Is there anything that would make you leave the Church?

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Polak said:

Well I am just curious what specifically it is about those apparitions you find so hard to believe.

As a Catholic, you believe Christ was crucified and resurrected, that His body and blood are present during the Eucharist, that He worked miracles, and I presume, that miracles still occur today, because why wouldn't they? So what is it about children seeing Mary that is so hard for you to believe?

Well the logical starting point is not to believe something miraculous, from a purely scientific or secular standpoint.

Heck, St. Thomas did not believe that our Lord was resurrected, and he was an Apostle.

I think a better question is "why do some people so easily believe in the apparitions"?

I think that faith is a gift from God, personally. Those who have it should be grateful.

Just my two cents.

[Polak]

Well if you look at it from purely scientific and secular standpoint, then the Catholic faith as a whole is problematic, isn't it? Yet in Grace's profile it says Catholic. Hence my confusion. Why believe some miraculous unexplainable things by science, but not others?

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Polak said:

Well if you look at it from purely scientific and secular standpoint, then the Catholic faith as a whole is problematic, isn't it?

Well I would say that there are certain truths that are "revealed" if you will. Truths such as the Real Presence that cannot be reached logically without the gift of faith.

But certain aspects of the faith can be logically deduced (for example, the existence of God). So I don't think I would say that the faith as a whole would be problematic, only those aspects of it that are "revealed" and not obtainable by logic, history, reason.

Quote

Yet in Grace's profile it says Catholic. Hence my confusion. Why believe some miraculous unexplainable things by science, but not others?

Well perhaps God has not yet given Grace the particular graces necessary to believe those apparitions.

No pun intended.

I think God gives a person everything he needs to attain to his salvation, but this does not appear to include grace necessary to believe in those apparitions. The Church would require the faithful to believe in the apparitions were they crucial for salvation.

Let me ask you - why do you believe them? You believe them as a matter of faith, do you not? You believe them because God has given you the grace to believe them, do you not?

Or is it your position that you believe in them just because you woke up one day and decided to believe them like you choose to believe the news, as if your belief in them is not the gift of God but something you did all by yourself?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Peace

[chrysostom]

On 6/14/2021 at 5:35 AM, Polak said:

Well I am just curious what specifically it is about those apparitions you find so hard to believe.

As a Catholic, you believe Christ was crucified and resurrected, that His body and blood are present during the Eucharist, that He worked miracles, and I presume, that miracles still occur today, because why wouldn't they? So what is it about children seeing Mary that is so hard for you to believe?

As the Church does not actually ask its faithful to believe in these things I see no issue with that. They are not part of the deposit of faith. The best they can do is point away from themselves to Christ, as they should. Helps to stick to that as a principle when people bring up far more dodgy things like Medjugorje.

(For the record I think Lourdes and Fatima are cool)

Edited June 15, 2021 by chrysostom

[GraceUk]

I think Medjugore sounds really dodgy. Some of these so called visionaries have  become quite rich. Whereas Lourdes and Fatima I am not sure. I think the children themselves believe in what they saw. But Medjugore I think is a complete sham. 

[Ash Wednesday]

The issue I have with even approved apparitions is the level of attention and obsession that people can have with them and private revelation in general, which, though deemed worthy of belief, doesn't require belief -- as opposed to their care and knowledge of public revelation -- which does require belief.

I know people that experienced miracles at Medjugorje but it doesn't necessarily mean the apparitions are true.  I used to believe they were true and still wish they were, but am now doubtful. I believe in the major approved apparitions though I don't think it's right to get overly defensive and angry at other Catholics that don't necessarily feel the same way. 

[SicutColumba]

The only thing that would make me leave the Church is my own hubris. 

[Polak]

12 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I believe in the major approved apparitions though I don't think it's right to get overly defensive and angry at other Catholics that don't necessarily feel the same way.

Oh absolutely. I'm not getting defensive (I'm not suggesting you were saying I was), but I do occasionally like to discuss apparitions with Catholics who have varying views about them. I am well aware private revelations do not require belief though, so it doesn't make me angry or anything, if a Catholic prefers not to give apparitions too much time.
 

16 hours ago, GraceUk said:

I think Medjugore sounds really dodgy. Some of these so called visionaries have  become quite rich.

While I do agree the Medjugorje apparitions have some troubling aspects about them, and honestly, for the time being I don't know what to make of them (neither does the Catholic Church it seems), I'd be careful about this claim. It's a common accusation of the visionaries, that they've gotten very rich from the apparitions, and not necessarily true. There doesn't seem to be any hard proof of this, other than a few tabloids running stories about supposed mansions they own.

16 hours ago, GraceUk said:

Whereas Lourdes and Fatima I am not sure. I think the children themselves believe in what they saw.

When it comes to Fatima, there are really 3 ways that you can look at it, if you have doubts.

1) You think the children are lying
2) You think the children think they saw Mary
3) You think the children didn't see or say they saw anything, the Church just attributed this to them.

There are problems with all of these arguments. 

The first one, which I assume you don't believe, that the children are lying, would beg the question why Lucia, if she made these apparitions up, would then go on to be a num for the rest of her life. Also, she, despite being a child living in poverty in Portugal, would have had to have quite good political knowledge, to make up the 2nd secret, talking about the conversion of Russia. None of the children were likely to even know what Russia is.

The second, which you seem to be leaning more towards, would also mean that all three children thought they saw the exact same thing, and two of them heard the same words spoken. It might occur that one person is seeing and hearing things, but three people? And again, those three secrets, particularly the second, is very elaborate about what needs to be done. Not normally the kind of thing people think they have heard.

