Is there anything that would make you leave the Church?

[chrysostom]

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/vatican.html

Quote

As established in the Council of Trent (1545-63), the local bishop is the first and main authority in the judgement of the authenticity of apparition claims. Vatican approval is not required for an apparition to be considered authentic. After an episcopal approval, the Vatican may do nothing but it may release an official statement or after some time give non-written forms of approval such as a papal visit with the crowning of the associated icon or a gift such as a golden rose, the approval of the construction of (or elevation of an existing shrine to) a basilica, the establishment of a feast day, or the canonization of the associated visionary.

So there's not really a formalised process from the Vatican it seems? There are indeed official statements and diocesan letters from the bishop but less so at Vatican levels.

The exception to this, I think, is the establishment of a feast day of the apparition in the general calendar of the Universal Church. I think that is as formalised as it comes. Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe come to mind.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Polak said:

Your most recent posts seem very angry Peace.

Yeah I am just over hear simmering in a pot. Growl. Anger. Hiss his.

Can we get back to the topic now?

Quote

Demanding proof.

I'm not demanding proof. I asked you if you have any proof. If you don't have any just admit it. Or don't admit it and offer weak sauce like a pope having Mass at a location as proof. Or just totally ignore the question entirely if you like. The world is yours.

Quote

Do you also demand proof that the Eucharist is the real presence?

I don't need proof of that. I believe that as a matter of faith. 

I also happen to believe in the aforementioned apparitions as a matter of faith, for your information.

The question was whether the Church expressly acknowledges the apparitions as a factual truth, in the same way that she expressly acknowledges the resurrection of our Lord as a factual truth, for example, and whether you have any official Church documents evidencing that.

In the first post that I took objection to you indicated (or at least insinuated) that the Church has confirmed that the apparitions occurred as a matter of factual truth. I do not believe that this is correct, which is why I asked you if you had any proof to back it up.

Personally, I'd be happy to be wrong on the point and would like to see the document, if it exists.

Quote

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?

Yeah that only indicates that Pope Francis believes in the apparition. We already knew that.

What I asked for was information indicating that the Catholic Church has officially recognized the apparitions as a matter of factual truth. It's not as if every personal belief held by Pope Francis is officially recognized Church teaching. He has expressed views on all types of things that are not official Church teaching. If you need any details on that I am sure that @fides' Jack and many of the other PF fanboys on this site will help you identify them.

So yes, I require an official Church document. That is exactly what I asked you for in the first place was it not?

Quote

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?

Maybe he thought that the crown would look a bit more modern with a shiny bullet placed in the middle. Who knows? Look, your whole line of argumentation here is to simply assume that you are correct and then attempt to shift the burden on me to prove that you are wrong. I'm not playing that game. If your position is that holding Mass at an apparition site is an official Church confirmation that the apparitions occurred there as a matter of fact, then you need to show why that logically concludes. You have not done that, and it does not logically conclude.

Quote

Think man.

Again here we  go again with the "everybody knows I am right" defense. If I would only use my feeble brain I would surely recognize that you are correct, no?

That is what folks do when they do not have actual evidence or logic to support their assertions.

Have a nice day.

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

The establishment of a feast day of the apparition in the general calendar of the Universal Church.

Now this is something that I think we could say is an official confirmation. I think this could potentially work. Thank you.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Peace

[Polak]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah that only indicates that Pope Francis believes in the apparition. We already knew that.

Yes, that's why all the Fatima children were made saints, because only Pope Francis believes in this apparition. Oh and he's only the head of the Catholic Church, so who cares what he thinks right? And JP II etc.

You're a hopeless case. I can't believe I'm having to convince a Catholic of the obvious. If you want to believe the Catholic Church hasn't officially approved the Fatima apparitions, that's your problem and I can't help you.

[Peace]

34 minutes ago, Polak said:

Fatima children were made saints

OK. Now this seems like good evidence to back up your claim, since declaring people as saints is an official act of the entire Church. Thank you.

Quote

Oh and he's only the head of the Catholic Church, so who cares what he thinks right? And JP II etc.

Oh I care very much what PF and JP 2 think. But not everything that they think is an official act of the Church.

Quote

You're a hopeless case. I can't believe I'm having to convince a Catholic of the obvious. If you want to believe the Catholic Church hasn't officially approved the Fatima apparitions, that's your problem and I can't help you.

