Thoughts on Marian Apparitions

[Sufjon]

Perhaps it was my Pentecostal upbringing where anything paranormal was something to be avoided. I have since, of course, shaken those beliefs, but the feelings these phenomena inspire in me may be a matter of conditioning I’m afraid. Still, I find the topic fascinating, and I think in some ways we all long for some kind of experience with the supernatural.

I’m curious, how do these phenomena manifest in other religions?

Hi Conor: I think they manifest in many of the same ways. A lot of them have to do with statues doing odd things. Moreover, apparitions can come in many ways, and I think that for the most part we miss seeing them. It is my opinion that it’s a matter of awareness. In truth there is not one of us who hasn’t seen God face to face. The problem is that for the most part, we aren’t looking. We notice the Lady floating down from the sky shooting off sunbeams, or the face of Jesus in a screen door or whatever. Sometimes they are real and sometimes they are not. We don’t always notice the person next to us - the person at the office who annoys us, the problematic or inconvenient friend we don’t have time for. These apparitions are always genuine, but they are hard to see for what they are.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I’ve seen no devotions to Gabriel on the scale of Mary. Certainly no one talks about “the power of Gabriel” and being “overwhelmed by his presence to kneel and pray” as some here have described with Mary. Exaggerations those, maybe?

Exaggerations? Probably not. More like personal encounters with Mary’s presence. It happens.

I’ve been to a few Divine Liturgies (beautiful, just like the Tridentine Mass), and I’ve never heard devotion to Mary on the scale of some Catholics. Not that the Mass does anything like that, I would clarify, but I’m just uncomfortable with the excessive nature of Catholic devotion to Mary. If the Church would come out and say to tone it down, then I wouldn’t be as uncomfortable because I’d understand it wasn’t approved. But it often seems like that it is.

Since you aren’t Catholic, how do you know devotion to Mary is “excessive”? By what measure? Yours? Isn’t that merely your opinion? Have you read the official teaching of the Church about Mary or her apparitions?

Please explain it for my young, foolish ears then (not sarcasm, just to clarify).

Fabius, I would be glad to discuss this with you, but I know that right now it’s a waste of time. You’re not interested enough to read what the Church actually teaches about Mary, even though the information is readily available. But you write about it as if your opinion were the truth. Perhaps you will be more interested in learning later on. Then we can chat. pm me anytime.

Jim Dandy

 

[adrift]

From a 1913 dictionary

Worship
(Wor"ship) n. [OE. worshipe, wurðscipe, AS. weorðscipe; weorð worth + -scipe -ship. See Worth, a., and - ship.]

1. Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness. [Obs.] Shak.

A man of worship and honour.
Chaucer.

Elfin, born of noble state,
And muckle worship in his native land.
Spenser.
2. Honor; respect; civil deference. [Obs.]

Of which great worth and worship may be won.
Spenser.

Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
Luke xiv. 10.
3. Hence, a title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and others of rank or station.

My father desires your worships’ company.
Shak.
4. The act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; religious reverence and homage; adoration, or acts of reverence, paid to God, or a being viewed as God. “God with idols in their worship joined.” Milton.

The worship of God is an eminent part of religion, and prayer is a chief part of religious worship.
Tillotson.
5. Obsequious or submissive respect; extravagant admiration; adoration.

'T is your inky brows, your black silk hair,
Your bugle eyeballs, nor your cheek of cream,
That can my spirits to your worship.
Shak.

Synonyms for venerate: admire, adore, apotheosize, appreciate, be in awe of, cherish, deify, esteem, exalt, hallow, hold in awe, honor, idolize, look up to, love, put on a pedestal, regard, respect, reverence, think highly of, treasure, value, worship

 

[ronin67]

That Catholic devotion to the Mother of God should be characterized, or seen as comparable to, “consulting of mediums and spiritual divination/communication with spirits and the dead” is very ignorant (means ‘not knowing’).

