Not arguing, but learning here - can anyone point out a few specific points from Fatima that are clearly heterodox?
I’ve pointed this out several times before, but for me personally, I think the most heterodox thing about it is that an apparition has the gaul to command a Bishop what to do, or otherwise face grave consequences. The apparition effectively holds the Pope in this case hostage and demands ransom, which is something that is unheard of.
Did not Jesus give the Apostles the power of Binding and Loosing? Are not the Bishops successors of the Apostles?
Saint Cyprian says it thus: “In the administration of the Church each Bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions.”
So on what authority does this apparition have to tell the Bishop what to do or pay a price? If it’s from God, why did Christ give the ability to “Bound and loose on earth and in heaven?”
There’s a stark contrast even from Guadalupe, where the apparition requests a Church built, the Bishop demands proof of the apparition, and the Virgin Mary obeys.
Next,
Is the fact that during the canonical inquiry, Sister Lucia knowingly withheld information, because the “Holy Spirit” told her too. Disobeying Church authority, unless they are commanding evil or heresy, is morally wrong, and Jesus said Himself “Let your yes yes no no - anything more is from the evil one.”
Next is receiving “secrets about the Trinity.” There’s no “hidden knowledge” that can be expressed in words. This is a foundation block of Gnosticism.
Next,
Obviously - saying that a Consecration of Russia is necessary to the Immaculate Heart of Mary seems to very clearly imply that Russia needs to convert to Catholicism - for
A. It invokes a very specific Catholic devotion that is absent in Orthodoxy
B. Russia was already consecrated to both the Theotokos and Christ when Prince Vladimir Christianized all of Rus. You can even read this in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
C. At this time, the Catholic Church viewed the Orthodox Church as hell-bound schismatics.
Obviously, for Eastern Orthodoxy, saying that Russia is heretical and needs to be converted is heretical.
Next, is the Immaculate Heart devotion, which implies the Immaculate Conception.
Based on my research, the Eastern Orthodox have no problem saying that the Theotokos was sanctified from the first moment of her conception. What’s heretical is saying that the Merits of Jesus Christ prevented the Virgin Mary from inheriting Original Sin. This is very problematic, not just because the Orthodox don’t have such a rigid Augustinian view of Originals Sin, but it leads to distortions about who the Theotokos was, even Catholics literally changing the Tradition of the Assumption (stating that she didn’t die, implying that she couldn’t, a very blatant contradiction that Rome has had to justify by saying “both views are acceptable and justified.”)
Next would be the way that the Virgin Mary appears to the children. During the “Miracle of the Sun,” the Virgin Mary appeared to the children in three different forms (it’s unclear if this was all at once or individually, but I’ve seen some depictions of it appearing all at once), almost as if three different persons appeared to them. I find that a bit problematic - the Virgin Mary is one person, no?
Finally is the use of “requesting reparation,” where generally speaking, scholastic “do x receive y” is rather foreign to Orthodox spirituality. But eh, imo while I think it’s problematic, Saint Dmitri of Rostov had a scholastic devotion of “do x receive y” that appeared in the first edition of the Jordanville Prayer Book. So eh...
Feel free for anyone to correct me.
