What are the views of the Holy Orthodox Church on RCC approved Marian Apparitions?

[gtrenewed]

I am finishing work with a devout Greek Orthodox family, and was very impressed with their church calendar of having Wednesdays and Fridays as days of fasting. I wish our former disicplines would return…meatless Friday’s…and may be we have more fasting.

Do you follow these fasting disciplines now, even though they are not required?

Christ said to do penance for the remission of our sins, or we likewise will perish.

Could you please provide a reference for this?

 

[KathleenGee]

Luke 13:5.

Also Matthew, 3:2…‘Do penance; for kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Yes, it does.

No. It does not. Disobedience from a Bishop(s) does not make an apparition a lie/deception. It makes the Bishop a disobedient.

Or has the Church been foolish to use this as a test to judge evil/false apparitions from truth? Disobedience to the Church is NOT from heaven, Our Lady or any Saint.

No one is arguing if disobedience is or is not from Heaven. Of course it is not from Heaven.

And what do you mean no judgements about them have been made by the Church? Two Bishops, the first and his successor who have the authority to decide on the authenticity of these apparitions both rejected them after investigations. The Med apparition has been condemned by its Bishop. And Yes, it contains false messages- The Mother of God would never in a million years require the visionary to disobey the Divinely appointed authority in the Church over that matter.

I didnt say “judgements” as used in personal opinions. The apparition still needs to formally be rejected by the Church as “unworthy of belief”. It has not been the case. At least not yet. You didn’t read my last comment, neither did you went to the site I posted. There is a difference between opinions or statements given, from priests, Bishops, and even the Pope, than that of Church as a whole. Of course, The Pope can speak for the Church as a whole (like when he speaks ex-cathedra), and he can also speak his own opinion on a matter. There have only been opinions, up to now. No official rejection by the Church as a whole yet.

There have been priests/bishops that have rejected an approved apparition in the past. Yet their rejection does not speak for the Whole Church. Only an official declaration from the Vatican, that the apparition is “worthy of belief” would make the apparition approved. Or on the other case, “not worthy of belief”.

Approved apparitions are like: Fatima, Guadalupe, La Salette, Lourdes and others. All these were declared “Worthy of Belief”

Rejected apparitions are like: Bayside, Necedah, Garabandal, Amsterdam and others. All these were “declared unworthy of belief”

Medjugorje is in neither of these lists, because no official declaration has been made by the Vatican. Google “Marian approved/rejected apparitions by The Catholic Church”.

You can google each of these and you will see if they are either officially approved or rejected by the Church. Med, is neither.

I have not stated that I am defending the Medjugorje case which may seem like so far. I have stated that one needs to wait for a final decision from the Vatican, instead of relying on your own opinion.

If you believe in it- that’s your business. But I choose to stick to the Church speaking in the voice of the Bishop (Two, in fact!)

Peace.

The fact that u stated “if u believe in it that’s your business” clearly tells me that u didn’t read my last comment. Indeed, I choose to stick to the Church, not to personal opinions on the matter.

Heresies contained in messages, does not make an apparition a lie/deception. It makes the person revealing those messages that according to him/her come from the virgin Mary, a liar. Medjugorje has several messengers/people involved. Not 1 Like in the case of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Not 2. Many messengers and people involved. One cannot say person A is a liar because person B lied.

I am indeed inclined to think that the apparition will not be approved. But until it is not formally rejected, I cannot say “You may believe in this garbage but it is just that SATANIC” like adoglover1956 posted (post 19). That is relying on yourself, than relying on the Church to make a decision.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

The disobedience has been directed by the apparition. The apparition has scolded the local bishop.

Read the response I made to “Marybeloved”, as a response to you.

 

[Marybeloved]

No. It does not. Disobedience from a Bishop(s) does not make an apparition a lie/deception. It makes the Bishop a disobedient.
I didnt say “judgements” as used in personal opinions. The apparition still needs to formally be rejected by the Church as “unworthy of belief”.

There have only been opinions, up to now. No official rejection by the Church as a whole yet.

Heresies contained in messages, does not make an apparition a lie/deception. It makes the person revealing those messages that according to him/her come from the virgin Mary, a liar. That is relying on yourself, than relying on the Church to make a decision.

What a pity! You actually think the judgement of the local Bishop in these matters is “personal opinion”!- It is the exercise of divinely given authority, BINDING to all members of the Bishop’s diocese. Do you think Bishops are lay persons, especially in THEIR own jurisdictions? And you think that an alleged apparition has more authority than the Bishop so as to make a Bishop who rejects it “disobedient”! I don’t recall Christ saying to apparitions in the Bible “Whatever you bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed IN HEAVEN”. Do you? No, YOU need to educate yourself on the church process in this matters. Read this site which cites Official church teaching of ecumenical councils and canon law. I’ll reproduce it here for you. miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/discernment/index.html

The Church’s position on private apparitions and revelations:

“Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church)

The Roman Catholic Church has prudently been cautious to approve, disapprove or condemn reported apparitions". In general, studied apparitions are classed as “not worthy of belief”, “not contrary to the Faith”, or “worthy of belief”. The message of an approved apparition cannot have any content that is contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Throughout Christian history, there has been the grateful reception of miracles and apparitions when they occur, together with the acknowledgment that such phenomena are not a substitute for faith in God. The Church preserves the centrality and final revelation given in the person, acts, and words of Jesus Christ, while at the same time honoring the special insights of the saints many of whom received messages through apparitions. The Church takes the middle course between an empiricism which would a priori reject the miraculous and a credulity which accepts anything extraordinary as being miraculous.

