The Church Approved Apparition That Nobody Wants To Talk About -Except THIS Priest

[Caveman]

I was recently informed that a certain Father Parker of St. Mary’s parish in Iowa gave a sermon recently about the warnings given by The Holy Mather at Akita, Japan back in 1973.

And yes, Akita is a fully recognized, Church approved apparition of The Holy Mother. But unfortunantly, it hits home a little too hard for some within The Church.

Click here to hear Fr Parker’s sermon.

Here is my take.

 

[Andruschak]

I was recently informed that a certain Father Parker of St. Mary’s parish in Iowa gave a sermon recently about the warnings given by The Holy Mather at Akita, Japan back in 1973.

And yes, Akita is a fully recognized, Church approved apparition of The Holy Mother. But unfortunantly, it hits home a little too hard for some within The Church.

Click here to hear Fr Parker’s sermon.

Here is my take.

Depends on what you mean by “church approved”. The local bishop has approved it, but the approval seems to have stopped there. And thus it is still a “private revelation” that Catholics like me can totally ignore without qualms. And I intend to do so

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Depends on what you mean by “church approved”. The local bishop has approved it, but the approval seems to have stopped there. And thus it is still a “private revelation” that Catholics like me can totally ignore without qualms. And I intend to do so

Even Vatican approved apparitions are considered “private” revelation and we are free to accept them or not. When the Church approves a revelation, it only declares it to be “worthy of belief” but not mandatory.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Depends on what you mean by “church approved”. The local bishop has approved it, but the approval seems to have stopped there. And thus it is still a “private revelation” that Catholics like me can totally ignore without qualms. And I intend to do so

I think this is much like an Imprimateur for a book. The local bishop is the authority unless the Vatican chooses to get involved. I think it is one of the lesser known duties of the diocesan Tribunal.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Caveman:

Has the seer’s deafness been healed?

 

[Caveman]

Depends on what you mean by “church approved”. The local bishop has approved it, but the approval seems to have stopped there. And thus it is still a “private revelation” that Catholics like me can totally ignore without qualms. And I intend to do so

April, 1984 - Most Rev. John Shojiro Ito, Bishop of Niigata, Japan, after years of extensive investigation, declares the events of Akita, Japan, to be of supernatural origin, and authorizes throughout the entire diocese the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita. He said: “The message of Akita is the message of Fatima.”

June, 1988 - Vatican City - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgment on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief.

catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/2005/11/church-approved-apparition-that-no-one.html

 

[Caveman]

Caveman:

Has the seer’s deafness been healed?

Marsha,
I seem to recall reading that Sister Sagnes did have her deafness healed, but I’m going to have to double-check.

 

[masondoggy]

I don’t remember ever hearing about this apparition. What is it about?

 

[mercygate]

This is a widely known apparition and I don’t know what you mean by “nobody wants to talk about it.”

As for the ‘revelation’ that *“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into The Church” – *we don’t need supernatural apparitions to tell us THAT. It’s been going on since New Testament times.

 

[DL82]

From what I understand, the key requirement for an apparition to be approved is that it is entirely in keeping with the deposit of faith in the Holy Scriptures and the teaching of Holy Church. It can’t contain any new universal teaching. Therefore nothing that’s in an apparition can be anything more than a reminder of what we can already know and deduce from Catholic teaching, though it might be an encouragement to sit up and take notice by articulating those teachings in a new way.

 

[Caveman]

This is a widely known apparition and I don’t know what you mean by “nobody wants to talk about it.”

As for the ‘revelation’ that *“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into The Church” – *we don’t need supernatural apparitions to tell us THAT. It’s been going on since New Testament times.

MG,
How many times since 1973 have you heard anyone in The Church reference Akita? Now compare that number to Fatima and/or Lourdes.

Like I said, Akita is the apparition that no one wants to talk about.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

From what I understand, the key requirement for an apparition to be approved is that it is entirely in keeping with the deposit of faith in the Holy Scriptures and the teaching of Holy Church. It can’t contain any new universal teaching. Therefore nothing that’s in an apparition can be anything more than a reminder of what we can already know and deduce from Catholic teaching, though it might be an encouragement to sit up and take notice by articulating those teachings in a new way.

