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

[Joysong]

Very interesting points!
Let’s consider another scenario where the Queen Mother (Bathsheba) of her son, King Solomon, is now seated at his right hand in the kingdom. Previously, as wife of David, she had no such authority, and as any other subject, she had to request an audience with the King, and bow before him.

To refresh us, recall the background how Bathsheba was able to remove the plan of evil men to take over the throne, when David had promised it to Solomon, her son. After he was caught, this rogue, Adonijah, now wanted David’s mistress for his own and sought Bathsheba’s help and intercession.

In his wisdom, Solomon saw through this terrible evil, and the intercession was denied.

12 When Solomon was seated on the throne of his father David, with his sovereignty firmly established, Adonijah, son of Haggith, went to Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon. “Do you come as a friend?” she asked. “Yes,” he answered, and added, “I have something to say to you.” She replied, “Say it.”

So he said: "You know that the kingdom was mine, and all Israel expected me to be king. But the kingdom escaped me and became my brother’s, for the LORD gave it to him.

But now there is one favor I would ask of you. Do not refuse me." And she said, “Speak on.”

He said, “Please ask King Solomon, who will not refuse you, to give me Abishag the Shunamite for my wife.”

“Very well,” replied Bathsheba, “I will speak to the king for you.”

Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. [Notice the change from her relationship with David. It is now reversed] Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.

“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” “Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.”

So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunamite be given to your brother Adonijah for his wife.”

“And why do you ask Abishag the Shunamite for Adonijah?” King Solomon answered his mother. “Ask the kingdom for him as well , for he is my elder brother and has with him Abiathar the priest and Joab, son of Zeruiah.”

And King Solomon swore by the LORD: "May God do thus and so to me, and more besides, if Adonijah has not proposed this at the cost of his life.

And now, as the LORD lives, who has seated me firmly on the throne of my father David and made of me a dynasty as he promised, this day shall Adonijah be put to death."

Then King Solomon sent Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, who struck him dead.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1kings/1kings2.htm

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Joysong - Note that Solomon did not refuse his mother’s request; he had said he would not. He just made sure that Adonijah did not profit by his request. He was in a tight spot, but he wiggled out of it.

 

[childofmary1143]

I have to wonder though if people who say “We don’t have to believe in private revelations…” are basing it on fear? The Message of Akita, like LaSalette contains very apocalyptic messages and who really wants to acknowledge that?

 

[ac_claire]

AC,
Please consider the following —
I’m sure you remember the wedding feast at Canna. As we all know, the Divine Plan that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost had for the public ministry of Jesus was already established by The Blessed Trinity. No of us doubt that. (snip)

I do see your point, and it follows along with what the Church has always taught about Mary’s role. (Intercessor, Mother…)

I don’t take issue with Mary’s role or her “power”, but with some of the quotes from these apparitions. I can’t swallow that Mary’s mercy could ever exceed that of God, who is Mercy itself.

 

[mercygate]

I have to wonder though if people who say “We don’t have to believe in private revelations…” are basing it on fear? The Message of Akita, like LaSalette contains very apocalyptic messages and who really wants to acknowledge that?

I don’t think it’s about “not believing”. It’s more about believing what has already been revealed. These private apparitions – even when fully approved – may contain features that go beyond the de fide content of the faith. That doesn’t make them wrong, or even questionable, but it does place them in a category outside the realm of strict necessity.

I do not disbelieve. But the content of these revelations, in substance, has all been placed before in the public revelation.

 

[puzzleannie]

That’s not what the apparition says though. She supposedly said “I alone can save you…” That is not in line with catholic teachings about Jesus and Mary and I’m frankly suprised that this apparition was approved. If she had said “I will present your prayers to my Son and His Father” I would feel differently. Just seems out of line.

exactly what I mean about the divorce between the actual apparition or locution, and what subsequent reporters, commentators or translates “say” happened. I have no trouble accepting the apparition, I have a huge problem with those who repeat 3d or 5th hand or within their own agenda and give a private interpretation of the message. which is why I stick to standard prayer and spirituality of the Church within her liturgical life, and don’t go haring off after each new private revelation.

 

[ac_claire]

I have to wonder though if people who say “We don’t have to believe in private revelations…” are basing it on fear? The Message of Akita, like LaSalette contains very apocalyptic messages and who really wants to acknowledge that?

Nonsense.
Personal opinion —> For me, I think the fact we don’t have to believe in PRs is extremely comforting. I love Truth, which more than any other reason is why I’m Catholic. Faith is extremely precious. If it is honest, then it’s not an emotion, it’s not a word you just throw around. All private revelations are by definition extremely subjective. You have to be discerning…I may have a great devotion to some accepted private revelations, (and I do, and my whole family does), but they can’t win my total faith. Also, of course, as I’ve said…the opportunity to be deceived is very great. So just be discerning!

If it’s not adding anything to your faith that you can’t get from what the Church already offers-- why take the risk?

 

[JReducation]

JR,
Please know that I have no intention of “relaxing”. I, for one, happen to take quite serious the warning that Jesus gave to His mother to give us. If you so desire to just blow it off, that most certainly is your call.

