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

  • Thread starter Thread starter adoglover1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For me its not at all difficult. Their is NOTHING “Supernatural” which has occured at this sight, and that “is” what has been constantly emphasised by the Bishops.

As to the Vatican…and YOUR statement, “And that position is “Under Investigation”. Not approved or rejected, simply no decision has been filed yet.”

Umm, no its a little deeper than that…
Cardinal Bertone
No, it is not more deeper than that. The Church as a whole has not approved or rejected the apparition. If it has, then prove otherwise.

The case is currently under investigation, which is the current status. Nothing less, Nothing more. If the Church was currently inclined to either approve or reject, the inclination is simply that. An inclination.
"Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.
And what am I arguing? Precisely that. That it is still under examination by the Church. I myself would never accept going to a pilgrimage at Med, knowing it is not an approved apparition.
 
No, it is not more deeper than that
Its only this deep…Here listen again, here is what the Pope stated…“how can any believer accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?”

Un-approved, non-supernatural. I don’t have to prove anything, seems to me you do.
 
Its only this deep…Here listen again, here is what the Pope stated…“how can any believer accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?”

Un-approved, non-supernatural. I don’t have to prove anything, seems to me you do.
Didn’t you say the apparitions “stopped” right after the Pope made that statement. Think of all the time that has been taken away from prayer to discuss this. Hmmmmm.
 
Have there been Bishops, Approving or Rejecting an actual apparition, and be proven to be mistaken by the actual decree of the Vatican? Yes
Please give examples as I personally am not aware of any. Those Bishops who first display scepticism are usually convinced to approve the apparitions when they are authentic by GOD himself working through his own persuasive means- There’s NEVER any disobedience or defiance from the visionaries, only compliance. They trust God to do his work with the Bishops and authority, they don’t set themselves or the apparitions above the Bishops’ authority.
What I posted, simply supports my position that Local Bishop’s decree are not sufficient
Remember, St. Juan Diego told the local Bishop, Juan de Zumárraga, of the apparition (of our Lady of Guadalupe); doubtful, he asked for proof. Juan Diego later returned to the Tepeyac desert hill; again, the Lady appeared to Juan Diego, who told her of the bishop’s request for proof of her apparition.
This bishop was highly skeptical and had not St. Juan Diego brought the Tilma as proof, this Bishop probably would have not approved such apparition.
EXACTLY! The Virgin COMPLIED with the Bishop’s requests, she did not instigate defiance from St. Juan Diego! The Bishop’s authority was CONSTANTLY respected both by St.Juan Diego and the Blessed Virgin herself! God is the one who works to make the authorities do the right thing- He never works against the authority he himself has established.
The reported Garabandal apparitions from 1961 to 1965 were examined by the local Bishop and were declared as not having evidence of being of supernatural origin. However the apparitions were not declared as a hoax and the possibility of future approval was left open.
Please do not start us on Garabandal! Whatever faith you place in apparitions above Church authority is your business- But seems like a very shakey position to me. 🤷
This is a good example of a post you give trying to imply I assume something I don’t. Of course not all the Popes we’ve had were saints. No one is arguing this.
You’ve displayed this habit here of going around in circles trying to deny what you’ve stated earlier. Who started going on about how Bishops and Cardinals have been wrong? So have the Popes. Be clear on what you’re trying to say.
No one is saying don’t trust a Bishop. No one is saying their judgements have no weight. No one is saying that the bishops should be ignored because we have a Pope. I think Ive stated this numerous times.
No you haven’t. You’ve kept going on and on about how we should not reject the Apparition because the Church has not spoken and that the Vatican is the one that speaks. Your constant drawing of circles, saying one thing, jumping it in the next post, is getting extremely tiresome.
 
Its only this deep…Here listen again, here is what the Pope stated…“how can any believer accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?”

Un-approved, non-supernatural. I don’t have to prove anything, seems to me you do.
As I was telling Marybeloved, there are opinions backing up both sides. But they are just that, opinions.

1- In his book Is the Virgin Mary Appearing at Medjugorje? (written with co-author Ljudevit Rupčić) theologian and mariologist Fr. René Laurentin stated that "there are no doctrinal problems at Međugorje.

2- Another theologian, Fr. Michael O’Carroll, studied the events and concluded that: “after having studied the facts of Međugorje in books and [in Međugorje], I am entirely convinced of the authenticity of these apparitions.”