Now you have resorted to more insults. First my mind is feeble and I cannot think. Now you simply call me "hopeless" and rely again on the "everybody knows I am correct isn't it obvious?" defense of your argument.

Trust me, if you want to hurl insults and take things into the Catholic gutter, I can do that with the best of them.

But I'll spare you this time and not return insult with insult, since you are new.

Welcome to Phatmass, where you actually need to back up your assertions with facts and evidence from time to time, and have your views challenged.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Peace

[Lilllabettt]

Sorry, but why Fatima and Lourdes? Those are the two with the most backing them up in my opinion. I have a harder time with the Divine Mercy apparitions or Sacred Heart. The One on one private apparitions 

[chrysostom]

Polak, Peace is all right. What is coming across to you as an unwelcome "tone" or "angry" are things I just see as pretty neutral, just a different way of writing.

[cruciatacara]

Polak, you actually come across as quite defensive, as if you have a need to prove something about the apparitions. The Church doesn't require anyone to believe in private revelations, even if it does support some of them, so why are you attacking Peace about personal views? 

I also have problems with apparatitions but as long as the Church doesn't require I believe in them, I am fine. There is dogma and then there is private revelation, which is open to belief or not according to the individual. Peace is right and I think you are getting hot under the collar for no reason. You believe, let the rest of us believe or not, according to what the Church allows, ok?

[Peace]

23 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Sorry, but why Fatima and Lourdes? Those are the two with the most backing them up in my opinion. I have a harder time with the Divine Mercy apparitions or Sacred Heart. The One on one private apparitions 

Is that Q for me? Don't understand what you wanted to ask.

That Diary is totally legit though. I mean, it's too amazing not to be legit.

[GraceUk]

I believe Lourdes slightly more than Fatima. The Fatima children were very young. Only nine I think and influenced by Lucy who was a bit older who might have  thought she saw something.  And the descriptions of our Lady seem straight from popular holy picture territory. Like a golden rose on each foot. No. The more I think about it all the less I believe in either of them. 

I was looking up the Our Lady of Knock apparitions earlier today. They seem even  more far fetched. 

[ReasonableFaith]

Beyond stating certain personal revelations don’t contain ideas contrary to the faith, what is the purpose of the church engaging these so-called apparitions?  Are the basic tenets of the faith unable to stand on their own? Is there a need to point to such events to prove the faith is really really true?  Are these apparitions special rewards for the super faithful or enticing offerings to those not convinced of the faith?  Why is there a need for these constant divine interventions?  Are the miracles of the incarnation and resurrection lacking?

The same questions seem appropriate for these Eucharistic miracles as well. It would be interesting to know if these apparitions and miracles draw more or less persons to Christ. 
 

 

[chrysostom]

16 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Beyond stating certain personal revelations don’t contain ideas contrary to the faith, what is the purpose of the church engaging these so-called apparitions?  Are the basic tenets of the faith unable to stand on their own?  Besides the apparition-hunters who do get overly invested into following apparitions around, I've never remotely thought there is a connection between a true apparition of the BVM and a lack in the Catholic faith. I just don't see it. Is there a need to point to such events to prove the faith is really really true? Miracles do happen and continue to. They are signs. The Lourdes Bureau healings are well attested, so why not share about them? I don't see the either/or here.  Are these apparitions special rewards for the super faithful or enticing offerings to those not convinced of the faith? In most cases when God supernaturally speaks to His children, I would think that the message is just for the individual he speaks to. But though the canon and the deposit of faith is complete, I honestly don't see what about that prevents God from getting a message across to a group of people such as "you should pray more". Which is the main message of most publically discussed Marian apparitions anyway. Why is there a need for these constant divine interventions? The entire Catholic faith is an ongoing divine intervention. We have been given in the sacraments the usual way, the central way by which God intervenes, sustains the Church. But special signs and wonders have always been a part of salvation history. Are the miracles of the incarnation and resurrection lacking? Of course not. The miracles St Peter did didn't cast doubt on the central miracles, nor did those miracles present at the martyrdoms of the early church, or the wonderworking of St Anthony or the miraculous activities of St Jean Vianney. I've never heard anyone draw this potential inference from miracles.

