How do you all feel about the Fatima?

Do Anglicans have an opinion or stance on the Fatima? If it is a real apparition of Mary than it is a BIG DEAL and needs to be spread to more than just the RCC. However, at this time, it seems it is limited to the RCC. What are your opinions on the legitimacy of the Fatima?

 

I am very sceptical of the concept of Marian apparitions full stop. Having said that, I do feel that if a place has been visited by people as a place of prayer, retreat and pilgramage for a long time then that itself has value. People have a need for special, sanctified places and a place can be special because people have been visiting there and praying there for decades, even if there were no visions.

Incidentially, the so-called Third Secret of Fatima in particular strikes me rather as fantasy more than divine revelation.

 

Everything about Mary always points to Jesus.

In the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Miracle at Cana, and at the Cross, everything about Mary always points to Jesus.

I am a long way from anti-marian devotion, however I am very clear on this point in evaluating these matters of faith, for Mary never points to herself, but always and only to Jesus. Fatima does not hit a highlight on my road, however if it did, this would be the litmus test that I would apply to it.

 

I have a similar thought when considering the differences between churches and denominations--the abundance of miracles in the RCC (ones that are scrutinized by authorities like for the canonization process or to approve an apparition), as opposed to what appears to be a limited amount of miracles in other churches.

 

This is something that genuinely bothers a lot of non-RCs. While there are certainly miracles in the Protestant world, the abundance of miracles of this kind of magnitude is mostly an RC thing, although Eastern Orthodox can claim things such as Our Lady of Zeitun, among others. I must contend that, although the RCs certainly do have it down when it comes to large scale miracles and apparitions, there are also a good number of self-professed Catholics that misunderstand the RCs teaching as to what degree of miracles (such as exorcism, healing, etc.) can theoretically occur within Christian groups that are outside of full communion with the church. The RC says that those who are baptized with the trinitarian formula, and of course the ones that technically agree with the statements made in the Apostle's Creed are within the realm of possibility of being able to receive healings, prophecies, or even perform exorcisms, if God wants it that way. Those outside the Christian spectrum are to be held with a greater degree of doubt in regards to being worthy of receiving these gifts or blessings. It is not really heretical, per se, that Pope Francis endorses a Lutheran as a valid exorcist. He has recently brought people together at the Vatican, both Roman, Orthodox and Protestant, for an ecumenical course on exorcism. Since the Roman church is experiencing a large shortage of trained exorcists at their disposal, they are not totally closed to the idea that Protestants or Orthodox are endowed with some authority, like in the scripture where the disciples saw a man casting out demons in Christ' name who they did not know, and Jesus simply said let him be, for who is not against us is for us. The procedures required for an exorcism to be approved in the RC is more pastoral, since they want to make sure that an exorcist granted permission to perform the rite has had the necessary understanding and things at his disposal before undertaking the task.

 

Indeed so. I have to confess I mistrust Fatima, but not as much as more recent alleged apparitions which are Mariocentric rather than what we might call “Christotaxic”, that is to say, they do not point at Christ, for example, the travesty at Medjugorje, which was basically a bunch of Croatian teenagers using marijuana, having a demonic apparition alleged to be Mary, which some of them can now conjure up on demand before a live audience; the local bishop rejected this apparition as false, but the local Franciscans, who have been in a power struggle with the Diocese since the area was reclaimed from the Ottoman Empire and regained a bishop, seized on them as a means to retain control of the parish church of St. James in Medjugorje.

On the other hand, the apparition in Guadalupe, which resulted in the conversion of the Mexicans to Christ and the near-total destruction of the evil, murderous, human sacrifice based Aztec religion, seems to me authentic.

 

Zeitoun is controversial and disputed in Orthodoxy, just so you know.

 

There are quite a large number of reported miracles in Orthodoxy, particularly in the Holy Land. For example, the well known Holy Fire on Pascha, the reversal of the flow of the Jordan River on Theophany, the cloud on Mount Tabor on the Transfiguration, and so on. But even outside, there are quite a lot of reports of the miraculous, some of which are fairly shocking.