3- John Paul II, the Pope at the time the apparitions began, also began making comments about Međugorje. The Slovak-born bishop Pavol Hnilica claimed that in March 1984, John Paul told him, “Međugorje is the fulfillment and continuation of Fatima.”

On August 1, 1989, the Holy Father stated to Bishop Hnilica: “Today the world has lost the supernatural. Many people sought it and found it in Međugorje through prayer, fasting and through confession.” Then the following year the Korean Catholic (Nov. 11, 1990) reported the following conversation between Archbishop Angelo Kim and John Paul: “Thanks to you, Poland has now been freed from Communism”, the archbishop said. “No, not me”, replied the Holy Father, “but by the works of the Blessed Virgin according to her affirmations at Fatima and Međugorje.”

In 1994, during an address by Bishop Hnilica at a National Conference at Notre Dame, the bishop stated that the Holy Father had said to a group of Americans on their way to Međugorje, “Our Lady of Međugorje will save America.” The bishop did not elaborate further.

Pope John Paul II also sent a “Thank You” note in August 2002 to Fr. Jozo Zovko, the former parish priest of Međugorje, for his charitable activities. The headline from the August 24, 2002 Zagreb daily newspaper declared, “A surprising gesture from the Vatican. The Pope thanks Father Jozo for Međugorje!” The article reported that a handwritten note by the Holy Father was delivered to Fr. Zovko invoking “a new outpouring of graces and heavenly favors, and the continuous protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

I could site more supports for Medjugorje. But, does this make it worthy of belief? Of course not. Do opinions contrary to Med make it unworthy of belief? No, they don’t either. Because they are just that, opinions. As Ive said before, there’s no official approval or rejection yet. If you want to reject it already, that’s up to you. Remember no one is obliged to believe in any apparition even if its approved anyway.

When you say “Un-approved, non-supernatural. I don’t have to prove anything, seems to me you do.”

The word unapproved is not equal to rejected. All those apparitions that are under investigation, are classified as “un-approved”, but this doesn’t mean they have no chances of being approved later on. Even the approved apparitions once were “Un-approved” because it is the first phase before approval or rejection. So no, I don’t have anything to prove. I already provided good amount of links which state that the apparition has neither been approved or rejected. Which is how it officially is.
 
Marybeloved, First reply to this:

Medjugorje is not just some local issue that the Bishop must solve. Some 30 million pilgrims have visited Međugorje since the supposed apparitions. It is not just a local issue. Rather a worldwide one. Usually the Vatican gets involved.

Go to this link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition

Scroll down to: Local Diocese Approval. Let me quote what it says here:​

"If the local bishop authorizes devotion inspired by an apparition to proceed, based on an initial assessment, that permission is to be distinguished from formal approval, which recognizes an event as being supernatural in origin. Such approval may follow years or even centuries later. A recent example of such a delay is the case of Our Lady of Laus, in which devotion was approved by the local diocese in 1665, but which obtained formal recognition as a supernatural event only in 2008.

Moreover, Marian apparitions often involve complications at the local diocese, and a letter of approval or disapproval from a local bishop, does not automatically signal approval or denial. A recent example is the apparitions of Our Lady of Kibeho in the 1980s in Kibeho, Rwanda. In 1982 the teenagers who saw the visions reported truly gruesome sights and said that the Virgin Mary asked everyone to pray to prevent a terrible war. Some today regard the visions as an ominous foreshadowing of the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, and particularly in that specific location in 1995, where some teenagers died a decade after their vision. The apparitions were accepted by the local bishop (accused by many of complicity in the genocide himself), but have not been given final approval by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."​

The “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” if ya didn’t know, is the oldest of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia. Among the most active of the congregations, it oversees Catholic Church doctrine. Its offices are housed at the Palace of the Holy Office at the Vatican.

If you read the 2 paragraphs (which I hope you actually did), they state 3 different things which support my position:

1- Local Bishop decrees are not sufficient. This is not the same as stating they should be ignored.

2- Even if the Bishops approves/rejects, there is a process of Investigation which is made precisely because bishops can make mistakes. If not, why then would there be such process?

3- It also says it could take several years for a “formal” approval or rejection. Even centuries. The approval of our Lady of Guadalupe for example took some 200 years after the actual apparition. How many Local Bishops would you have in that amount of time?
 
