New Marian apparitions approved [NC Register]

[multitude]

I find it really disturbing now, that very simple Marian platitudes are now falling on deaf ears on Catholics, of all people. I expect that from Protestants, not from Catholics. Most people are not ready for Christ’s second coming.

 

[JosieN]

I find it really disturbing now, that very simple Marian platitudes are now falling on deaf ears on Catholics, of all people. I expect that from Protestants, not from Catholics. Most people are not ready for Christ’s second coming.

In the message Gladys says Jesus referred to Mary as “my Ark.” I can understand Mary being called "the ark of the new covenant’, I understand this to mean as Mary being the one who provided protection and refuge for Him as His Mother, (an ark furnishes protection), and Jesus being the New Covenant under her protection.

The key New Testament chapter for the Christian concept of the New Covenant is Hebrews 8, a portion of which is quoted below:

6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

— Hebrews 8:6–13

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

The New Covenant is considered a bond in blood administered by God. The Blood of Christ shed at his crucifixion is the required blood of the covenant.

Mary as the New Ark of the covenant or “the ark” is more complicated to understand and this may be why it is falling on deaf ears.

 

[commenter]

I would endorse the previous recommendation to review Scott Hahn, and Edward Sri. They are very reliable and grounded in Scripture. It may be easier for posters from the US or another Western country to relate to them, since they are coming from our culture, in the present.

Remember many of the saints, including Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Ligouri, expressed views of Mary that would sound very questionable to our ears. To some extent that is a cultural difference (Cardinal Newman referred to that). But I think almost all of us have been impacted by 50 years of extreme deemphasis on Mary, in the West.

Remember this bishop is only approving this as a private revelation. It is a “for what it’s worth”, an individual option for you and me. It adds nothing to public revelation. What this visionary learned from Scripture, preaching and her catechism class is more important for her than anything in the private revelation. The same is true for Lucia at Fatima and Bernadette at Lourdes.

 

[twf]

Here is a quote from the article mentioned

The message does say that “through her, souls will be saved” doesn’t it? Does this sound like something our Holy Mother Mary or our Lord Jesus Christ would say?

Souls are saved through Our Lady. To a lesser extent souls are saved through each and every priest when they baptize or absolve sin. To an even lesser extent souls are saved through us when we bring people to the Church. St Paul speaks of saving souls through his ministry. Our Lord is the sole source of salvation, but we have “put on Christ”, as St Paul writes, and participate in His work of salvation. Our Lady, through whom Christ first came into the world, is actively involved in the salvation of each of us through her maternal intercession.

 

[RPRPsych]

I find it really disturbing now, that very simple Marian platitudes are now falling on deaf ears on Catholics, of all people. I expect that from Protestants, not from Catholics. Most people are not ready for Christ’s second coming.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Except they don’t contradict. And if anything the apparitions are consistent with what the Saints have been saying. You still haven’t debunked anything.

Jesus: No one comes to the Father but by Me.
Jesus in this apparition: My mother is the path to salvation.

 

[Tim_D]

Souls are saved through Our Lady. To a lesser extent souls are saved through each and every priest when they baptize or absolve sin. To an even lesser extent souls are saved through us when we bring people to the Church. St Paul speaks of saving souls through his ministry. Our Lord is the sole source of salvation, but we have “put on Christ”, as St Paul writes, and participate in His work of salvation. Our Lady, through whom Christ first came into the world, is actively involved in the salvation of each of us through her maternal intercession.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Everything you say is true but it has to be explained in a very nuanced way in order to keep from sounding unorthodox.

This, however, "Today my mother is the Ark. It is through her, that souls will be saved, because she will lead them to me. He who rejects my mother, rejects me” requires far more effort to maintain orthodoxy. You can debate the semantics all you want but it is the same with those who desire the declaration of a new Marian dogma, that Mary is co-redemtrix. I understand, in a nuanced way, what it means and how we arrive at that conclusion but it takes far more effort to relay and allows way too much potential to be misunderstood.

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

Remember this bishop is only approving this as a private revelation.

I absolutely agree, of course. (Incidentally, commenter, none of the below is directed at you. I’m just thinking out loud here as prompted by your statement.)

But we need to keep in mind that the ruling of a local ordinary is basically the highest judgment the Church makes, aside from assigning a public feast day or from things like Papal endorsement.

That being the case, I surely hope people will have a little bit of humility in how they respond to approved apparitions. If they deem such apparitions to be irrelevant to their lives, then I believe they need to have some serious and very important reasons to basically find the bishop’s ruling to be false. After all, isn’t that what they are doing?

Also, I’m not sure how good of a phrase “private revelation” is.