They tend to be less Wagnerian however and more Christocentric than, say, Fatima.

 

In my past travels I've been involved with Eastern Rite (Catholic) Churches--Ruthenian and Melkite. My spiritual father for years was a Byzantine Catholic monk. Question: Do you have a resource(s) that compares and contrasts RCC vs. OC Mariology? Secondly, do you practice the Jesus Prayer?

 

I too have grave doubts about the authenticity of Medjugorje or any apparition that is ongoing for years. At the same time, some of my most fervent Catholic friends are big fans of Medjugorje--frequent prayer, fasting on Wednesday and Friday, and a devotion to the Eucharist. They are all Pro Life too.

 

It rocks me back on my heels when I hear anyone say they think there are way more healings and miracles in the RCC than in any of the other churches. That's because when I look back on my lifetime of experiences at age 60, having been in the RCC for over 25 years and then in Protestant churches for the rest of my years, all the healings and miracles I've seen took place in Protestant circles.

Among the "spirit-filled" type of Protestant churches, healings are relatively common. They teach from scripture that the authority given by Jesus was to be exercised by all believers, not just by the Twelve (who've long since passed away) and not just by the ordained ministers. At least 3 people for whom I laid hands upon in prayer received unmistakable healing, including the highway construction worker whose skull cratered my windshield at about 30 mph when he ran in front of me (probably high on pot, according to police). He was lying in the grass moaning at the top of his lungs when I ran to him, put my hands on him and prayed, "In Jesus' name, be well! Be whole!" and less than half a minute later he stood up and said he was all right except that his leg (which contacted my bumper) hurt a little. I found out later that the hospital checked him out, gave him Tylenol for his leg, and sent him home, glory to God!

I know of a ministry based near me that conducts street evangelism by day followed by large evening crusades in many nations (Peru, Thailand, Philippines, South Africa, etc.) to spread the Gospel. I have traveled with them to Peru twice as a full participant. In 20 years of ministry they have documented over 40,000 healings and miracles (if I recall the number correctly); by 'documented' I mean they didn't count it as genuine unless someone else who knew the person could vouch for their previous condition and the change.

Look at how Jesus taught His followers to act. Jesus sent out the Twelve first:
Luk 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Luk 9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Luk 9:4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.
Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Luk 9:6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

After that, Jesus sent out seventy followers with the same authority! Obviously they believed Him when He said they could do this in His name, for they went and they were successful:
Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
Luk 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
Luk 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Luk 10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
Luk 10:5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
Luk 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Luk 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you....
Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

We learn from Mark's Gospel that in order to act in Jesus' name we must have faith that He will bring to pass those things within His will that we have done in His name and authority:
Mar 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mar 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

In the account of the Centurion's servant whom Jesus healed, we see that the Centurion had such great faith in Jesus' authority, Jesus did not need to physically touch the servant but to 'speak the word only' for the servant to be healed. This could serve as a pattern for our own faith. Jesus is alive today, He still loves us today, He is still moved with compassion today, and He is still watching carefully today for people of faith through whom He can can minister, to bless His people and meet their needs.

If we are to accept Mark 16, we see these words of Jesus recorded: And these signs shall follow them that believe.... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. And in the Epistle of James, we read:
Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Can we see a pattern here? Jesus' followers are told to pray for the sick. They are told that they have His authority to do so. They are told that they should believe and not doubt when they pray. They are told that when they faithfully and obediently do this, the Lord Himself will do the healing.

Now I am going to step on some toes, so please bear with me when I ask these questions. Do we see in this pattern any instruction to touch bones or relics or light candles for healing? Do we see in this pattern any instruction for the sick to pray to dead people for healing? Is it possible that these types of actions might not be quite what Jesus had in mind?