Process of Ecclesial Approval

As established in the Council of Trent (1512-17), the local bishop is the first and main authority in apparition cases, which can be defined as instances of private revelation.

Bishops evaluate evidence of an apparition according to these guidelines:

• The facts in the case are free of error.

• The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere and respectful of church authority.

• Doctrinal errors are not attributed to God, Our Lady or to a saint.

• Theological and spiritual doctrines presented are free of error.

• Moneymaking is not a motive involved in the events.

• Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result, with no evidence of collective hysteria.

Judgment can find that an apparition shows all signs of being an authentic or a truly miraculous intervention from heaven, that it is clearly not miraculous or there are not sufficient signs manifesting it to be be so, or that it’s not evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic.

If a Marian apparition is recognized by the bishop, it means that the message is not contrary to faith and morals and that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site. But, because belief in a private revelation is not required by the church, Catholics are at liberty to decide how much personal spiritual emphasis to place on apparitions and the messages they deliver.

Canon Law and the Obligation of Obedience by the Faithful

As the bishops are entrusted with the responsibilities of discerning and ruling on apparitions as stemming from the nature of their office, so there are fundamental responsibilities on the part of the members of the diocese. First, they are to obey their bishops when the latter act as Christ’s representatives (canon 212), that is, when they teach formally or establish binding discipline as pastors of a particular church. This obedience owed to the bishops in their capacity as leaders of particular churches is intended to promote the common good. Canon 753 also speaks of the “religious assent” owed to the bishops’ teaching authority, which means a special quality of respect and gratitude, along with critical awareness and good will. Hence, there should be intelligent obedience to ecclesiastical authority in the matter of alleged apparitions.

 

[Marybeloved]

CONTINUED:
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/discernment/index.html

Categories of Approval

Official Church statements regarding the authenticity of apparition claims are placed into three categories:

Not Worthy of Belief

The statements to declare a private revelation false are given according to the Latin phrase: “Constat de non supernaturalitate” (It is established that there is nothing supernatural here) . It has been determined that there are no characteristics that show it to be from God thereby attributing it to fraud or another spirit.

Nothing Contrary to the Faith

When locally it is decided or suggested that the reported apparition might or might not be of supernatural origin, the apparition is assigned to the category of “Non constat de supernaturalitate” ( It is not established that something supernatural is here). Apparitions in this category do not enjoy approval of their supernatural character but are determined to contain nothing that is contrary to faith and morals.

Approved

The supernatural chracter of the apparition is declared worthy of belief (“Constat de supernaturalitate”) and contains nothing that is contrary to faith and morals. But belief in the apparition (even the true one) is not necessary for salvation.

Criteria for Discernment

A 1978 Vatican document sets out the procedures to be followed in investigating the authenticity of extraordinary claims. The document calls for examination of three questions. First, Church officials are called to assess the phenomena themselves, and the people who report them, looking for evidence of authenticity. Next they are to study any message that is associated with the extraordinary reports, to ascertain whether that message conforms to orthodox Church teaching. The third question raised by the document, appraises the pastoral implications of the phenomena, by studying the “fruits” of the reported apparitions. Click here to read the document.

According to the International Marian Research Institute, there are four criteria that determine whether a Marian apparition is to be approved or not :

1. The first norm for evaluating miraculous events is that there be moral certainty, or at least great probability, that something miraculous has occurred. The commission may interview the visionaries, call other witnesses, visit the site of the events.

1. The second norm deals with the personal qualities of the subjects who claim to have had the apparition; they must be mentally sound, honest, sincere, of upright conduct, obedient to ecclesiastical authorities, able to return to the normal practices of the faith (such as participation in communal worship, reception of the sacraments).

1. A third category deals with the content of the revelation or message: it must be theologically acceptable and morally sound and free of error.

1. The fourth positive criterion is that the apparition must result in positive spiritual assets which endure (prayer, conversion, increase of charity).

Concern of Church Authority

The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) reserved the approval of new prophecies and revelations to the Holy See; however, the Council of Trent (1545-63) authorized bishops to investigate and approve such a phenomenon before public worship could take place.

