Amsterdam Apparition and Mary as the "Co-Redemptrix"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Writer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MaggieOH:
I respect your opinion, but I think that it is naivety to put any trust in what Sabalto has to say. Did not Jesus and John the Baptist call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers”?

What you think is well researched is often of very doubtful value. There are times when the writer actually goes over the line with comments that are published. Some of the material that I have seen from this source are without a doubt meant to cause harm to others. The mere fact that he and his offsiders have produced the petition to overturn what has been accepted by the Church is yet another reason to doubt their sincerity. The grounds that they produced for their petition are full of unverifiable facts, and I might add that there is evidence of slander in the petition.

I prefer to ignore such an infamous source of information and where necessary to make up my own mind on the issues that they feature so often in Unity Publishing. I have no time for Sabalto, E. Michael Jones or any of their cohorts. I keep wondering what is their angle, and I can see that they are afraid at any attempts to unite Christendom so that we are one again.
Maggie
Click to expand...
I can understand your concern, except that all the points I raised I agreed with from my own reading of the accounts, as well. I just felt like referring to someone else who shared my perspective added another level of credence to the discussion. Be that as it may, there are also other writings concerning this paritcular apparition which point out much of the same things. (See the Orthodox site referred to in earlier post, for example.) It’s less who is saying (at least as far as I am concerned–to a degree), then it is what is being said. Salbato was just a readily available source on this issue. I am currently in communication with a priest associated with EWTN regarding this issue and will pass on any helpful observations he may have to offer later. Thank you for your comments! I am glad to see this discussion is continuing…
 
To Maggie, It seems to me you are prejudging Rick Sabalto and Michael Jones. Do you know these people? Have talked to them?
Just because they write something you dislike or don’t agree with does not mean they don’t know what there talking about.
I would not be so quick to rush to judgement on these two people if I were you. It just may turnout that they did know what they were talking about.
Personally, I found what Rick Sabalto and Michael Jones had to say very helpful.
Just thought I would give you something to think about.
 
40.png
JKCairns:
To Maggie, It seems to me you are prejudging Rick Sabalto and Michael Jones. Do you know these people? Have talked to them?
Just because they write something you dislike or don’t agree with does not mean they don’t know what there talking about.
I would not be so quick to rush to judgement on these two people if I were you. It just may turnout that they did know what they were talking about.
Personally, I found what Rick Sabalto and Michael Jones had to say very helpful.
Just thought I would give you something to think about.
Click to expand...
each to their own. It is from bias that you will see these men as being helpful. The reality happens to be that they tend to be extremely spiteful in what they say.

Please understand that I am not a person who goes around accepting all of the alleged visions. In fact I am sceptical about most of the modern apparitions. However, there are some exceptions to that rule. In those exceptional circumstances I am waiting for the action of discernment, not my own but of the Church.

I do not agree with your assessment of these men btw and I have read a bit of what they have had to say. There is a lot of slander in their writing. I guess though if you belong to that select group who have a secret agenda where it would be offensive to accept anything that comes from a source that you see to be suspicious then yes, you would want to support them.

Just remember, there are many alleged visions that have been proved false to the point where a definate decree against them has been issued. At the same time there are alleged visions where no such decree has been issued at least on a highly official level. There have been times when the official response has been done without evidence of proper investigation. There are times when the officials have been outright wrong. Healthy sceptism of these things is fine by me, but not when it is taken to extreme. That is why I speak out against these people.

MaggieOH
 
40.png
Writer:
I can understand your concern, except that all the points I raised I agreed with from my own reading of the accounts, as well. I just felt like referring to someone else who shared my perspective added another level of credence to the discussion. Be that as it may, there are also other writings concerning this paritcular apparition which point out much of the same things. (See the Orthodox site referred to in earlier post, for example.) It’s less who is saying (at least as far as I am concerned–to a degree), then it is what is being said. Salbato was just a readily available source on this issue. I am currently in communication with a priest associated with EWTN regarding this issue and will pass on any helpful observations he may have to offer later. Thank you for your comments! I am glad to see this discussion is continuing…
Click to expand...
that other site to which you refer is also on my list of those who have a personal axe to grind on these things. They rise up against everything but there is a motivation that they have not revealed. What are they afraid of, if the visions were proved to be authentic? Has anybody bothered to ask that question? What is the worst thing that can happen if it really is authentic? Does it somehow upset one’s notion of God or Mary in some way? Or is it a case of not wanting to admit that God wants all to be saved and not just a select few? I certainly believe that there is a level of opposition that goes beyond mere discernment and to the point of hysterical. The question is: Why is it so?
The answer? I suspect that political leanings might have a lot to do with that answer.