And reply to this too which is related to the above:

Let us look at what the current Pope said in 1991 (when he was a cardinal).​

“Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) said in a 1991 interview in reference of Medugorje: “If we have only a local phenomenon, it’s not necessary that the Vatican intervene.” In situations of greater importance, however, the Vatican may either confirm or override the bishop’s decision with its own declaration. No reported claim of a supernatural apparition can receive approved status until the alleged phenomena have ceased.”

Medugorje is a situation of greater importance, not just a local issue.
 
At work I’m going through some patristics from St. John Chrysostom. He talks about miracles as a basis of faith. I’ll have to go back and find what he says but I’ll post it here tonight.
 
At work I’m going through some patristics from St. John Chrysostom. He talks about miracles as a basis of faith. I’ll have to go back and find what he says but I’ll post it here tonight.
Do you do ministerial work in some capacity?
 
there are opinions backing up both sides.
Well. my brother in Christ I see no sense making an issue out of this. After all it is Lent.😉 I have no doubt in my mind of what the Lord can do. Do I know for fact nothing occured at this sight? Of course not. I’m confident just as the US Bishops web sight states, people are flocking their from worldwide and rediscovering their faith. or a faith they were not aware of to start with. I have my doubts about how healthy some of this is. However if it leads one to the Church/Eucharist and Christ, then Amen. So in this sense I see no reason to disrespect the place, nor is that my intention. I’m of the opinion there are some very Holy sights one can visit which we know for fact are Historic.

I find it a bit over the top for followers to spend thousands and bring home rocks from the path to the Cross at Med.

I do believe many Christians are seeking this feel good type of Christianity, be it a evangelical congregation, or this image of the Blessed Mother which incorrectly understood leads one to what the Apostolic Churchs are not, in a fanatical devotion which seems to do everything but include the Church/Eucharist/Prayer. So there are two extremes.

Truth is I viewed this no different than the above statement by Pope Benedict, and by that I mean in no way to compare myself a sinner, to the Holy Father.

Its very difficult when we are talking apparitions which no-one see’s and seem to occur daily including this month.

Which certainly isn’t to say this isn’t Biblical with apparitions. I’m convinced of the mystical realm and am positive we are quickly passing through. However, my path is just as I state, Church, Eucharist and Prayer. In this sense I don’t disagree with the Orthodox church, there’s a correct focus there. I defend the Blessed Mother for the truth is, way to many Christians have the church theology/history/bible completely distorted. Seems to be a wedge which must be resolved. I’m of the opinion we are in period due to the disrepect in this regard that the Lord will not Bless that type of disregard, and any issue which divides must be resolved. We are not afforded the opportunity in this period as we all see to remain at odds with each other.

However let me get off the soapbox, I see no value in distracting the thread on Medugorje.

Peace
 
At work I’m going through some patristics from St. John Chrysostom. He talks about miracles as a basis of faith. I’ll have to go back and find what he says but I’ll post it here tonight.
I notice you have been articulating very well as of late, what “have” you been reading?😉
 
Do you do ministerial work in some capacity?
Nope, and I dare say I fully believe I would be incompetant in such a capacity. 🙂

However I do work for a Christian company, and this happens to be what I was looking at today.
 
I notice you have been articulating very well as of late, what “have” you been reading?😉
Much less than I should.

I’m ashamed to say that actually doing what I had been tasked with doing with the books, I didn’t have time to go back and get the promised reference to miracles. I have a copy on my kindle, with luck I’ll have a chance to do it sometime this evening.
 
Isn’t even remotely qualified to make medical assessments to an individuals state of mind, “SAINTS” no less, whom she “never” met. There’s no need to even dive futher into her Witch Hunt which culminates with UFOs. 😃 Its a bias “opinion”
If she has misrepresented your visionaries, then by all means refute her accusations. Ad hominems alone are not a valid defense.
Good list the DOZENS of Atheist Psychiatrists love to hear what they have to say, or is this more speculation of top of speculation? Next, did they observe the individuals, read the medical reports, then what is the basis of their conclusion? Let me know when you acquire that information.
Let it be known, however, that I have all manner of distrust for academia. I cannot comprehend your inherent respect and admiration for them, but if you desire it, I will provide several relevant links :

