Does lack of Marian apparitions in recent years undermine the reported ones of the past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
Seems like in the 1800s and early 1900s there was Marian apparitions all the time. Of course Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima are the most well known in this time period but they actually seemed to occur constantly in this time frame. So why is it so quiet now? Have there been any Marian apparitions of late? I just feel at times a skeptic would point this lack of them when they used to be so common a reason to question their legitimacy.
 
When Mary shows up, you’ll have to ask her.

😉

Seriously, though, I don’t know that we could ever know, and I don’t think it undermines past appearances.

Here’s a theory:
In 1884, as one story goes, Pope Leo XIII was made privy to a conversation between God and Satan, in which Satan was granted increased power/permission for a hundred years, as Satan said that was all he’d need to destroy the Church. The Pope supposedly wrote the St. Michael Prayer in response to that. How much lead time was Pope Leo given (i.e. would the century start in 1884 or some time thereafter?)? Who can say, but it was around this time we started to see an increase in Marian apparitions (starting shortly before with a silent appearance at Knock in 1879).

And think about those following hundred years! Two world wars (each tied to important apparitions (Mary at Fatima in 1916 and Jesus to Faustina in the 30s), the rise of Russian Communism starting in 1917 (shortly after Fatima), genocide of the Jews, nuclear weapons, eugenics, the turmoil surrounding the reforms of Vatican II (whether you like them or not, they had a tumultuous effect), abortion, the culture wars (perhaps coinciding with Garabandal and Zeitun).

What about the end of that time? Well, would it be a coincidence that if Satan’s century of permission came to an end in 1984, the fall of Russian atheist Communism (of particular concern to Mary at Fatima, shortly before its start) was only five years behind? Shortly before that happened, and just as the Pope who would play a key and personal role in destabilizing it was coming in, perhaps also Medjugorje? (I say “perhaps” on Medjugorje and Garabandal, as neither has received the Church’s stamp of approval yet.)

While there is still much turmoil in the world, these may yet be the waning ripples of Satan’s strong influence in the 20th century, so perhaps she hasn’t appeared recently because it hasn’t been necessary.

Then again, maybe we’ll be seeing a lot more of her in the years to come.

Time will tell.
 
There have been Marian apparitions after Fatima, but they’re recent enough that they don’t have as much fame, or they’re not based in the West, such as Our Lady of Soufanieh in Syria. The woman who witnessed those apparitions also received the stigmata and is still alive and healthy and has a Facebook page.
 
jas84173 said:
Seems like in the 1800s and early 1900s there was Marian apparitions all the time. Of course Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima are the most well known in this time period but they actually seemed to occur constantly in this time frame. So why is it so quiet now? Have there been any Marian apparitions of late? I just feel at times a skeptic would point this lack of them when they used to be so common a reason to question their legitimacy.
Click to expand...
I think you’re wrong on this, there seems to be as many Marian apparitions in the late 20th/early 21st century as there has ever been.

I think the issue is that they don’t get as much publicity as they may have in earlier days.

udayton.edu/imri/mary/c/chronological-table-of-marian-events.php
 
How could it “undermine” anything?

Marian apparitions if true are miraculous; and miracles are by definition not the norm.

ICXC NIKA
 
SimpleRosarian said:
There’s been approximately nine approved Marian apparitions since Fatima, the most recent one having started in 1994.

The Reconciler of People and Nations
Our Lady of Akita
Our Lady of Cuapa
Our Lady of the Rosary
Queen of the Rosary
The Virgin with the Golden Heart
The Virgin of the Poor
Our Lady of All Nations
Our Lady of Kibeho
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty fair number, and that doesn’t include others which haven’t been approved, but still might be. As well as others which might not have been approved, but haven’t been disapproved of either.
 
jas84173 said:
Seems like in the 1800s and early 1900s there was Marian apparitions all the time. Of course Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima are the most well known in this time period but they actually seemed to occur constantly in this time frame. So why is it so quiet now? Have there been any Marian apparitions of late? I just feel at times a skeptic would point this lack of them when they used to be so common a reason to question their legitimacy.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the following exchange that took place on the radio show Radio Replies back in 1938:

[Caller] If miracles were necessary to convince men 2,000 years ago, why not today?

[Priest] Miracles were necessary during the preparatory stages of religion, and, above all, during the earliest years of Christianity that the final perfection of that religion might be rapidly and firmly established. Once that true religion was solidly established under the form of the Catholic Church, there was no longer the same need. The Catholic Church is evidence enough in herself, if any man will study the facts without prejudice. However, miracles still occur in the world, and a study of the happenings, say, at Lourdes, will provide any man with sufficient evidence if he approach the matter with a fair and open mind.

[Caller] It is always the same. Miracles happened last week, last century; they will happen some day in the future. They never happen today.