The discernment of apparitions and miracles is the responsibility of the local bishop, and ordinarily the Vatican does not become involved in the process. However, two items show the Vatican’s concern about the issue. The Activities of the Holy See (1996) noted that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was studying correlations present with the phenomenon: “alleged apparitions are frequently joined with claims of supernatural messages, and with weeping statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of saints.” It is the right and responsibility of local bishops to investigate and make judgments about alleged apparitions; at the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has an obligation of “guidance and vigilance.”

Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops (Encounter with the Living Jesus Christ: Way to Conversion, Communion and Solidarity in America):

“Within the church community, the multiplication of supposed ‘apparitions’ or ‘visions’ is sowing confusion and reveals a certain lack of a solid basis to the faith and Christian life among her members. On the other hand, these negative aspects in their own way reveal a certain thirst for spiritual things, which, if properly channeled, can be the point of departure for a conversion to faith in Christ.” (33)

 

[Marybeloved]

CONTINUED
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/discernment/index.html

History of Apparition Approval

Throughout Christian history, there is a similar acceptance of apparitions and miracles when they occur, together with the reservation that such phenomenona are not a substitute for absolute faith in God. The Church preserves the centrality and final revelation given in the person, acts, and words of Jesus Christ, while at the same time honoring the special insights of the saints many of whom received messages through apparitions. The Church takes the middle course between an empiricism which would a priori reject the miraculous and a credulity which accepts anything extraordinary as being miraculous.

The revelations accorded to St. Bridget of Sweden were considered at the Council of Constance (1414-18) and Basle (1431-49). The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) reserved the approval of new prophecies and revelations to the Holy See; however, the Council of Trent (1545-63) authorized bishops to investigate and approve such phenomenon before public worship could take place. Prospero Lambertini (1675-1758), the future Benedict XIV, provided several rules for discernment of private revelations and the miracles needed with the canonization of saints in De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et de Beatorum Canonizatione (click here to download PDF- 44 MB) in 1840. Such events must present themselves to human reason as being truly extraordinary and beyond the scope of natural causes. The Code of Canon Law of 1917 (1399, #5) forbade the publication of anything about “new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, and miracles” withoout the local bishop’s approbation. In 1966, Paul VI, implementing the Vatican II’s statement on the right of the mass media to information, lifted the requirement that all writings about apparitions needed ecclesiastical approval before publication.

Notification concerning the abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books, (June 14, 1966)
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) 58 (1966) 445; Nuntius 1 (1967) 10-11; DOCUMENTA 2

Decree Regarding Canon 1399 and 2318 No Longer in Effect (November 15,1966)
See Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) 58 (1966), 1186.

Since 1966, and especially after 1981 (the beginning of the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje) reports of apparitions are frequent, “numerous and even disturbing,” in the words of Fr. René Laurentin at a conference at Czestochowa.

Scripture-based Discouragement for Seeking Miracles

Many visions and miracles are recorded in the Scriptures. After the Resurrection, Christ appeared to “Peter and then to the Twelve” (I Cor. 15, 5). Paul spoke of “visions and revelations” from the Lord (II Cor. 12, 1-6), and the deacon Stephen saw the heavens open and Christ at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 7, 55-56).

Christ worked many miracles of healing, but, at the same time, he did not appear to encourage the search for miracles. “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given therm except the sign of Jonah” (Mt. 16:4). In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Christ announces that no messenger from the next world will be sent to the brothers of the rich man to have them repent. . “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from tile dead” (Lk. 17.31). Finally, we have Christ’s words to Thomas after the apostle placed his hand on the side of the risen Lord. “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (Jn. 20:29).

Commentary from Pope Benedict XVI

In an interview at Fatima, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) spoke about visions and apparitions: “To all curious people, I would say I am certain that the Virgin does not engage in sensationalism; she does not act in order to instigate fear. She does not present apocalyptic visions, but guides people to her Son. And this is what is essential.”

He continued, “The Madonna did not appear to children, to the small, to the simple, to those unknown in the world in order to create a sensation.” Mary’s purpose “is, through these simple ones, to call the world back to simplicity, that is, to the essentials: conversion, prayer, and the sacraments.”

Commentary from Pope John Paul II

“Veneration of Mary, when properly understood, can in no way take away from ‘dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.’ Mary in fact constantly point to her Divine Son and she is proposed to all believers as the model of faith which is put into practice”
(John Paul II, The Coming Third Millennium, 43)

 

[Marybeloved]

There have been priests/bishops that have rejected an approved apparition in the past.

And they were obeyed and God himself worked THROUGH those authorities he himself established to make the right decisions eventually. NEVER has he required the visionary to go around and defy the Bishop’s authority- That would be self-contradictory .

I have stated that one needs to wait for a final decision from the Vatican, instead of relying on your own opinion.

I’m relying on the judgement of the Bishops who have FIRST and MAIN authority in that matter. You have a strange ecclesiology that assumes the Vatican is the SOLE authority in the Church- It is not.

Indeed, I choose to stick to the Church, not to personal opinions on the matter.

And the Church is the Bishop and his community around him .

"Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church" - St. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD.

Heresies contained in messages, does not make an apparition a lie/deception. It makes the person revealing those messages that according to him/her come from the virgin Mary, a liar.