The same questions seem appropriate for these Eucharistic miracles as well. It would be interesting to know if these apparitions and miracles draw more or less persons to Christ. In my experience I don't think people who aren't already invested in the Catholic faith have ever heard of them. The Eucharistic miracles have seemed to be mostly for the benefit/conversion of whatever person or community they happened around. The assuaging of a priest's doubts about the True Presence. The increase of Eucharistic faith at a remote village church. I see their role for those who hear about them after the fact as primarily encouragement.

 

[ReasonableFaith]

@chrysostom , thank you for taking the time to engage the questions and provide thoughtful responses worthy of reflection.

The Lourdes Bureau fits nicely into the line of questioning concerning these private revelations, apparitions, and miracles.  What is it the Lourdes Bureau is actually saying in regard to these ‘miraculous healings?’  They certainly are remarkable.  The conditions for ‘approval’ are quite tight and ‘approvals’ are given sparingly.  Perhaps there are 6 dozen or so cases of ‘approved miraculous healings.’  
 

The scientific and medical committee collects evidence regarding improved conditions for those who visited while afflicted by a well documented, serious illness unable to be treated effectively and experienced long-lasting relief within hours.  If the committee determines it was not the expected scientific or medical outcome and cannot provide sufficient explanation it is left up to church officials to approval any miraculous healing.  So basically with lack of explanation by the committee church officials may attribute it to the miraculous.  To some this may give the impression of making God a ‘God of the Gaps,’ the use of God, the divine, or miracles to explain things which are not well understood.

Given the number of seriously ill persons visiting Lourdes is this number of ‘miraculous healings’ remarkable?  Do a statistically similar number of seriously ill persons not visiting Lourdes experience scientifically or medically unexplained improvements? If so, what makes Lourdes ‘special?’  
 

If one were to turn the Lourdes healing requirements on their head what would be the result?  How many persons visiting Lourdes have experienced scientifically or medically inexplicable, long lasting detriments to their health, including death, within hours of visiting?  If this number is similar to or greater than the amount of healings what might this indicate?

The point is it may be counter-productive to rely heavily on private revelations, apparitions, medical or Eucharistic miracles as support of the faith.  It is the engagement and advancement of such occurrences beyond stating they contain nothing contradictory to the faith some may find troubling and others may see as obstacles to the faith.  

 

 

[chrysostom]

4 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

The point is it may be counter-productive to rely heavily on private revelations, apparitions, medical or Eucharistic miracles as support of the faith.

Of course. There may be a subset of Catholics who do rely overmuch on these. I haven't met them yet, but I'm sure there are some out there. Most stuff I get from the Catechism, my local bishop, my parish priest, seems pretty balanced - that is, Christ being in the first place. Everything else has its place. It does not mean it can't be discussed, or in very particular circumstances, promoted. Hence, we have three feasts of Our Lady based on three special events in the general calendar of the Roman Rite. And many other saints' feast days whom the average Catholic stands in no danger of paying too much attention to, as the feast comes simply once a year, and honestly most people could stand to pay more attention to some things of the faith.

[Lilllabettt]

On 6/18/2021 at 5:35 PM, Peace said:

Is that Q for me? Don't understand what you wanted to ask.

That Diary is totally legit though. I mean, it's too amazing not to be legit.

No it was for Grace

On 6/18/2021 at 6:07 PM, GraceUk said:

I believe Lourdes slightly more than Fatima. The Fatima children were very young. Only nine I think and influenced by Lucy who was a bit older who might have  thought she saw something.  And the descriptions of our Lady seem straight from popular holy picture territory. Like a golden rose on each foot. No. The more I think about it all the less I believe in either of them. 

I was looking up the Our Lady of Knock apparitions earlier today. They seem even  more far fetched. 

Yeah but Our lady would look however that culture depicts her. That's standard m.o. for her.  Fair to say Lucia thought she saw something... she volunteered to become a Carmelite nun...what about the "miracle of the sun"? Mass hallucination? 

[ReasonableFaith]

46 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

what about the "miracle of the sun"? Mass hallucination? 

Quite possibly. A rather unhealthy and unethical experiment would be to have a large group of persons stare at the sun while expecting to see a miracle and record their experiences. Perhaps the result would be a similar number of varying and inconsistent experiences as reported during the ‘miracle of the sun.’  

These varying experiences could be compared with those viewing the sun through protective lenses, casual observers, and professional astronomers.