Has anybody watched this documentary? About Marian apparitions?

[JDGaney]

Came across a video of Fudamentalists discussing that the Mary we see in apparitions are demons.

watch?v=g6Nm6bXk9NQ

I mean they don’t cover Bernadette Soubirous testing Mary at Lourdes or the angel at Fatima prostrating himself and asking the Holy Trinity to forgive non believers…

 

[JDGaney]

Came across a video of Fudamentalists discussing that the Mary we see in apparitions are demons.

watch?v=g6Nm6bXk9NQ

I mean they don’t cover Bernadette Soubirous testing Mary at Lourdes or the angel at Fatima prostrating himself and asking the Holy Trinity to forgive non believers…

 

[april32010]

why two posts on same thing?

 

[robwar]

anything produced by fundamentalist is not going to be pro-Catholic. They do not believe a number of things about Mary that the Catholic church teaches such as the immaculate conception, ever virgin, assumption into heaven and even any or all apparitions. of course apparations are not required to believe in by the Church even if they are approved. so with that in mind, any so called documentary about Mary or apparitions will not be very flattering or pro-Catholic so you should stay away from them and not be confused.

 

[R_C]

No doubt, any public apparition not accepted by Holy Church must be treated as demonic in origin.

Private revelations, in whatever form, are to be treated in the same way and always subject to the opinion of a spiritual director.

That being said: I have not watched the documentary, but I am very concerned with the fact that we are often easily deceived by fallen angels because we tend to follow our heart to the expense of prudence.

When the Antichrist comes, many people will believe that he is Christ who has returned, and he will make great and extraordinary sings that will be very good - in appearance. His works would be so cleverly disguised that will possibly deceive even the saints of that time. We should be very careful, and pray first of all for ourselves, that we may not be so prone to deception, then for others, that they may receive the gift of faith. But for us first - because if the salt loses its saltiness, how could it be made salty again?

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Most protestants (most not all) believe Mary to be the whore of babylon. Christ’s mother! The great whore? It is not “we” that should be worried come judgement day. They think they are doing God’s work but all they are doing is condemning themselves. Pray that they find the True faith before they walk arrogantly into the fires of hell.

 

[Lancer]

Came across a video of Fudamentalists discussing that the Mary we see in apparitions are demons.

watch?v=g6Nm6bXk9NQ

I mean they don’t cover Bernadette Soubirous testing Mary at Lourdes or the angel at Fatima prostrating himself and asking the Holy Trinity to forgive non believers…

**They should tread very carefully in how they try to disprove/denigrate Marian apparitions…not believing is one thing…blasphemy quite another issue…
Pax Christi
**.

A Diabolical Possession

by Saint Louis de Montfort

   When **Saint Dominic** was preaching the Rosary near Carcassone, an **Albigensian **was brought to him who was **possessed by the devil.** Saint **Dominic exorcised him** in the presence of a great crowd of people; it appears that over twelve thousand had come to hear him preach. The **devils** who were in possession of this wretched man were **forced to answer Saint Dominic’s questions** in spite of themselves. **They said** that:

There were fifteen thousand of them in the body of this poor man, because he had attacked the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary;

fatima.org/apostolate/newsletters/apos/2003/september/ar_sep03pg1.asp…

This incident comes from the book: The Secret of the Rosary…by Saint Louis de Montfort…pgs 117-121 (This book is quite remarkable…if you pray the Rosary…even infrequently…you should have it…and use it increase your knowledge and strengthen your Rosary devotion to Blessed Mary). Catholic Book Publishing Corp publishes an excellent copy of the book.

 

[R_C]

This incident comes from the book: The Secret of the Rosary…by Saint Louis de Montfort…pgs 117-121 (This book is quite remarkable…if you pray the Rosary…even infrequently…you should have it…and use it increase your knowledge and strengthen your Rosary devotion to Blessed Mary). Catholic Book Publishing Corp publishes an excellent copy of the book.

Thanks for this, a lot. The incident was actually part of his book “True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary”. But since “The Secret of the Rosary” is approx. 46 pages long, and “True Devotion” approx. 56, one can easily assume that the volume you have includes both works by the saint, collected

 

[theropod]

Most protestants (most not all) believe Mary to be the whore of babylon. Christ’s mother! The great whore? It is not “we” that should be worried come judgement day. They think they are doing God’s work but all they are doing is condemning themselves. Pray that they find the True faith before they walk arrogantly into the fires of hell.

I’m sorry, but WHAT? I have never once met a Protestant that believes Mary is the whore of Babylon. I mean, "most’? Come on, that’s ignorance at best, and well, something else at worst.