In my ACNA parish, a couple (sometimes two couples) station themselves at a convenient spot during Eucharist where anyone who has just received may stop by and receive prayer for any concern they may have, be it physical, emotional, whatever. This is in keeping with the pattern laid out for us in the Bible. This is the practice I have witnessed taking place in the mission trips to Peru. This is the pattern I have seen in the Sunday services of every church denomination I have attended except for one: in the denomination wherein I was raised, the Roman church, I never saw anyone offering or receiving prayer with the laying on of hands. (Well, I have to take it back; I've been in Lutheran churches 3 or 4 times and I didn't see it there either, but I don't think 3-4 visits is enough to draw a conclusion about their practices.) So I hope you will understand that this made a certain negative impression upon me, but I also hope that in the time since I left the RCC in 1985 maybe things have changed.

I would encourage everyone to pick up a copy of Stanley Frodsham's book, "Smith Wigglesworth, Apostle of Faith." Wigglesworth made great effort to seek and follow the Holy Spirit's direction in all his activities, and I think that spiritual sensitivity and obedience, coupled with his great faith and trust in God, are the reasons why the Lord even raised dead people through Wigglesworth's ministry.

 

How would you interpret or understand all the other times where you prayed for someone and they were NOT healed? ...

 

You characterize it differently than I would. I did say "at least 3... received unmistakable healing" meaning there were three instances in which healing was absolutely and indisputably clear, obvious, visible and rapid. Other times when I've prayed for people, the situation usually fell into one of the following categories:
1. sometimes I simply didn't find out if anything happened (I didn't ask, they didn't say)
2. sometimes people see no immediate change but are "healed as they went" in the manner of Luke 17:14
3. sometimes people do not receive what was asked for
4. sometimes they say they're healed, but it isn't visible or physically confirmable (pain ceased, for example)

About #3, there can be many reasons for this, including lack of faith on the part of either party, unconfessed sin, and unknown factors concerning God's overarching will governing that person's circumstance.

Although I have authority to speak in Jesus' name, that authority is limited to His will. We know His general will is that people may be healed (and that believers pray for their healing), but we do not always know His specific will for a certain person or circumstance. If Jesus were here physically, we could rest assured that anything He said would be done, period. But for those of us who imperfectly hear the Holy Spirit's guidance, who do not always even take time to pray and know what we should do, we are bound to 'miss the mark' plenty often. Yet it is role of the believer to allow and work for God's will to be done, and praying in line with His known general will does allow God to work through the believer to effect healing, whereas failure to pray is a missed opportunity. We should always keep in mind when praying for others that we are not doing the healing, but God is the healer; therefore if we prayed in faith and it seems like 'nothing happened' it is not a failure on our part or on God's part, because it is in God's hands and His ways are above our ways. The other side of the coin is, if we do not pray for others with the expectation that God will hear and answer our prayer, where is our faith? Where is our compassion? Where is our obedience?

 

When I read about the Holy Fire a couple years ago, I sent the article around to family members. My older brother (devout RC by the way) replied to dismiss the phenomenon as fakery and disputable. I thought to myself, come on man! You're a Christian! What does it take to get you to accept that God might do something supernatural?

 

For the former, try the Second Edition of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew S. Damick.

I try to practice the Jesus Prayer, and I do reccommend it; I am lazy however and not good at keeping to a prayer rule. But when I do remember to pray the Jesus Prayer, it always helps.

 

The Fatima teaching that millions of souls go to hell because no one prays the rosary or makes sacrifices for them is absurd. If people go to hell, it's always their own fault. God would never allow someone to be condemned for the fault of others. And if they had any hand in doing so, it wouldn't make sense that a simple penance should absolve someone whose actions caused another to be condemned forever.

 

I'm always amazed that it's it's Mary they claim to see. Yet again Christ is somehow relegated to an afterthought, more present in theory than in practice.

If Mary is so interested in appearing, why won't she appear in the middle of unbelieving New York City, to convert millions to the Church of Rome? She always seems to appear in heavily-Catholicized regions where people are predisposed to ascribe lurid visions to RC symbols. In Saudi Arabia they see Mohammed's successors as visions; in Portugal they see Mary.

