The Apparition No One Wants To Talk about: Our Lady of Akita

[Caveman]

Hi Caveman, thanks for the info, but I’m having a little difficulty navigating, could you provide some links for easier locating?

Nope. To be frank, I’m not going to spend time finding a website to “prove” the obvious truth.

If The Doubting Thomas’ so desire to place their fingers in the holes, and their hands in the side… let them find it for themselves.

 

[Insight]

When did the teaching change, to saying all Catholics had an obligation to employ what is said in in private revelations?

Hi Gottle of Geer, A few posts up, I mentioned that “Worthy of belief” is the most the Church can apply to any apparition. I spoke to a Priest Theologian on this topic, who said that no one is obligated under pain of sin in accepting or placing one’s belief in a Private Revelation that the Church deemed “worthy of belief”, but in some cases it may imprudent to do so.

The Church is exceedingly meticulous in authenticating Apparitions and Private Revelations. I personally feel that some authentic apparitions and private revelations have been fated in such a rigorous approach. Subsequently there is the benefit of an increased confidence in the approved ones. Consider that the Holy Office assigned a special Bishop to Fatima, who conducted a 13 year investigation before the Church deemed the apparitions and associated Miracle “worthy of belief". Akita was under an 8 year investigation. Hence, I can personally understand how some may be compelled to have the zeal of the Baptist regarding such validations. Unfortunately, this zeal can have the effect of almost appearing indecorous.

The supposed apparition doesn’t scare me at all.

Hi ThomasF, I don’t consider the Third Message given to Sister Agnes a scare tactic, but a forewarning. The following Vatican Document pertains to Fatima, but there is a useful section (about three quarters in), regarding apparitions in general.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

These predictions, such as the Great Chastisement are not necessarily etched in stone. “The purpose of the vision is not to show a film of an irrevocably fixed future. Its meaning is exactly the opposite: it is meant to mobilize the forces of change in the right direction.” The Great Chastisement can be postponed or avoided entirely through response and prayer. It may be possible that the outpouring of people and prayers has postponed these catastrophic events.

For example, in the apparitions to Sister Agnes Sasagawa, the message that concerns the Great Chastisement, starts off with the word “If” - ”If men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity."

If The Doubting Thomas’ so desire to place their fingers in the holes, and their hands in the side… let them find it for themselves.

Hi Caveman, I thought that if you perhaps had the page indexed, it could be useful for referencing.

God Bless

 

[Shoshana]

The second message of Our Lady came on August 3, 1973, a First Friday, when the heavenly voice from the statue warned:
". . . Many men in this world afflict the Lord . . .

This is always a point of regret on my part as I have done my share of inflicting pain on our Lord.

In order that the world might know His anger, the Heavenly Father is preparing to inflict a great chastisement on all mankind . . .

I have read this in many private revelations…La Salette, St Faustina…and this was also warned with the Israelites in their time. Men still have a choice to make and the Lord has mercy as He did with the Israelites. I only need to turn to Him for His great mercy and try to mend my ways.

I have prevented the coming of calamities by offering Him the sufferings of the Son on the Cross, His Precious Blood and beloved souls who console Him forming a cohort of victim souls.

This is the prayer i use so many times…the Divine Mercy novena and praying for all the world…sinners, souls in purgatory, ptiest, etc

Prayer, penance and courageous sacrifices can soften the Father’s anger . . . know that you must be fastened to the Cross with three nails. These three nails are poverty, chastity and obedience. Of the three, obedience is the foundation . . .

Although I am a married woman, there are many sacrifices I can offer, penanaces, and especially obedience to my spiritual director, to the church in general.

 

[EZRyder]

The last two threads that have dealt with this subject matter have very nearly become a battleground and have been either been closed or pulled because of the deterioration of decent, mature conversation.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Now chat away.

I would like to believe that we can trust EWTN, some may not think so but it is pretty definitive:
ewtn.com/library/MARY/AKITA.HTM

 

[Shoshana]

I would like to believe that we can trust EWTN, some may not think so but it is pretty definitive:
ewtn.com/library/MARY/AKITA.HTM

Now, why did I not think of that? I went to an Akita site. Thank you so much for this.

 

[thomasf]

You can’t make it a force for good?

Actually, I was thinking the same thing of you. That’s the reason why I wrote that, after the first two disasters about this topic.

Don’t forget the supposed approvals given by the supposed Bishop in Japan, and the supposed Cardinal in Rome. Supposedly.

I suppose.

 

[Insight]

The issue with the communication is really with the communication itself, which cannot be separated from miracle seeking.