The Holy Bible you value so highly didn’t fall out of heaven – it came to you through the Catholic Church. But you probably don’t know that either. Pity.

Jesus came through Mary; no Mary, no Jesus. Our Redeemer is flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone, DNA of her DNA. That’s why we love her so.

And God bless you, Jim Dandy

Yep, that is how I got my copy. Came outside and saw it laying on my lawn. That arrogant Catholic attitude again. Its OK, I forgive you (and yes I was offended and I forgive you).

God chose Mary as the means of delivery (for good reason, she was the most righteous of all woman). However, roll this around in your head please. Rank Structure flow: God (consisting of Christ and the Holy Spirit, all God yet individual entities with the same mind set and mission as God), then consider Mary, a human being with sin nature, that chose never to sin. Also, don’t give me that she was sinless, there is no biblical proof to support this. Yes, I know church tradition says she was born sinless from her parents that were sinless, but this contradicts the Holy Bible (you remember the book I found on my front lawn). So who is not telling the truth on this matter (God or the Catholic Church)? Also, this whole subject of Mary being sinless (born without sin nature), why wouldn’t that be included in the Holy Bible somewhere stating that Jesus would be born of a sinless virgin. It just says a virgin. Also, why wasn’t her sinless nature never mentioned by anyone in the Holy Bible? This argument takes nothing away from our Holy Mother. She was vital, I got it, I understand it and grasp it. However, if she was born as every other human (sin nature) and through her whole life never once sinned. That is truly wonderful/discipline at its best (another reason I love her). If she is born without sin, then it is a given “Off course she can accomplish the task, it was already programmed into the equation”. Bottom line, did God tells us one thing, with exceptions for some people? Which again would not line up with scripture, remember God plays no favorites. If he is willing to crush his own son for our sins, I believe this proves this.

Bottom line, I believe the Marion Doctrine has been blown way out of its intended proportion. I show respect for the my Holy Mother. I thank her in prayer for accepting the task and bringing forth my savior. That is showing respect. This, however is the most I can give. What else is needed? My focus is on thanking God for extending his grace to a sinful piece of **** who didn’t deserve it, thru the sacrifice of my Savior Jesus Christ. Is this wrong? Please don’t avoid giving me a direct answer to the question (like so many other Catholics on this forum do). Is this right or wrong??? Does Jesus save or does Mary save (again, keeping in mind I thank her and still thank her for bringing forth my means of salvation). However, I don’t say, “Hey, could you put in a good word for me”. It is not required. Catholics do it out of respect and I understand why but it is not required to pray thru Mary to Jesus. To Protestants, it is not needed, yet to many Catholics it is. Why, this Holy Bible the Catholic Church compiled says nothing about having to pray thru Mary to get to Jesus. This is another tradition the Catholic church added years later. Yes, it does say intersessions of saints, I got it. But if I never ask for saintly intercession and go direct to God and confess/repent of my sins to him directly, is that wrong??? No it is not. Protestants look at it like “Why all the needed additions to the equation”? I have repented of my sins to God, put my trust in Jesus, was baptized to show humans I’m sincere in my commitment to God (God already knows the heart) and have shown the fruit of my truly received salvation (thru my commitment to teach and preach the gospel to Catholics). I have met the standard. Do I sin and fall short, off course. I repent again, brush myself off and start over again doing my best to fight off my personal weaknesses that cause me to sin.

May God Bless you sir,

Ed

 

[Cheshangle]

Does it befront you that your church was founded on divorce? (See Mark 1:1-12)

No it doesn’t.

The de facto founder of the CofE as we know it was Elizabeth I. In 1558 she became the Protestant Queen of a RC country. When she died in 1603 she was the Protestant Queen of a Protestant country.

 

[Cheshangle]

BTW GKC. You obviously are an Anglican. Where exactly are you in Anglicanism? Are you in the Communion or not? Just curious.

What does “in the Communion” mean?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic Church’s official teachings about Mary are readily available but seldom consulted by her critics.

