Marian Apparitions

[AJB328]

So I know of the major ones, (Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc) but I here people talk about or refer to many, many other ones. So my question is this, how should I (or any Catholic) treat an apparition that has been approved by a local Bishop, but there is no ruling one way or the other from the Vatican?

Second part of the question would be if we’re allowed to talk about them here on the forum if they’re approved by a Bishop?

 

[ClearWater]

So I know of the major ones, (Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc) but I here people talk about or refer to many, many other ones. So my question is this, how should I (or any Catholic) treat an apparition that has been approved by a local Bishop, but there is no ruling one way or the other from the Vatican?

Second part of the question would be if we’re allowed to talk about them here on the forum if they’re approved by a Bishop?

It’ my understanding that we are not to talk about private revelation unless it is from a saint or accepted apparition.

 

[Memaw]

So I know of the major ones, (Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc) but I here people talk about or refer to many, many other ones. So my question is this, how should I (or any Catholic) treat an apparition that has been approved by a local Bishop, but there is no ruling one way or the other from the Vatican?

Second part of the question would be if we’re allowed to talk about them here on the forum if they’re approved by a Bishop?

With caution until they are found “Worthy of Belief” by the Church. There are soooo many lately it seems, that are absolutly unbelievable.
As for your second question, I think you should ask an administrator about that. God Bless. Memaw

 

[JamesTheJust]

It’s against forum rules to discuss private revelations which have not yet been deemed “worthy of belief” by the Church.

With apparitions which have not yet been fully approved, I would tread lightly, even be skeptical.

 

[AJB328]

Thanks for the replies so far, but my first question was whether approval by the local Bishop constituted “Church approval” even if the Vatican is silent on the issue.

Most of the searches I’ve done seem to indicate that the local Bishop’s approval is enough, but I haven’t seen anything explicitly from the church saying so.

 

[adrift]

Apparitions/Private Revelations

You might want to read the whole article

Certainly, however, the faithful benefit the most from the judgment of the bishop of the diocese in which the apparition occurs. He has the authority to assemble a commission of scientific and theological experts, to judge the case, as well as the grace of vocation to carry out this pastoral service. While his decision is not infallible, it has the presumption of being correct and should receive the respectfully adherence of the faithful (Canon 753). Thus, such decisions should generally be decisive in the prudential judgment of the faithful. It would require very weighty and sound theological reasons (not feelings or mere agreement with the content of the alleged apparition) to find defect in such a decision. Such intellectual
With respect to any disciplinary precepts the bishop makes concerning the apparition and its site, they should be followed faithfully (e.g. what sacraments, if any, may be celebrated there). No Catholic should ever violate the practical norms laid down by the local bishop with respect to an alleged apparition, even if intellectually they disagree with his conclusion regarding the alleged apparition. Such disobedience would be sinful, and if it characterized the attitude of the followers of the alleged apparition it would be a sign of its inauthenticity, i.e. by producing bad fruit.
The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).

 

[Chatter163]

shrineofourladyofgoodhelp.com/

 

[thistle]

So I know of the major ones, (Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc) but I here people talk about or refer to many, many other ones. So my question is this, how should I (or any Catholic) treat an apparition that has been approved by a local Bishop, but there is no ruling one way or the other from the Vatican?

Second part of the question would be if we’re allowed to talk about them here on the forum if they’re approved by a Bishop?

Obey the Bishop. He is the competent Church authority. Even if he approves something it does not require to go to Rome for a further approval.

 

[Memaw]

Obey the Bishop. He is the competent Church authority. Even if he approves something it does not require to go to Rome for a further approval.

It does if it is serious enough to require Rome’s attention. As the big ones usually do. God Bless, and Mary Christmas, Memaw

 

[thistle]

It does if it is serious enough to require Rome’s attention. As the big ones usually do. God Bless, and Mary Christmas, Memaw

That is not the case. Almost none go to Rome. The only one that I know has gone to Rome is Medjugorie and the CDF have to investigate and decide if the Bishop’s negative decision stands (which it surely will).

Which big ones have been required to go to Rome?

 

[AJB328]

Well speaking of big ones, someone was telling me about Our Lady of the Rosary in San Nicolas Argentina. Apparitions happened 1983-1990, it’s Bishop Approved and considered to be a “direct” continuation of Fatima with over 1,000 apparitions and 78 of them from Jesus, yet it doesn’t look like it’s gone to Rome and the only information I can find on it is that its been approved by the Bishop.

The little information I can find makes me think it’s not legitimate, but the fact that it’s approved by the local Bishop made me think otherwise.

Anyone else ever here of this one?

-AJ

 

[adrift]

Well speaking of big ones, someone was telling me about Our Lady of the Rosary in San Nicolas Argentina. Apparitions happened 1983-1990, it’s Bishop Approved and considered to be a “direct” continuation of Fatima with over 1,000 apparitions and 78 of them from Jesus, yet it doesn’t look like it’s gone to Rome and the only information I can find on it is that its been approved by the Bishop.

The little information I can find makes me think it’s not legitimate, but the fact that it’s approved by the local Bishop made me think otherwise.

Anyone else ever here of this one?

-AJ

I am skeptical. Would you be able to provide where the Bishop has made a pronouncement of it being worthy of belief. What I can find is a rather ambiguous statement of

undoubtedly this event of grace will continue to grow

Which is not a formal approval. They also point out an imprimatur which also does not equate to an approval.

 

[Eagle1937]

I am not sure if people seen this. Or if this was posted in the past.

I do believe in Bernadette Soubirous. And she is my favorite.

And it is my conclusion the best and most strongest evidence yet. Nothing before or since.

In my book, “Saint Bernadette Soubirous, 1844-1879” by Abbe Francois Trochu, It has both the “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

From the book,

The canonization of St. Bernadette in St. Peter’s Basicalla on December 8th, 1933. Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius XI made the formal decree:

To the honor of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and for the spread of the Christian religion, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and by our own, after mature deliberation and having often implore the Divine assistance, on the advice of Our venerable brethren the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops, We define and declare the Blessed Marie-Bernarde Soubirous a Saint, and We enroll her in the Catalog of Saints, ordaining that her memory shall be piously celebrated in the Universal Church on April 16th of each year, the day of her birth in Heaven. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

And regarding the “Beautiful Lady”,

“A ‘golden cloud’ preceded her, she said, then the halo; the later remained for instant after she had disappeared. She her self was as penetrated with a ‘soft light’ which neither hurt nor dazzled the eyes.”

I read that and say, “That’s where I want to be!”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11506797&postcount=15