Are Marian apparitions divine, demonic or delusions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter glencor63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

glencor63

Guest
Enclosed is an Orthodox article entitled, “The Marian Apparitions: Divine Intervention or Delusion”!

Reunification with the Eastern Orthodox may require discarding or reforming Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and particularly apparitions. What is your opinion?

*Please read the article before commenting. Thank you.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx
 
Last edited:
I have already read such things. Not all Orthodox hold negative opinions of Marian apparitions. You do know that no Catholic is required to believe in private revelation, right?
 
I do know you are not required to believe in apparitions. How does the church distinguish true, holy apparitions from delusions or demonic activities?
 
Last edited:
Obviously as a Catholic I do not believe that bishop-approved and Vatican-approved Marian apparitions are “demonic” or “delusions” and I believe that such APPROVED apparitions were actual appearances of Our Mother Mary. Catholics are not required to believe in approved apparitions, but I trust the investigation process. I note that the article lumps together Garabandal and Medjugorje, which are NOT approved, with a bunch of Vatican-approved Marian apparitions, which for me makes it impossible to comment on the article as she’s just mixed apples and oranges.

The entire article is very obviously written from a non-Catholic perspective, which makes it even more difficult for me to comment on it as it’s a matter of different beliefs. If an Orthodox person wants to be skeptical of a Marian apparition, even an approved one, fine, but why should I care? For that matter, if my fellow Catholic wanted to be skeptical of a Marian apparition, even an approved one, he’s perfectly allowed to do that. Again, why should I care? There is no need for me to run around trying to convince people Mary actually appeared. Believe it or don’t. And as for the unapproved apparitions Garabandal and Medjugorje, I myself do not wholeheartedly believe in those, as there are plenty of other approved ones without having to chase after the ones still in question. If they should be approved in the future, I will reconsider my position.
 
Last edited:
As far as distinguishing from true Marian apparitions and demonic ones, the approved apparitions have all had the same message: Mary tells us to turn to her Son and to Pray, Pray, Pray. If Satan and his demons were suddenly appearing to the world and telling them to turn to Jesus and to lead a life of prayer, then as Jesus said, Satan’s kingdom would be truly divided against itself.
 
glencor63 said:
How does the church distinguish true holy apparitions from delusions or demonic activities?
Click to expand...
The Church has a process they go through in evaluating apparitions.
The criteria considered are here:


The Church is not shy about denouncing alleged apparitions that it thinks are phony or harmful or being propagated for the personal/ financial gain of the seer. I have seen quite a few such denoucements publicized in my lifetime, including but not limited to the Bayside apparitions and those of Mary Ann Van Hoof.

Some of the apparitions that the Church has approved, you rarely hear about (e.g. Our Lady of Beauraing, Our Lady of Banneux) because people (including the govermental and church authorities in charge of the apparition site) have not chosen to promote them very much, whereas you hear a lot about certain unapproved apparitions like Garabandal because people for whatever reason have chosen to promote them. Often there is an agenda in play, such as tourism.

There are also a lot of apparitions that are approved for faith expression only, meaning that the Church has decided it’s okay to say the devotional prayers associated with the apparition, or have Masses at the apparition site, etc but the Church has not definitely approved the apparition itself.

In short, I am confident the Church has a good process for dealing with these and i do not need to read a very long essay by someone who is not even Catholic and seems to lack familiarity with the Catholic approach to apparitions.
 
Last edited:
I can only trust and hope that the magisterium has not promoted Satan in approving apparitions. I pray that Mary is being used by God and the appearances are not demons in disguise.
 
Last edited:
I really don’t think Satan is leading thousands of people, probably millions by this point, to pray Rosaries, attend Holy Mass, receive the Eucharist, participate in Eucharistic Adoration, pray for sinners, do penance, go to confession, and meditate on the Holy Mysteries. And that is what goes on at the Marian apparition sites, and even away from the sites for those who follow the devotions associated with them.

Even at Medjugorje, which I’m skeptical about, the lines for confession are so long they call it “the confessional of Europe”. Satan is not going to lead people en masse to be absolved of their mortal sins. Would seem rather counterproductive to his ultimate goal.
 