This is a link to the website “Canterbury Tales” and a recent explanation of Mary’s role written by a former Anglican priest, now Catholic.

cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/05/is-mary-mediatrix-of-all-graces.html

Jim Dandy

P.S. His conversion story, Why I Am a Catholic, is also at this stie.

I honestly feel that these titles (the Co-Redemptix, the Mediatrix of all Graces, the Immaculate Conception, the Queen of Heaven, etc.) are strange and distracting from the flesh and blood of Christianity. The flesh and blood of Christianity is that God literally became flesh and blood. The Virgin Mary, as we say, bore God in the flesh, and so she is accorded the highest honor among the saints because of her extraordinary acceptance of God’s grace and her extraordinary obedience of God. I feel that all of this speculation upon Mary and how she must participate in the process of salvation as the Mediatrix and the Co-Redemptrix is just bad soteriology. We know how salvation works: we are saved through union with God (theosis), the path for which was provided by Christ—God in the flesh, Who is one person (hypostasis) in two natures (physeis) inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably, the two natures being one fully human and one fully divine which are united through the hypostatic union (the union being what opened the door for our salvation through theosis)—and was exemplified by the Virgin Mary and the saints (who have all achieved theosis).

Elevating the blessed Virgin Mary’s position from redeeming mankind through bearing God in the flesh (and thereby exemplifying perfect devotion to God and theosis) to directly participating in our salvation (Co-Redemptrix) and mediating all graces (the Mediatrix of all Graces) risks undermining the God-Man (Christ) who is central to Christianity and replacing Him with a Mother-Goddess/Son-God duo who together provide for salvation. Why take such a risk with the flock? This is why I personally feel no need to give the blessed Virgin Mary any titles besides the ‘handmaiden of the Lord,’ the title by which she called herself, and ‘Theotokos’ (God-bearer, translated as Mother of God/Mater Dei), the title by which she was traditionally called by the Church and the title which explains her redemptive role as the second Eve without creating some sort of confusion that she is a Goddess.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What does “in the Communion” mean?

A Communion of churches refers to a group of jurisdictionally independent churches which profess the same Faith and are “in Communion” because inter-communion is practiced freely between Churches, e.g. an Episcopalian from the united states is welcome to receive communion from in an Anglican church in the UK and vice-versa. It’s perhaps a bit harder to appreciate if you go to an Anglican Church which practices open communion (like the Episcopal Church), but for those practicing closed communion, like the Eastern Orthodox, who are forbidden from communing in heterodox churches and forbid the heterodox from taking communion from an Orthodox church, the ability to inter-commune is a big deal and is the practical mark of whether or not a group of people is within the Church.

 

[TrueLight]

Elevating the blessed Virgin Mary’s position from redeeming mankind through bearing God in the flesh (and thereby exemplifying perfect devotion to God and theosis) to directly participating in our salvation (Co-Redemptrix) and mediating all graces (the Mediatrix of all Graces) risks undermining the God-Man (Christ) who is central to Christianity and replacing Him with a Mother-Goddess/Son-God duo who together provide for salvation. Why take such a risk with the flock? This is why I personally feel no need to give the blessed Virgin Mary any titles besides the ‘handmaiden of the Lord,’ the title by which she called herself, and ‘Theotokos’ (God-bearer, translated as Mother of God/Mater Dei), the title by which she was traditionally called by the Church and the title which explains her redemptive role as the second Eve without creating some sort of confusion that she is a Goddess.

Preach brother. I wish more thought like you do. I tell you, this Goddess maker theology is keeping a lot of Protestants out of the church.

 

[lax16]

Mary has appeared to help promote peace in times of great trouble.

This apparition in Egypt was fascinating as it was seen by hundreds of thousands of people from all religions.

www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm

 

[m8g8]

Sorry I have’t got much to add, but regarding Lourdes, I would like to make a testamony.

When my mother was younger, she was dying from TB, which she had had for a few years. As a last resort, her parish paid for her to go to Lourdes.

