Which Marian apparition do you find to be the most compelling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPRPsych said:
Lourdes, for the following reasons:
  1. The message of penance and reparation for sinners is timeless.
  2. The Immaculate Conception was confirmed from above.
  3. There are dozens of authenticated miracles.
  4. St. Bernadette.
  5. Unlike some other apparitions, it has not led to any paranoid conspiracy theories, shoddy eschatology, or open slander and disrespect of the Church and the Popes.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:I agree totally. The main reason I have such a problem with Fatima is the overt political message. The next time my daughter and I are in France we are going to try and make the journey to Lourdes.
 
I really love all Our Lady’s apparitions, but I have never heard of Siluva. And since I have, I can’t stop thinking about it. Wish she would do that HERE! Thanks for telling me…
 
kozlosap said:
:thumbsup:I agree totally. The main reason I have such a problem with Fatima is the overt political message. The next time my daughter and I are in France we are going to try and make the journey to Lourdes.
Click to expand...
It came from God, you have to take that up with Him!. God Bless, memaw
 
We all know that Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Private revelations will never be on the same level as Divine Revelation. There are a lot of beliefs the Church encourages that are not obligatory. Saying the Rosary and other Devotions for example and even going to Daily Mass is not an obligation but the Church certainly encourages it. When the Church states a private revelation such as Fatima, Lourdes etc, is "Worthy of Belief’. It means just that. WORTHY OF BELIEF. Not an obligation to believe certainly but like I said it before, we would be wise to listen to the Church instead of discouraging it’s importance.God Bless, Memaw
 
You don’t believe that God sent His Mother to us at Fatima, Lourdes erc. to tell us something??? She couldn’t come if HE didn’t! God Bless, Memaw
 
You might have taken that up with Pope John Paul II. (where you say it doesn’t form a key part of the faith). because he gave Our Lady of Fatima credit for saving his life. And he had the bullet put in her crown at Fatima. Seemed to be a key part of his faith. God Bless, Memaw
 
I find that the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe is astonishing. Look at the effects that followed. Mexico is very devoted to the Virgin Mary. So many souls are Catholic in Mexico.
 
Oh really, then why have all the Popes since Fatima been very outspoken on the importance of Our Lady’s messages. Pope Pius XII said it was a “Reaffirmation of the Gospels!” Some have even gone there and also brought the stature of Our Lady of Fatima to The Vatican. Certainly they didn’t have an indifferent attitude towards the events there. All approved Apparitions of Our Lady are very important to the Catholic Faith. God Bless, Memaw
 
Your choice, that’s called “free will”. So are you here just to try to discourage others???God Bless, Memaw
 
Sorry to say but Fr. Gruner is a very, very poor example of Fatima. He has done his best to cause disention for many years. If my memory serves me right, he is not allowed to say Mass or even have any kind of gathering at Fatima. There always have been and probably always will be, people like him that think they know more that the Pope, and the Church. Personally, I wouldn’t give him the time of day except to pray for him and all those he is misleading. God Bless, Memaw
 
Interesting discussion on whether belief in a Marian apparition as being essential to belief or not. I believe it is essential for those whom are called to believe them, but not necessarily essential for all believers.

Private revelation may be just as true as public revelation. However, we are not obliged to believe the private revelations as the protection against error is only guaranteed regarding public revelation.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Interesting discussion on whether belief in a Marian apparition as being essential to belief or not. I believe it is essential for those whom are called to believe them, but not necessarily essential for all believers.

Private revelation may be just as true as public revelation. However, we are not obliged to believe the private revelations as the protection against error is only guaranteed regarding public revelation.
Click to expand...
I wonder why so many keep insisting that private revelations are not obligatory. I don’t recall anyone ever saying they were! My opinion is tho, if they are sent to us by God, (and that’s the only way they would be true), and the Church finds them Worthy of Belief, then it would be in our best interest to pay attention to them. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
I wonder why so many keep insisting that private revelations are not obligatory…
Click to expand...
Probably because of what is stated in the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/67.htm

67 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.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
 
As an ex-atheist - you probably equipped better than most to tease apart the public and historical aspects of Fatima from the private revelations of Fatima.

When it comes to a display of the non-natural (supernatural or preternatural), I see Fatima as practically irrefutable. Given your perspective - I am very curious to hear if you think that there is even the least bit of room to suggest that the events in Fatima on October 13, 1917 could have been completely natural. My perception is that there is not any room to make that kind of claim.

However, I think that your comment about deeper faith makes sense - as you might see that while the events were not natural, they may not necessarily be of God. Is that what you’re talking about?
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Probably because of what is stated in the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/67.htm

67 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.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
Click to expand...
I also said I don’t recall anyone ever saying they were obligatory. No one ever said they belonged to the Deposit of Faith, either. But as I said before, if the Church finds them “worthy of belief”, then they are just that. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
I also said I don’t recall anyone ever saying they were obligatory. No one ever said they belonged to the Deposit of Faith, either. But as I said before, if the Church finds them “worthy of belief”, then they are just that. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if “obligatory” or “They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith.” is the same thing or not, but my impression is that is where people (including myself) gets the idea that the Church finds them not to be obligatory in nature and therefore express it that way.

Nonetheless, I do believe many of the apparitions approved by the Church are true…perhaps even all of them (I don’t know enough about all of them to pass my personal judgement upon them).

I do agree with you that if the Church finds them worthy of belief, it is worthwhile to truly consider what has been said regarding them.

For example, I have always been intrigued about what was going on at Medjugorje and the claims of the Blessed Virgin’s appearances there. Yet, Mary (in my opinion) was appearing at Kibeho right around the same time period and many failed to see what was going on over there. The local bishop never approved of Medjugorje yet the local bishop approved of what was happening at Kibeho. Because of this local approval, I have paid closer attention to the messages as being more authentic at Kibeho compared to that at Medjugorje. That approval holds a lot of weight for me I must admit.

It’s a challenge whether or not to take the leap of faith that something extraordinary is occurring or not before formal approval occurs. Certainly the faithful were coming in droves at Medjugorje (which ultimately hasn’t been approved) and Kibeho (which was approved).
 
You do not even list the only approved Marian Apparition in the USA…Our Lady of Good Help. Read the story -it is in our country and very compelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top