+ What actually constitutes a seer (real and phony)? Their claim to be one? ... Someone else's claim? Anyone know an approximate number of folks who've claimed to be seers? How many folks have been fully approved by the Church re: Marion visionaries? +
'What actually consitutes a seer (real and phony)?' The Church decides through the Local Diocesan Bishop.
In a perfect world, that would be true. But what did the local diocesan bishop say about Garabandal? Medjugorje? We are in a time of crisis in the Church. Bishops against bishops, right?
Thanks padraig.. I dug up some stats of interest. A statistical analysis of the Marian apparition directory reveals the following results. During the twentieth century, there have been 386 cases of Marian apparitions. The Church has made "no decision" about the supernatural character regarding 299 of the 386 cases. The Church has made a "negative decision" about the supernatural character in seventy-nine of the 386 cases. Out of the 386 apparitions, the Church has decided that "yes" there is a supernatural character only in eight cases: Fatima (Portugal), Beauraing (Belgium), Banneux (Belgium), Akita (Japan), Syracuse (Italy), Zeitoun (Egypt), Manila (Philippines) (according to some sources), and Betania (Venezuela). Local bishops have approved of the faith expression at the sites where these eight apparitions occurred. https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/a/apparitions-statistics-modern.php
If the local Bishop has said anything negative about these apparitions, then they don’t belong here. He can rule that they are not of supernatural origin, for example. That constitutes a negative ruling. You have not answered my question.
I don't think so. But nevertheless they could be legit if the Church didn't condemn them. Also the local bishop could condemn something and the Church later overrule it. For example, St. Joan of Arc was called a blasphemer by her bishop until the Church overruled it.
Exactly.. It appears as if any who vigorously promote unapproved 'messages' for various reasons . are not about to give up - What I reject are unapproved messages being used as Fact/Truth during debates on e.g., End Times, AntiChrist, Etc. . And ultimately it's the Church and not any local bishop per se - who Approves or not.
Historically in the case of Apparitions, Locutions phenomena which are true.. or even in the case of Saints generally the following seems to happen (this most especially in the case of Marian Apparitions): The Devil is furious and stirs up opposition. His main way of trying to crush and destroy such events is to raise up his own people in the Church to act against them with great force. This pretty well always happens, in fact so much so the such Clerical actions are in fact one of the great signs that the phenomena is true. This is a great paradox but there you are. So we get people like priests, Bishops , Cardinals sometimes whole hosts of them acting with great vigour something which turns out to be quite true. Not only that but very often such clergy use all kinds of evil machinations, like rumours, slander, lies and all kinds of dreadful wickedness, so that we can see clearly that they are in fact agents of hell. Padre Pio's life constitutes a wonderful example of such goings on. For instance Vatican Officials actually bugged his confession box, an action of such evil as to cause people's jaws to fall open when they heard about it. But Padre Pio is the perfect example of how the good Catholic should respond in that he was always submissive to Church Authority. He knew he was not having sex with the woman who came to him in the confessional. He knew that he was not causing the Stigmata by using Carbolic acid. He knew the hundreds of lies and slanders that they through against him from Rome were all lies. But he was always always submissive as any good Catholic should be to Church Authority. In this he copied and followed the example of Christ Himself who was: Philippians 2:8 …7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross. 9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names,… ..and who was silent in the face of his accusers: Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
I would also by leary of the hands our for money thingy. That is a big, big red light. 'Heaven wants you to give dough', I mean really? How to collaborate Dear all, associated with this spiritual activity has arisen a charitable experience requested by Heaven called "House of the Poor of the Road". For the realization of the works requested by Heaven, a postal and bank current account is set up with these credentials: Owner: Opera Hill of the Good Shepherd Account: Postal Current n. 10 45 76 26 79 or bank: IBAN IT 20E 030 696 768 451 074 915 5924
The three official judgments from the Vatican are as follows: Constat de supernaturalitate - Approval (It is confirmed to be of supernatural origin) Constat de non supernaturalitate – Rejection (It is confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin) Non constat de supernaturalitate – Doubt (It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin) HeavenlyHosts, you correctly want to follow official Catholic guidance on the matters of Marian Apparitions. The Vatican has only these three categories for an official judgement. Any other comment by a bishop, negative or otherwise, doesn't constitute an official judgement. So why would we, mere laypersons, want to override the Vatican's very careful procedures in determining the validity of apparitions. Do we think we know more than the Church? I know that you of all people, HeavenlyHosts, would not put your own private judgement above that of the official judgement of the Church. So we should be following the Vatican faithfully and not excluding apparitions which the Roman Catholic Church itself has not excluded, right? That would allow us to talk about Garabandal, for instance. As you might recall, the local bishops at Garabandal have said many "negative" things about those events. Similarly with Medjugorje. You would not suggest that we exclude discussions of those apparitions would you, HeavenlyHosts?
But a lot of websites, including this one, asks for money to help offset the costs of distribution of the content. Surely that wouldn't be something that would make us doubt the sincerity of the comments on the website, right?
It would allow you to promote this one. If we followed your line of thinking. Your strong persuasive arguments are not overcoming me, PNF.
This is not a website that promotes a particular series of apparitions , nor does it claim that in handing over dough you are doing so to fulfill the plans of heaven. Another things concerns me about the home website is that there is no mention at all of the stance of the Church in the matter. No reference at all whatsoever. If it was truly Catholic in tone this would be the very first point of reference. I think you're best to give this one a big, big miss. But whatever...you seem very taken by it, so whatever.
= When it comes to discussions of serious topics related to Jesus/God - such as End Times .. quotes from any unapproved or worse persons - must never be posted as a form of truth. Fact is, not even the few 8 approved private revelation messages are required belief. Fact is, God's Prophesies as found all throughout Sacred Scriptures ARE required belief.. Some - not all - have been fulfilled. _
HeavenlyHosts, when you say "stance of the Church" do you mean one of the three official Vatican-approved judgments? Constat de supernaturalitate - Approval (It is confirmed to be of supernatural origin) Constat de non supernaturalitate – Rejection (It is confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin) Non constat de supernaturalitate – Doubt (It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin) Or do you mean, instead, "negative" comments by some Church official speaking in a non-official manner? Or even a local bishop writing in an official letter that he has a "negative" stance regarding the apparition in question? Because, as I'm sure you will agree, we must never fail to follow the proper Vatican-approved procedures in these matters. Otherwise, we would be elevating our own personal opinions and prejudices over the judgement of the Church. Would that be "schism?" Nah, I don't think so, but it would certainly be presumptuous and possibly disobedient and certainly offensive to God, if the apparition turned out to be true. Plus we would never get to talk about Garabandal or the recent Medjugorje messages on the Mother of God website. I know you would never go for that, right?
But the bible talk about angels gathering the elect after the abomination of desolation. It appears to me that the sign of the son of man is the Warning. Are these elect the 144,000 first fruits or end times apostles?
Another good path in Discernment is to look at the person who is receiving messages or apparitions. The fruit never falls far from the tree. I know nothing whatever about the person who claims to be experiencing these things. So but anyway I don't want to waste anymore time on this.
