I think you'll have to ask her yourself. There seem to be more reported
sightings than probable sightings ... and you wouldn't want to pin someone
on this board to determining actual sightings ... plus of course the
(possible) problem of unsighted visits ...
Please Note:
It is rather difficult to find or accertain the authenticity of this
information. We can only depend on the accuracy of our resource texts and
hopefully the dependable communications and documentation which we receive
from interested individuals. This compendium merely provides us with a list of
possible appearances of Our Lady, and far from being too long, it is
undoubtedly a great deal too sh*o*t*$ in reporting the actual number of times
and places which Our Lady has appeared to Her saints and children. The fact
should be clear that through the grace of God, Our Lady CAN and DOES appear.
To doubt Her messages would be imprudent.
This list is on a computer and additions and deletions can easily be
made. Comments or input on any of these or other apparitions would be greatly
appreciated by the 101 Foundation, P.O. Box 151, Asbury, NJ 08802-0151.
Thank you.
God Bless
Dick
--
*******************************
Dick Corrigan
e-mail: di...@hpwais2.wal.hp.com
*******************************
I don't know the total number, but there are a large number of "approved"
apparitions (ie, where the local bishop declares some event to be free of
error and worthy of private belief), probably uncountable unapproved (and
unprovable) ones, and many that have been condemned outright (such as the
alleged Bayside N.Y. apparitions).
A book entitled "The Final Hour" by Michael Brown is available from the
Reihle Foundation, P.O. Box 7, Milford, OH 45150 (paper, 344pp. $11.50).
It addresses the most famous of the last century and a half's apparitions
beginning, I think, with La Sallette, France.
His Peace,
Fred Chavez
From what I understand, there aren't any that we are required to believe
happened. So any purported messages would carry the same weight. -J.J.
J.J. raises an interesting question in my mind. Although no one is required
to believe that any Marian apparition has occurred, are Catholics likewise
free to believe that canonized saints are not necessarily in heaven?
What I'm driving at is that many canonized saints (e.g., St. Bernadette
Soubirous, the seer at Lourdes) have testified clearly and not recanted,
that the events they reported were true, and if they said these things and
were still canonized, isn't there at least a very strong indication from
the Church that the events cannot simply be written off? Would the Church
canonize a potential liar?
His Peace,
Fred Chavez
Co-Mediatrix with who?
Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu
>Although no one is required
>to believe that any Marian apparition has occurred, are Catholics likewise
>free to believe that canonized saints are not necessarily in heaven?
>What I'm driving at is that many canonized saints (e.g., St. Bernadette
>Soubirous, the seer at Lourdes) have testified clearly and not recanted,
>that the events they reported were true, and if they said these things and
>were still canonized, isn't there at least a very strong indication from
>the Church that the events cannot simply be written off? Would the Church
>canonize a potential liar?
Catholics are not required to believe that the majority of
saints are in heaven, or even saints, as most of them have
not been canonised. The only ones canonised in a way that
requires assent are those done by the popes, and that is
not a large number [less than a thousand I think - Woodward in
_Making Saints_ has the exact figures]. But the canonisation
of saints is now an exercise in infallibility. This infallibility
does not seem to extend to beati.
St. Bernardette was not canonised for her visions [and most other
visionaries have not been either], she was canonised for her
well-documented and heroic virtue. But this implies not requirement
that we accept Lourdes.
Why? Because it is not a case of lying or telling the truth: Bernardette
clearly believed that she was telling the truth. But what
actually happened is open to dispute by Catholics [not me wrt to
Lourdes at least].
Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu
With Jesus Christ, who else? Note she is not asking to be Prime Mediatrix
or equal mediatrix to Christ. We can be mediators as well, but Mary is
Co-Mediatrix par excellence.
His Peace,
Fred Chavez
Now, in response to Craig, Are you sure that you want to
cast Jesus as "mediator". I know this is biblical, but surely
Jesus is also "originator" of all Grace?
Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu
>On Sep 16 Alfred Chavez
>
>>Although no one is required
>>to believe that any Marian apparition has occurred, are Catholics likewise
>>free to believe that canonized saints are not necessarily in heaven?
>>What I'm driving at is that many canonized saints (e.g., St. Bernadette
>>Soubirous, the seer at Lourdes) have testified clearly and not recanted,
>>that the events they reported were true, and if they said these things and
>>were still canonized, isn't there at least a very strong indication from
>>the Church that the events cannot simply be written off? Would the Church
>>canonize a potential liar?
