Approved Apparitions

[Tamelyne]

Where can I find a list of approved apparitions? Actually, I found a list at apparitions.org, but I don’t know where they get their info so can I trust them?

Specifically, is the apparition of Mary in 1967 in Zeitun, Cairo, an approved apparition? Apparitions.org says it is, but again, I want to make sure they are correct.

Also, someone has asked me to make a custom chaplet for her to “the Immaculate Conception of St. Joseph”. She sent me background info claiming someone had a vison from Mary that Joseph was immaculately conceived. I’ve never heard such a thing before. Is this approved? If not, I think I will decline to make this chaplet.

I hope I am not violating the rule against posting about unapproved apparitions, as I am only trying to find out if these ARE approved or not.

Tammy

 

[threej_lc]

apparitions.org is correct in as far as the apparitions it claims are approved actually are approved. So the answer to your question concerning Egypt is yes, the apparition is approved.

The website is semi-incorrect to the extent that some apparitions it claims as “pending” have been deemed false, and the dates on some apparitions are slightly incorrect. (I.E. It doesn’t list medjugorgie as ongoing)

Josh

 

[deaconswife]

Threej_lc is correct in that the apparition in Zeitoun is approved. It was approved by His Holiness Anba Kyrillos VI, Patriarch of the See of St. Mark in Africa and the Near East of the Coptic Orthodox Church on April 23, 1968. Since the apparition occured on a Coptic Church, the Vatican consideresd them the appropriate authority to investigate and rule on it. In the ruling on the apparition two blessings were cited as lending to its supernatural nature, the first being an engendering and strengthening of faith, and the second being miraculous cures of many desperate cases. Some of the confirmed cures associated with the apparitaion include various types of cancer, blindness, paralysis, and mental illness. Zeitoun is unusual from other Marian apparitions in that the apparition was photographed and seen by Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims and people with no religious faith.
I have not heard of the chaplet of the Immaculate Conception of Saint Joseph. If you could post who the seer connected with this chaplet, I might be able to help you as to whether it is an approved or unapproved apparition.

 

[Tamelyne]

Thank you. I asked about Zeitun because I would like to make a rosary to Our Lady of Zeitun but I didn’t want to do it if the apparition had not been approved.

As for the Immaculate Conception of St. Joseph, the information the person sent me says

“Message via Loise Starr Tomkiel, V+J” and has dates of December 8, 2003, June 27, 2003, July 2, 2003, and July 20, 2003.

The end of the information mentions that “It is a pious belief that Joseph was sanctified before his birth.” Now, I don’t have a problem with that. However, being sanctified before birth is NOT the same thing as being Immaculately Conceived!

It makes me really nervous when I see stuff like this promulgated on the internet with no imprimatur or any other endorsement. If it has not been approved by the Church, I cannot in good conscience make these chaplet beads for the person. On the other hand, I don’t want to summarily refuse without being able to give her a good argument as to why.

Thank you for any help you can give.

Tammy

 

[deaconswife]

Several things that I found out about this seer deeply concern me. In a cursory search I found that her messages are being promoted along with other seers whose bishops have asked that their messages not be promulgated such as John Leary, Christina Gallagher, the Medjugorje seers, and the worst of all Veronica Leuken of Bayside. If that is not enough, reading the content of some of these messages gives me concern. Many of the messages warn that God is going to punish us because we are not believing in the messages given to Tomkiel. This is particularly troubling because the Church does not require us to believe in the messages of private apparitions. While it is prudent to listen to what the Blessed Mother conveys in an approved appararition, belief in the messages is not required as is belief in the doctrines of our faith. Many of the messages have a decidely paranoid tone. In the May 20th 2004 message God the Father warns that all food and drink is being poisoned by evil manufacturers, this is also the theme of the April 29, 2003 message where it is revealed all our neccesities are poisoned. Some of the messages sound like excerpts from the Left Behind books and speak of microchips being implanted under a person’s skin with the number 666 on them. Reading these messages made me realize I lost time that I will never get back again. I would avoid any messages associated with this seer. Hope this helps.

:angel1:
Deaconswife

 

[YinYangMom]

Does the Vatican website have anything official about what it has approved?

