Book on all Marion Apparitions

[Jerusalem]

Does anyone know of a book covering all the Marion apparitions
up to the modern day?

This would include both approved & undecided apparitions.

I am looking to do more research into this.

God bless

 

[jtodisco]

There are many books out there that discuss Marian apparitions. Some of them cover only one or two specific apparitions, others cover many. Since you seem to be looking for a more comprehensive overview of the various Marian apparitions I would suggest the book God-Sent: A History of the Accredited Apparitions of Mary.

Here’s a link to the book on Amazon:

amazon.com/God-Sent-History-Accredited-Apparitions-Mary/dp/0824518438/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284216472&sr=1-6

This was one of the first books I read on the subject, and I think it’s put together pretty well. Hope this helps.

 

[MarianD]

You can look up on YouTube: “Marian Apparitions of the 20th Century”. It’s a great video series on most Marian Apparitions, though it does have some unapproved apparitions in there (such as Medjugorje).

 

[GaryTaylor]

For a fast referrence sight this ones pretty good.

campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

For a fast referrence sight this ones pretty good.

campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

This site is not up to date as I stated in another thread where this appears.

The apparition for Rochester, NY, (I think it is dated 1993) has been condemned by the Church through the office of the local bishop (Bishop Clark of the Diocese of Rochester).

I would suggest that anyone interested in apparitions to stick to only those that are approved by the Church.

 

[beehumble]

For a fast referrence sight this ones pretty good.

campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

That list is inaccurate on that link. It says Garabandal is a negative decision (which sounds like it has been rejected) but it is not rejected. It is category 3 :3) non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural) which means it has not been accepted OR rejected but is open pending any new information etc.

ODDLY, if one clicks on the words Negative Decision next to Garabandal, they are presented with a citation from EWTN (bottom of the linked page) which says it is category 3. (Negative decision is category 2)

List of apparitions: campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

Garabandal Negative Decision link takes one here (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE where it quotes EWTN as saying Garabandal is category 3 - which means it is not rejected nor accepted but still awaiting more information and it means people can go there.)
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

That page was modified 11-09

It was given to the OP as fast referrence to her alluding, that the Catholic Church doesn’t disprove apparitions.

But personally I only follow those approved “Worthy of Belief” by the Pope.

There is simply to much happening with Our Lady and apparitions. Its just the good thinking in my opinion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That list is inaccurate on that link. It says Garabandal is a negative decision (which sounds like it has been rejected) but it is not rejected. It is category 3 :3) non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural) which means it has not been accepted OR rejected but is open pending any new information etc.

ODDLY, if one clicks on the words Negative Decision next to Garabandal, they are presented with a citation from EWTN (bottom of the linked page) which says it is category 3. (Negative decision is category 2)

List of apparitions: campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

Garabandal Negative Decision link takes one here (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE where it quotes EWTN as saying Garabandal is category 3 - which means it is not rejected nor accepted but still awaiting more information and it means people can go there.)
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html

Also there has never been any proof of the Supernatural at Garabandal. Catholic Church has never “condemed” Garabandal. Its still not approved, Not sure what your saying here?

 

[GaryTaylor]

This site is not up to date as I stated in another thread where this appears.

The apparition for Rochester, NY, (I think it is dated 1993) has been condemned by the Church through the office of the local bishop (Bishop Clark of the Diocese of Rochester).

I would suggest that anyone interested in apparitions to stick to only those that are approved by the Church.

Not Supernatural…Is what Bishop Clark said, Its was the Normal workings of the mind, that John Leary had mistaken for Supernatural Locutions.

The Locutions are Human in origin not Devine. Nothing was Condemed that I read in Bishop Clarks memo. Do you have more than this?

This is exactly why sticking to the Approved Vatican Apparitions is just Good Thinking.

 

[beehumble]

Also there has never been any proof of the Supernatural at Garabandal. Catholic Church has never “condemed” Garabandal. Its still not approved, Not sure what your saying here?

I am saying that website **explicity right up front **says Garabandal is a NEGATIVE DECISION, which means the Church has ruled negatively on it, when the Church has done no such thing.

EWTN states Garabandal is a category 3 decision, at the bottom of this page:

ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm

The third category, which is how EWTN categorizes Garabandal, is found here:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

and then look under TYPES OF DECISIONS. For category 3 it says:
3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.

It is not possible to accurately interpret or summarize category 3 as a ‘Negative Decision’. So that website is inaccurate.

Note as a point of reference that it lists Bayside as a Negative Decision too, and that has actually been condemned. So it has lumped Garabandal with the likes of the Baysides out there, and this is not accurate.

That is what I am saying.

And even worse, if you go to that website and click on the words Negative Decision next to Garabandal and read the documentation they have on it (go to the bottom of their document page on it) you will see they themselves have copied the EWTN info on Garabandal that states it is a category 3 and therefore NOT A NEGATIVE DECISION!

Again, it is not possible to accurately interpret or summarize category 3 as a ‘Negative Decision’. So that website is inaccurate.

Again, that is what I am saying: Be careful with using that site’s apparition list - it is demonstrably inaccurate.