>
>Catholics are not required to believe that the majority of
>saints are in heaven, or even saints, as most of them have
>not been canonised. The only ones canonised in a way that
>requires assent are those done by the popes, and that is
>not a large number [less than a thousand I think - Woodward in
>_Making Saints_ has the exact figures]. But the canonisation
>of saints is now an exercise in infallibility. This infallibility
>does not seem to extend to beati.
Oh? Catholics are required to believe that those who are called Saints
are really in heaven. Although the process was not as formal in the
time of SAINT Augustine and SAINT Cyprian, and others, we have
aboslutely no reason to doubt the Church's judgement from that period.
>St. Bernardette was not canonised for her visions [and most other
>visionaries have not been either], she was canonised for her
>well-documented and heroic virtue. But this implies not requirement
>that we accept Lourdes.
>
>Why? Because it is not a case of lying or telling the truth: Bernardette
>clearly believed that she was telling the truth. But what
>actually happened is open to dispute by Catholics [not me wrt to
>Lourdes at least].
Is it? While no one is required to believe that whathappened at
Lourdes, Fatima, etc. is true, it would certainly be erroneous to
steadfatly maintain that position in the face of large amounts of
evidence.
Andy Byler
The point remains, no Saint has ever been proclaimed to be free of Sin,
except, of course, for the Virgin and our Saviour. In fact, I believe
that it is the churches position that "there is none that is free from
sin, no not one." is in fact a true statement with the two afformentioned
exceptions. Why then insist that a Saint have never lied through the
maintaning of a false belief. Even to call them a liar, you would have
to assert that they are making a statement they BELIEVE to be false -
not just that they are making a false statement. Surely you see the
difference.
Peace,
Dave
--
. . .
Is it? While no one is required to believe that whathappened at
Lourdes, Fatima, etc. is true, it would certainly be erroneous to
steadfatly maintain that position in the face of large amounts of
evidence.
Andy Byler
Andy,
There is a position between true and false that I believe the Roman
Catholic faith allows us to take. It is simply that we don't know. I
don't know what is happening at Medjugore. I think I know what is
happening in Bayside, NY (sp?).
Mike Melendez
The following is a list of better known apparitions. Rue-du-Bac, La Sallette,
Lourdes, Fatima, Beauraing, Banneaux, Betania (as far as I know) are
approved by the Catholic Church. The years indicated are the years
that the apparitions started. The common messages are prayer, fasting,
conversion (i.e. return to God; not necessarily convert to RC), and penance.
1830 Rue-du-Bac, France Catherine Laboure (saint)
1846 La Sallette, France Melanie Calvat & Maximin Giraud
1858 Lourdes, France Bernadette Soubirous (saint)
1879 Knock, Ireland 15 people
1904 Poland Fr. Maximilian Kolbe
1917 Fatima, Portugal Lucia, Francisco, & Jacinta
1918 San Giovanni, Italy Padre Pio (saint)
1920 Verdun, Quebec, Canada Emma Blanche Curotte
1925 Tuy, Spain Sister Lucia (of Fatima)
1932 Beauraing, Belgium Five children from Voisin &
Degeimbre
1933 Banneaux, Belgium Mariette Beco
1937 Poland Sister Faustina (case for
beatification started in 1978)
1945 Amsterdam, Holland Ida
1947 Montichiari, Italy Pierina Gilli
1947 Tre Fontane, Rome Bruno Cornacchiola
1948 Lipa, Philippines Novice Teresita
1952 India Fr. Louis Shouriah, S.J.
1954 Seredne, Ukraine Anna
1954 Ohio, USA Sister Mildred Neuzil
1961 Garabandal, Spain Conchita, Mari Loli, Jacinta, &
mari Cruz
1964 San Damiano, Italy Mama Rosa Quattrini
1968 Italy Mama Carmela Carabelli
1968 Zeitun, Egypt Thousands of people
1970 Vladimir prison, Russia Josyp Terelya
1972 Milan, Italy Fr. Stefano Gobbi
1973 Akita, Japan Sister Agnes Sasagawa
1974 Binh Loi, Vietnam Stephen Ho Ngoc Ahn
1976 Betania, Venezuela Maria Esperanza & others
1980 El Escorial, Spain Amparo Cuevas
1980 Cuapa, Nicaragua Edward Bernardo Martinez
1981 Medjugorje, Yugoslavia Six young people
1981 Kibeho, Rwanda, Africa Seven young people
1982 Damascus, Syria Mirna Nazour
1983 San Nicolas, Argentina Gladys Quiroga de Motta
1985 Ballinspittle, Ireland Two O'Mahony women
1985 Carns Grotto, Ireland Four girls
1985 Oliveto Citra, Italy Children & many people
1985 Melleray Grotto, Ireland Several people
1985 Naju, Korea Julia Kim
1985 Switzerland Vassula Ryden
1987 Terra Blanca, Mexico Three children
1987 Bessbrook, N. Ireland Beulah Lynch & Mark Trenor
1987 Ukraine Josyp Terelya, Maria Kizyn &
thousands of people
1987 Ichigeela, Ireland Sally Ann & Judy Considine
1987 Ecuador Patricia Talbott
1988 Cortnadreha, Ireland Christine Gallagher
1988 Phoenix, AZ, USA Estela Ruiz
1988 Scottsdale, AZ, USA Nine young people
1989 Canada Zdenko "Jim" Singer
1990 Denver, CO, USA Theresa Lopez
1990 Conyers, GA, USA Nancy Fowler
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ash...@netcom.com |
San Jose, CA |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this one of the effects of the interrelationship of the
eternal world where Our lady dwells and the temporal world in
which we labour?
Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu
Monica Van Ness
Where's the inconsistency (ie, in our linear temporal thinking)?
As long as all of the others end before Medjugorje ends, what they
understand her to have said will be proven accurate.
His Peace,
Fred Chavez
This assertion that Catholics are REQUIRED to believe that "Saints"
are really in heaven (or those specifically said to be by the Pope)
still surprises me. I'd appreciate it if someone could provide an
authoritative reference and possibly a quote from said reference to
back this up. Thanks.
<deletions>
Peace and God bless
-Scott Berg
--
J. Scott Berg Real mail: Varian Physics; Stanford CA 94305-4060
email: AL...@slac.stanford.edu
phone: (415) 926-4732 (w) (415) 326-2631 (h)
Actually the way she said something to the effect that
she would no longer appear after Medjugorje. And I take that to
mean that as long as she appears in Medjugorje, we can expect
more apparitions in other places.
Remember the messages of Garabandal, too. Everything will happen
during Conchita's lifetime. And she's way past middle age, now.
And JP2 is the last Pope before things start to happen (no -
it won't be the end of the world). And he's been rather weak,
lately. I guess we'll find out soon.
"It is important to keep clearly in mind that private revelations have no
significance apart from the public revelation of Sacred Scripture,
interpreted by the traditional teaching of the Church...
"Do you want to know the certain and direct revelation of God? Pick up a
Bible and read it!...
"One may then legitimately ask: Why do we have private revelations at all?
the obvious reply: "Ask God." True revelations, public or private, are
never contrived or planned by human beings. They happen as the result of
causes beyond human control or knowledge. Public revelation is given to
the people of God in Scripture and is addressed to all for all times.
It must be accepted and believed...
"The end of public revelation does not at all mean that God no longer
reveals himself to his childre. He continues to do so, but now
indirectly or in what we call private revelations, as well as by other
means of his Divine Providence...
"For centuries it has been a clear papal teaching that even a
canonized saint who has reported a private revelation which has been
approved by the Church for acceptance by the faithful may have introduced
some personal element that is subject to error or distortion. This fact
is not sufficiently known...The converse is also true, namely, that a
because a visionary may haved erred in the report of a revelatio, one
cannot conclude that this person has not received a special grace. He or
she may have distorted the revelation unconsciously. It is also true that
if visionaries proclaim prophecy which turns out to be correct, one
cannot by that fact alone assume that they received the revelation from
God. They may, in fact, have gained the knowledge in some other way...
"When I am asked if I believe in a particular private revelation (even my favori
te, Lourdes), I always reply that I beleive in the Catholic Christian Faith
and I THINK that Lourdes is a special gift of God to us all...It is quite
possible, even in a revelation which has received Church approval, that one
can be misled. Consequently, according to Benedict XIV, we can give these
revelations only prudent acceptance as probable...
"How can there be error?...How can a vision from God be wrong? It cannot.
But the recipient of the vision can make mistakes. No divine revelation
is immediately received by a visionary. It is filtered through the
perceptive faculties of the human who receives it..."
Monica Van Ness
mvan...@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu
************************************************************
* Grant Strasser GSTR...@GC1.GEORCOLL.ON.CA *
* Computer Services PH. (705) 722-5106 *
* Georgian College A.A.T. FAX (705) 722-5123 *
* Barrie, Ontario *
* L4M 3X9 *
************************************************************
For that matter, is she even appearing at Medjugorge anymore,
or did she hotfoot it for Germany when some of her ~30-yr old little
children emigrated?