When back in England, she want to her doctor and he was amazed. All bacteria and scarring in her lungs had disappeared. Nothing in her body indicated that she had been ill from TB for almost all her childhood. Her appointment before that was only a couple of days before her trip to Lourdes, so there was only a two week gap between that and her last.

Her doctor was an atheist, so his explanation that her faith in a miracle had had an affect on her, but that doesn’t explain the disappearance of all the scarring and bacteria which had been slowly killing her for years.

People come up with silly explanations. For example, there is a blood relic from a martyr. On his feast day, it turns back into liquid blood, no matter what the temperature or humidity is. Some people have tried to explain it away as the psychological will power of the congregation causing it. Some people don’t want to believe that God is still with us, so explain miracles away with impossible psychological explanations, or supernatural brain waves.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Preach brother. I wish more thought like you do. I tell you, this Goddess maker theology is keeping a lot of Protestants out of the church.

Right, I love the Roman Catholic Church, even though my Eastern Orthodox beliefs might give the opposite impression. I’ve attended both masses and the TLM with friends (granted, the TLM I witnessed was a low mass, and I found that unappealing; I would love to watch a Solemn High Mass done in the extraordinary form). I think that the true difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in terms of doctrine is rather small. In terms of faith, there are still far more similarities between the Orthodox Christians and the Roman Catholics than either group has with any other branch of Christianity (with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox; I would say that these two are probably even closer still).

The things which I find most unsettling right now with the Roman Catholic Church are not the traditional areas of disagreement like the papacy and the filioque, as those actually have a remarkably small impact on the basic message of Christianity (God became man so that man might become gods, as St. Athanasius put it). Rather, I find unsettling speculative Marian theology (properly that term, ‘theology,’ belongs only to God, but I can find no better term to describe it) like the “Quasi-Incarnation of the Holy Spirit” through Mary, a theological opinion put forth by Maximilian Kolbe which is now advocated by some Franciscans. Before I go further, I certainly do not have a negative opinion of Maximilian Kolbe, he died a true Christian and is a saint in the Roman Catholic Church for his selfless act of self-sacrifice, but that does not mean that his theology is above suspicion.

I find that when we try to talk about God becoming, “nearly incarnate” in Mary and compare the way in which the Holy Spirit works with Mary as being “like the hypostatic union” is when we start muddying the dividing line and turning the blessed Virgin Mary into some sort of Quasi-Christ (after all, it’s called the “Quasi-Incarnation”, why not take it a step further?). The blessed Virgin Mary, despite her all humility and obedience which has glorified her higher than the Seraphim and Cherubim is still not some sort of Quasi-Goddess nor some Quasi-Fourth-Person-of-the-Trinity, and I personally feel that the Roman Catholic Church is sometimes not firm enough with insisting that, while the Theotokos is most holy amongst all of creation, the gap between her honor and glory and the honor and glory of the Uncreated Triune God is still vast and infinite.

 

[TrueLight]

The blessed Virgin Mary, despite her all humility and obedience which has glorified her higher than the Seraphim and Cherubim is still not some sort of Quasi-Goddess nor some Quasi-Fourth-Person-of-the-Trinity, and I personally feel that the Roman Catholic Church is sometimes not firm enough with insisting that, while the Theotokos is most holy amongst all of creation, the gap between her honor and glory and the honor and glory of the Uncreated Triune God is still vast and infinite.

Amen, and why is this not enough? This is true veneration.

That’s why I try to stay away from Marian threads. I have grown to love the Blessed Mother, thanks to some nice folks on CAF who have patiently taught me, but never to the point of being on equal footing with Christ and never to the point of having to go through her INSTEAD of Christ. As some have said, “the only way through Christ is through Mary”. And then they do all sorts of cognitive gymnastics to prove why that is okay.

I stay away from these threads because they would be impediments to my conversion.

 

[GKC]

What does “in the Communion” mean?

A part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, in Communion with ++Cantaur.