So why believe a liar at all?

That is relying on yourself, than relying on the Church to make a decision.

The Bishops with FIRST and MAIN authority have spoken. You place the value of their judgements in their own jurisdictions at par with “personal opinion”. I chose to stick to the Church which has spoken, yes, IN THE PERSON OF THE BISHOP of the visionaries and sites of the alleged apparitions.

Peace.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A UFO,Have you read the article?

I quoted the article, apparently I read it. Its opinion, speculation, politely put…drival. Nor is it the opinion of the EO, unless you have a statement validating that nonsense by the ELECT of the EO? I assure you it does the EO no justice my brother in Christ.

I found it utterly boring and disrespectful, in fact I have seen members here write more articulate observations.

Her accute summary is limited to the usual nonsense… of goddess, delusion, evil, UFOs and ever other apsect of speculation the mind could conceive to refute anything Catholic. A complete lack of investigation, and mind you, without the credentials to draw such conclusions.

She doesn’t have a PHD in Psychiatry, nor has she spent ONE MOMENT with any of the Saints. Which btw those who actually hold those degrees, actually have done this, and delusion was the “first” aspect ruled out.

Very telling, and in this period of Christian persecution we are in, its very uneeded and unwanted. In fact its counter-productive

Does she hold a degree in “Unexplained Flying Objects”? Flown in the military, ever experienced UFOs or FM? What experience does she have with such events? How about evil, and what degree does she hold in Philosophy and Theology or Exorcism/Demonic possession?

These are Saints your talking about here. Saints which the writter of that article is not qualified to speak on, never interviewed the individuals, barely investigated the topic, thus her “opinion” is “worthless”. Limited opinion combined with hear-say.

As far as “UNAPPOVED” apparition sights? In fact I advise people to avoid the sights not approved by the church. They are not encouraged to be entertained here at CAF and I completely agree. Its SOUND advice.

Approved sights, deemed “Worthy of Belief” completely different situation.

“satan” didn’t covert Souls to Christ, by the hundreds of thousands, nor did he raise up Saints, or Sisters who spent a half a decade in a Carmelite Convent, or the Sisters of Charity or Nevers.

Biblically speaking the only one ever to produce such a profound event unexplainable by modern science and to completely admonish the Laws of Nature and Physics… is GOD. And not only has it never been explained at Fatima, it was, predicted, dated, timed, and then, it occured on schedule. And even in 2012 this cannot be explained by modern science. If fact the amount of energy needed to perform that event would have burned alive everyone of those 70-Thousand. Their is NO explaination to date. Sorry to inform you. Its such a severe break in the laws of nature, it could be nothing but God.

Do you have “ONE” actual shred of proof that satan could perform such an event as the Miracle of the Sun? Its course not, it doesn’t exist. He is not the “CREATOR” of this Universe…GOD is! He is NOT a God, he is a demon who “was” an archangel. Its no mystery on earth how he proceeds though… temptation. His war is against the flesh and truth, which he cannot accept, the temple of God, thus God. Its Biblical.

However, we are talking about God here, the Holy Spirit and the Supernatural, thus the infinate, reducing it to the “finate” with un-researched speculation based on limited time invested is very telling. Goddess is nonsense and immediately indicates how little anything was researched. GOD was the reason for the events of Fatima, and that was clearly indicated at Fatima. The fact the Blessed Virgin Mother appeared through the Holy Spirit doesn’t distract from this reality. Which is “why” I added the Bible verse’s above.

When you do not know something…the CHRISTIAN path is HONESTY. You say “I DO NOT KNOW”. When one jumps to I DO NOT BELIEVE then the first thought which comes to my mind is …“I wonder how much they actually believe in God thus the Supernatural”. When you jump to conclusions of your own opinion, then you need “proof” to back up your claims…NONE EXISTS!!! Shouting this or that doesn’t make it so.

If you don’t know, than you simply do not know. If you were not their, did not interview those involved, then you are reduced to others reseach who were there. And I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the scholars who have investigated this over the years, the list is staggering. As are the healings and miracles.

The path of the EO does not coincide with this womans article. Nor does it do the EO any credit. We understand the path the EO takes in regards to such matters. They realize “clearly” we live in GODS universe, and HE Created this. Really not a mystery that Miracles occur. The EO has a different approach to such events, unfortunate the CC hasn’t been afforded the priviledge of taking the same path. Nevertheless, when hundreds of thousands converge on a sight month after month, the CC had no option but to investigate. And for the very reason mentioned…evil, thus…the salvation of SOULs. And when the CC deems it “Worthy of Belief” you can rest assure something “profound” occured which man cannot explain.

Witch Hunts are great for those who enjoy fiction works. “Silence” has been the path taken by all the Apostolic Churchs.

St Marys intercession is well known through all the Apostolic Churchs, theres not ONE where this is not a fact. And in this period of time… “prayer” and Christian unity is what we are called to do. All the Apostolic Churchs proceed this way…Trinity, Church/Eucharist, then the Blessed Mother. Really no secret.

