Marian apparitions...are they for real or a hoax?

[justinangel]

You seem awfully anxious to change the subject. Why not address the problem of knowing what the Magisterium says and doesn't say, how we'd know, and where the idea comes from that if there did happen to be uniformity that this somehow makes their opinion infallible?

I'm not the one who changed the subject. The subject is normally changed by Protestants who make provocative general remarks about Catholicism and the Catholic Church. Naturally we Catholics are compelled to respond. Suffice it to say, by defending the credibility of the Church, we defend the credibility of approved Marian apparitions and devotion. So these two subjects are connected.

Acts 15:28 for starters.

PAX

 

[Albion]

I'm not the one who changed the subject.

I think it was. And here's the reason...or call it a recap if you prefer.

The issue was Marian apparitions. Your thinking was that, if your church says to believe them, that's all you need. Of course, that's ridiculous if truth is the object. If it's devotion or loyalty you are interested in instead, that would be different.

But if we are discussing whether or not these things are legit, the "Magisterium" isn't a way of knowing, since no one can measure the opinion of the Magisterium, no one ever does, and there's no basis for thinking that it speaks accurately--let alone infallibly--anyway.

So there has to be another way of assessing whether or not these alleged appearances of the Virgin are real or bogus.

The subject is normally changed by Protestants who make provocative general remarks about Catholicism and the Catholic Church. Naturally we Catholics are compelled to respond.

I can say with assurance and experience that you do not have that it's the other way around. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with what you and I have been talking about to each other.

 

[justinangel]

I think it was. And here's the reason...or call it a recap if you prefer.

It was this reply by Marvin Knox which changed the subject, or more precisely extended it.

“The idea that God would sanction anything that would add in any way to the effectiveness of a system that has kept millions in bondage and masked and clouded the simple gospel so thoroughly for so long is almost too much for a born again believer to consider IMO.” [#174]

I simply tried to explain that the Church has never functioned in this way since apostolic time and that the true gospel message is in her custody. So one cannot dismiss any Marian apparition as false for the reasons given by Mr. Knox. It wasn't I who initially drew a correlation between the authenticity of Marian apparitions and the credibility of the Catholic Church. After reading Mr. Knox's reply I felt compelled to respond as I did. May I suggest you scroll back and review this thread and refrain from vain quibbling.

The issue was Marian apparitions. Your thinking was that, if your church says to believe them, that's all you need. Of course, that's ridiculous if truth is the object. If it's devotion or loyalty you are interested in instead, that would be different.

The issue is Marian apparitions. What has been brought to our attention by Mr. Knox is the question of the Catholic Church's credibility; whether God would sanction them and reinforce the Church's duplicity, if not invincible ignorance. Meanwhile, I never said that the magisterium can make an infallible pronouncement on the authenticity of any private revelation and that Catholics thereby must give their pious or sacred assent to the Church's final ruling. As I said, PRs do not belong to the deposit of faith. Also, the ordinary magisterium simply encourages Marian devotion and expects Catholics to heed any message from Mary that conforms with the Gospels and the official teachings of the Church regardless of whether these PRs are authentic. We can only be morally certain that they are. Catholics do not have to believe in any private revelation or even say the Rosary as they must assent to the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary which belong in the deposit of faith: sacred Scripture and Tradition. I suggest you read the encyclical of Pope Paul Vl, Christi Matri, and his other writing Marialis Cultus, to better understand the ordinary magisterium's stance on Marian devotion.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

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".

But if we are discussing whether or not these things are legit, the "Magisterium" isn't a way of knowing, since no one can measure the opinion of the Magisterium, no one ever does, and there's no basis for thinking that it speaks accurately--let alone infallibly--anyway.

This is another straw man of yours. As I pointed out above, the authority to determine whether a private revelation is authentic temporally lies with the local bishop of the archdiocese where the claim has been made. His ruling is fallible. It's just a question of moral certainty. Private revelations aren't dismissed because they are infallibly determined to be false, but because they clearly are at odds with the infallible teachings of the Church as contained in the deposit of faith. Similarly, a private revelation such as the one at Lourdes or Fatima isn't ruled to be authentic by an infallible decree of the universal magisterium. The magisterium simply accepts the decision of the local bishop that this PR is probably authentic given the circumstances. Neither the ordinary nor universal magisterium are involved in the decision making process. The Holy See maintains a distance and observes and advises the local bishop in his commission of inquiry, and may even intervene. Hence, I argued that if Mary has actually appeared to faithful Catholics it is because the Catholic Church must be the church which Christ founded on Peter and the Apostles. This was in response to Mr. Knox’s opinion that God would never allow such apparitions to take place in a false institution, although He would allow it to produce the canon of Scripture. I never said that the apparitions that have been approved by the Church are infallibly true by magisterial decree, but could be genuine because they have occurred in the Catholic Church.