GKC

 

[kathmandu]

Mary at Fatima asked us to consecrate ourselves to her heart.

That means, we become a part of her essence, the heart symbolizing the essence of a person.

I have devotion to both the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Mary protects our faith when we consecrate ourselves to her and her heart…she protects our faith in Christ. She brings us that much closer to His Heart, to be more one with Him. With this devotion is tied to Holy Communion.

Think of the Eucharistic miracles…recently a consecrated host was dropped on the floor. It was placed in a glass of water in the sacristry. When someone returned to attend to its proper care, the host had turned into flesh and blood.

The speciman was taken to an independent diagnostic lab. It was found to be of the human heart and the blood a rare form of AB.

The speciman was then sent to New York for further diagnostics, and when it was examined, the flesh was beating.

I don’t need to have these events support or sustain my faith in the Eucharist, but they come up, and it is cause for reflection.

There is nothing of Mary in the sacraments. But Christ received His flesh and blood from His mother.

Do you have a link for this please? thanks.

 

[GKC]

A Communion of churches refers to a group of jurisdictionally independent churches which profess the same Faith and are “in Communion” because inter-communion is practiced freely between Churches, e.g. an Episcopalian from the united states is welcome to receive communion from in an Anglican church in the UK and vice-versa. It’s perhaps a bit harder to appreciate if you go to an Anglican Church which practices open communion (like the Episcopal Church), but for those practicing closed communion, like the Eastern Orthodox, who are forbidden from communing in heterodox churches and forbid the heterodox from taking communion from an Orthodox church, the ability to inter-commune is a big deal and is the practical mark of whether or not a group of people is within the Church.

In this case, specifically, it refers to being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, As are the 38 independent Anglican jurisdictions which form the formal Anglican Communion. It is a more political, historical, and organizational thing than is implied in the concept of receiving the sacrament.

GKC

 

[Cavaradossi]

In this case, specifically, it refers to being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, As are the 38 independent Anglican jurisdictions which form the formal Anglican Communion. It is a more political, historical, and organizational thing than is implied in the concept of receiving the sacrament.

GKC

At the risk of side-railing this thread, I find this statement interesting. I had an impression that Anglican Ecclesiology was more similar to Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology, where one could be out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch and still be in communion with the other Patriarchates of the Church (such breaks in communion are extraordinary, but they do happen, and one would always hope that they are temporary). Would it be correct then, to say that, while the Archbishop of Canterbury is not granted universal jurisdiction or any form of supremacy over the other churches within the Anglican Communion, communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is the mark of being within the Anglican Communion?

 

[GKC]

At the risk of side-railing this thread, I find this statement interesting. I had an impression that Anglican Ecclesiology was more similar to Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology, where one could be out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch and still be in communion with the other Patriarchates of the Church (such breaks in communion are extraordinary, but they do happen, and one would always hope that they are temporary). Would it be correct then, to say that, while the Archbishop of Canterbury is not granted universal jurisdiction or any form of supremacy over the other churches within the Anglican Communion, communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is the mark of being within the Anglican Communion?

Yes. But note that the Anglican Communion is capitalized in this usage. It refers to a specific group of 38 Icurrently) independent Anglican jurisdictions who trace their origin to the CoE, and who form the Communion. Anglican jurisdictions (such as the Episcopal Church) may also be in communion (in your original sense) with Churches not in the Communion (the organization).

GKC

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Exaggerations? Probably not. More like personal encounters with Mary’s presence. It happens.

So you’re saying that there is no possible way that people could misinterpret and/or exaggerate the role of Mary in the Church, against its official directives?

Since you aren’t Catholic, how do you know devotion to Mary is “excessive”? By what measure? Yours? Isn’t that merely your opinion? Have you read the official teaching of the Church about Mary or her apparitions?