As to all the sights not approved by the CC? AVOID THEM! As to those approved? Listen to the Pope in their regards. That “is” my advice. The messages are all of prayer and penance, actually not new in the Apostolic Church. Fatima is also climatic, obvious to anyone who actually watch’s the news its also prophetic.

UNITY is the path, not division over what we do not know.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Read the response I made

All of us have. This is NOT APPROVED by the Vatican. Thats who we follow here at CAF:shrug: They actually do have the resources to investigate all this. Garabandal same thing.

They are simply not deemed “Worthy of Belief” by the Vatican. How hard is this to comprehend?

If you want to “personally” promote this, that is “your” perogative. We follow the Pope in obedience. Sorry its the path we follow. Its no mystery to us, others have chosen not to follow. In fact its occured for close to 2000 years. We’re still here!

Listen its not a new mystery, the Pope speaks and many do not agree, nor like whats stated. We’re not doing like and dislikes…its pick up your Cross and follow. I’m sorry its this way.

Peace

 

[KathleenGee]

I am learning Orthodoxy and wish to learn it as the Orthodox believe, not how some anti-Catholic former Anglican supposes we believe.

Last night I had a wonderful conversation and dialogue of exchange of practices with my Greek Orthodox family. We spoke with truth and sincerity…such a blessing.

 

[Hesychios]

…

 

[gtrenewed]

Luke 13:5.

Also Matthew, 3:2…‘Do penance; for kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Thank you Kathleen for providing that reference; however, neither of those references say to do penance but to repent. Repent used in those references means to have a change of mind, think differently, reconsider.

We cannot do penance for the remission of sin, we must seek Christ initially through repentence and baptism, and continually through repentence and confession.

Our initial repentence or change of mind is to see our life as out of touch with God’s Christ and continuing repentence or change of mind concerns specific areas of our life as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Penance is the action that follows repentence, the changed mind but I don’t think you can interchange those words in those references.

This is off topic so I’ll quit but feel free to PM.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

All of us have. This is NOT APPROVED by the Vatican. Thats who we follow here at CAF:shrug: They actually do have the resources to investigate all this. Garabandal same thing.

They are simply not deemed “Worthy of Belief” by the Vatican. How hard is this to comprehend?

Im having really hard time trying to believe one simple thing: **That people actually read my posts.
**

Something tells me that they just read a couple of sentences then try to respond to me…

It is in fact Very Easy to comprehend. What you just stated is my entire position in this whole discussion, but you are trying to put it against myself. Precisely, Exactly because has not been declared “NOT worthy of belief” one cannot reject it. At least not yet. One cannot accept the apparition either. Until it is either accepted, or rejected. This is my entire position. And it what Ive been discussing. But your posts suggest your not reading my responses.

This is my first response, and how I got in this discussion which is going in circles because people are not reading my posts:

“We don’t know if they are authentic or not. There is no “official” position of the Church yet on these apparitions. There are clergy on both sides, approving and disapproving.”

I am NOT saying, "go ahead and venerate Medjugorje. I am NOT saying “Reject Medjugorje” either. All im saying is summed up here:
V
V
V
“Do not accept or reject the apparition, until the Church has filed a final decision”
^
^
^
Is this really so hard to understand? Ones opinion does in fact not matter. If one has personal opinions about Medjugje (that the apparition is Satanic etc), remember, you don’t have venerate her.

If you want to “personally” promote this, that is “your” perogative.

Oh wow, your not reading my posts. I said I don’t want to promote this. I think I was very clear…

We follow the Pope in obedience.

And what have I been stating throughout the whole debate? Just precisely that.

Sorry its the path we follow. Its no mystery to us, others have chosen not to follow. In fact its occured for close to 2000 years. We’re still here!

Listen its not a new mystery, the Pope speaks and many do not agree, nor like whats stated. We’re not doing like and dislikes…its pick up your Cross and follow. I’m sorry its this way.

Peace



Of course it is. And not one is arguing about it. I like it being this way…

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

And they were obeyed and God himself worked THROUGH those authorities he himself established to make the right decisions eventually. NEVER has he required the visionary to go around and defy the Bishop’s authority- That would be self-contradictory .I’m relying on the judgement of the Bishops who have FIRST and MAIN authority in that matter. You have a strange ecclesiology that assumes the Vatican is the SOLE authority in the Church- It is not.
And the Church is the Bishop and his community around him .

"Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church" - St. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD.

So why believe a liar at all?

The Bishops with FIRST and MAIN authority have spoken. You place the value of their judgements in their own jurisdictions at par with “personal opinion”. I chose to stick to the Church which has spoken, yes, IN THE PERSON OF THE BISHOP of the visionaries and sites of the alleged apparitions.

Peace.