I also am flabbergasted that they let these visions dictate actual Roman doctrine. I thought the deposit of faith was fixed, people. Rome has always been an inherently progressive church, ever-ratcheting up its doctrines to today's age. And now they've canonized John Henry Newman, the man who skillfully made their progressivism be acceptable, by calling it by the innocuous label of Development of Doctrine. Pope Gregory I (the last great Pope) said that if any of his successors proclaimed universal jurisdiction, he'd be the forerunner of the Antichrist; and now doctrine has 'developed' to where today's Popes proclaim universal jurisdiction all the time. Mary, the pure virgin Theotokos, has been 'developed' to where she became an intercessor and mediatrix of all Graces, and now appears and hands down new doctrines, most of which are irreconcilable with Scripture or even prior RC traditions.

 

There are a few cases where saints have appeared in such a way as to direct attention to Christ, and there is one case, in Armenia, where our Lord himself appeared, facilitating the conversion of the country and a convergence of the population around the Cathedral of Holy Etchmiadzin, which literally means “God descended”, and which is one of the oldest surviving cathedrals, not counting converted Pagan temples like the Pantheon in Rome; I believe the current building is at least 50 years older than Hagia Sophia.

St. Paul and others warned us to “test every spirit” and there are two things which I consider to be indicative of a false or diabolical apparition: if the Virgin Mary apparently appears, and then either dictates novel doctrines, or talks about herself rather than directing attention and worship to our Lord, it is not the Theotokos we are seeing but rather a diabolocal imposter, seeking to deceive the elect. Thus, I believe Fatima*, Medjugorje, and most likely, Lourdes, to be false apparitions. The most blatantly false apparition of the 20th century aside from Medjugorje were the apparitions of a being claiming to be the Theotokos to a delusional Dutch woman named Ida Peerdeman. In the course of these apparitions, the entity I consider a demonic imposter behaved in a threatening manner, bearing her arm and clenching her fist, and demanded that Ida Peerdeman seek to persuade the Roman Catholic Church to adopt what has become known as the “Fifth Dogma”, that is to say, for the Pope to doctrinally pronounce the Theotokos, ex cathedra, and thus infallibly, as co-redemptrix. This amazingly has not actually happened, but despite the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith determining tje apparitions not worthy of belief, decades ago, there remain people with a delusional devotion to “Our Lady of Europe” as she has come to be known, including, most worryingly, the Bishop of Amsterdam, and there is a large and well funded movement of clergy and laity who campaign, on the basis of the words of this one Dutch woman, for the Theotokos to be declared Co-Redemptrix. For the sake of the people in the Roman church, I think we should pray they are unsuccessful.

On the other end of the spectrum, I think it probable the apparition of the Theotokos to a Mexican iconographer in Guadalupe was more likely than not, authentic. It seems reasonable, based on ethnic factors, to assume the skin tone of the Theotokos was somewhat darker than the very Nordic looking iconography that predominated in the Roman church in the 16th century. This icon made a connection with the Mexican people and resulted in a mass conversion from the Aztec religion, which is one of the most evil that ever existed, killing in human sacrifice rituals including the ceremonial “flower wars” as many as 40 million people over the many centuries of its existence, and that of related indigenous religions such as those of the Mayans, Toltecs and the South American civilizations such as the mercifully short-lived Inca Empire. What is more, the stylistic icon that resulted from this appearance somewhat miraculously complies with most of the Orthodox standards for iconography. The conversion of the Aztecs even to the Roman church was in my opinion a huge victory for Christ.

That said, in Mexico today, this icon is by too many people not venerated, but worshipped, and such activity is expressly forbidden by both the Second Commandment and the Second Council of Nicea (the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which authorizes the veneration of icons but strictly prohibits the worship of them, which had become a thing, partially a reaction to the emergence of the Iconoclast movement). The people who crawl to the shrine in which the original icon is held, with, in many cases, a very heavy three dimensional psuedo-replica or other burden strapped to their back, are in my opinion engaging in an act which cannot be said to be anything other than latria, or worship. The doulia, or veneration, of icons of the Theotokos confirmed at Nicea in 787 surely cannot be said to encompass such an activity. If a man crawls to an icon on his knees, this is obviously latria, and is therefore forbidden. But the Roman church routinely ignores all the canons and many of the doctrinal declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, and also in this case is ignoring the Second Commandment.