Joe Nickell, Ph.D :

csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima

Michael Dean Murphy, Ph.D:

lysator.liu.se/skeptical/newsletters/Georgia_Skeptic/GS05-03.TXT

Auguste Meessen, Ph.D (this guy is a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven

meessen.net/AMeessen/MirSun.pdf
Are you even remotely serious? This woman is calling people “delusional”. INSULTING SAINTS is un CHRISTIAN. Let alone unqualifed to medically do so.
The logic you present is circular. If the visionary in question was delusional, he/she would not be a saint. Yet, you deny accusations of delusion on the grounds of proclaimed sainthood. While this may persuade those within your own communion, it does not convince those outside of it. Before anyone else could accept the proposed saint, accusations of delusion must be disproven.
The Apostles were EYE witness to the Miracles they witnessed. They passed their testimony to their students, thus the unanomous testimony of the ECFs in Bible. Did she recieve testimony from an eyewitness chosen by Christ? Didn’t think so.
I agree, but your logic cannot accurately defend this point (while maintaining others). Muhammad (and many others) were supposed eye witness to the “Splitting of the Moon”. By the logic you have presented, either both the Apostles and Muhammad were wrong, or both were (presumably) correct. For in the first scenario, both should be discounted for lack of formal education, whereas in the second, both cannot be discredited by anyone lacking PhDs and records of formalized study/interview.
What exactly will the Antichrist do Mark?
The antichrist (as do the forces of darkness) will perform many signs to deceive “even the very elect”. 2 Thessalonians 2:9 and Revelation 16:14 :

…even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

The idea that all supernatural occurrences come from God is completely untrue (as well as dangerous).
I don’t read FICTION. 🤷
To employ your PhD method, how do you know such a miracle is fiction? Do you have a PhD? Did you interview Muhammad? Did you interview any of the other eyewitnesses? Your defense of miracles is illogical because your established criteria leaves no room to challenge other supposed-miracles. Gary, I think most Catholics (even those who believe in the apparitions) would agree with me here. Your arguments are not logically sound.
 
I believe we need moderator help here.
The thread is getting away from the topic, it became a debate thread regarding apparition like Medjugorje and Fatima.
 
I believe we need moderator help here.
The thread is getting away from the topic, it became a debate thread regarding apparition like Medjugorje and Fatima.
Given that it appears to be an Orthodox poster arguing with a Catholic poster it seems right on topic to me.
 
Marybeloved, First reply to this:
You’ve given fine examples of Bishop APPROVAL for venerations and devotions being followed later by formal declarations- Why do I see NONE of Bishop DISAPPROVAL being followed later by approvals? Also I asked you for examples of what you claimed earlier. About Local importance vs greater importance, the article Adoglover provided said that the matter is up to the Council of Bishops of that Country.
 
I can’t find the portion I was looking for. I think it is in Homily 45.

St. John Chrysostom compares those who base their faith on miracles to the seed (from the parable in Matthew) which falls on rough ground and can grow no roots.

The point being that whether or not a miracle or apparition is true or false shouldn’t matter. It shouldn’t be the basis of ones faith. If one believes in one miracle, and another believes in another, they can both hold the same faith (or completely different faiths - the point being that the miracle doesn’t (shouldn’t) define the faith).

Within Orthodox tradition we don’t formally pronounce one miracle worthy of belief, and another heretical. We simply look to see whether it is in conformity with Tradition or not. It is (informally) discarded if it is not, and if it is, some may believe it, others not.

For this reason I believe in certain Marian apparitions among the Catholic Church, while rejecting others, and having absolutely no opinion on yet others.
 
Within Orthodox tradition we don’t formally pronounce one miracle worthy of belief, and another heretical. We simply look to see whether it is in conformity with Tradition or not. It is (informally) discarded if it is not, and if it is, some may believe it, others not.

For this reason I believe in certain Marian apparitions among the Catholic Church, while rejecting others, and having absolutely no opinion on yet others.
You sum up the Catholic position too, while highlighting one of the differences between the Eastern and Western Approach.

You’re absolutely right- No miracles or apparitions (apart from those recorded in the Bible and sacred tradition which pertain to the one revelation of Christ revealed once and for all), ought to be the basis of anyone’s faith. That really should be clear to everyone. No apparition, however fantastic can ever add to or supersede the faith as taught by the Blessed Apostles.

While the West follows a more formal, systematic way of dealing with private revelations and miracles (as well as “sainting” people), the East goes about it in a less formal way, but no less cautious. The aim is the same in the end- To uphold the truth once for all handed down to man in our Blessed Lord, while remaining open to the workings of God the Holy Spirit in our lives and the Church throughout time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top