Alright let me start again…
Marybeloved 90% of what you post, is not something i’m against. You are assuming I am though. You in someway try to make me assume a position im not. The copy and paste you made is precisely what ive been arguing…
What you basically posted is:

Process of Ecclesial Approval
and
Categories of Approval

Now, Let me ask you a favor. And please** read carefully**. Link me to websites (serious ones) that say that the Vatican has fully rejected or approved (though this is not you position) Medjugorie. I think I should have started here in the first place. Since we are on the internet, I don’t expect you to provide me with nothing else, but a list of: “Approved apparitions and Rejected Apparitions”. In such lists, please provide me links in which Medjugorje is in the “rejected” side. Now, I provided some links (which I highly doubt you took the time to read). The links show that Medjugorje has not been approved/Rejected, but that a final decision has not yet been taken. When siting a link, Do not link me to a website that shows me that a priest said this, and a bishop said that. Rather, link me to a website that shows Medjugorje one the “rejected” side, by the Vatican of course.

The link I provided earlier is a good example:
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html

Let me show you an example of approved apparitions:
salvemariaregina.info/MarianShrines/MarianApparitions.html

Just as the last link provided, give me some links of “Rejected apparitions”, and show me where Medjugorje has been rejected by the Vatican.

Something you should remember: Some lists come with 2 sections as “Approved”, and “Unapproved”. If you link me to a site like that, remember “that unapproved” does not mean “Rejected”. It simply means not approved now, but could be either approved or rejected later. I’m looking for a site with the Rejection status in it.

Remember, im not asking for a website that has comments of Medjugorje in them, since I know there are websites campaigning in favor and against Medjugorje. Again, don’t show me comments of clergy. Show me lists of approved/rejected apparitions, that show Medjugorje as “Rejected”.

Now to be sincere, I know other sites also that neither approve Medjugorje in their lists, nor reject it (which is my position). Ive seen like 5 different sites where it shows this apparition as “Under investigation”, or “No decision taken yet” (as the link I myself posted before) etc. I frankly have not found it rejected. Because it has not been officially rejected yet, neither approved of course. Also, try finding a site with several apparitions, not just a couple.

My point of the whole discussion: Medjugorie has not been approve or rejected, therefore one cannot judge the apparition based on oneself personal opinion. Only comments have been made about the apparition, no official rejection or approval.

Let me give you one more example of what I am requesting from you, before I end my comment:

miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/index.html
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/unapproved_apparitions/index.html

Which shows Medjugorge as “Currently under Vatican investigation (2010)” which is how Ive find it in other sites.

Lastly, im asking for websites, not just one. Since we are on the internet, people can manipulate information easily. So providing me with several would help to clarify your position that Medjugorje has already been “rejected” by the whole Church.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Btw forgive my spelling guys, as my keyboard is not working correctly.

 

[Marybeloved]

Alright let me start again…
Marybeloved 90% of what you post, is not something i’m against. You are assuming I am though. You in someway try to make me assume a position im not. The copy and paste you made is precisely what ive been arguing…
What you basically posted is:

Process of Ecclesial Approval
and
Categories of Approval

Now, Let me ask you a favor. And please** read carefully**. Link me to websites (serious ones) that say that the Vatican has fully rejected or approved (though this is not you position) Medjugorie. I think I should have started here in the first place. Since we are on the internet, I don’t expect you to provide me with nothing else, but a list of: “Approved apparitions and Rejected Apparitions”. In such lists, please provide me links in which Medjugorje is in the “rejected” side. Now, I provided some links (which I highly doubt you took the time to read). The links show that Medjugorje has not been approved/Rejected, but that a final decision has not yet been taken. When siting a link, Do not link me to a website that shows me that a priest said this, and a bishop said that. Rather, link me to a website that shows Medjugorje one the “rejected” side, by the Vatican of course.

The link I provided earlier is a good example:
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html

Let me show you an example of approved apparitions:
salvemariaregina.info/MarianShrines/MarianApparitions.html

Just as the last link provided, give me some links of “Rejected apparitions”, and show me where Medjugorje has been rejected by the Vatican.

Something you should remember: Some lists come with 2 sections as “Approved”, and “Unapproved”. If you link me to a site like that, remember “that unapproved” does not mean “Rejected”. It simply means not approved now, but could be either approved or rejected later. I’m looking for a site with the Rejection status in it.

Remember, im not asking for a website that has comments of Medjugorje in them, since I know there are websites campaigning in favor and against Medjugorje. Again, don’t show me comments of clergy. Show me lists of approved/rejected apparitions, that show Medjugorje as “Rejected”.

Now to be sincere, I know other sites also that neither approve Medjugorje in their lists, nor reject it (which is my position). Ive seen like 5 different sites where it shows this apparition as “Under investigation”, or “No decision taken yet” (as the link I myself posted before) etc. I frankly have not found it rejected. Because it has not been officially rejected yet, neither approved of course. Also, try finding a site with several apparitions, not just a couple.

My point of the whole discussion: Medjugorie has not been approve or rejected, therefore one cannot judge the apparition based on oneself personal opinion. Only comments have been made about the apparition, no official rejection or approval.