[Priest] That is a sophism of the purest ray serene. Don’t you realize that time is essentially in constant succession? Do you want today to stay fixed? Never to yield to tomorrow? If a miracle did happen today, you would only have to wait twenty-four hours and then say with a sigh, “Ah, yes! It happened yesterday-- never today!” All the miracles which have happened, occurred on definite days. It was “today” when they happened, but the “today” on which they happened cannot remain static. And if it is an historical fact that a miracle occurred a century ago, or a week ago, the fact that our “today” does not happen to be a week ago in no way disproves the fact. Is all this too deep? Let me give you a simple argument based upon your principles. “They say that Kings of England have died in the past. It is thought that they will die in the future. But I have searched the papers in vain to learn that one died today. The truth is, I don’t think Kings of England ever die at all!”

source
 
GEddie said:
How could it “undermine” anything?

Marian apparitions if true are miraculous; and miracles are by definition not the norm.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Because in the Catholic Church, private revelation is not required by adherents to be recognized as authentic. The reason is because the Church teaches that none of these can ADD anything to the teachings of the Church. Revelation ceased to be public when John the Evangelist died on Patmos. So belief is recommended but not required by adherents.
 
Maybe it is because most who witness them to do report or reveal them otherwise to the public in fear of being declared insane? Choosing to keep it private.

Example:You are praying in your bedroom and you see a white light in the corner of the roof, flowing like water.
And than you see an image of a veiled women.

Just a thought. 🙂
 
What undermines Marian apparitions is the trend, over recent decades, to ignore the decision of the local bishop as to the supernatural character and authenticity. At one time, Catholics wouldn’t go to a “shrine” that was determined by the bishop as not authentic. This raised the level of commitment to shrines that ****were ****determined to be authentic.

Today, the media is almost an alternative magisterium. Certain sites get promoted, crowds come. Then people point to the crowds, and cite the ******crowds ******as one reason for making the shrine authentic. If the bishop does not follow the crowds, they question the authenticity of the bishop.

This diluting tends to draw support away from approved Marian sites. But even when a Marion apparition is approved, such as Fatima about 1930, 90% of what gets written about it later was never reviewed or approved by the Church. People tend to forget the original, approved message, and focus on the 90% that got written later to sell books, magazines, and boost website hits. Writers keep repeating, “Fatima is approved”, then follow it with third hand reports, speculations, diaries, secret motives, coverups, what was said or interpreted by someone, somewhere - none of which is “approved”.
 
SimpleRosarian said:
There’s been approximately nine approved Marian apparitions since Fatima, the most recent one having started in 1994.

The Reconciler of People and Nations
Our Lady of Akita
Our Lady of Cuapa
Our Lady of the Rosary
Queen of the Rosary
The Virgin with the Golden Heart
The Virgin of the Poor
Our Lady of All Nations
Our Lady of Kibeho
Click to expand...
Are you sure that all of these listed apparitions have been approved by the Holy See? I glanced through a few of them and it only states that the bishop, in his opinion, has approved. Why isn’t Garabandal on this list. This was eventually accepted by the Bishop.ourlady.ca/info/bishopGallo.htm Padre Pio believed in the Apparitions at Garabandal and so did Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa is a Godmother to one of Conchita Gonzales children. And a relic glove of Padre Pio was sent to Conchita by his order.
 
zab said:
Are you sure that all of these listed apparitions have been approved by the Holy See? I glanced through a few of them and it only states that the bishop, in his opinion, has approved. Why isn’t Garabandal on this list. This was eventually accepted by the Bishop.ourlady.ca/info/bishopGallo.htm Padre Pio believed in the Apparitions at Garabandal and so did Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa is a Godmother to one of Conchita Gonzales children. And a relic glove of Padre Pio was sent to Conchita by his order.
Click to expand...
The fact that a saint admired a certain private revelation or apparition does not make it authentic, and I think the saints you referred to would agree with that, and submit any official determination to the disposition of the Church (local ordinary). The reference to Garabandal comes from the Garabandal source, which is fine, but I would be interested in any documentation about bishop approval of Garabandal from a source not connected with Garabandal. Since this interview is from the early 1990s, there should be a lot more documentation then or since then.

Regarding your question, have those other “apparitions” been approved by the Holy See? - I think there are at least 2 different issues here.
  • Did something supernatural happen in that place and time?
  • Are the statements reported to be from Mary, or Jesus, worthy of credible belief as approved private revelation?
Approval by the local bishop - it is not “opinion” but rather ****official ********determination ****as the Ordinary of the diocese - is usually the only approval (or other determination) that is granted by the Catholic Church. Job complete.

Ordinarily there is no approval or any kind of statement by the Vatican. In a few, rare instances, the Holy See has determined that in some of those cases officially approved by the local ordinary there is international significance requiring further assessment, for Catholic understanding for the Church as a whole, for people in all dioceses. This is not a reevaluation of the local bishop’s determination.

The fact that this happens in a few, rare cases, such as Fatima, does not mean the ordinary’s approval/disapproval that happens in the great majority of cases is “incomplete”, or just a provisional, or an “opinion”, pending the Vatican’s “final decision”. If the sites mentioned in that post are officially approved by the local ordinary, they are fully approved.