So there has to be another way of assessing whether or not these alleged appearances of the Virgin are real or bogus.

Not even the Church can know for sure whether Marian apparitions are just as real as Christ's appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus. What Paul experienced is infallibly true, since it has been revealed in Scripture. It's likely that a local bishop rejected a claim that was authentic or bogus for reasons of his own. But we can never know for sure. As long as PRs have no potential to steer Catholics off the path of salvation according to the teachings of the Church, but rather helps them to advance along it, the Church encourages them to keep following that path. The apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima have been embraced by the entire Church as morally certain, not infallibly true. There is no moral reason to believe that they are false in light of Church teaching. But this doesn’t mean that they are infallibly true as is the virgin birth of Christ though maybe genuine as truly believed.

"In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."
Pope Urban VIII (1623-44)

PAX

 

[Albion]

It was this reply by Marvin Knox which changed the subject, or more precisely extended it.

“The idea that God would sanction anything that would add in any way to the effectiveness of a system that has kept millions in bondage and masked and clouded the simple gospel so thoroughly for so long is almost too much for a born again believer to consider IMO.” [#174]

All right. Let's move on.

I simply tried to explain that the Church has never functioned in this way since apostolic time and that the true gospel message is in her custody.

Had you shown that that was so, it would have been meaningful. Merely stating it as fact doesn't accomplish much.

So one cannot dismiss any Marian apparition as false for the reasons given by Mr. Knox.

Perhaps, but neither can we accept them as true. In fact, the presumption has to fall on the side of doubting them, since we all know that IF they are genuine--or certain of them--it's miraculous.

May I suggest you scroll back and review this thread and refrain from vain quibbling.

If you want to sound like a petulant child, certainly. It's your choice..

 

[justinangel]

Had you shown that that was so, it would have been meaningful. Merely stating it as fact doesn't accomplish much.

Perhaps if Marvin Knox had shown how the 'Roman' system has "kept millions in bondage and masked and clouded the simple gospel" I could have explained the Catholic position more. And if I did, you'd probably charge me with digressing from the subject.

Perhaps, but neither can we accept them as true. In fact, the presumption has to fall on the side of doubting them, since we all know that IF they are genuine--or certain of them--it's miraculous.

The rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes proposed the deductive method of attaining the truth by first doubting. As a result of this kind of thinking, Protestantism became even more fragmented than it had been before.

The Scribes and Pharisees doubted that Jesus was doing his Father's work when he performed miracles. They didn't think that his miraculous works supported his claims to be one with the Father and to have the divine authority to forgive sins. If the miracles he performed didn't help draw the Jewish people closer to God, then the religious elders would have had good reason to doubt Jesus and reject his claims as false.

Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
Matthew 12, 22-28

Countless people have experienced miraculous cures and conversions at Lourdes and Fatima among other Marian shrines around the world where Mary is believed to have appeared to faithful Catholics. We are in a better position to accept the apparitions there as true with moral certainty than we are in doubting their authenticity because of the fruits that have been borne by them, unless we wish to dismiss them as demonic or don't believe in miracles.

PAX

 

[Albion]

Perhaps if Marvin Knox had shown how the 'Roman' system has "kept millions in bondage and masked and clouded the simple gospel" I could have explained the Catholic position more.

Well, that's between you and Marvin, as far as I'm concerned.

The rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes proposed the deductive method of attaining the truth by first doubting. As a result of this kind of thinking, Protestantism became even more fragmented than it had been before.

I can't give that notion much credence since Decartes was a Catholic, he used a systematic doubt to arrive at a truth that the RCC itself supports, and because he came later in history than the Protestant Reformation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can't give that notion much credence since Decartes was a Catholic, he used a systematic doubt to arrive at a truth that the RCC itself supports, and because he came later in history than the Protestant Reformation.

I was equally perplexed by her deduction. It seems to me that one could easily pick up that ball and run with all manner of assertions about the Catholic Church. However, let's not go there.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Perhaps if Marvin Knox had shown how the 'Roman' system has "kept millions in bondage and masked and clouded the simple gospel" I could have explained the Catholic position more.

I'm not sure what it is that you want - photographic evidence of the atrocities of the inquisition and the Reformation? Admission by your leadership isn't enough?

I've shown you where your church's doctrine clearly pronounces a curse on their people if they profess salvation only through a private relationship with God through the "finished" work of Christ.

Millions are forbidden under threat of those kinds of curses to personally trust in Christ without an association with the Catholic Church.

