made up to your liking. Why don't you get to know the real God while you have the chance?" She then started reading the bible and really opened her eyes that the real God didn't agree with all her opinions and ways things should be done.

 

Do you believe that God punishes sinners in Hell?

 

No. I believe that men, by disobedience of God's law, make themselves unworthy and are separated from God eternally. Hell is not a place, it is an state of the soul and this exclusion from God's company is the "punishment" all unrepented sinners are going to face.

 

Your belief is not what the Church teaches:

The Church teaches that Hell is a place created by God to punish fallen angels and human persons who die unrepentant from actual mortal sin It is God who created and prepared Hell in order to punish the devils and those human persons who act like devils by actual mortal sin, just as Jesus himself taught:









“Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the eternal fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Mt 25:41).



The Second Council of Lyons teaches infallibly:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

The Council of Florence teaches infallibly:
“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.)”
The Magisterium has always taught that Hell is a place of punishment for sin.

 

I admire you sticking up for your views, Jose, when it seems everyone else seems to disagree.

You write that,

'Hell is not a place, it is an state of the soul and this exclusion from God's company is the "punishment" all unrepented sinners are going to face.'

Well I often think that one of the very great things about being a Catholic is that we have the Teachings of the Church to fall back on. So let's go to the Church and see what she says.

I often feel sorry for our Protestant sisters and brothers who seem to me often like dogs chasing their tales in discussions such as this. Having no authority to fall back on.

 

Bobby has beaten me to it!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

This certainly seems to say hell is an actual place.

 

The catechism also talks of 'Eternal fire'....as well as the 'chief punishment' ,'separation from God'.

 

Yes I was also thinking that although part of what Jose says is of course very true, and the biggest punishment, we also know that those humans who go to the Lake of Fire will actually burn and the demons will be allowed to torture them.