That orthodox website attacks Medjugorje. Why? Have a good look at the history between the Serbs and the Croats and you will find the answer. Those associated with the Serbs would not want to admit the authenticity and yes they would be out to destroy the reputation of any Croat. I could be wrong about motivation, and I reserve the right to be wrong in my observation, but I am astute enough to see when there is ulterior motives involved in the hysterical opposition to certain alleged visions, including “Our Lady of All Nations” and Amsterdam.

BTW, the same kind of visions were given to the little sister at Akita and the Church has accepted the authenticity of the messages from there. Something to think about.

Maggie
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
that other site to which you refer is also on my list of those who have a personal axe to grind on these things. They rise up against everything but there is a motivation that they have not revealed. What are they afraid of, if the visions were proved to be authentic? Has anybody bothered to ask that question? What is the worst thing that can happen if it really is authentic? Does it somehow upset one’s notion of God or Mary in some way? Or is it a case of not wanting to admit that God wants all to be saved and not just a select few? I certainly believe that there is a level of opposition that goes beyond mere discernment and to the point of hysterical. The question is: Why is it so?
The answer? I suspect that political leanings might have a lot to do with that answer.

That orthodox website attacks Medjugorje. Why? Have a good look at the history between the Serbs and the Croats and you will find the answer. Those associated with the Serbs would not want to admit the authenticity and yes they would be out to destroy the reputation of any Croat. I could be wrong about motivation, and I reserve the right to be wrong in my observation, but I am astute enough to see when there is ulterior motives involved in the hysterical opposition to certain alleged visions, including “Our Lady of All Nations” and Amsterdam.

BTW, the same kind of visions were given to the little sister at Akita and the Church has accepted the authenticity of the messages from there. Something to think about.

Maggie
Click to expand...
When you get down to it, anything written contains bias. It is impossible to remove bias, although it certainly can be reduced or emphasized by the writing style. There are some writers I can’t stand to read, for example, but it doen’t mean that they are not brilliant in their approach. Sometimes you have to read things you’re not terribly comfortable with, then make your own conclusions regarding the points they raised based on the available evidence. If you discard everyone who has written in anger, there goes *National Review, *David Virtue’s newsletter for members of the (orthodox) Anglican Communion, etc. It kind of reminds me of book burners who get all upset at an inappropriate word and seek to get rid of a classic work by an author like Mark Twain or Dickens. It is the educated readers job to take from a variety of sources, then retrieve those elements of truth discerned in each work.

Did the “same kind ov visions” which appeared to the “little sister at Akita”, however, involve (1) false and misleading prophecies, (2) the appearance of promoting homosexuality with an eye possibly on the ordination of women,(3) insistent demands for high titles like some kind of spoiled queen, (4) make statements, and her very appearance, which differed significantly from more widely-accepted apparitions of the past,(5) involve something which could be described as the “flavor of the month” of the psychology and sociology trends of the period as opposed to the unchanging nature of the Gospels,(5) appear strongly to support Communism’s battle against the West,(6) promoted by a bishop of questionable personal background–e.g look at his other projects, etc…

We are warned “by their fruits” we will know them. If we accept the God is omniscient in nature, how can we accept the apparition as valid given how many wacky things it predicted? I am signing-off for the rest of the day to work on my children’s book, but will I watch for replies.
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
that other site to which you refer is also on my list of those who have a personal axe to grind on these things. They rise up against everything but there is a motivation that they have not revealed. What are they afraid of, if the visions were proved to be authentic? Has anybody bothered to ask that question? What is the worst thing that can happen if it really is authentic? Does it somehow upset one’s notion of God or Mary in some way? Or is it a case of not wanting to admit that God wants all to be saved and not just a select few? I certainly believe that there is a level of opposition that goes beyond mere discernment and to the point of hysterical. The question is: Why is it so?
The answer? I suspect that political leanings might have a lot to do with that answer.

That orthodox website attacks Medjugorje. Why? Have a good look at the history between the Serbs and the Croats and you will find the answer. Those associated with the Serbs would not want to admit the authenticity and yes they would be out to destroy the reputation of any Croat. I could be wrong about motivation, and I reserve the right to be wrong in my observation, but I am astute enough to see when there is ulterior motives involved in the hysterical opposition to certain alleged visions, including “Our Lady of All Nations” and Amsterdam.

BTW, the same kind of visions were given to the little sister at Akita and the Church has accepted the authenticity of the messages from there. Something to think about.