Something like Fatima, which clearly involved a message for all the faithful, which saw several Popes attempt to obey certain commands for consecration, which contained prophecies and “secrets” acknowledged by the Holy See to be supernatural in origin, which was attested to by miracles seen by tens of thousands—certainly such an apparition couldn’t be “private” could it? At least not in intended audience!

Now, obviously, the Church uses this phrase, and it distinguishes between public and private revelation: the former is the deposit of faith, the latter is a way to more fully live out the deposit of faith.

But I wonder if people don’t overestimate their own ability and freedom to disregard private revelation for almost any old reason.

This thread is a great example of that. You have a bishop who has investigated all of this for years and years, and someone finds a little sentence that they don’t personally agree with, so they chuck the whole thing out the window.

Isn’t that a little rash?

And then to excuse rashness by saying “Oh, it’s just private revelation!” Hm.

 

[twf]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Everything you say is true but it has to be explained in a very nuanced way in order to keep from sounding unorthodox.

This, however, "Today my mother is the Ark. It is through her, that souls will be saved, because she will lead them to me. He who rejects my mother, rejects me” requires far more effort to maintain orthodoxy. You can debate the semantics all you want but it is the same with those who desire the declaration of a new Marian dogma, that Mary is co-redemtrix. I understand, in a nuanced way, what it means and how we arrive at that conclusion but it takes far more effort to relay and allows way too much potential to be misunderstood.

I understand where you’re coming from, but note that Our Lord does say, in this quote, that Mary saves only because she leads souls to HIM.

 

[zab]

Jesus: No one comes to the Father but by Me.
Jesus in this apparition: My mother is the path to salvation.

Jesus chose to come into this world through Mary. Likewise we go to Jesus through Mary. From the cross, he said, “Behold thy mother.”

 

[RPRPsych]

Jesus chose to come into this world through Mary. Likewise we go to Jesus through Mary. From the cross, he said, “Behold thy mother.”

I have a feeling that if many of the posters on this thread read a (perfectly orthodox) book such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Mother of the Saviour”, they would be scandalized.

 

[Tim_D]

I have a feeling that if many of the posters on this thread read a (perfectly orthodox) book such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Mother of the Saviour”, they would be scandalized.

Yeah, I guess we’re all just a bunch of dumb yokels who aren’t as smart as you, huh?

 

[commenter]

I surely hope people will have a little bit of humility in how they respond to approved apparitions. If they deem such apparitions to be irrelevant to their lives, then I believe they need to have some serious and very important reasons to basically find the bishop’s ruling to be false. After all, isn’t that what they are doing?

No, not every remedy applies to me, though it might help someone else. The FDA approves lots of drugs I don’t have a need for, though I might in the future. Or, maybe I need to study the Catechism better before I am ready to apply the lesson in this private revelation.

Something like Fatima, which clearly involved a message for all the faithful, which saw several Popes attempt to obey certain commands for consecration, which contained prophecies and “secrets” acknowledged by the Holy See to be supernatural in origin, which was attested to by miracles seen by tens of thousands—certainly such an apparition couldn’t be “private” could it? At least not in intended audience!

Most if not all private revelations, approved and unapproved, seem to be applicable to “all the faithful”. You won’t find any that say “people should discern what, if any, of this message applies to them”. People forget that the Magisterium is the expert on all revelations, not Lucia, not the woman in Argentina, not their tabloid traditional website, etc. Re: Fatima, some people have put themselves above the Magisterium, who use this or other private revelations to bash the Magisterium. This is spiritual pride, the opposite of the humility of Mary.

Now, obviously, the Church uses this phrase, and it distinguishes between public and private revelation: the former is the deposit of faith, the latter is a way to more fully live out the deposit of faith. But I wonder if people don’t overestimate their own ability and freedom to disregard private revelation for almost any old reason.

There’s a reason why God put some things in Public Revelation, and others are Private Revelations. In 2016 disregard of the Magisterium, ignorance of the Catechism, is 10 times as big a problem for most Catholics as neglect of Private Revelation.
But I do respect, and defend approved private revelations against those who would ignore them. They continue to have a role in 2016. If your religious reading and listening is 90% from the pope and bishop, Catechism and Scripture, you are ready to benefit from private revelation. And solid private revelations will always turn your actions towards the Mass, towards spiritual and corporal works of mercy.

 

[multitude]

I have a feeling that if many of the posters on this thread read a (perfectly orthodox) book such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Mother of the Saviour”, they would be scandalized.

The charge of unorthodoxy isn’t right. St. Louis de Montfort’s works and ideas have influenced the popes of the last several centuries, including the man who was extremely known for his orthodoxy, Pope St. Pius X. But when these ideas are posted here, and in a much tamer tone, it’s somehow unorthodox? Ah I see.

Consider the alternative position. If people are actually going to reject this, then there is the possibility of not needing to pay respect to Our Lady at all, to be able to get to Christ. Huh… If you sincerely love the Blessed Virgin Mary, then it’s absurd to even want that possibility. It makes you highly suspect.