Yes, it is a personal opinion. However it seems that I’m not the only one who believes this, and even TrueLight has seemed to express some concern with the actions taken by individual Catholics, while embracing the position of the Church with regards to this matter (dear TrueLight, I’m not trying to “drag you in” this discussion or mischaracterize your position, I’m just trying to use an example).

I am also aware of the official position of the Catholic Church, but that being said, when popes give personal adherence to apparitions (John Paul II), it’s hard to simply reject the apparition. With regards to excessive, I tend to view excessive devotion as overly focusing on her role as the God-bearer and her “queenship of Heaven” rather than keeping her role connected with the incarnation. Consecrations to the “Immaculate Heart of Mary” don’t seem to lead to Christ, from what I can see. When I hear that Mary can “save us” or that Mary “heals us” I think I am justified in getting nervous. Or if I hear “no Mary, no Jesus.” I understand Mary has a unique role in humanity because she bore God in the flesh. But it seems like you imply that God couldn’t have simply chosen another woman if Mary rejected.

Additionally, I have no qualms about there being apparitions in themselves. I certainly believe God works by sending us members of the Church Triumphant to use to encourage us, help us, and witness the truth of Jesus Christ. I’m just perplexed by some of the reaction with regards to them.

Fabius, I would be glad to discuss this with you, but I know that right now it’s a waste of time. You’re not interested enough to read what the Church actually teaches about Mary, even though the information is readily available. But you write about it as if your opinion were the truth. Perhaps you will be more interested in learning later on. Then we can chat. pm me anytime.

With all due respect Jim, I think I’ve been more than open minded with regards to Catholic explanations on some of the lesser understood aspects of Catholicism. I’ve taken the Catholic word for almost all my questions, and I think I am correct in being more questioning with other aspects. If the Catholic Church is what she proclaims to be, then she won’t have a problem addressing the questions of a 21-year-old. And in your refusal to be more willing to explain, it only hurts your cause.

Actually Kyle, the Catholic Church condemned Collyridianism (the actual worship of Mary) in the 4th century. And nuns in Arkansas who actually did worship Mary were excommunicated.

I feel this is the proper way the Church should act. It should be the very first to clarify, correct, admonish and punish wrongful distortions of Catholicism.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I honestly feel that these titles (the Co-Redemptix, the Mediatrix of all Graces, the Immaculate Conception, the Queen of Heaven, etc.) are strange and distracting from the flesh and blood of Christianity. The flesh and blood of Christianity is that God literally became flesh and blood. The Virgin Mary, as we say, bore God in the flesh, and so she is accorded the highest honor among the saints because of her extraordinary acceptance of God’s grace and her extraordinary obedience of God. I feel that all of this speculation upon Mary and how she must participate in the process of salvation as the Mediatrix and the Co-Redemptrix is just bad soteriology. We know how salvation works: we are saved through union with God (theosis), the path for which was provided by Christ—God in the flesh, Who is one person (hypostasis) in two natures (physeis) inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably, the two natures being one fully human and one fully divine which are united through the hypostatic union (the union being what opened the door for our salvation through theosis)—and was exemplified by the Virgin Mary and the saints (who have all achieved theosis).

Elevating the blessed Virgin Mary’s position from redeeming mankind through bearing God in the flesh (and thereby exemplifying perfect devotion to God and theosis) to directly participating in our salvation (Co-Redemptrix) and mediating all graces (the Mediatrix of all Graces) risks undermining the God-Man (Christ) who is central to Christianity and replacing Him with a Mother-Goddess/Son-God duo who together provide for salvation. Why take such a risk with the flock? This is why I personally feel no need to give the blessed Virgin Mary any titles besides the ‘handmaiden of the Lord,’ the title by which she called herself, and ‘Theotokos’ (God-bearer, translated as Mother of God/Mater Dei), the title by which she was traditionally called by the Church and the title which explains her redemptive role as the second Eve without creating some sort of confusion that she is a Goddess.

Thank you for flawlessly stating some of the objections and reservations some of us have towards the elevation of Mary. I think this keeps me away more than anything else.