Let me give you one more example of what I am requesting from you, before I end my comment:

miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/index.html
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/unapproved_apparitions/index.html

Which shows Medjugorge as “Currently under Vatican investigation (2010)” which is how Ive find it in other sites.

Lastly, im asking for websites, not just one. Since we are on the internet, people can manipulate information easily. So providing me with several would help to clarify your position that Medjugorje has already been “rejected” by the whole Church.

And you are completely failing to see my point! The CHURCH teaches that The Local BISHOP has authority in the matter and these (two) have rejected the apparition and ordered the activities to stop but have been met with defiance. If you think that only a “list” of approved and unapproved by the Vatican matters here then you need to study the office of Bishop, its powers and prerogatives afresh. I know the Vatican has not spoken- But that’s not the ONLY voice that matters here- The BISHOP has spoken. UNTIL a different decision comes down from the Church- The Bishop’s judgement STANDS and that is why Other Bishops forbid pilgrimages to that place- Precisely BECAUSE the Bishop who has authority already made a decision.

PS:- You are the one who made comments that “Heresies in the message” and “Disobedience to Bishops” don’t make it a lie, “They make THE BISHOP disobedient”- That’s what prompted me to post that article in full. THE CHURCH herself is the one that made obedience and freedom from any doctrinal error, criteria for judging false apparitions.

You keep telling us to wait for the Vatican before rejecting the Apparition.
-Is it a sin to reject apparitions- even approved ones? Why should you tell anyone that they should not reject Medgugorje or any claimed apparition before the Vatican does? You have it backwards. We don’t give it ANY credence, based on what the Bishops have judged UNLESS the church has, through the proper channels deemed it authentic. UNTIL then, it’s the BISHOP’s and through them, the Church’s word against the visionaries- Again, it’s the Church for me.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I quoted the article, apparently I read it. Its opinion, speculation, politely put…drival. Nor is it the opinion of the EO, unless you have a statement validating that nonsense by the ELECT of the EO? I assure you it does the EO no justice my brother in Christ.

You aren’t going to find a synod ruling on apparitions (as Orthodox synods deal with issues concerning the Orthodox). I had merely hoped to provide a a typical Orthodox point of view.

Her accute summary is limited to the usual nonsense… of goddess, delusion, evil, UFOs and ever other apsect of speculation the mind could conceive to refute anything Catholic. A complete lack of investigation, and mind you, without the credentials to draw such conclusions.

Calling it a “lack of investigation” is pretty unfair. Sure, you may disagree with her conclusions, but I would say the article detailed several of the apparitions quite well.

She doesn’t have a PHD in Psychiatry, nor has she spent ONE MOMENT with any of the Saints. Which btw those who actually hold those degrees, actually have done this, and delusion was the “first” aspect ruled out.

Huh? You need a degree (a PhD no less) to deny a supposed miracle? That position makes little sense even from your point of view (as there are dozens of Atheist Psychiatrists who would say such people are delusional).

Does she hold a degree in “Unexplained Flying Objects”? Flown in the military, ever experienced UFOs or FM? What experience does she have with such events? How about evil, and what degree does she hold in Philosophy and Theology or Exorcism/Demonic possession?

Again with the degrees? In light of the fact that there are literally thousands of secularists professionals who would deny these events? What you are committing is the reverse form of the argument from authority fallacy. Degrees do not validate a claim anymore than a lack of a degree invalidates a claim.

From your credentialist viewpoint the testimony of the apostles would have been discredited due to their lack of formal education.

Biblically speaking the only one ever to produce such a profound event unexplainable by modern science and to completely admonish the Laws of Nature and Physics… is GOD. And not only has it never been explained at Fatima, it was, predicted, dated, timed, and then, it occured on schedule. And even in 2012 this cannot be explained by modern science. If fact the amount of energy needed to perform that event would have burned alive everyone of those 70-Thousand. Their is NO explaination to date. Sorry to inform you. Its such a severe break in the laws of nature, it could be nothing but God.

Not true in the slightest. Regardless of whether or not you believe in apparitions, such things cannot be taken at face value. Have you read about the signs the antichrist will perform?

Do you have “ONE” actual shred of proof that satan could perform such an event as the Miracle of the Sun? Its course not, it doesn’t exist. He is not the “CREATOR” of this Universe…GOD is! He is NOT a God, he is a demon who “was” an archangel. Its no mystery on earth how he proceeds though… temptation. His war is against the flesh and truth, which he cannot accept, the temple of God, thus God. Its Biblical.

Revelation 13:13.

When you do not know something…the CHRISTIAN path is HONESTY. You say “I DO NOT KNOW”. When one jumps to I DO NOT BELIEVE then the first thought which comes to my mind is …“I wonder how much they actually believe in God thus the Supernatural”. When you jump to conclusions of your own opinion, then you need “proof” to back up your claims…NONE EXISTS!!! Shouting this or that doesn’t make it so.

