World map of Marian apparitions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Garydavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would prefer getting rid of the unconfirmed ones just to get rid of the clutter.

Also, isn’t Lady of Akita and Lady of Las Lajas approved by the Vatican?
 
rightness said:
I would prefer getting rid of the unconfirmed ones just to get rid of the clutter.
Click to expand...
And just how exactly would that be accomplished? The only way the Church could “get rid of an unconfirmed one” would be to order the faithful to not pray/ worship God/ venerate Mary or the saint at the apparition site or in connection with the apparition. The Church likes to see people praying and such, and is not going to tell them to stop prayerful activities unless there is some abuse going on (for example, the apparition supposedly told everybody the Pope is evil, or the visionary is collecting big donations from everybody who visits and spending them on a lavish lifestyle). In addition, one basis on which apparitions may be ultimately evaluated is whether they bear good fruit in increasing people’s faith or making them pray more, etc. and if the Church “gets rid” of apparitions at the unconfirmed stage, it will never get to see what fruit if any comes from that.
Also, isn’t Lady of Akita and Lady of Las Lajas approved by the Vatican?
Click to expand...
Our Lady of Akita falls in the “bishop approved” category; the local bishop approved it. He submitted it to the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which never issued a definitive pronouncement on paper, despite some controversial claims that it was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger who was then head of the CDF. Miraclehunter continues to list it as “Bishop Approved”, not “Vatican Approved”.

Our Lady of Las Lajas was never formally investigated, but is considered to be “traditionally approved” because in the 1950s the Vatican authorized the cult of Our Lady of Las Lajas and declared the church built on the spot to be a minor basilica.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
The only way the Church could “get rid of an unconfirmed one” would be to order the faithful to not pray/ worship God/ venerate Mary or the saint at the apparition site or in connection with the apparition. The Church likes to see people praying and such, and is not going to tell them to stop prayerful activities unless there is some abuse going on
Click to expand...
Prudence is the forgotten virtue.
Unapproved sites compete for donations and publicity with approved sites. On the internet, unapproved private Revelations get commingled with approved ones. Sure, people come to pray, but there’s often literature handed out.

Compare this to Catholic colleges. Years ago there was no need to ask Theology teachers for a mandatum from the bishop, because they were all orthodox. Today it is necessary. It is imprudent not to ask.

The Church is being hit with a tidal wave of attacks, specifically on the authority of the bishops. The media constantly promotes the idea that Catholics should make up their OWN mind on abortion, same sex marriage, ordination of women, theology, etc not rely on some cover up bishop.

Supposed “conservative” websites constantly criticize bishops, and no one else. This is not the time to defend unapproved apparitions (many of which also attack the bishops).
 
Oh I’m just saying for the sake of the faithful, they should focus on the ones that are not the green/teal ones. There are plenty others that are approved to a degree.

We had an entire heretical sect formed because a lady believed she is the reincarnation of Mary, and people fell for it. Satan can use our energies to be wasted on a window stain that looks like our Mother. Better to use those energies on actual, approved (to a degree) Marian apparitions, which is everything non-teal.
 
I can’t cite specific examples of those that attacked the bishops, where the bishops have not disapproved them. Point conceded. But what about my other points on the post you cited, about Prudence in the current environment? Any comments?
 
It’s not the bishops or priests promoting the unapproved apparitions, nor CAF as we’re not allowed to post about them (which I think is a prudent move if only to stifle 500 Medjugorje threads).

Seeing as how it’s a free country, anybody can open a website or go on the news claiming to see or hear Jesus or Mary. I certainly don’t go running after them unless I see some approval from a bishop. Of the lesser-known apparitions I take an interest in, two are bishop-approved and two others are approved for faith expression. There is another in my area that is extorting money and preaching prepper stuff and the bishop has already denounced it and told Catholics not to have anything to do with it. So I don’t have a lot of suspect apparitions in my life.

I think the bishops tend to say something whenever a claimed apparition really goes off the rails, so I rely on their judgment, at least in USA.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top