Maggie
Click to expand...
When you get down to it, anything written contains bias. It is impossible to remove bias, although it certainly can be reduced or emphasized by the writing style. There are some writers I can’t stand to read, for example, but it doen’t mean that they are not brilliant in their approach. Sometimes you have to read things you’re not terribly comfortable with, then make your own conclusions regarding the points they raised based on the available evidence. If you discard everyone who has written in anger, there goes *National Review, *David Virtue’s newsletter for members of the (orthodox) Anglican Communion, etc. It kind of reminds me of book burners who get all upset at an inappropriate word and seek to get rid of a classic work by an author like Mark Twain or Dickens. It is the educated readers job to take from a variety of sources, then retrieve those elements of truth discerned in each work.

Did the “same kind ov visions” which appeared to the “little sister at Akita”, however, involve (1) false and misleading prophecies, (2) the appearance of promoting homosexuality with an eye possibly on the ordination of women,(3) insistent demands for high titles like some kind of spoiled queen, (4) make statements, and her very appearance, which differed significantly from more widely-accepted apparitions of the past,(5) involve something which could be described as the “flavor of the month” of the psychology and sociology trends of the period as opposed to the unchanging nature of the Gospels,(5) appear strongly to support Communism’s battle against the West,(6) promoted by a bishop of questionable personal background (look at his other projects),(7) implied that Christ lacks the redemptive power to save the world from its present crisis, but she (it) can do so, etc.

We are warned “by their fruits” we will know them. If we accept the God is omniscient in nature, how can we accept the apparition as valid given how many wacky things it predicted? I am signing-off for the rest of the day to work on my children’s book, but will I watch for replies.
 
quote=Writer false and misleading prophecies

(2) the appearance of promoting homosexuality with an eye possibly on the ordination of women

(3) insistent demands for high titles like some kind of spoiled queen

(4) make statements, and her very appearance, which differed significantly from more widely-accepted apparitions of the past

(5) involve something which could be described as the “flavor of the month” of the psychology and sociology trends of the period as opposed to the unchanging nature of the Gospels

(6) appear strongly to support Communism’s battle against the West

(7) promoted by a bishop of questionable personal background–e.g look at his other projects, etc…

[/quote]

JMJ + OBT​
Dear Writer,

For points 1 through 7, could you please provide for each individually all of the links to and/or quotes from the articles, webpages, etc. from which you have drawn those conclusions? I am especially curious about #7.

When you have done so, I will be glad to attempt a reply in short order.

Thanks, and I hope you and your family are enjoying a blessed Sunday.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
 
whosebob said:

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Writer,

For points 1 through 7, could you please provide for each individually all of the links to and/or quotes from the articles, webpages, etc. from which you have drawn those conclusions? I am especially curious about #7.

When you have done so, I will be glad to attempt a reply in short order.

Thanks, and I hope you and your family are enjoying a blessed Sunday.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
Click to expand...

Whosebob:

I am happy to delve into the information a bit more for you in regards to the seventh item. As to everything else, however, time restrictions suggest that I point out that you have asked for information such as this before, but have never responded to it in a constructive way–e.g. the online essay itself. I don’t have a great amount of extra time right now to respond over and over to essentially the same arguments, when you have not constructively reviewed what has already been provided. In many respects, however, the reasoning behind my concerns becomes pretty clear when one reads the accounts of what the apparition said and did itself–e.g. its “prophecies” concerning a frightening meteor storm.

So, while I am happy to look up number 7 later, dialogue implies a two-way street, and, so far, no one has really made a strong opposing argument to the points raised in my essay concerning the apparition–or the others, for that matter.
 
I received some very helpful essays or articles along this topic from Nicco Alles of Amsterdam. One focuses on the background of Bishop Punt and his motivations, and the others focus on the apparitions themselves. I tried to attach the smallest one to this post, but had no luck. They are very well done, and I was impressed at what the writings uncovered. For example, Ida herself was stunned to learn that the church the apparition directed to be built in its honor actually best resembles a mosque. A television station for Muslims living in the Amsterdam area actually picked-up on this in an interview. See the link below and open video stream identified as “Maria in Koran”. It’s in Dutch, but one of the attachments I was given includes excerpts.

mokumtv.nl/

I have to keep this quick, but these attachments can be sent to individual members, if interested (via e-mail).

By the way, one of the essay’s first few examples of the falsehood of the apparition is interesting to me because it demonstrates the apparition’s sinister, but inteligent, deception so clearly. In the apparition’s 22nd appearance, it apparently declared that loving thy neighbor was the greatest commandment–ignoring the actual greatest commandment of loving the Lord thy God. This intertwining of truth and falsehood creates a lie dressed like truth, and it opens the door to even greater errors of theology.
 
i think that’s a pretty good point… Why would Mary say something which opposes the Bible and Catholic doctrine, and why do so many people appear to accept these appearances without any kind of reservations or questioning?
 