Now, here is something that a number of fundamentalists believe that I think you may be confused with: that the RCC is the geat whore. That’s certainly not “most” Protestants however, and I’m not even sure about “most” fundamentalists.

 

[mdgspencer]

Naturally, Protestant fundamentalists will disbelieve in Marian apparitions, simply like all of us holding firm to their faith. A disbelief on the intercession of the saints and of Mary is ingrained to Protestantism. While it is quite understandable that they will hold on to their beliefs, Catholicism has quite a different take on the apparitions which are approved by the Church and have reverence for Jesus’ own mother. Many of us have claims on our time, and I wonder if we should we really spend it by going on to watch such a video, which will attack Catholic beliefs?

 

[Church_Militant]

Most protestants (most not all) believe Mary to be the whore of babylon. Christ’s mother! The great whore? It is not “we” that should be worried come judgement day. They think they are doing God’s work but all they are doing is condemning themselves. Pray that they find the True faith before they walk arrogantly into the fires of hell.

I’m sorry, but WHAT? I have never once met a Protestant that believes Mary is the whore of Babylon. I mean, "most’? Come on, that’s ignorance at best, and well, something else at worst.

Now, here is something that a number of fundamentalists believe that I think you may be confused with: that the RCC is the geat whore. That’s certainly not “most” Protestants however, and I’m not even sure about “most” fundamentalists.

Right. Both are wrong of course, but I’ve never encountered a single n-C who held that Mary was the the fulfillment of Revelation 17.

As for the video in question. Don’t waste your time since the allegation has no basis in fact. Arguing with the irrational gets you nowhere.

 

[neophyte]

No doubt, any public apparition not accepted by Holy Church must be treated as demonic in origin…

References, please? What official Church document supports that claim?

 

[R_C]

References, please? What official Church document supports that claim?

Sorry, I stated that as if it were common sense, you are right. Give me some time to locate the supporting documents.

However, the strongest source for this idea is the “Ascent to Mt. Carmel” by the Doctor Mysticus St. John of the Cross, along with the “Interior Castle” of another Doctor, St. Teresa of Avila. But I have not read the entirety of these works, so I cannot quote specific sections off the top of my head.

I can, however, quote one section from the “Manual for interior souls” of Fr. Jean Nicolas Grou, S.I. (my translation from the Italian…):

St. Paul tells us that Satan can transform in an agel of light; often he mixes with the divine works, acting on the imagination while God acts on the comprehension and the will. Therefore we are easily deceived in those things which we call interior locutions, attractions, and inspirations, and we must always subject them to the judgment of our confessor, awaiting his decision before doing anything. To act of our own will and judgment in any of these things is to fall directly into the hands of the enemy.

More later (unless this suffices).

 

[thistle]

Most protestants (most not all) believe Mary to be the whore of babylon. Christ’s mother! The great whore? It is not “we” that should be worried come judgement day. They think they are doing God’s work but all they are doing is condemning themselves. Pray that they find the True faith before they walk arrogantly into the fires of hell.

Where do you get that nonsense from?
I was a Methodist before converting and I can assure you we absolutely did not think of Mary in that way or any negative way.

 

[neophyte]

Sorry, I stated that as if it were common sense, you are right. Give me some time to locate the supporting documents.

However, the strongest source for this idea is the “Ascent to Mt. Carmel” by the Doctor Mysticus St. John of the Cross, along with the “Interior Castle” of another Doctor, St. Teresa of Avila. But I have not read the entirety of these works, so I cannot quote specific sections off the top of my head.

I can, however, quote one section from the “Manual for interior souls” of Fr. Jean Nicolas Grou, S.I. (my translation from the Italian…):

More later (unless this suffices).

None of which implies that an apparition not approved by the Church must be treated as if demonic in origin. If that were the case, then no apparitions would ever be approved.

Certainly we must proceed with extreme caution under competent spiritual direction, and not presume validity.

 

[Sirach2]

R_C:

Give me some time to locate the supporting documents.

However, the strongest source for this idea is the “Ascent to Mt. Carmel” by the Doctor Mysticus St. John of the Cross, along with the “Interior Castle” of another Doctor, St. Teresa of Avila. But I have not read the entirety of these works, so I cannot quote specific sections off the top of my head.

No doubt, any public apparition not accepted by Holy Church must be treated as demonic in origin.

You haven’t read them? Then why quote them?

As a Carmelite familiar with both of those works “in their entirety,” I can state positively that neither Saint has stated unapproved apparitions ARE demonic. Saint John teaches us not to rely on extraordinary apprehensions, for they are a hindrance to union with God. He wrote that when God bestows them, they have their immediate effect on the soul, and we need not concern ourselves with their origin, but simply disregard them. Some MAY be demonic, but that is not our concern to sort it out and belabor the understanding.

