N
notredame_999
Guest
I was just curious what the Eastern-Rite view was of the alleged apparitions of of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1917? Is it a common devotion?
youtube.com/watch?v=LJWaibsC2cIAs a general rule the Orthodox don’t believe in the apparitions.
ChadS
I’m not convinced I was seeing an apparition there. It looked to be the same size as every other statue I’ve seen of Mary.
As a general Orthodox don’t believe much of anything particular to the West. But eastern apparitions are another matter; the Pokrov is of essentially universal belief in Orthodoxy.As a general rule the Orthodox don’t believe in the apparitions.
ChadS
The article is, obviously, informed by an Orthodox bias, but I did take note of the critique of the content of the messages: 1) Our Lady may be too center-stage and not letting Christ through 2) God is wrathful and Our Lady is, somehow, holding his justice back. I disagree with 1) but 2) did surprise me when I researched Fatima and Akita.Try this article for an analysis of Marian appartitions from one Orthodox view point.
The Marian Apparitions: Divine Intervention or Delusion?
As a general rule the Orthodox don’t believe in the apparitions. Their spirituality tends more towards the veneration of miraculous icons. In this article the author also points out things she sees as possible theological problems in the messages given to the visionaries by Mary and she argues that they do not square up with Orthodox teachings or theology.
I would suggest giving the article some time and reading it.
ChadS
Yeah, I know all about Fatima and let me just say… no. I Don’t believe it, not even the slightest little bit. We aren’t terribly interested in what apparitions your Church approves anyway. I think you are in completely over your head as you suggested.If I may make a comment… I do not like how some people seem to be cavalier about this appearance of the Blessed Mother. We have so much evidence to its veracity, and I think it demands serious and sincere consideration. It’s been approved by the Church, and the Church, as I am constantly rediscovering, is very skeptical and prudent on these matters, so I think we should trust the Church regardless of the quantity and quality of evidence. It just so happens that, in this case, the evidence is vast. I may be completely in over my head since I don’t know really know much about the Orthodox Church, but I think an Orthodox Christian should think about this and come to earnest conclusion about it, whether that means conversion or some other decision.
I am definitely not in over my head on Fatima, which is the topic of this thread. Why not believe it? The evidence is decisively clear - I mean, it is remarkable when you have not one, but many professional journalists on the scene, many of them ardent atheists and anti-clerical bigots, attesting to the same miracle everyone else saw. This cannot be explained away, and it’s for a similar reason why I am inclined to accept to Zeitoun. I just don’t know what basis you could possible have for not accepting Fatima.Yeah, I know all about Fatima and let me just say… no. I Don’t believe it, not even the slightest little bit. We aren’t terribly interested in what apparitions your Church approves anyway. I think you are in completely over your head as you suggested.
Then I guess you’ll just have to be incredulous. You read the article from a few posts above, so then why can’t you imagine any reasons? You’ve already read them.I am definitely not in over my head on Fatima, which is the topic of this thread. Why not believe it? The evidence is decisively clear - I mean, it is remarkable when you have not one, but many professional journalists on the scene, many of them ardent atheists and anti-clerical bigots, attesting to the same miracle everyone else saw. This cannot be explained away, and it’s for a similar reason why I am inclined to accept to Zeitoun. I just don’t know what basis you could possible have for not accepting Fatima.
Yes, but even the article admits that the evidence supports the supernatural reality of the events at Fatima, but it stops short of recognizing them as true personal revelations from God only because of an Orthodox bias. Some of the content of the messages from the Virgin, including the Hearts, are definitely at odds with Orthodox beliefs, but that was my point in my original post in this thread. Anyway, goodnight to you, I am off to bed!Then I guess you’ll just have to be incredulous. You read the article from a few posts above, so then why can’t you imagine any reasons? You’ve already read them.![]()
Still is.Before the fall of Communism, Our Lady of Fatima was quite popular among Eastern Catholics from Eastern Europe.
Chad. First off I always like to emphasize no Catholic is bound to believe in the approved Marian apparitions. But the Orthodox article to which you refer makes some fundamental errors. For instance, the Orthodox article must be dated. It keeps on going about The Third Secret of Fatima NOT being revealed, when it has already been revealed 10 years ago by the Pope at Fatima. It then conflates details of approved Marian apparitions with unapproved apparitions, as if Rome didn’t make a distinction.Try this article for an analysis of Marian appartitions from one Orthodox view point.
The Marian Apparitions: Divine Intervention or Delusion?
I would suggest giving the article some time and reading it.
ChadS
So if we disapprove of Fatima it’s called a “bias”? Maybe you’re just biased against Orthodox discernment?Yes, but even the article admits that the evidence supports the supernatural reality of the events at Fatima, but it stops short of recognizing them as true personal revelations from God only because of an Orthodox bias. Some of the content of the messages from the Virgin, including the Hearts, are definitely at odds with Orthodox beliefs, but that was my point in my original post in this thread. Anyway, goodnight to you, I am off to bed!
I agree with you especially in regards to #2. Some of the quotes did seem to be at odds with the idea of God as being loving and merciful and others indicated that if it wasn’t for Mary, God would’ve destroyed the earth a long time ago.The article is, obviously, informed by an Orthodox bias, but I did take note of the critique of the content of the messages: 1) Our Lady may be too center-stage and not letting Christ through 2) God is wrathful and Our Lady is, somehow, holding his justice back. I disagree with 1) but 2) did surprise me when I researched Fatima and Akita.
What do you think, Chad?
I’m not sure of the date of its original publication but I noticed in the brief bibliography at the end of the article the latest book cited was from 1994. I noticed several of the errors you pointed out too and the writer did go out of her way to paint things as rosy as possible for the Orthodox side of things as opposed to the Catholic side. Also, she just takes for granted and assumes that things not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition are wrong. The best example is the comments she made concerning Mary as the Immaculate Conception. She basically concluded that she knew the apparition couldn’t be real because Mary referred to herself as the IC, when no good Orthodox would use that language. I’m sure as Catholics we might be inclined to do a similar thing, but also many of us realize that even if the Orthodox don’t call Mary the Immaculate Conception, that they at least have a concept of her very similar to that of the West.Chad. First off I always like to emphasize no Catholic is bound to believe in the approved Marian apparitions. But the Orthodox article to which you refer makes some fundamental errors. For instance, the Orthodox article must be dated. It keeps on going about The Third Secret of Fatima NOT being revealed, when it has already been revealed 10 years ago by the Pope at Fatima. It then conflates details of approved Marian apparitions with unapproved apparitions, as if Rome didn’t make a distinction.
…
In any event, the Orthodox article’s prognostication that in Ukraine, the biggest religious tension is between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is Way off the mark. The biggest religious tension in Ukraine is intra-Orthodox, those Orthodox loyal to a Patriarch in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, and those loyal to the Russian Patriarch in Moscow. The article was wrong on that.
In any event, these are just some points, but my position, and I have read much, is that the Vatican’s teaching that belief in these private revelations is not required is correct.
![]()