40.png
Toupeeman:
This is a good point… I guess the question is what is the official recogniction status of this particular apparition? From a quick search on the web, there do appear to be some serious questions as to the source of this appearance. If it is not of God, then it would have to be from Satan, right?
Click to expand...
Actually I suggest you do more reality research: this apparition cannot this time just be set to the side as if hot air. This one was not only approved by the local AMSTERDAM BISHOP(HOLLAND) but actually by the VATICAN ITSELF in 1996 (RECENT). THIS WILL BE FOUND if research is really done.
 
Writer,

The Apparitions of Our Lady of All Nations to Ida Peederman of Amsterdam have been approved by the local Ordinary as worthy of belief. I will post something on that for you later. There are plenty of people out there claiming to be Catholic who are Catholic in name only. The Church has spoken, and the mystical occurrences have been declared: Constat de supernaturalitate – “It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.” This was done after decades of exhaustive study and analysis and testing by a commission appointed by the Bishop. Such commissions typically include trained theologians which also typically employ the services of scientists.

The Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate has been Catholic doctrine since the early Church. As Dr. Mark Miravalle explains (see 2nd URL below) what is at issue is the elevation of this doctrine to the level of dogma by an act of the Ordinary Magisterium (e.g. a formal declaration by Pope John Paul II).

The 1st writing explains what the term “Co-Redemptrix” means……it does NOT mean that she is held on the same level as Jesus. Far too many people are not familiar with what the prefix “CO” means.

A co-pilot is not the same as a pilot.

To co-operate is not the same as to operate.

http://www.call2holiness.org/sacredheart/AMCMAII.html

http://www.call2holiness.org/coredemptrix/coredemptrix.html

======================================================================
 
**MAY 31, 2002

"In Response to Inquiries Concerning the Lady of All Nations Apparitions

As Bishop of Haarlem/Amsterdam, I have been requested to make a statement regarding the authenticity of the apparitions of Mary as the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam during the years of 1945 - 1959. Many members of the faithful and bishops have emphasized the urgency for clarification. I also have been personally aware that this development of devotion, which has spanned over 50 years, call for this.

As it is known, my predecessor, Msgr. H. Bomers and myself had previously given permission for public veneration in 1996. As to the supernatural character of the apparitions and contents of the messages, we did not give our judgment, but declared that ‘everyone is free to make a judgment for himself or herself according to their conscience’. Having had a generally positive attitude towards authenticity, we decided to await further development and to ‘discern the spirit’ further (cf. 1 Thes 5: 19-21).

Over the period of six subsequent years, I observed that the devotion had taken its place in the spiritual life of millions all over the world, and that it possesses the support of many bishops. Many experiences of conversion and reconciliation, as well as healings and special protection also have been reported to me. In full recognition of the responsibility of the Holy See, it is primarily the task of the local bishop to speak out in conscience regarding the authenticity of private revelations that take place or have taken place within his diocese.

Therefore I have asked once again for the advice of theologians and psychologists concerning the outcomes of previous investigations, and the questions and objections deriving from them. Their recommendations state that no theological or psychological impediments for a declaration of supernatural authenticity can be found therein. I have also requested the judgment of a number of brother bishops concerning the fruits and development of the devotion, who within their own dioceses have experienced a strong devotion of Mary as the Mother and Lady of All Nations. In light and virtue of all these recommendations, testimonies, and developments, and in pondering all this in prayer and theological reflection, I have come to the conclusion that the apparitions of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam consist of a supernatural origin.

Naturally, the influence of the human element still exists. Authentic images and visions are always transmitted to us, in the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, ‘through the filter of our senses, which carry out a work of translation—’ and ‘—are influenced by the potentialities and limitations of the perceiving subject’ (Cardinal Ratzinger, Theological Commentary In Preparation for the Release of the Third Part of the Secret of Fatima, L ‘Osservatore Romano, June 28, 2000).

Unlike Holy Scripture, private revelations are never binding upon the conscience of the faithful. They are a help in understanding the signs of the times and to help live more fully the Gospel (cf. Lk 12:56, Catechism of the Catholic Church, n, 67. And the signs of our times are dramatic. The devotion to the Lady of All Nations can help us, in my sincere conviction, in guiding us on the right path during the present serious drama of our times, the path to a new and special outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Who alone can heel the great wounds of our times.