I have made no statement as to whether or not I believe in the apparitions. I have simply provided a fair assessment from an Orthodox perspective (as requested by the OP).

If you don’t know, than you simply do not know. If you were not their, did not interview those involved, then you are reduced to others reseach who were there. And I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the scholars who have investigated this over the years, the list is staggering. As are the healings and miracles.

Sura 54:1-2 :forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

“The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain. And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.”

Not even the Catholic hierarchy accepts such supernatural occurrences as miracles from God simply because they occur (or else every Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. miracle would be accepted).

 

[Alfonsus]

My own conclusion is that Orthodoxy too, accept apparition as a possibilities. It is only that they don’t have systematic centralized way of evaluating it, thus it acceptance/rejection will gradually established based on the faithful acceptance/rejection of them.

The inclusion of several feasts commemorating apparition existed in Orthodox calendar. It shows that apparition acceptance is not something totally absent from church life.

The stories of apparitions are cherished within saint’s biography. From this we can see that apparitions get a better chance of approval when the receiver is glorified.

Apart from that, we can read stories regarding monks having apparitions. The story are more readily accepted by the laity, at least as a pious story. I remember reading a story regarding an unknown saint, a female saint, which icon was founded but apart from the name no one know the saint story. One day a monk receive an apparition of the saint, after which the monk ask the saint to pray along with him to test if she was evil spirit. Passed the test, they converse and the saint give the monk the story of her martyrdom. I think the saint is one of great miracle worker.

So I conclude, yes the Orthodox too accept the possibility of apparitions, visions, locutions. It is just that how it become accepted is different from Catholic way of recognition.

Somehow I too find Latin Catholic obsession with vision or apparition as over the board.

 

[adoglover1956]

[This answer is not intended as an exhaustive history, an attempt to settle allegations or open questions, much less to judge the authenticity of the apparitions.]
History. On June 24, 1981, six children in the town of Medjugorje, Yugoslavia (today, Bosnia-Herzegovina), began to experience phenomena which they alleged to be apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This apparition had a message of peace for the world, as well as a call to conversion, prayer and fasting. It also entrusted to the children secret messages about events to be fulfilled in the future. These “secrets,” confided individually to different visionaries, have not been revealed to the public. The apparitions themselves have continued almost daily since 1981, with some of the now young adults continuing to experience them regularly (those who have not yet received all the secrets intended for them) and others not. Originally they occurred on a hilltop near the town where a large Cross commemorating the Redemption exists. They have since occurred in many other places, including the parish church, St. James, and wherever the visionaries happen to be located at the time of the apparition.

The news that Our Lady might be appearing immediately began to attract pilgrims to Medjugorje, first from the surrounding countryside, and then, despite the communist government of that day, from Europe and the whole world. These included clergy and theologians, as well as experts from the physical and medical sciences who testified to some kind of phenomenon taking place when the apparition was said to be occurring. The private judgement of these early visitors did much to bolster people’s belief in the events at Medjugorje. In addition, some pilgrims reported seeing the sun spin and being able to look at it without pain or eye damage, others that their rosaries turned gold colored, still others that remarkable physical or spiritual/moral healings had taken place. All of these contributed to the fame of the alleged apparition.

Ecclesiastical Evaluation. The initial, informal, response of the Bishop Zanic of Mostar, in whose diocese Medjugorje is found, is said to have been favorable. However, it is alleged that comments attributed to the vision that was critical of the secular clergy and himself convinced him the visions could not be authentic. He nonetheless established a commission in 1982, comprised of theologians, scientific experts and religious superiors to investigate the Medjugorje events. Its three year study produced a vote from two members of the commission in favor of supernaturality, one that it was authentic initially but no longer so, one abstention and eleven votes that nothing supernatural was occurring there. Letter of Bishop Zanic

Since the Medjugorje events had exceeded the scope of a local event, Cardinal Kuharic, President of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference, announced in January 1987 that a national commission would be established to continue investigating. This decision had been communicated to the Holy See, which stated that it accepted the judgment of the diocesan commission under the authority of the local bishop but urged, as well, that the work be continued at the national level. The Bishops’ Conference’s instructions to the faithful were that pilgrimages should not be organized to Medjugorje on the basis of its being supernatural and that the Marian devotion of Catholics should be in accordance with Church teaching.
In April 1991 the following declaration was made by the Bishops’ Conference of the former Yugoslavia:

The bishops, from the very beginning, have been following the events of Medjugorje through the Bishop of the diocese [Mostar], the Bishop’s Commission and the Commission of the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia on Medjugorje.

On the basis of the investigations so far it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations. [emphasis added]

However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who come to Medjugorje, prompted both by motives of belief and various other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the diocesan bishop and with him of the other bishops also, so that in Medjugorje and in everything connected with it a healthy devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary may be promoted in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

For this purpose the bishops will issue specially suitable liturgical-pastoral directives. Likewise, through their Commission they will continue to keep up with and investigate the entire event in Medjugorje.