Approved Apparitions of Mary Over Time

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CampionTheChampion

Guest
Here is a statistical study on reported Marian apparitions over time.

https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/a/apparitions-statistics-early.php

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/_resources/img/a/apparitions-statistics-early-01.jpg

I can’t help but noticed this is not randomly distributed. The reports spike during the 13th century for some reason too. I’m wondering if this is somehow evidence against the veracity of all reports of Marian apparitions in general.

Now, I know many will just point out “these are only reports, not approved apparitions.” But by only looking at approved reports the problem persists. For example, take a look at this compilation of Marian apparitions by this site.

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/

You will notice that, when compared to the 2nd, the 1st millennium experienced very few apparitions. This explains why the site grouped all of the 1st millennium apparitions into one page rather than give each century a page.

So here is my question. While development of doctrine will leave certain artifacts in history, such as a latter group of Christians believing something an earlier did not, visitations from Heaven should not leave such artifacts. Why, then, do Marian apparitions seem to leave such artifacts? Does this point to Marian apparitions being a sort of development of Christian doctrine rather than real historical events?

Please keep your responses related to my question. And don’t worry, I’m already a believer in Fatima. No need to divert the discussion to proofs of Marian apparitions.
 
Last edited:
I do not understand the title.

“Approved Apparitions of Mary’s Spread Over Team”

With the possessive apostrophe, “Mary’s”…Mary’s what?

What is a team in this usage?
 
I took the liberty of changing the “team” to “time” consistent with the graph.
 
jas84173 said:
Because the majority of them are probably just made up lies in the moment it was a fad.
Click to expand...
That explains the reports, but not the approved apparitions. Why is it that Mary got busy after the first millennium?
 
Maybe it simply shows that the Church became far more discerning over apparitions, private revelations, and miracles. Not necessarily a bad thing.
 
I don’t know. And I am not discarding ALL Marian Appartitions. I believe in quite a few however we do need to realize not every claim is necessarily true. I believe Our lady of Mt.Carmel, Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima have enough evidence to show they are truth.

There are other approved ones but I’m sure if you looked at the vast majority of claims the Church probably has no position on it.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
seem to leave such artifacts
Click to expand...
The sample group is not controlled across centuries. It is possible that documentation may not have been made of evidence or it may have been destroyed of deteriorated. It could also be that in a particular era there would be a particular obstacle along with receptivity. The Thirteenth century held the fourth crusade (1202 A.D.) through the ninth crusade (1271 A.D.) and the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1291 A.D.).

There should be clear criteria used.
 
First off, it would be helpful to have the original paper’s full list of “reported Marian apparitions.” Why? Because there are probably a tonload that got left out.

Second, there would obviously have to be a comparison between “Marian apparitions,” “other saintly apparitions,” “apparitions of Jesus/the Father/the Holy Spirit,” and other forms of saintly or divine communication, such as visions (by kind, number, and time) and prophetic/visionary dreams (by kind, number, and time).

Third, you would have to compare all this stuff to the appearance of miraculous icons and banners, paintings not made by hands, miraculously discovered statues, “letters from Heaven” found on church altars, etc.

What I suspect you would find is that God both forms and caters to different forms of spirituality with different forms of special communication. Frankish peasants often found “letters from Heaven” written in Frankish or in Latin, but they never found cuneiform tablets written in Sumerian. Why would they?

And so, I suspect that there are more apparitions in times when there are fewer visions, and more dreams or miraculous objects in times when there are fewer visions or apparitions.

Nobody has done a very complete study on religious experience, but everything that has been done has suggested that humans tend to have them at a pretty consistent percentage. Religious experiences are unusual enough to get attention, but it is rare to meet someone who hasn’t had one or doesn’t know anyone who has had one. If people think they aren’t religious, they tend to read such experiences as being related to psychic powers or aesthetic perception. The way people interpret such experiences, and the form of experience, seems to be tied to culture in some ways; but overall, they are a universal human thing.
 
Mintaka said:
First off, it would be helpful to have the original paper’s full list of “reported Marian apparitions.” Why? Because there are probably a tonload that got left out.

Second, there would obviously have to be a comparison between “Marian apparitions,” “other saintly apparitions,” “apparitions of Jesus/the Father/the Holy Spirit,” and other forms of saintly or divine communication, such as visions (by kind, number, and time) and prophetic/visionary dreams (by kind, number, and time).

Third, you would have to compare all this stuff to the appearance of miraculous icons and banners, paintings not made by hands, miraculously discovered statues, “letters from Heaven” found on church altars, etc.

What I suspect you would find is that God both forms and caters to different forms of spirituality with different forms of special communication. Frankish peasants often found “letters from Heaven” written in Frankish or in Latin, but they never found cuneiform tablets written in Sumerian. Why would they?

And so, I suspect that there are more apparitions in times when there are fewer visions, and more dreams or miraculous objects in times when there are fewer visions or apparitions.

Nobody has done a very complete study on religious experience, but everything that has been done has suggested that humans tend to have them at a pretty consistent percentage. Religious experiences are unusual enough to get attention, but it is rare to meet someone who hasn’t had one or doesn’t know anyone who has had one. If people think they aren’t religious, they tend to read such experiences as being related to psychic powers or aesthetic perception. The way people interpret such experiences, and the form of experience, seems to be tied to culture in some ways; but overall, they are a universal human thing.
Click to expand...
These are great considerations. Maybe this would make for an interesting research project some day.
 
I agree. Here’s my observation: it seems that Marian apparitions spiked in the last 200 years. Mom’s been pretty talkative lately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top