"approved" Apparitions

[Selah]

I've read about the different Marian apparitions and even the visons of Christ. One thing that...well, I'll be honest here...one thing that upsets me is how hasty decisons are made to condemn them. I heard for instance, that before the Divine Mercy Diary was approved, it was locked up. And the Fatima and Lourdes apparitions were not treated with such respect before they were approved.

And as for Medjugorje, Garabandal, and Bayside, I see so many websites condemning them as demons...why? Why be so hasty? We don't know who it is, what's going on there. And, what if Bayside or Garabandal, even Medjugorje (though I am skeptical about Medjugorje) turn out to be Mary? We will have been calling her a devil all this time!

Would it not be better to just admit that we don't know? More repsectful to Our Lord and Lady to make sure we know 100% so as not to offend them if it actually is them?

I dunno. Let me know what you guys think.

+Selah

[dominicansoul]

There are always "technicalities" that hinder investigations. In the instance of the Divine Mercy Diary, there were numerous discrepencies between the translations and what St. Faustina actually wrote. It was the earlier translations that forced the Church to suppress the Diary. It wasn't until the actual writings of St. Faustina were presented that the Diary was approved. I believe Our Lord told St. Faustina that this would happen.

It is pertinent that the Church be fast to condemn those "apparitions" that have absolutely no authenticity about them. This way, souls won't get confused and lost in what is obviously not true. Bayside, I believe, was an "easy" apparition to dismiss. The others you mentioned, have been a bit more difficult to analyze and discernment is needed.

As far as people stating their opinions, I agree with you. We should just wait on the Church, before outright calling apparitions "diabolical."

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='27 June 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1277643855' post='2134835']As far as people stating their opinions, I agree with you. We should just wait on the Church, before outright calling apparitions "diabolical."
[/quote]

I treat this sort of thing in a [url="http://d-rium.blogspot.com/2010/06/apologia-for-my-work-part-ii.html"]recent article[/url] on my blog.

-KJS

[marielapin]

Don't confuse a ban with a condemnation. It's not that they are condemned quickly. The church "bans" them in order to study and then authenticate them before spreading the devotion. Usually what happens during that "ban" is that the community that surrounded the apparitions is allowed to practice the devotion, but not to actively SPREAD or promote it until it is deemed authentic. I find this wise. The church does not condemn and then un-condemn, she puts these new apparitions devotions in a type of quarantine before authentification.

[Selah]

Oh, I see. That makes a lot more sense, actually. Like saying, "hold on, let's make sure this is authentic"

[marielapin]

Also, the church does not start the complete evaluation process of the Marian apparitions until they have officially ended. And at least in the case of Medj, they are still ongoing. So you could see how it would be difficult to authenticate something when next month they could come back with some crazy anti-Catholic "revelation" from Mary.

[marielapin]

[quote name='Selah' date='27 June 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1277651533' post='2134880']
Oh, I see. That makes a lot more sense, actually. Like saying, "hold on, let's make sure this is authentic"
[/quote]

EXACTLY. I've seen first hand what can happen when a group of otherwise devout Catholics, convinced of the authenticity of a founder/leader's apparitions (despite a ruling from the church) have been lead away from the church to follow these new "revelations". It is destructive to the unity of the church, and of families. Private revelation should only enhance or confirm our knowledge of the current teachings of the church, not introduce new ones or change old ones.

[marielapin]

I guess you could say the only ban is on the encouragement or promotion of a devotion outside of its original community. Although in today's world with easy access to information via the internet, this is harder to impose.

Edited June 27, 2010 by marielapin

[Selah]

So, one could be devoted to, say, Our Lady of Garabandal, as long as he or she does not promote the said apparition?

[Jaime]

Its important to note that if the Vatican had definitive proof that there was something about an apparition that was in direct contradiction to the Faith, the Vatican would denounce it immediately. The Vatican waits to make judgment on an apparition until after the apparitions stop unless there's an obvious reason to do so earlier.

[Selah]

The Medjugorje one will probably never stop. It's so new-agey and silly in my view.

[marielapin]

[quote name='Selah' date='27 June 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1277652892' post='2134893']
So, one could be devoted to, say, Our Lady of Garabandal, as long as he or she does not promote the said apparition?
[/quote]

Yes. From what I understand, you can have a personal devotion to these apparitions before the church rules, but once she does so, you should be obedient in order to protect your own spiritual well-being (assuming it is a condemnation). Usually in the case of a condemnation the Vatican releases a paper telling what specifically has raised flags.

Edited June 27, 2010 by marielapin

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='Selah' date='27 June 2010 - 07:51 AM' timestamp='1277643062' post='2134831']
And, what if Bayside or Garabandal, even Medjugorje (though I am skeptical about Medjugorje) turn out to be Mary?[/quote]
Yikes, I'd be more skeptical about Bayside (or rather completely closed about it) than Medjugorje .. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bayside.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/...ers/bayside.htm[/url] .. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/newage/mugabay.txt"]http://www.ewtn.com/...age/mugabay.txt[/url]

[marielapin]

[quote name='Selah' date='27 June 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1277653241' post='2134901']
The Medjugorje one will probably never stop. It's so new-agey and silly in my view.
[/quote]

I know that one of the visionaries of Medj. comes and visits a heterox "Catholic" cult not too far from where I currently live (it's in my old hometown). From that location, they have hugely advertized public "apparition" gatherings (complete with street billboards and everything, hundreds of miles from the actual event location). Technically she's the only one to see Mary, but thousands of people come to pray and listen to her and just be there when the scheduled apparition occurs. This raises so many flags to me, specifically the choice of location in a cult community formally stripped of it's association with Catholicism by the bishop.

Edited June 27, 2010 by marielapin

[Jaime]

[quote name='marielapin' date='27 June 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1277654689' post='2134908']
I know that one of the visionaries of Medj. comes and visits a heterox "Catholic" cult not too far from where I currently live (it's in my old hometown). From that location, they have hugely advertized public "apparition" gatherings (complete with street billboards and everything, hundreds of miles from the actual event location). Technically she's the only one to see Mary, but thousands of people come to pray and listen to her and just be there when the scheduled apparition occurs. This raises so many flags to me, specifically the choice of location in a cult community formally stripped of it's association with Catholicism by the bishop.
[/quote]

I'd like to read something about that. Could you provide a link?