Many mystics have submitted their apparitions to the Church, but the lack of formal approval does not guarantee they are demonic. Some apparitions just may not be fully investigated or do not have enough evidence to give approval. The false apparitions that are formally denounced are no doubt questionable, possibly demonic, but the Church has simply said that there is no evidence to validate a supernatural origin from God.

 

[R_C]

Sorry, I will have to stop quoting the Scriptures and the Catechism if I were to reason that way.

Please note that what I had originally written was:

any public apparition not accepted by Holy Church must be treated as demonic in origin.

Private revelations, in whatever form, are to be treated in the same way and always subject to the opinion of a spiritual director.

When I wrote “public revelations not accepted” I meant something like “Our Lady of Emmitsburg”. Perhaps it’s not demonic in origin, but simply a human invention. But we should not attribute it to God if the Church has not accepted it as such, or am I missing something in the picture here? Besides, even my usage of “public” is debatable - these would still be “private” to some extent.

When I wrote of private revelations, I meant the same thing: those not accepted (ex. the writings of Maria Valtorta). The others, on which the Church has not expressed itself, should be subject to the opinion of a spiritual director. Again, am I missing something here?

I do admit that I should have said “supernatural” rather than “demonic”, because, as you point out, “Some MAY be demonic, but that is not our concern”.

 

[Sirach2]

Sorry, I will have to stop quoting the Scriptures and the Catechism if I were to reason that way.

Perhaps, but you were not quoting the Scriptures or the Catechism. You alleged certain untrue statements from two Doctors of the Church. Isn’t that a bit remiss for those reading your post?

R_C:

Please note that what I had originally written was:
Any public apparition not accepted by Holy Church must be treated as demonic in origin.

Private revelations, in whatever form, are to be treated in the same way and always subject to the opinion of a spiritual director.

Um, treated as demonic? Yes I know what you wrote, and I offered a correction to it, for that is not what the Church teaches.

When I wrote “public revelations not accepted” I meant something like “Our Lady of Emmitsburg”. Perhaps it’s not demonic in origin, but simply a human invention. But we should not attribute it to God if the Church has not accepted it as such, or am I missing something in the picture here? Besides, even my usage of “public” is debatable - these would still be “private” to some extent.

You’re not missing anything. Those public or private revelations that are not accepted may be human, demonic, or from God. We follow the Church’s guidance on them. Even true apparitions are not binding on the faithful for their acceptance, since they are not part of the Deposit of Faith. That has been consistent Church teaching for many years.

When I wrote of private revelations, I meant the same thing: those not accepted (ex. the writings of Maria Valtorta). The others, on which the Church has not expressed itself, should be subject to the opinion of a spiritual director. Again, am I missing something here?

I don’t believe the Church has said Maria Valtorta’s revelations are demonic, but that they are not in accord with our faith.

I do admit that I should have said “supernatural” rather than “demonic”, because, as you point out, “Some MAY be demonic, but that is not our concern”.

 

[R_C]

Untrue is a heavy word…perhaps slightly erroneous, and yet - for the sake of the argument - since we don’t really know whether a deception is demonic in origin or not, what’s the difference if we presume it’s a deception of the adversary or a deception of our mind? It’s still deception, to be ignored and reported to a spiritual director. And I don’t know whether or not that is what the Church teaches - I had the impression that She did, though.

All I am trying to say is that I don’t think I was leading myself or others into a big error…but yes, indeed, thanks for your clarifications. I will be more careful in the future

 

[Sirach2]

Untrue is a heavy word…perhaps slightly erroneous, and yet - for the sake of the argument - since we don’t really know whether a deception is demonic in origin or not, what’s the difference if we presume it’s a deception of the adversary or a deception of our mind? It’s still deception, to be ignored and reported to a spiritual director. And I don’t know whether or not that is what the Church teaches - I had the impression that She did, though.

Would you have preferred I used a heavier word … like false, or a lie? Untrue is much kinder, don’t you think? In quoting the two Doctors in that light, you were more than just “slightly erroneous.” Why are you sugar coating this?

You say it’s “still deception” but St. John says that when these apprehensions are bestowed EVEN BY GOD, and are NOT deceptive, they need to be discussed with a spiritual director, of course … but we are not to dwell on them in order to try and discern their origin or God’s purpose in sending them.

OTOH, there are certain communications that God sends that are NOT to be set aside, but recalled. For in recalling them, love is rekindled, and that is the very purpose for which God sent them. We have within our memories a mine of blessings.

Please, try to read St. John’s Ascent. It will be very helpful in understanding what I have tried to convey here.