 

[RPRPsych]

Yeah, I guess we’re all just a bunch of dumb yokels who aren’t as smart as you, huh?

That sound you heard was the point flying over your head.

Today, many Catholics subscribe to what I would call (for want of a better term) a “low Mariology”. In other words, “yeah, I’ll accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption because the Church tells me to, but you can’t make me pray the Rosary. And what’s all this stuff about Mary being ‘ever-virgin’ or not having labour pains? If labour pains were good enough for my wife, they’re good enough for Mary! As for apparitions, they’re just for superstitious peasants…”

The point I was trying to make is that if you read older books like Lagrange’s, you’ll find a much more exalted (I would call it “high Mariology”) view of Mary. There’s nothing in these apparitions that you won’t find in Lagrange or Montfort.

 

[RPRPsych]

The charge of unorthodoxy isn’t right. St. Louis de Montfort’s works and ideas have influenced the popes of the last several centuries, including the man who was extremely known for his orthodoxy, Pope St. Pius X. But when these ideas are posted here, and in a much tamer tone, it’s somehow unorthodox? Ah I see.

Consider the alternative position. If people are actually going to reject this, then there is the possibility of not needing to pay respect to Our Lady at all, to be able to get to Christ. Huh… If you sincerely love the Blessed Virgin Mary, then it’s absurd to even want that possibility. It makes you highly suspect.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I feel that the messages in this apparition are perfectly orthodox, and consistent with the works of St. Grignon de Montfort and Fr Garrigou-Lagrange (who quotes Montfort extensively in his book)! My grouse was with those who feel a need to question it and “put Mary in her place”, so as to speak. We’re on the same side.

(By the way, what’s that lovely picture in your signature? Our Lady of Akita? That’s something I need to read up on… )

 

[mlz]

Regarding Mary as the " ark"- THIS is well understood by the Catholic Church and I would like to encourage the reading of the book Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples- especially Chapter 4. I would love to quote it all but it is too long He does an excellent job of using Old Testament . New Testament, Church Father And the Catechism to show our Blessed Mother with this title!!! Also do Dr Scott Hahn and Dr Edward Sri. This needs to be first understood in order to understand this current Apparition . I site from Tim Staples book ,“Although brief overview please at least read both Elizabeth’s exclamation of Mary in Luke 1:43 and then read Second Samuel 6 ( in this text we discover the Ark of the Covenant being brought into the newly conquered city of Jerusalem in triumphant procession. Such interesting parallels” ( ex. 2 Samuel 6:9, 6:16, 6:11 etc…)

I will also add a quote from St Athanasius (360)
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word. To whom all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O ark of the New Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides…If I say the angels and archangels are great- but you are greater than them all, for the Angels and archangels serve with trembling the One who dwells in your womb, and they dare not speak in His presence, while you speak to him freely”

Our dear Blessed Mother cares for us and speaks out to warn, guide and lead us to Jesus in difficult days often appearing to the very humble. It is a blessing that She does this. Her heart is together with her Son, our Lord’s I am grateful for this approved Apparition! Praise God!

mlz

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Jesus chose to come into this world through Mary. Likewise we go to Jesus through Mary. From the cross, he said, “Behold thy mother.”

Not everyone expierienced Jesus through Mary. The apostle Andrew went to Jesus theough John the Baptist. Peter went through Andrew.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The charge of unorthodoxy isn’t right. St. Louis de Montfort’s works and ideas have influenced the popes of the last several centuries, including the man who was extremely known for his orthodoxy, Pope St. Pius X. But when these ideas are posted here, and in a much tamer tone, it’s somehow unorthodox? Ah I see.

Consider the alternative position. If people are actually going to reject this, then there is the possibility of not needing to pay respect to Our Lady at all, to be able to get to Christ. Huh… If you sincerely love the Blessed Virgin Mary, then it’s absurd to even want that possibility. It makes you highly suspect.

The true way of paying respect to our Lady is by following her command to do whatever Jesus tells us to do. As in follow His commands and believe in Him. The main message of the Fatima apparition was this: Do not offend God anymore, because He is already very much offended. Although some apparitions are true, we ultimately need to test the spirits. From what I have learned, this apparition is unsettling for me.

 

[multitude]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I feel that the messages in this apparition are perfectly orthodox, and consistent with the works of St. Grignon de Montfort and Fr Garrigou-Lagrange (who quotes Montfort extensively in his book)! My grouse was with those who feel a need to question it and “put Mary in her place”, so as to speak. We’re on the same side.

(By the way, what’s that lovely picture in your signature? Our Lady of Akita? That’s something I need to read up on… )

Yes, it’s Our Lady of Akita