 

[Tamelyne]

Thank you, Deacon’s Wife. The parts you mention were not in the information sent to me by the lady who wanted the chaplet. What she did send me, however, was enough to remind me of that ‘Asylum City’ group in Canada. When I read their stuff about a year ago, it really freaked me out! Not because I believed it - I didn’t. It freaked me out that people could think they were being faithful Catholics and yet stray so far from the truth.

I have written the lady and told her that I cannot in good conscience make this chaplet for her, because it has not been approved by the church. I also told her that the person who had these visions should have submitted them to the Church for investigation and approval, not promulgated them on the internet. I suggested she talk to her priest or spiritual director for further counsel on this issue.

Tammy

 

[rfk]

Tamelyne:

As for the Immaculate Conception of St. Joseph, the information the person sent me says

“Message via Loise Starr Tomkiel, V+J” and has dates of December 8, 2003, June 27, 2003, July 2, 2003, and July 20, 2003.

The dates alone are a tip-off. Under Canon law, private revelations are to be submitted first to the local Bishop for review, and not publicized or promoted until the local Bishop has rendered judgment. The investigative process takes longer that 6 months. I’d steer completely clear of this unless or until the local ordinary has ruled.

This point needs to be emphasized. Actually, one of the signs used to discern whether an apparition is genuine or false is the issue of obedience. A true apparition is always characterized by obedience.

threej_lc:

and the dates on some apparitions are slightly incorrect. (I.E. It doesn’t list medjugorgie as ongoing)

I don’t want to hijack this thread with a discussion of medjugorgje, as it has been dicussed extensively in other threads, and those threads have now been closed. But there is no on-going investigation of Medjugorje. In fact, Ratko Perić, the current bishop of Mostar-Duvno (Medjugorje’s diocese), has an extensive letter (Feb 2004) on his website that makes quite clear he disapproves. The letter can be found at: cbismo.hr/DHTMLFiles/Opsirnije.asp?P=7

I’ve also noticed that the Mostar-Duvno website is unreliable. You may access the letter today and then find the website doesn’t return a page tomorrow (or vice versa).

A copy of the letter is also cross-posted at unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/BishopPeric2004.htm

The entire letter is worth reading for anyone interested in Medjugorje for two reasons. First, under Church law it is always the local Bishop who has the authority to approve or disapprove a private revelation. Period. The Vatican simply does not overturn the decision of the local ordinary. There is no “Vatican Inquiry” underway.

Second, no-one who honestly reads the Bishop’s letter could have any doubt in their mind that the Bishop disapproves. Here is an excerpt:

**There exists a problem in this diocese of Mostar-Duvno which in recent years has practically precipitated into a schism…

…The Church, from the local to supreme level, from the beginning to this very day, has clearly and constantly repeated: Non constat de supernaturalitate! No to pilgrimages that would ascribe a supernatural nature to the apparitions, no shrine of the Madonna, no authentic messages nor revelations, no true visions!**

If someone really wants to argue this with me, I again ask, please do not hijack this thread. Start a new thread.

Now, back to our regluarly scheduled programming…

When investigating apparitions, one website that has a lot of information is www.unitypublishing.com. Some of the material gets a little “heated”, but he come from the viewpoint of absolutely defending the Bishops and the Church from false apparitions. If you want to find documents explaining why an apparition is false, he is likely to have it.

 

[threej_lc]

rfk:

I don’t want to hijack this thread with a discussion of medjugorgje, as it has been dicussed extensively in other threads, and those threads have now been closed. But there is no on-going investigation of Medjugorje.

I did not mean to say there is an ongoing investigation into the claimed apparition. I merely meant that those who claim to be having the apparition claim that they (the apparitions) are still continuing.

Sorry for the confusion.
Josh

 

[Jerusalem]

For some clarification, Non Constat de supernaturalitate
is a neutral position taken by the Church not condemned or approved. The faithful judge according to measure of prudence and prayer.

 

[Jerusalem]

First, under Church law it is always the local Bishop who has the authority to approve or disapprove a private revelation. Period. The Vatican simply does not overturn the decision of the local ordinary. There is no “Vatican Inquiry” underway.

Your statement is theologically inaccurate. The Bishop is subject to the Authority of the Holy Father and anyone he commisions. As such, any apostolic nuncio or advisory board can be an extension of his authority in overruling a local ordinary or Bishop. The Holy Father has the power to overrule anyone in the Church. This happened as in the case of John of the Cross when the Vatican overruled his local superior.