Last edited:
Apparitions of the Virgin are approved, or not. Any of the above might apply to some, including fraud, which was not mentioned, but the answer to the approved apparitions is that they are divine. That is why the Church, that body that Christ left on Earth, had to exercise authority. The very question is an argument for the papacy and apostolic succession.
 
Last edited:
Each apparition is evaluated on a case by case basis.

So yeah, any single alleged apparition could be any of the above.
 
But, belief in any private revelation is never forced on the faithful…people are free to do as they choose, with approved visions and visionaries. The church has never gone so far as to say ‘Mary appeared at Fatima’. The words that are used are ‘Fatima is worthy of belief’.

Unapproved sites can be condemned by the church. But, the farthest any approval goes is that it is worthy of belief.
 
This is true, but if the Church says Fatima is “Worthy of Belief” it cannot simultaneously say Fatima was “demonic” or “delusional”. The Church does not consider demonic or delusional situations to be “worthy of belief”.
 
Help me understand how something is worthy of belief if there is a possibility it did not really happen.
 
I believe the Oriental Orthodox have higher esteem for Marian Apparitions than the Eastern Orthodox.
The Coptic Church which is part of the Oriental Communion held the apparitions at Zeitoun in high esteem.
 
I’m a bad one to ask because I believe that approved apparitions happened, and don’t really understand Catholics who don’t believe they happened, especially when you have the Popes going to approved apparition sites to pray. Those Catholics who don’t believe it, I just file in the same bottom drawer as those Catholics who don’t want to venerate Mary, which I also don’t understand.

But, the Church does not require anyone to believe in an approved apparition because the deposit of faith was closed when the last Apostle died, so nothing that happened after that can be a required belief for a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
glencor63 said:
Enclosed is an Orthodox article entitled, “The Marian Apparitions: Divine Intervention or Delusion”!
Click to expand...
I think that article was written by someone who is not objective & began their “research” with an agenda.
glencor63 said:
Reunification with the Eastern Orthodox may require discarding or reforming Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and particularly apparitions. What is your opinion?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s going to happen. Some of the points in that article illustrates how deep & how wide the chasm between is. I know she doesn’t speak for “the” Orthodox Church & I find it hard to believe the main blogger presenting the article does either. But the underlining thoughts are disturbing.

For instance, the thought that if we believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son diminishes the relationship of the Trinity leading to “down-grading” the Holy Spirit is offensive.

& this line…
With a powerful Emperor there was never any opportunity—nor was there any need or the desire—to subject all lay power to the authority of the Patriarch…
Click to expand...
Sounds like she is saying since the Emperor protected the truth Orthodoxy didn’t need a Pope. After all, that’s his function. To strengthen his brothers.

There’s a lot of poor understanding of the Catholic faith in that article. As such it’s hard to give it serious thought.
 
Some of the more radical Orthodox are searching for reasons to remain divided. But consider: their divine Liturgy contains more reference to the Blessed Virgin than does the Catholic Mass.

Discard Marian teachings and apparitions, then it will be the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Solve that and it will be the Catholic teaching on original sin.

After awhile, division takes on a life of its own.
 
Justin_Mary said:
There’s a lot of poor understanding of the Catholic faith in that article. As such it’s hard to give it serious thought.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don’t want to take the thread off track, but I think the article illustrates that regarding re-unification with the Orthodox, Marian apparitions - which, as we’ve noted, no Catholic is required to believe in, even when they’re approved by the Vatican - are not going to be the stumbling block. This other stuff like the Pope’s authority and the Filioque are the big problems.

Furthermore, the Orthodox have their own Marian apparitions involving the Theotokos, and many Orthodox also take the position that the Orthodox Church does not take a public position on, or comment on, matters outside the Orthodox Church, which would include Catholic Marian apparitions. The author of the article posted as the subject of this thread seems to be writing in her personal capacity, and not as any sort of representative of the Orthodox Church or expressing any official position of the Orthodox Church.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/4ow6aa/marian_apparitions_in_orthodoxy
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top