Agreed. An apparition is basically God yelling down - “How many times do I have to tell you kids? Now get with it.”

 

[puzzleannie]

Agreed. An apparition is basically God yelling down - “How many times do I have to tell you kids? Now get with it.”

now if we hear his voice saying, “Don’t make me come down there” we will really worry.

seriously folks, these apparitions happen in certain localities for a reason, because the message is intended primarily for those people at that time, and only secondarily for the rest of the Church. I would guess Akita is better known among Asian Catholics, and would also predict it will become much more widely discussed if, life Fatima and LaSalette, somebody comes along who adds spurious details and their own private sensational interpretation of the visions, which sound much more exciting than the real apparition. a conspiracy theory is just the thing to incite more interest, and hope this is not such an attempt

 

[JReducation]

There have been many apparitions that the Church has said are worthy of belief. Nonetheless, worthy of belief does not mean that they become universal devotions of the Church.

For example: on September 17, 1224 a Seraph appeared to Francis of Assisi and marked him with the Stigmata. There were witnesses. Pope Benedict XI accepted the miracle and allowed it to enter into the Franciscan’s liturgical calendar. It is a feast that they celebrate every year. However, it is not celebrated by the universal Church. Most Catholics, Orthodox or Protestants don’t even know about it.

An apparition or miracle may be worthy of belief and the Church may give it is seal of approval. But it does not mean that it is binding for everyone to celebrate it or remember it. Often, these are important to those who are close to the event, such as is the case with the Stigmata of St. Francis. It is a major event for Franciscans around the world and the people in Assisi, Italy.

Sometimes, cases like Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe, become more popular, that’s all.

I don’t believe that there is a plot to hide this apparition.

 

[ac_claire]

MG,
How many times since 1973 have you heard anyone in The Church reference Akita? Now compare that number to Fatima and/or Lourdes.

Like I said, Akita is the apparition that no one wants to talk about.

This is a non-issue.
It’s approved just like Fatima and Lourdes, but that still doesn’t mean anyone HAS to talk about it at all. Since there is such a strong possibility of deception and/or misinterpretation w/ all private revelation (especially appartions), some people choose to not take the risk and generally avoid them.

I don’t know why this is, but I’ve noticed that devotees of some apparitions (the “fatima crusader” people, this thread, etc.) insist that their favorite apparitions are actively being supressed or ignored. The reason given is usually along the lines of: they, (the “ignorers”), can’t handle it or don’t want to face the hard truth…

Am I wrong to worry about this trend?

 

[Caveman]

I don’t know why this is, but I’ve noticed that devotees of some apparitions (the “fatima crusader” people, this thread, etc.) insist that their favorite apparitions are actively being supressed or ignored. The reason given is usually along the lines of: they, (the “ignorers”), can’t handle it or don’t want to face the hard truth…

Am I wrong to worry about this trend?

You shouldn’t worry about it if it isn’t the truth.

Look upon it this way… Christ sent His Holy Mother to us with certain warnings, and certain signs that would precipitate a Great Chastisment.

Namely, Jesus wants us to know that “the work of the devil will infiltrate even into The Church”. That in itself is enough to send chills up your spine.

Couple that with the warnings that “Cardinals will oppose Cardinals, Bishops apposing Bishops”, etc. And let’s not forget about “churches and altars will be sacked, priests who venerate me will be scorned” and that “many will accept compromise”.

Jesus wants us to know that there will be an attempt to destroy The Church from within. And even worse… from those in positions of power.

If the Warnings of The Holy Mother at Akita don’t literally scare the hell out of us, then obviously, there are “Catholics” that don’t take their Catholicism seriously. Either that, or per the warnings of Mary, those individuals are agents of satan.

And amazingly enough (insert sarcasm here), Akita is the apparition that no one wants to talk about.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Jeanette_L]

You shouldn’t worry about it if it isn’t the truth.

Look upon it this way… Christ sent His Holy Mother to us with certain warnings, and certain signs that would precipitate a Great Chastisment.

Namely, Jesus wants us to know that “the work of the devil will infiltrate even into The Church”. That in itself is enough to send chills up your spine.