I am a concerned about a trend, wherein people defy the local ordinary, and say “Since the Vatican itself has not ruled on X, therefore what he said is opinion, and I await the final determination of the Church”. This can be a way we avoid proper obedience to the pastor, or bishop.
 
commenter said:
The fact that a saint admired a certain private revelation or apparition does not make it authentic, and I think the saints you referred to would agree with that, and submit any official determination to the disposition of the Church (local ordinary). The reference to Garabandal comes from the Garabandal source, which is fine, but I would be interested in any documentation about bishop approval of Garabandal from a source not connected with Garabandal. Since this interview is from the early 1990s, there should be a lot more documentation then or since then.

Regarding your question, have those other “apparitions” been approved by the Holy See? - I think there are at least 2 different issues here.
  • Did something supernatural happen in that place and time?
  • Are the statements reported to be from Mary, or Jesus, worthy of credible belief as approved private revelation?
Approval by the local bishop - it is not “opinion” but rather ****official ********determination ****as the Ordinary of the diocese - is usually the only approval (or other determination) that is granted by the Catholic Church. Job complete.

Ordinarily there is no approval or any kind of statement by the Vatican. In a few, rare instances, the Holy See has determined that in some of those cases officially approved by the local ordinary there is international significance requiring further assessment, for Catholic understanding for the Church as a whole, for people in all dioceses. This is not a reevaluation of the local bishop’s determination.

The fact that this happens in a few, rare cases, such as Fatima, does not mean the ordinary’s approval/disapproval that happens in the great majority of cases is “incomplete”, or just a provisional, or an “opinion”, pending the Vatican’s “final decision”. If the sites mentioned in that post are officially approved by the local ordinary, they are fully approved.

I am a concerned about a trend, wherein people defy the local ordinary, and say “Since the Vatican itself has not ruled on X, therefore what he said is opinion, and I await the final determination of the Church”. This can be a way we avoid proper obedience to the pastor, or bishop.
Click to expand...
I totally understand your concern. I will say that there is a big difference between the decision a Bishop who expresses disbelief in so-called apparitions that have occurred in his diocese and promoters and followers have been disobedient to his intructions - and Bishop who wants to be sure so they are careful in making proclamations and put restrictions which are in turn are followed. What was difficult for the bishops to accept was the message “Many bishops and cardinals are walking the path of perdition”. This was before all of the news about priest abuse came about later. While the Bishops regarding Garabandal (prior to Bishop del Val Gallo) never accepted the apparitions as supernatural neither did they condemn them. Bishop del Val Gallo did come to appreciate the message of Garabandal, however, since the messages has ceased long before he took office. He sought the assistance from the Holy See and presented the results of his studies which were given to Cardinal Ratzinger. Since the apparitions ended long ago, he did not see a reason to set up another commission. But he did lift the restrictions on priests that had been placed his predecessors. And pilgrims still flock to Garabandal.
 
zab said:
I totally understand your concern. I will say that there is a big difference between the decision a Bishop who expresses disbelief in so-called apparitions that have occurred in his diocese and promoters and followers have been disobedient to his intructions - and Bishop who wants to be sure so they are careful in making proclamations and put restrictions which are in turn are followed. What was difficult for the bishops to accept was the message “Many bishops and cardinals are walking the path of perdition”. This was before all of the news about priest abuse came about later. While the Bishops regarding Garabandal (prior to Bishop del Val Gallo) never accepted the apparitions as supernatural neither did they condemn them. Bishop del Val Gallo did come to appreciate the message of Garabandal, however, since the messages has ceased long before he took office. He sought the assistance from the Holy See and presented the results of his studies which were given to Cardinal Ratzinger. Since the apparitions ended long ago, he did not see a reason to set up another commission. But he did lift the restrictions on priests that had been placed his predecessors. And pilgrims still **flock **to Garabandal.
Click to expand...
So you are rightly differentiating Garabandal from Bayside, for instance. OK. I bolded one word above.

Here are 2 Belgian apparitions approved by bishop, and Vatican.
from Wikipedia:
Beauring:
In 1935, the Bishop of Namur, Thomas-Louis Heylen, appointed an Episcopal Commission to investigate the events. The work continued under his successor, Bishop André-Marie Charue. On 2 February 1943, he published a decree authorizing public devotions to Our Lady of Beauraing.
The final approbation for the Marian apparition was granted in 1949 under the direction of the Holy Office.
After the apparitions, the five children all grew up, married, and lived quiet lives with their families.

Banneaux:
In May 1942, Bishop Kerkhofs of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Liège (Belgium) approved the veneration of Mary under the title of Our Lady of the Poor. Then, in 1947, approval for the apparitions came from the Holy See. It was declared definite in 1949.
After the apparitions, Mariette decided to remain a private person, married and led a quiet family life. A small chapel stands where the Virgin of the Poor is said to have requested it to be built.
Mariette died on December 2, 2011, at the age of 90. In 2008 she made a final statement about her role in the apparitions: “I was no more than a postman who delivers the mail. Once this has been done, the postman is of no importance any more”.
(I love the last 2 sentences).
If I make it to Europe before I die, guess where I would flock to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top