There are many icons of the Theotokos in the Orthodox church, some of which are considered to have miraculous properties, such as myrhh streaming, and people do not crawl towards them on their knees for an hour.

Indeed, although many Orthodox and virtually all Catholics and a great many other Western Christians are ignorant of this and do it, incorrectly, the first Council of Nicea in Canon XX actually prohibited prostrations on all Sundays throughout the year, and during the period from Easter to Whitsunday. On Whitsunday, there is a Kneeling Vespers, which by virtue of being a Vespers, actually happens on liturgical Monday, but this penitential service generally follows the Divine Liturgy (sometimes with a short break). But again, there is no crawling on the knees for insane distances.

If the RC bishops in Mexico actually cared about or understood the faith, rather than placating the misplaced and erroneous desires of a poorly catechized laity, they would intervene to stop this Latria, and insist that the veneration of the icon in question occur decently and in order and consist of no actions of worship, but rather be done in such a way so as to promote the worship, glorification and adoration due only to God, and would remove the icon from public view and place it in a secured vault in a monastery if the laity did not comply (much like how the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has secured the object it believes to be the Ark of the Covenant in a sealed building under the care of a single monk, who is sealed up with it and receives victuals through a window; he alone is allowed to look at it).

Indeed, the present abuse of this icon through the idolatrous worship thereof combined with the fact that it owes its existence to a Marian apparition in a schismatic Roman church, after the Great Schism from the Orthodox, do lead many Orthodox to consider even that to be a false apparition. I myself am inclined to disagree, because the end of the Aztec religion that followed it is a miracle. Rather, I think it is a bit like the Nehushtan, the Bronze Serpant, a miraculous object set aside and blessed by God. Hezekiah, who had to expurgate a mass of idolatry from the Hebrew religion, was forced to destroy it because the people took to worshipping it as an idol.** I pray that is not required in the case of the Guadalupe icon, but given the current trajectory of the Roman church, such an outcome is a possibility (but it would be extremely undesirable, because the destruction of that icon could lead to a wave of devastating iconoclasm in a church which has become in some respects crypto-iconoclastic in recent years, if you look at the barren interiors of contemporary Roman churches, which look scarcely different from Baptist parishes, and also the disturbing “contemporary” icons that one sees, for example, at the Roman Catholic cathedral in Las Vegas).

Now for some unusually long footnotes, which ordinarily I would put in a smaller font, but I think they are of direct relevance:

* Fatima is particularly disturbing in light of the Theotokos allegedly appearing (I think in this case it was a demon), to children, and demanding various things be consecrated to her “Immaculate Heart.” This devotion itself is novel; one of the better Popes of the 18th century, when very properly rejecting the idea of devotion to the “Sacred Heart” of our Lord as Nestorian, half-jokingly suggested that if that devotion were approved, people would demand a devotion to the heart of Mary. Unfortunately, all this occurred. Furthermore, this apparition demanded that Russia, home to the Russian Orthodox Church, which at the time was pursuing communion with the Anglicans, but which was about to experience an extreme martyrdom under the evil Bolsheviks, be “consecrated to her immaculate heart.”

From an Orthodox standpoint, this is extremely wrong and disturbing, because the Russian church, particularly in 1917 with the restoration of the Patriarchate and St. Tikhon being installed in that office, the bishop who had led the church in the US and alomg with his Syrian suffragan St. Rafael Hawaheeny, been on the forefront of efforts to unite the Orthodox and Episcopal Churches in the US, is considered a bulwark of Orthodoxy, and a church glorified by many crowns of martyrdom; indeed St. Tikhon himself died in a Soviet prison cell. The idea of consecrating Russia, home to a church of vastly superior piety to the Roman church, a church which had substantially preserved the apostolic faith rather than deviating from it, to a devotion which the Orthodox would categorically reject, as the Orthodox reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and also reject as Nestorian the Sacred Heart devotion, is frankly offensive. And furthermore, there was an implication that this action would cause Russia to convert to Roman Catholicism, and this would be a spiritual disaster. As it presently stands, the Russian Catholic Church is one of the smallest Uniate churches, although since the end of communism many Latin Rite Catholics have emerged in Russia.