I've given you the example of Mother Theresa herself as an example of someone very much in bondage to the system and unable to extricate herself no matter what kind of works she did in her life.

When you threaten your people with Hell and purgatory if they stray from your practices and approach God and apprehend salvation on their own between Him and them through Christ - THAT KEEPS THEM IN BONDAGE.

I intend to stay out of this thread now and would if you'd quit mentioning my name and it coming to my attention.

It wouldn't matter if I brought you thousands of even millions of X-Catholics to tell you how they are now "saved" and out of Catholic bondage. You would not accept it.

You and your "church" believe that the good news is the work of Christ plus the administration of that work by a select group of special Christians. Without that administration - there can be no salvation. To say and act otherwise is to be cursed to hell by that organization.

The bottom line is that you do not believe that there is a simple gospel that the people are being kept away from apprehending. It's that simple.

We can, at this stage, agree to disagree. I feel quite confident through my study of the Scriptures that there is a simple gospel to believe and I have believed it.

 

[Rhamiel]

"simple" does not mean true

we can look at Universalism as very simple, that does not make it correct

 

[Targaryen]

I'm not sure what it is that you want - photographic evidence of the atrocities of the inquisition and the Reformation? Admission by your leadership isn't enough?

How bout pictures of Protestant abuses of Catholics in the post-Reformation era or up to modern times?

If you are going to bring up such things, better bring up the fact that Protestants are not free from the same type of atrocities you wish to solely place on the Roman church alone.

I've shown you where your church's doctrine clearly pronounces a curse on their people if they profess salvation only through a private relationship with God through the "finished" work of Christ.

Millions are forbidden under threat of those kinds of curses to personally trust in Christ without an association with the Catholic Church.

Funny, I've seen no such curses. I've seen nothing but very skewed, unintelligent ranting about these "curses" Which is making your whole point rather ludicrous, not that it wasn't that to begin with.

I've given you the example of Mother Theresa herself as an example of someone very much in bondage to the system and unable to extricate herself no matter what kind of works she did in her life.

You do realize that Mother Theresa was under the "bondage" by her own will and want? And the work she did in Calcutta was not only needed but...saintly.

When you threaten your people with Hell and purgatory if they stray from your practices and approach God and apprehend salvation on their own between Him and them through Christ - THAT KEEPS THEM IN BONDAGE.

Hmmm and what do you think you are doing here? Biggest pot calling the kettle black moment I've seen yet.

I intend to stay out of this thread now and would if you'd quit mentioning my name and it coming to my attention.

It wouldn't matter if I brought you thousands of even millions of X-Catholics to tell you how they are now "saved" and out of Catholic bondage. You would not accept it.

You and your "church" believe that the good news is the work of Christ plus the administration of that work by a select group of special Christians. Without that administration - there can be no salvation. To say and act otherwise is to be cursed to hell by that organization.

Still waiting to see actual credible evidence that proves this conclusively. Less talk, more facts.

The bottom line is that you do not believe that there is a simple gospel that the people are being kept away from apprehending. It's that simple.

We can, at this stage, agree to disagree. I feel quite confident through my study of the Scriptures that there is a simple gospel to believe and I have believed it.

A gospel of hate is not what Jesus preached. I see nothing but hate here, therefore I dispute you've grasped the Gospel.

 

[Albion]

How bout pictures of Protestant abuses of Catholics in the post-Reformation era or up to modern times?

He probably thinks that that would be like comparing the Holocaust with the Penal Laws in Ireland...and calling it even.

 

[xTx]

Some years back in dealing with a house that had demonic manifestations and the witch that lived there.

One of the things that occurred was that the neighbors kept seeing a dead man walking around the area.

The man they were seeing had been murdered in the neighborhood and was a relative of the witch.

Was it the dead man's "ghost".

No, of course it was not.

It was a demonic apparition.

Does not matter what the name.

Those types of things are demonic.

Concur.

 

[Targaryen]

He probably thinks that that would be like comparing the Holocaust with the Penal Laws in Ireland...and calling it even.

Abuse is abuse...your misguided snark notwithstanding.

 

[xTx]

But I was trying to point out that perhaps you are mistaken in believing that Marian devotion opposes the Gospel message and that the "Roman Catholic Church" encourages this devotion in order to systematically keep its members in "bondage" with the intention of "masking" the truth. What you may have in mind is the idea of the Roman Catholic Church (founded by Peter and Paul) promoting a works based path to salvation independent of the activity of the Holy Spirit and based purely on human merit apart from grace. In any event, by your reasoning, we may just as well assume that the Catholic Church, by Pope Damsus' decree in the 4th century, established the canon of Scripture in order to enslave its members by teaching them false doctrines and encouraging false practices.

