Visions of Mary--status within the Church

[hansard]

Hi, all. I posted a version of this towards the end of the “Mary’s role in second coming” thread, but perhaps it needs some fresh eyes

Ok, so: there’s something incongruous about the way Mary’s apparitions are regarded.

I base my comments on the following three axioms:

1. Mary is the Mother of the Lord, Queen of Heaven, mediatrix of all graces, who intercedes with Christ on behalf of the faithful;
2. Her perpetual virginity and assumption into Heaven are matters of fiercely-defended dogma (the Church is very serious about Mary);
3. She appears to the faithful all over the world, with dire warnings for humanity;

and yet, unfathomably, believing in this is regarded as a matter of personal choice–“worthy of belief”, I think was the expression.

If the Church were serious about Mary’s place in the grand scheme of things, these pronouncements would be recorded and elevated to the status of Holy Scripture, of equal importance, for example, with anything Paul wrote or anything revealed to John. These appearances should be the most significant things to happen in the life of the Church since… well, since Christ himself. Indeed, it seems as if God himself is speaking through her.

But no, the Queen of Heaven, the most venerated saint of all, appears and speaks to humanity (just consider the importance of this for a second!) and the Church seems quite ambivalent about it. The Church’s attitude is “believe it if you want to.”

What do you think?

 

[FickleFreckled]

Because there is no way to absolutely prove that 1) an apparition has taken place, and 2) that the apparition was from God, the Church takes a very long time to determine whether belief in the apparition is
basically “safe” for the faithful and will support their faith according to Catholic teachings. No matter how good an apparition seems up front, or sometimes for many years, something can come to light that casts doubt on the origin of the apparition. The devil’s pretty crafty and causes jut as much trouble by the appearance of holiness - maybe more so - as he does with up front evil.

After a thorough and ongoing investigation, if the Church finds nothing that is against the teachings of the Church, and nothing in the lives of the visionaries to cause suspicion, the apparition may eventually be deemed “worthy of belief.” Apparitions are private revelation and although they may support articles of faith, they aren’t articles of faith. Besides, there are many people of strong faith who don’t need to believe in apparitions or who simply can’t. Forcing that kind of belief on them could actually be damaging to their faith. Belief in apparitions are helpful to some people but not to everyone. All the Church does formally is determine whether belief in an apparition is safe and edifying for the faithful.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Someone all Christians agree upon is the last absolutely trustworthy saying of the Theotokos is recorded in John 2: “Whatever my Son says to you, do it.”

Need she say anything beyond this?

 

[hansard]

“Need she say more?”–well, no. Why, then, does she?

Yes, FickleFreckled, that’s fair enough. Admirable caution on the part of the church.

What if the same standard of proof was applied to the whole of scripture? Most scriptural texts are at least 2000 years old and completely without proof; some are of marginal importance, while others are regarded as “faith stories”, only worthy of belief in a theological sense.

Fatima, however, occurred in 1917, within living memory, and was affirmed by Pius XII, Paul VI and John-Paul II.
Akita, in 1973, was judged to be reliable by Ratzinger himself.

That should be good enough. Should be.

 

[bpbasilphx]

“Need she say more?”–well, no. Why, then, does she?

Yes, FickleFreckled, that’s fair enough. Admirable caution on the part of the church.

---

As FickeFreckled pointed out, the question is ultimately DID she actually appear and say these various things?

 

[hansard]

Various Popes have said so. In any other matter, Papal pronouncements would carry far more weight.
For millions of Catholics, these visitations form an important part of the veneration of Mary.
It must be true. I mean, I’m required to believe in matters as unlikely (and lacking in proof)as the Assumption, the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception, yet I’m not required to believe that the BVM can appear to humans, in modern times, and speak to them?

Perhaps, just perhaps, visitations by Mary are a little too uncomfortable for scrutiny.