Some people attempt to justify this apparition as legitimate based on the “Miracle of the Sun,” but herein, we must remember that the devil is referred to by the Apostles as the Prince of the Air, or the Prince of the Power in the Air. There are Orthodox monastic texts which urge monks to not look at the sky, especially not for extended periods, because one form of diabolical attack commonly experienced by monastics and hermits involves demonic apparitions that appear in the sky, and thus, for monastics, many hegumens and ascetic saints considered gazing into the sky very dangerous. This it should be stressed is not a doctrine, but rather a counsel, given by some of the great experienced monks to novice monks (not, as far as I am aware, to laity; I expect it is quite safe for a layman to behold the beauty of God’s creation, but laymen must be careful to not attach inappropriate religious connotations to what they see; for example, if one sees a rainbow or a particularly beautiful sunset, one should not instantly regard it as a good omen).

Some of these experienced monks reported seeing demonic activity in the air, and I know of a priest who has seen something that he felt he should not look at, in the sky. Thus it seems to me based on this Patristic testimony, the Scriptural description of the devil, reason, and also using the Wesleyan quadrilateral, as a fourth point, the experience of the Orthodox Church, and I expect many Anglicans, even now, that it is entirely possible that the Miracle of the Sun was a demonic apparition intended to legitimize the claims of the three children who saw the Fatima apparition.

**There is of course a difference; the former was a blessed religious object analogous to the crosier of a bishop, created to provide a cure for or prophylaxis against the bites of dangerous snakes in the Sinai desert, which was then worshipped in its own right, presumably as a serpent-god, by the people of Israel during an outbreak of idolatry resulting from excess interaction with Pagans, whereas the Guadalupe icon depicts the Theotokos and is a means of venerating her. It should also be noted that icons in many Orthodox churches are not blessed, because it is assumed that such an action would be incorrect and contrary to the function of iconography. I do not know what the Romans did in that case.

 

You know @Stalwart I am increasingly suspicious that you might be wearing a kamilavka and a zostikon while typing these posts. You are more Orthodox than many Orthodox priests I know. Which just goes to show that traditional Anglicanism and the Eastern churches are birds of a feather, in my opinion. It also underscores the importance of solidarity in the face of liberal forces that are trying to destroy our church, as well as vigilance against some problematic aspects of the Roman church and a need to pray for them, in the hope that someone gets in there and seeks to reverse course in the direction of the orthodox, Apostolic, Catholic faith which is the shared inheritance of the Eastern churches and the Anglican Communion, and perhaps a few other churches (which ones I cannot say; in theory, Methodism, but in practice, given that John Wesley’s theology is either ignored or abused by the Pentecostals, perhaps not).

 

My own view on the Holy Fire is that it could be fakery, but I do not know; in any event if it were proven to be a fakery accomplished via white phosphorus it would not shake my faith, as my faith is not based on signs and wonders. But others would surely be scandalized, so I pray this is not the case. There are other miracles that occur routinely both in the Holy Land and elsewhere that I find more compelling, but I prefer not to publically enumerate them or say what they are, on an open forum, because in my opinion they are the sort of thing that should be a consolation for the faithful, and not something to attract people to the faith.

However, I think your circulation of that to your family members was proper, and Christians should believe that God does perform miracles and allow the supernatural.

By the way, the term supernatural, used correctly, refers only to genuine miracles worked by God. The tricks performed by demons are not considered to be supernatural; rather, they are the unnatural actions that derive from the wrecked souls of the fallen angels, which have become entirely depraved.