"But it has, on the other hand, been shown, that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples…For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24 (A.D. 180)

PAX

Amen. Well said Justinangel.

Dear OP,

Your question - Marian apparitions...are they for real or a hoax?

I have not attended any church for a long time because going to church is not easy for me.

However, I have been exposed to all kinds of churches & religions.

On one of my few visits of the Roman Catholic Church, I was at the status of Mother Mary - there was a crowd at the feet of her statue - I stood about 15 feet away from her statue and prayed the Hail Mary.

Suddenly, I saw a vision of a young lady.

I was shocked - and I noticed that people around me was startled by my reaction.

Was that Mother Mary?

At first I thought it was. But, today - I believe that I saw someone.

If it was demonic, I would have been frighten. I was not.

Today, I believe that there is something out there, nobody can understand.

Before I end, I saw a lady in my bedroom and I was not afraid.

Whilst the lady appeared, a host of voices sang the hymn in English only -

c/o SIR (2013)(Bengali Movie) - GOD's Divine Nature is Love (Song)(HD) - YouTube

Dear OP, God definitely exists.

If His Mother can bring people to Him, there is nothing wrong with it.

I do not attend the Catholic church but I believe that God reigns in Her Soul.

There is much that God has shown me with regards the spirit world whether I like it or not.

Sometimes, I get so scared but when I make the sign of the cross, the demonic spirits go away.

Demonic spirits prowl the earth to possess people.

Marian apparitions that bring people to God is 'not a hoax'.

The Roman Catholic Church has been testing spirits for more than two thousands years. Who are we to question her wisdom?

In the Roman Catholic Church - it takes at least between 7 to 11 years before a person can be considered a priest and be let loose into the world.

Don't you think that is a lot of learning?

Marian apparitions are for real if approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

P.S. I forgot to mention - even though I do not attend the Roman Catholic Church, I can freely said what I say above.

There is no bondage.

This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is telling the truth about Marian apparitions.

Ok, put it like this, if you ever experienced real life haunting - who will you turn to?

I have met self-professing Protestants who have experiences with real life demonic haunting - where do they go in the end?

The Roman Catholic Church. This is the answer they gave me.

P.S. After exhausting Protestant help - a Protestant used Holy Water blessed by Roman Catholic Priest - the demonic haunting stopped.

Ok, if you think it is a hoax, you will never know the truth until one day you get a real life experience. If you are 'lucky'.

May the Holy Spirit watch over you always.

 

[Albion]

Marian apparitions are for real if approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Flat Earth Society agrees with you, I'm sure.

 

[tadoflamb]

As my wife and I prepare to make our own pilgrimage to Lourdes in the coming weeks, I'm inclined to reflect on Our Lady and what she means to me. Truly, it's because of the Blessed Mother that I've come to know her glorious Son. She has succeeded where millions of self-proclaimed evangelists have failed.

What is becoming more clear, as this thread transpires, is that those Christians who have the tradition of not calling the Blessed Virgin Mary 'blessed' really don't have much of a response to the appearances of the Blessed Mother other than to dismiss them as hoaxes or satanic apparitions which, as evidenced, isn't a belief held by all who don't accept the Catholic faith in it's entirety.

So, outside of the Catholic Church, there is no answer as to what happened in Lourdes, or Fatima or on the Hill of Tepeyac. Being a Catholic, I'm prone to the belief that if the Catholic Church says the appearances are credible, than they are credible. Why are they credible? Because nothing about them contradicts the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition or the 2000 teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. Even if this weren't true, my personal experience and conversion convinces me that they are reliable. Besides that, I believe the Sacred Scriptures when they tell me the Church is the 'pillar and foundation of all truth'.

I fear Marvin Knox has tipped his protestant hand when he proclaimed:

I feel quite confident through my study of the Scriptures that there is a simple gospel to believe and I have believed it.

Aside from the personal speculations, historical errors and exaggerations, for me I have to decide which bears more authority, the 2000 year teaching authority of the Catholic Church or the personal revelations of a modern bible reader rendering his/her private judgments?

I'll go with the Church every time.

 

[Albion]

I'll go with the Church every time.

Pretty much sums up all your posts, doesn't it?

 

[tadoflamb]

Pretty much sums up all your posts, doesn't it?

Yup, that and the protestant love of religious liberty is really a myth.

 

[Albion]

Yup, that and the protestant love of religious liberty is really a myth.

If you've got it, you can thank Protestantism for it. And that's no myth.


.

 

[Rhamiel]

If you've got it, you can thank Protestantism for it. And that's no myth.


.

could we say the same thing about Secularism?

lol or am I getting too far off topic?