By the way, I’m quite certain that The Holy Father is aware of this. After all, the warnings were’t just given to the pope… they were given to us all.

Hmmm… “given to us all”. Interesting that it worked out that way, 'eh?

Caveman:

What I’m trying to say, when I say “relax” is that the Holy Father probably knew all of this, long before the apparition and is working on it.

In the end, who is the head of the Church on Earth? Where is Mary’s place in the hierarchy? She is beneath Peter. This is not meant with any disrespect to our Lady. She would be the first to agree, as in all of her apparitions she always sends the visionaries to the local bishop. She submits her messages to the scrutiny of the Apostles.

Be careful, not to place her in the wrong place in the line of authority. That can lead to heresy and confusion.

God bless you!

 

[thistle]

An apparition with only local approval is not Church approved. That is only the first step in the process. A locally approved apparition, private revelation etc then goes to Rome to be considered by and a final decision taken by the Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith which can be a lengthy process. Not every local approval is given final approval.

 

[CatholicCid]

Caveman:
Her messages are usually confirmations. I’m rememering Lourdes when she told Bernadette, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” The Eastern Orthodox church had already taught us this. The Roman Catholic Church also believed it. It had not been declared a dogma, but it was already part of our faith, by tradition. Mary simply confirmed what we already believed.

Just one note on this otherwise great post…
The Immaculate Conception was infallibly defined, making it a dogma of the Catholic Church, in 1854.
Our Lady appeared in Lourdes to St. Bernadette in February of 1858.
As it was a new dogma, certainly not one such a young girl would know, this was one of the convincing factors for the Bishop of Lourdes in believing Bernadette when she relayed to him that Our Lady had said “I am the Immaculate Conception” to her.

 

[thomasf]

Consider the possibility that God has decided on a chastisement of the world. Consider further that He has agreed to listen to Mary’s plea for lieniency for at least some cases. Would *I alone can save you *not be an appropriate way of stating that?

I have a hard time believing God the faither has decided on a chastisement of the world. Didn’t He promise not to do that after the flood and Noah?

And no, “I alone can save you” implies she has some special power to do so. Mary is a creation. The greatest of God’s created beings, but she has no power of her own. And giving this phrasement leads people to believe that the prayers need to be to her. Not to God through her. To her. That just doesn’t sit right to me.

 

[thomasf]

AC,
Please consider the following —

I’m sure you remember the wedding feast at Canna. As we all know, the Divine Plan that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost had for the public ministry of Jesus was already established by The Blessed Trinity. No of us doubt that.

But here was this simple Hebrew woman who asked her Son to change what had already been planned before time itself.

Remember, when Jesus initially refused toi change water to wine, it was His mother that asked Him to change The Divine Plan. I’m sure you remember that Jesus said “Woman, it is not My time yet”. But Mary still insisted.

And, like I said, this simple Hebrew woman changed the entire Divine Plan.

Pretty powerful woman, I’d say! And let’s not forget… Mary IS The Queen of Heaven and Earth, all the angels and Saints!

This is a good point. But I wonder if you asked her at the time, if she would have said “I alone can get more wine for your wedding feast” or if she would have said “I will take your needs to my son”? I’m thinking, it’s the latter, not the former. And that would certainly be in line with catholic teaching about Mary and the Communion of Saints.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I have a hard time believing God the faither has decided on a chastisement of the world. Didn’t He promise not to do that after the flood and Noah?

No, God only promised Noah that He would never destroy the whole world with a flood again. God never discussed not chastising the world using other means.

 

[JReducation]

I’m sure you remember the wedding feast at Canna.

But here was this simple Hebrew woman who asked her Son to change what had already been planned before time itself.

Remember, when Jesus initially refused toi change water to wine,

this simple Hebrew woman changed the entire Divine Plan.

Be careful. You’re walking a dangerous line between heresy and idolatry. You are in conflict with Roman Catholic theology and exegesis regarding Mary.

The Wedding at Cana appears only in John’s Gospel. John’s Gospel is a theological document. He takes historical events from Jesus’ life to write theology, not history. Remember, he is not a synoptic writer; therefore, what he says has to be read as theology. It has a deeper meaning.

Catholic exegesis and theology agree that John’s Gospel is comprised of four books: a) Prologue, b) The Book of Signs, c) The Book of Glory and d) The Epilogue: Resurrection and Appearances.

The wedding of Cana, appears in the Book of Signs. The Changing of water into wine is intended to tie in with OT and NT theologies. In the OT one of the plagues was the turning of water into blood. In John’s Gospel, we see Jesus turn wine into his blood. We also see water and blood pour out of the staff wound on Jesus’ side. These are not coincidence. John carefully crafts a bridge between the OT and the NT theology of the Eucharist and the Homoiousios, which is the dominant theology of John’s Gospel.

As to Mary, John deliberately avoids calling Mary by name. Instead, he refers to her “as the mother of Jesus.” This is very common in John. He does the same at the crucifixion. He says that “his mother” was standing at the foot of the cross. This is of particular importance to his theology.