If you believe in the 3rd theory, then that's a problem, because it basically means you think the Church is making apparitions up and attributing them to unknowing innocent children. As in the first case, it would also beg the question why Lucia became a nun. Wouldn't she have had something to say about the Catholic Church attributing apparitions to her that she didn't have?

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Polak said:

If you believe in the 3rd theory, then that's a problem, because it basically means you think the Church is making apparitions up and attributing them to unknowing innocent children. As in the first case, it would also beg the question why Lucia became a nun. Wouldn't she have had something to say about the Catholic Church attributing apparitions to her that she didn't have?

The Church has not declared that those 2 apparitions actually occurred has She?

There is a difference between saying that a person is allowed to believe ABC and positively saying that ABC is true.

From what I understand there have been 1 or 2 bishops that have said that the apparitions occurred, but I don't think there has been any documents officially promulgated by the Church that teach that the apparitions are true, as opposed to being acceptable for belief.

If anyone is aware of any documents officially promulgated by the Church that teach that the apparitions are true, could you please link me to them?

[Polak]

50 minutes ago, Peace said:

From what I understand there have been 1 or 2 bishops that have said that the apparitions occurred, but I don't think there has been any documents officially promulgated by the Church that teach that the apparitions are true, as opposed to being acceptable for belief.

Both of the apparitions are officially recognised by the Vatican. The fact that Popes have visited these places and had mass there, further confirms this.
 

51 minutes ago, Peace said:

If anyone is aware of any documents officially promulgated by the Church that teach that the apparitions are true, could you please link me to them?

I'm not sure about an official Church document, but this Wikipedia page (link below) provides a pretty good and detailed list of what Marian apparitions are Vatican approved, what ones have been approved by a local bishop, some that have not yet been approved but pilgrimages have been allowed, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marian_apparitions

Apparitions generally get investigated and approved by local bishops of where they took place, but in some cases they have been approved by a bishop but The Holy See doesn't generally talk about them a great deal, while in others, such as Lourdes or Fatima, they are often mentioned by the Pope and widespread veneration of them is endorsed.

Of course, they are still private revelations and belief in them isn't an essential component of the being a practicing Catholic.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Polak said:

Both of the apparitions are officially recognised by the Vatican.

Well I already knew that you believed that. What I would like to know is whether you have any proof to back up your claim. Apparently not, but please correct me if I am wrong by providing the proof.

Quote

The fact that Popes have visited these places and had mass there, further confirms this.

No, a pope celebrating Mass at a particular location is not a confirmation by the Church that an apparition occurred there as a matter of fact.

Quote

I'm not sure about an official Church document, but this Wikipedia page (link below) provides a pretty good and detailed list of what Marian apparitions are Vatican approved, what ones have been approved by a local bishop, some that have not yet been approved but pilgrimages have been allowed, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marian_apparitions

I ask for an official Church document and you give me Wikipedia? Weak sauce my friend. Weak sauce.

OK. So you agree that there are no official Church documents that teach what you claim?

It it could be the case that the Church officially recognizes those apparitions. I don't know. But for those who make the claim I think you should have some proof to back it up, instead of just relying on the "everybody knows that is true" defense, which is really no defense at all.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Peace

[chrysostom]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

No, a pope celebrating Mass at a particular location is not a confirmation by the Church that an apparition occurred there as a matter of fact.

You misread the statement. Polak said that Pope celebrating Mass at apparition shrine is confirmation, not of the fact that the apparition occured, but rather simply of the Vatican's official recognition.

[Peace]

12 hours ago, chrysostom said:

You misread the statement. Polak said that Pope celebrating Mass at apparition shrine is confirmation, not of the fact that the apparition occured, but rather simply of the Vatican's official recognition.

Semantics. Officially recognizes what? Officially recognizes that some people believe that apparitions occurred there? Nobody is debating that.

The question I initially asked Polak was whether there was any evidence that the Church has officially stated that the apparitions occurred as a matter of fact, and he offered Masses being held there as proof (regardless of whether he used the phrase "officially recognized" or some other wording). They are not the proof that I asked him for, and that is ultimately the point that matters for the purpose of the discussion we were having.

Have a nice day.

[chrysostom]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Semantics.

I am as pedantic as they come.

[Polak]

Your most recent posts seem very angry Peace. Demanding proof. Do you also demand proof that the Eucharist is the real presence?

Despite the aggressive tone of your response, when I was trying to help you out with a link to Marian apparitions, here is a link to Pope Francis talking about the Fatima apparition.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2020/05/pope-implores-catholics-to-ask-our-lady-of-fatima-for-end-to-coronavirus/

In the article you'll find the following piece of text, quoting Pope Francis.

“To this end, let us try to live this month with a more intense and faithful daily prayer, in particular by reciting the rosary, as the Church recommends, thus fulfilling a desire repeatedly expressed in Fatima by Our Lady,” Francis said.

Does that satisfy you, our Pope talking about what was expressed by our Lady in Fatima, or do you still require an official Church document?

And by the way, yes, a Pope celebrating mass at an apparition site is pretty much confirmation that the Vatican endorses the apparition. This is why no Pope has visited Medjugorje to date.

Why on earth would Pope John Paul II place his bullet in the crown of the figure of Mary in Fatima, if the Vatican didn't believe the apparition to be true? Why would the Vatican reveal the secrets of Fatima publicly, if they didn't believe them to be true?

Think man.