(While on the subject, here's a question I've often asked, but
never got a real reply on: What do the seers of Medjugorge do
for a living?)
> In article <cga9Boy00...@andrew.cmu.edu> "D. Andrew Byler"
[A lot of Saintly stuff deleted]
> This assertion that Catholics are REQUIRED to believe that "Saints"
> are really in heaven (or those specifically said to be by the Pope)
> still surprises me. I'd appreciate it if someone could provide an
> authoritative reference and possibly a quote from said reference to
> back this up. Thanks.
>
> <deletions>
>
Hmmm....well, we are required to believe in the communion of saints, no?
Perhaps looking this up in a cathechism might yield something.
Peace,
Ed
Yes; perhaps I wasn't clear here: I'm referring to the statment that
was made that we are required to believe that certain individuals are
in heaven, or, equivalently, that when the Pope canonizes a saint,
that statment is "infallible."
But what about the saints mentioned in the Roman Canon? Surely ordinary
infallibility applies in that case?
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Monsour
How about St. Boethius? Or St. Charlesmagne? Is one required to believe
they are in heaven?
>>St. Bernardette was not canonised for her visions [and most other
>>visionaries have not been either], she was canonised for her
>>well-documented and heroic virtue. But this implies not requirement
>>that we accept Lourdes.
>>
>>Why? Because it is not a case of lying or telling the truth: Bernardette
>>clearly believed that she was telling the truth. But what
>>actually happened is open to dispute by Catholics [not me wrt to
>>Lourdes at least].
>
>Is it? While no one is required to believe that whathappened at
>Lourdes, Fatima, etc. is true, it would certainly be erroneous to
>steadfatly maintain that position in the face of large amounts of
>evidence.
What large amounts of evidence?
My point is that, while I am fairly certain that I might find large amounts
of evidence in support of these apparitions if I were to investigate,
why should I investigate?
Also, as there is no requirement that we accept these apparitions, they are
not matters of faith (and clearly are not matters of morals), so the Church
does not infallibly affirm them by her approval.
I'd rather pray the Rosary than worry about whether Mary has appeared at all
those places on that huge list posted recently.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Monsour
P.S. I would say that one CANNOT believe that Mary appeared at Fatima IN THE
SAME WAY that one believes in the Assumption. The latter belief is by
supernatural faith; the former is not.
P.P.S. And, yes, I do believe that Mary appeared at Fatima, but it's more
like the way I believe that a Carbon atom has 6 protons--by natural faith.
(I was going to say it's more like the way I believe that a Carbon atom
has mass 12 amu, but then I remembered that's the definition of amu--or once
was, anyway.)
>>Catholics are not required to believe that the majority of
>>saints are in heaven, or even saints, as most of them have
>>not been canonised. The only ones canonised in a way that
>>requires assent are those done by the popes, and that is
>>not a large number [less than a thousand I think - Woodward in
>>_Making Saints_ has the exact figures]. But the canonisation
>>of saints is now an exercise in infallibility. This infallibility
>>does not seem to extend to beati.
>But what about the saints mentioned in the Roman Canon? Surely ordinary
>infallibility applies in that case?
Just to expand a bit.
Since the papacy reserved the right to canonisations [1234] there have
been less that 300 canonisations [sometimes of multiple persons].
Woodward states that about 400 people have been canonised by the pope
although some 10,000 saints with cults have been identified. John Paul II has
canonised more persons than any other pope [122 in 1988 alone!]. No-one
says that beatifications are inifallible, but there has been dispute
about whether canonisations are. Canon lawyers have tended to deny
it, theologians to affirm it [Woordward 68], but there has been no Church
statement that canonisations are infallible [122]. The use of the
phrase "We solemnly declare and define that X is a saint", the same
as the formula used for doctrinal definitions, is used to argue that
canonisations are infallible. Fr. Gumpel of the Congregation for the
causes of saints says that infallibility, if it applies, applies
ONLY to those who were canonised "after all due scientific investigations
as was the custom after 1588" [124]. Thus the first saint listed in the
INDEX OF THE STATUS OF CAUSES is not Stephen but a Domincan called
Hyacinth who dies in 1257, but was canonised in 1594.
This does not mean people like the apostles or St. Francis are not
saints, it just means that they are not guarenteed by papal infallibility.
This comment would seem to apply to the saints of the Roman Canon
as well. Ordinary infallibility - if by that you mean the pios practice
of the Church - is not a guarentee at all: the cult of Philomena
was promoted widely, but turned out to be the result of someone
putting a jigswa puzzle together wrongly!
Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu
Refs: K. Woodward. _Making Saints_