Man lost his birthright through the original sin of Adam and regains it through the new Adam, who is Jesus Christ. However, the first Adam has an Eve who is mother of all creation. John introduces us to the New Adam and ties Mary into his mystery as the mother of the New Creation in Jesus Christ.

The first Adam sinned when tempted by the first Eve and the New Adam begins his signs at the opportunity presented by the New Eve.

John’s Prologue is very clear that the Word is pre-existent. Therefore, God’s plan existed before time did. Although God cannot control free will, he anticipates man and plans a response. In His plan, there are key players.

Mary does not change the eternal plan of salvation, nor does she influence the eternal Word, who is the Logos, to do so. Mary plays her role at the appropriate time in Salvation History.

Observe in John’s Gospel that she does not insist that Jesus do anything. She simply states that they have no wine. Jesus’ response to her is incorrectly translated in the English version of John’s gospel. Roman Catholic exegesis believes that the original text in John was a rhetorical question, “Is it my time?” In addition, “What does this have to do with me?” was meant as a warning to the demons of hell, which implied that all things that affect humanity have to do with him. Jesus works the first of seven signs that John reports. He changes the water into wine to prove tha his time has come and that all things have to do with him.

The sign of Cana was predetermined by the Logos, for all eternity. It was waiting for the proper moment in human history to become a fact.

John did not intend to use Mary as the trigger to change God’s Plan of Salvation or timetable. He brings her into the picture, because it is necessary for his theology on the Hypostatic Union. John needs to show a sign that Jesus is human and divine. The mother’s presence highlights his humanity, the miracle his divinity and power over creation.

Mary is a necessary instrument, not for the purpose of the miracle, but for the theology of the God-Man to stand the scrutiny of John’s readers.

The joint presence and interaction between Jesus the miracle worker and his mother, give credence to Jesus’ dual natures: human and divine. This is Mary’s role. She contributes the human nature to the duality in Jesus.

John also introduces Mary in a very different light than the synoptic gospels. His focus is on her motherhood. She is the Mother of the Pre-existent Logos who works such wondrous signs. Thus, she is the mother of his Mystical Body, the Church. She is not his lord and has no power over him or over Salvation.

She serves God’s plan. Jesus is the eternal son of the Father who is made flesh, as proven by the fact that his has a human mother with human concerns, very clear in the Sign of Cana.

To say that she changes God’s eternal plan or forces the hand of God, is to give her authority over her own Creator, very thin ice. To accept that her motherhood replaces the fallen motherhood of Eve is solid Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Theology.

 

[Caveman]

An apparition with only local approval is not Church approved. That is only the first step in the process. A locally approved apparition, private revelation etc then goes to Rome to be considered by and a final decision taken by the Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith which can be a lengthy process. Not every local approval is given final approval.

Akita was approved for the Universal Church by (then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988.

 

[Caveman]

Be careful. You’re walking a dangerous line between heresy and idolatry. You are in conflict with Roman Catholic theology and exegesis regarding Mary.

Jesus has and never will refuse His mother. The Church has taught that since day one.

 

[JReducation]

Jesus has and never will refuse His mother. The Church has taught that since day one.

Nor would his mother ask him to change the Father’s eternally begotten plan.

By the way, did you read carefully John’s theology. If you did, you will not see anywhere in there that Jesus would refuse his mother anything. Only that she DID NOT ask him to change God’s plan.

John’s was protecting Jesus’ humanity and divinity. He was not sayng that Mary changed God’s plans or that she would even ask such a thing. This was posted above.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Nor would his mother ask him to change the Father’s eternally begotten plan.

By the way, did you read carefully John’s theology. If you did, you will not see anywhere in there that Jesus would refuse his mother anything. Only that she DID NOT ask him to change God’s plan.

John’s was protecting Jesus’ humanity and divinity. He was not sayng that Mary changed God’s plans or that she would even ask such a thing. This was posted above.

Thank you for your posts, they have been very helpful in articulating the Church’s position on the role of Mary in the plan of Salvation and Christ’s Church.

 

[Caveman]

Be careful. You’re walking a dangerous line between heresy and idolatry. You are in conflict with Roman Catholic theology and exegesis regarding Mary./QUOTE]

Does this sound like idolatry or heresy?

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

Sure is a lot about Mary, 'eh? Or has The Church been wrong concerning this prayer as well?

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;3173477:

Be careful. You’re walking a dangerous line between heresy and idolatry. You are in conflict with Roman Catholic theology and exegesis regarding Mary./QUOTE]

Does this sound like idolatry or heresy?

Hail,

holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

Sure is a lot about Mary, 'eh? Or has The Church been wrong concerning this prayer as well?

This is not about this prayer. This is a fine prayer and consistent with the teachings of the Church.

You posted that Mary had changed God’s plan. That is not included in this prayer or any prayer of the Church or in any Church teaching.

This is the area where you and I disagree.

If you want to retract THAT statement, we are fine. Otherwise, we have nothing more to discuss.

Thanks,

JR