To follow the further development of this devotion and to come to an even deeper insight into its meaning, I have installed a commission whose task it will be to continue to document all initiatives, experiences, and testimonies stemming from the devotion in order to help insure and preserve correct ecclesial and theological progress of devotion.

I hope this has provided sufficient information and clarification."

[signed] + Bishop Joseph Marianus Punt

**
 
I have problems accepting the term co-redemptrix too, and think it was ill conceived becuase it is subject to misinterpretation. People throw out the Timothy verse at the mention of it.

I think of Mary more as Senior Assistant redemptrix; definitely close to Jesus than any other saint, but at the same time not to be perceived as his equal, which the title “co” implies. Perhaps, I am splitting hairs here
 
40.png
serendipity:
I have problems accepting the term co-redemptrix too, and think it was ill conceived becuase it is subject to misinterpretation. People throw out the Timothy verse at the mention of it.

I think of Mary more as Senior Assistant redemptrix; definitely close to Jesus than any other saint, but at the same time not to be perceived as his equal, which the title “co” implies. Perhaps, I am splitting hairs here
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think you’re splitting hairs… The bottom line is that the title is pretty confusing–even to educated Catholics.
 
The Cub:
Writer,

The Apparitions of Our Lady of All Nations to Ida Peederman of Amsterdam have been approved by the local Ordinary as worthy of belief. I will post something on that for you later. There are plenty of people out there claiming to be Catholic who are Catholic in name only. The Church has spoken, and the mystical occurrences have been declared: Constat de supernaturalitate – “It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.” This was done after decades of exhaustive study and analysis and testing by a commission appointed by the Bishop. Such commissions typically include trained theologians which also typically employ the services of scientists.

The Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate has been Catholic doctrine since the early Church. As Dr. Mark Miravalle explains (see 2nd URL below) what is at issue is the elevation of this doctrine to the level of dogma by an act of the Ordinary Magisterium (e.g. a formal declaration by Pope John Paul II).

The 1st writing explains what the term “Co-Redemptrix” means……it does NOT mean that she is held on the same level as Jesus. Far too many people are not familiar with what the prefix “CO” means.

A co-pilot is not the same as a pilot.

To co-operate is not the same as to operate.

http://www.call2holiness.org/sacredheart/AMCMAII.html

http://www.call2holiness.org/coredemptrix/coredemptrix.html

======================================================================
Click to expand...
Thank you for your observations, but I don’t think you quite understand my concerns. First, in regards to the apparition, one cannot accept something which runs contrary to Scripture. It is black and white. Members of the Church have made errors before in regards to a broad range of issues not directly related to dogma or dotrine. People are imperfect, and their decisions reflect this imprefection even in the Catholic Church. As I indicated in my online essay, there are a number of reasons you should take a second look at this apparition. On the surface, it may appear all well and good to you. If you take a more critical look, however, I think you may begin to see it differently. The apparition represents classic “Iago” behavior–to hide the fabric of the lie with a shred or piece of the truth in order to conceal the true motivations. The Christian must have a knowledge of the Bible and a relationship with Christ before he can discern the issues in conflict with Church teaching. As an aside to this discussion, a priest associated with EWTN asked for further information on this issue and is looking into the matter. Probably won’t hear anything soon, but perhaps he can offer another perspective to the debate.

As far as the nature of the “Co-Redemptrix”, I think you are over-simplifying the nature of the debate. To the non-Christian this may all seem like the “splitting hairs” referred to in an earlier post, but I think there are some major problems with the title “Co-Redemptrix”. The simplest, but perhaps most powerful argument of opposition, centers on issues of language. We can lament the present state of education all we want, but the truth of the matter is that the phrase is inherently confusing and doesn’t succeed in describing or clarifying who Mary truly is. It obscures her special role and obfusicates the entire issue. If most people take an opposite meaning from a phrase, one would do well to try to coin a better description.

If interested, my essay on the topic is below.

home.earthlink.net/~karlerickson/writer/id16.html
 
40.png
misericordie:
Actually I suggest you do more reality research: this apparition cannot this time just be set to the side as if hot air. This one was not only approved by the local AMSTERDAM BISHOP(HOLLAND) but actually by the VATICAN ITSELF in 1996 (RECENT). THIS WILL BE FOUND if research is really done.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with Bishop Punt’s activities, and don’t find his involvement to be persuasive as to the apparition’s nature, but I am curious what you are exactly referring to with regards to the 1996 document. It may be that your characterization of this document simply doesn’t help me recall something I have already read, but I would be interested in a source for your reference. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top