Couple that with the warnings that “Cardinals will oppose Cardinals, Bishops apposing Bishops”, etc. And let’s not forget about “churches and altars will be sacked, priests who venerate me will be scorned” and that “many will accept compromise”.

Jesus wants us to know that there will be an attempt to destroy The Church from within. And even worse… from those in positions of power.

If the Warnings of The Holy Mother at Akita don’t literally scare the hell out of us, then obviously, there are “Catholics” that don’t take their Catholicism seriously. Either that, or per the warnings of Mary, those individuals are agents of satan.

And amazingly enough (insert sarcasm here), Akita is the apparition that no one wants to talk about.

Gee, I wonder why?

It seems to me that anyone who has studied much of the Church’s history at all will see that these warnings are and have been for all time. The Church has constantly battled wayward Bishops and Cardinals, the faithful and unfaithful being side by side, the wheat and the tares growing up together, to be sorted on the day of Judgement.

I think what you perceive as a particular warning not being taken seriously by the majority of the people within the universal Church, others see as a message to a particular people *repeating what we know *the Church has always had to be on guard against - unfortunately, business as usual in the Church Militant.

I don’t mean that in a cavalier way, it is just a fact of life, the Church always has and always will do battle with evil - both inside and outside of her walls. To not be greatly startled by this is not a sign of apathy.

 

[JReducation]

I think that the Magisterium would take issue with anyone insisting that the revelations made at an apparition be shoved down people’s throats.

Apparitions and other miracles are graces that God gives us to enhance our faith, not to teach anythng new.

The Church is very clear that all Revelation is complete through the scriptures, tradition and the teaching magisterium.

Of couse we can talk about Fatima or Cahuasaki or any other apparition and its message. The Magisterium’s only concern is that it be clearly understood that IT alone has the authority to define what the faithful must believe.

This is because the keys were given to Peter, the command to feed his sheep was given to Peter, the promise infallibility was also given to Peter. As long as we follow Peter and his successors, there can be no error.

There are some people who will argue that Mary said this or that at such an apparition and therefore it must followed. Unless Peter says that it must be followed, it remains worthy of belief, not official doctrine. There is a difference.

 

[Caveman]

It seems to me that anyone who has studied much of the Church’s history at all will see that these warnings are and have been for all time. The Church has constantly battled wayward Bishops and Cardinals, the faithful and unfaithful being side by side, the wheat and the tares growing up together, to be sorted on the day of Judgement.

I think what you perceive as a particular warning not being taken seriously by the majority of the people within the universal Church, others see as a message to a particular people *repeating what we know *the Church has always had to be on guard against - unfortunately, business as usual in the Church Militant.

I don’t mean that in a cavalier way, it is just a fact of life, the Church always has and always will do battle with evil - both inside and outside of her walls. To not be greatly startled by this is not a sign of apathy.

I understand what your saying, but do we just shrug our shoulders and say “oh well… that’s the way it’s always been.”?

Lourdes, Fatima and Akita are all if fairly rapid succession. Christ sent His mother to us for a reason. Now here’s the $64,000 question – are we going to take Christ seriously?

 

[Caveman]

I think that the Magisterium would take issue with anyone insisting that the revelations made at an apparition be shoved down people’s throats.

Apparitions and other miracles are graces that God gives us to enhance our faith, not to teach anythng new.

The Church is very clear that all Revelation is complete through the scriptures, tradition and the teaching magisterium.

Of couse we can talk about Fatima or Cahuasaki or any other apparition and its message. The Magisterium’s only concern is that it be clearly understood that IT alone has the authority to define what the faithful must believe.

This is because the keys were given to Peter, the command to feed his sheep was given to Peter, the promise infallibility was also given to Peter. As long as we follow Peter and his successors, there can be no error.

There are some people who will argue that Mary said this or that at such an apparition and therefore it must followed. Unless Peter says that it must be followed, it remains worthy of belief, not official doctrine. There is a difference.

So the fact that The Church not only recognizes, but also endorses veneration of an apparition of The Holy Mother… who by the way was not sent of her own accord, but on the command of her Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ… all that is boiled down to “being shoved down our throats”?

I think Christ looks upon it just a wee bit differently.

What was it again that Christ wanted His mother to warn us of? Something about “there will be those who accept compromise”.