Hi Honeysuckle,

I think I know what you are referring to. There are groups in our Parish and local Parishes that have their Medjugorje trips. Some are very devout Catholics. But there are others that seem to be real miracle seekers, even to the point of seeming a little nutty. I was invited to go several times. Although I think there might be something to Medjugorje, I never felt compelled to go. I just keep giving them excuses, like I have to clean my fish tank or something.

And as for mother of God, it is because Mary is not the mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus’ fleshly body. Jesus created Mary long before Mary’s parents were even thought of. The term mother means she begot the child. Mary didn’t beget God, God created Mary.

Hi Peary,

In a technical way, Mary is the Mother of God, in that She bore Jesus, Who is God Incarnate. The term must be applicable. She conceived through the Holy Spirit of the Living God, making Her Spouse of God, and Queen. Furthermore, using deductive reasoning, she must have been without stain to be joined to God while pregnant. She will crush the serpent with her heal, rendering Her the Tool God will use to vanquish satan.

God Bless

 

[Insight]

Hi Peary,

I forgot to mention the symbolism of the 101 tears shed by the statue of Akita. Sister Agnes said that sin came into the world through a woman (Eve) and it is also through a woman that salvation came to the world (Mary). The zero between the two signifies the Eternal God who is from all eternity until eternity. The first one represents Eve and the last the Virgin Mary.

God Bless

 

[adrift]

Hi Peary,

I forgot to mention the symbolism of the 101 tears shed by the statue of Akita. Sister Agnes said that sin came into the world through a woman (Eve) and it is also through a woman that salvation came to the world (Mary). The zero between the two signifies the Eternal God who is from all eternity until eternity. The first one represents Eve and the last the Virgin Mary.

God Bless

How do reconcile this statement with the Bible and the Catechism?

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians
Chapter 15

21 For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. 22 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But every one in his own order: the firstfruits Christ, then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.

Catechism

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402
All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. . . ."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

 

[adrift]

Nope. To be frank, I’m not going to spend time finding a website to “prove” the obvious truth.

If The Doubting Thomas’ so desire to place their fingers in the holes, and their hands in the side… let them find it for themselves.

As I said, I looked there and it doesn’t exist. I have looked for proof that it is approved by more than the Bishop. Your claim seems to be groundless and since it is your claim it is your burden to provide proof of it. Everything I have found is less than obvious.

 

[Insight]

How do reconcile this statement with the Bible and the Catechism?

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians - Chapter 15:

21 For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. 22 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But every one in his own order: the first fruits Christ, then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.

Hi Adrift,

That’s an easy one, Adam fell because he listened to his wife. (LOL). All kidding aside, Eve sinned first, then convinced Adam to sin. Hence, sin came into the world through a woman. Christ came through His mother. Hence, through a woman that salvation came to the world.

I know you are a fan of EWTN, and consider them accurate:

EWTN.com/Library/Mary/Akita.htm

I’m also am aware that you are a fan of Rick Salbato of Unity Publishing, who goes to the extreme of recommending even avoiding Church approved apparitions:

“31. Some priests advise against trusting true and approved apparitions.
Yes! That would be my advise.”

But he always quotes from his favorite, Akita:

unitypublishing.com/Worldsend.htm

God Bless

 

[Caveman]

Actually, I was thinking the same thing of you. That’s the reason why I wrote that, after the first two disasters about this topic.

Disasters. You mean comments like “supposed apparition”? At a minimum, that’s a dig at Bishop Ito and Cdl Ratzinger. At a maximum, it’s insulting to Christ and His mother.

BTW, I wasn’t the one who stated that “nothing good can become of this thread”. But then again, those who try so hard to second guess Christ can find “nothing good” on this particular topic.

Quote:
Don’t forget the supposed approvals given by the supposed Bishop in Japan, and the supposed Cardinal in Rome. Supposedly.

I suppose.

Case in point.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Disasters. You mean comments like “supposed apparition”? At a minimum, that’s a dig at Bishop Ito and Cdl Ratzinger. At a maximum, it’s insulting to Christ and His mother.

None of the individuals mentioned would be bothered by such a statement.

 

[Caveman]

As I said, I looked there and it doesn’t exist. I have looked for proof that it is approved by more than the Bishop. Your claim seems to be groundless and since it is your claim it is your burden to provide proof of it. Everything I have found is less than obvious.

Ahhh… I understand now. Because YOU couldn’t find a website that suits your aganda, the claim that Cdl Ratzinger approved of the Akita Apparitions is now “groundless”.

Let’s stop playing this game, shall we?

I know the truth about Akita
You know the truth about Akita
Sister Agnes Sasagawa knows the truth about Akita
Bishop Ito knows the truth about Akita
Cardinal Ratizinger knows the truth about Akita
The Holy Mother knows the truth about Akita
Christ knows the truth about Akita

But you go right ahead and keep denying the proclaimed truth about Akita. If it makes you feel complete to be the head cheerleader for all the Akita Deniers, then you go right ahead.

I’m sure Christ is just thrilled to pieces that you are working so hard to turn so many souls away from Him and His mother.

You must be very proud of yourself.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Ahhh… I understand now. Because YOU couldn’t find a website that suits your aganda, the claim that Cdl Ratzinger approved of the Akita Apparitions is now “groundless”.

Let’s stop playing this game, shall we?

I know the truth about Akita
You know the truth about Akita
Sister Agnes Sasagawa knows the truth about Akita
Bishop Ito knows the truth about Akita
Cardinal Ratizinger knows the truth about Akita
The Holy Mother knows the truth about Akita
Christ knows the truth about Akita

But you go right ahead and keep denying the proclaimed truth about Akita. I’m sure Christ is just thrilled to pieces that you are working so hard to turn so many souls away from Him and His mother.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Not believing in private revelation is NOT turning souls away from Christ.

 

[Caveman]

Not believing in private revelation is NOT turning souls away from Christ.

Not adding it to ones own devotion doesn’t. Denying it’s legitimacy does.

After all, by denying it’s legitimacy, one denys The Church. Denying The Church IS denying Christ. Just ask Martin Luther.

Like I’ve said before… if someone states that they choose not to add Akita (or Lourdes, Fatima, et al.) to their own private devotion, no problem.

But when someone denies the legitimacy of any of The Church approved Marina Apparitions, they’re now sailing into dangerous shoals.

 

[Caveman]

None of the individuals mentioned would be bothered by such a statement.

WOW! You now know the minds of both Bishop Ito and Pope Benedict!? I’m impressed!

But seriously… you’re probably right. They both know full and well that the work of the devil will infiltrate even into The Church. They both know better than most that many “Catholics” will go out of their way to deny that Christ sent His mother to ua at Akita.

You’re more right than you realize, E.M.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Not adding it to ones own devotion doesn’t. Denying it’s legitimacy does.

After all, by denying it’s legitimacy, one denys The Church. Denying The Church IS denying Christ. Just ask Martin Luther.

Like I’ve said before… if someone states that they choose not to add Akita (or Lourdes, Fatima, et al.) to their own private devotion, no problem.

But when someone denies the legitimacy of any of The Church approved Marina Apparitions, they’re now sailing into dangerous shoals.

Where does the Church teach that not believing in private revelation in any way turns souls away from Christ?

Where does the ***Church ***teach that is it only OK to not add these to private devotional practices.

Where does the Church teach that denying a private revelation happened at all is denying the Church?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

WOW! You now know the minds of both Bishop Ito and Pope Benedict!? I’m impressed!

But seriously… you’re probably right. They both know full and well that the work of the devil will infiltrate even into The Church. They both know better than most that many “Catholics” will go out of their way to deny that Christ sent His mother to ua at Akita.

You’re more right than you realize, E.M.

I don’t have to know their minds - I know they stand by what the Church ACTUALLY teaches.

 

[Caveman]

Where does the Church teach that not believing in private revelation in any way turns souls away from Christ?

Where does the ***Church ***teach that is it only OK to not add these to private devotional practices.

Where does the Church teach that denying a private revelation happened at all is denying the Church?

I’ve asked you this before (and you never answered)… but is your understanding of the workings of The Church that shallow?

I’ve already pointed out that Public Revalation is all that’s needed for Salvation, but Private Revalation is just as legitimate (noticed I said legitimate, not required).

I’ve already pointed out that Private Revalation is God still speaking to us, even though Public Revalation is complete. (I’d say that’s kind of important, wouldn’t you?)

I’ve already pointed out that when The Prefect of the CDF (who happens to speak for The Pope, and in essence for the Universal Church, on matters that fall into area of responsibility) states difinitivly that any given supernatural event/Marian Apparition is valid and legitimate… then that’s exactly what it is… valid and legitimate. You simply cannot deny what The Church has claimed to be valid and legitimate. You most certainly can choose not to add it to your personal devotion… but you can’t deny it. That’s just common sense. Or do you honestly need The Pope to put that in black and white and have it on a Vatican website for you to understand and accept that?

I’ve already pointed out before that I can’t force you to recognize the painfully obvious.

But two can play at this game.

Please provide a reference where any given Catholic in good standing can deny the legitimacy of a Church approved Marian Apparition. The key words there are deny the legitimacy.