Follow
One of the most fervent forms of devotion in Roman Catholicism is to the visions of Mary, commonly called “apparitions.” For many centuries, in many locations around the world, Mary is alleged to have appeared to visionaries of the Roman Catholic Church. These visionaries typically report conversations with Mary, and the apparition of Mary has many times delivered messages that have been documented through the official channels of the Roman Catholic Church. There have been many hundreds of alleged apparitions throughout history, but only a few have been approved officially by the Roman Catholic Church. These few are considered to be actual bodily appearances of Mary, and therefore “worthy of belief.” Among them are the Apparitions of Mary at Guadalupe, Mexico (1531); Paris, France (1830); La Salette, France (1846); Lourdes, France (1858); and Fatima, Portugal (1917).
The approval process for an alleged apparition can take many years, and it is rare for one to be elevated formally to the same level as those listed above. When that approval becomes official, it provides a tremendous amount of insight into the visions of Mary themselves because interviews with the visionaries are meticulously inspected, and the vision’s messages and teachings are rigorously documented through the approval process. It also provides tremendous insight into the Roman Catholic Church, because the teachings of approved apparitions are consistent with Roman Catholic teaching—otherwise they would not have been approved.
The recent approval of the Apparitions of Mary in La Laus, France is significant for this reason. The vision of Mary in La Laus appeared to Benoite Rencurel in 1664 and continued for 54 years. Early in her encounters, Benoite was resisted by the church hierarchy and was tempted to give up. The vision encouraged her to press on:
“No, My daughter, you must not run away. … don’t be afraid. Tell the Vicar General that he can very well make God come down from Heaven by the power he received when he became a priest, but he has no commands to give the Mother of God.
There are many other teachings to evaluate from La Laus, but this one is highlighted because it shows Christ subjected as a prisoner and a servant to the Roman Catholic priest, but Mary free of any such encumbrances. When Benoite conveyed this message to the Vicar General, the meaning of the message was quite clear:
“Sire, although you command God each morning and make Him come down to the altar by the power you received when you became a priest, you have no commands to give His holy Mother, who does as She pleases here.”
That message was the turning point, and the Vicar General allowed Benoite to continue receiving visits from the apparition. On May 5, 2008, more than three hundred years after the visions began, the apparitions of Mary at La Laus were approved as worthy of devotion.
Not surprisingly, this depiction of Mary as equal, or superior, to Christ is consistent in approved apparitions. The Fatima apparition taught that Jesus wants Mary to be honored throughout the world:
“Jesus wishes to make use of you to have me acknowledged and loved. He wishes to establish in the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart.”
The La Salette apparition of Mary taught that Jesus was angry because people were not setting aside the Sabbath day to honor Mary:
“I gave you six days for working. The seventh I have reserved for myself. But no one will give it to me. This is what causes the weight of my Son’s arm to be so crushing.”
Two things are abundantly clear from La Laus and other approved apparitions: 1) the visions of Mary eagerly desire to be elevated to the level of Jesus Christ and higher, and 2) the Roman Catholic Church is formally comfortable with that elevation. Listen to Father Eymard explain how the three Persons of the Trinity waited to discover what Mary’s answer would be to the Angel Gabriel at the annunciation:
“The angel is the first to salute. He is, indeed, the less worthy of the two. Mary is sovereign here, and since the Three Divine Persons are awaiting an answer, she holds in her hands the fate of the world. Ah, how powerful is that lowly maiden!” (Eymard, Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, trans. from the Sixth French Edition, 1903, p. 55).
Fr. Eymard is one of the most famous proponents of the La Laus apparitions, and it is clear that he swallowed their teachings whole. We will explore these and other apparitions of Mary later, but the formal approval of an apparition is worthy of special notice.
The Mary of the visions, of course, is not the Mary of the Bible. For more information on the history of the apparitions of Mary, and their unbiblical messages, you can see my book, Quite Contrary: A Biblical Reconsideration of the Apparitions of Mary here.
Timothy, The Mary of the apparitions is not the Mary of the Bible? Why? Because Protestants deny Mary’s role?
That’s begging the question.
Several years ago I was the owner of the only negatives of photographs taken by the only American to ever actually touch the image of Guadalupe when the image was taken out from behind its protective covering for photographing after the discovery of the miracle of the eyes.
The man was not a Catholic yet he believed in the images miraculous character.
You must judge the apparitions on their merits. Not on whether or not they fit with Protestant beliefs.
Hello Timothy,
I just heard a debate between an atheist and a believer. The believer argued that we must start from the effects and work backward to a Cause rather than start with the Bible.
I think, in evaluating the authenticity of any claim to the supernatural, we should follow the same procedure. Would you agree?
To determine the “roots from the fruits” the first question might be as the miracles. Now, I admit I am not up on the apparition you singled out here, but I am a fan of St. Peter Julian Eymard and wouldn’t think he was prone to hysteria or given to excess. The passage you quote him as saying is fine with me but that is probably because I, like St. Peter Julian, “swallow the teachings whole” on the topic of Mary as mother, mediatrix, etc.
Anyway, the miracles at approved apparitions are all quite verifiable. No hysteria, no mass hallucination, no trickery by nefarious Church officials. The tilma of Juan Diego is certainly as inexplicable as the Shroud of Turin if not more so. The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima was testified to by atheists. The miracles at Lourdes are irrefutable. ( Could we stay with these well known and approved apparitions and not muddy the waters with Garabandal or Medjugore? )
I think the onus is on the scoffer to explain these three apparitions’ claims to the miraculous before turning to their Bible to see if they are real.
Now, Tim, if one denies the possibility of miracles today, doesn’t that undercut the miracles of the Bible?
I know there are some Protestants who admit the possibility of miracles but insist a priori that the miracles the Catholics believe in are, like those of Jannes and Jambres, works of the devil. The real Mary of the Bible would never endorse Catholic doctrine therefore case closed. Easy as pie, one, two, three!
Miracles are the work of God. In the Bible Jesus could have cured all the blind and all the lame of Judea but He didn’t. He only performed miracles as confirmation of His claims to forgive invisible sins, that He would rise from the dead, and that He would feed us with the Bread from heaven.
St. Augustine wrote of a vestal virgin who was accused of being unfaithful and sentenced to death. She was given a test to prove her innocence. She was to carry water in a sieve. Although a pagan priestess, God confirmed the truth of her claims. She carried water in a sieve not to prove the lie of the Roman gods but prove the truth, period.
Why would God topple the Aztec religion with its cannibalism, human sacrifice to demons, and unbelievable cruelty only to replace it with the Whore of Babylon? Why would paraplegics walk and blind men see only to endorse a clever remake of Astarte? Why would God repeat Josue’s miracle only to deny the sufficiency of His Son’s sacrifice with a competing goddess?
So, first disprove the miracles themselves with a better, more scientific explanation. If you can’t do that, prove they are done by the power of beelzebub. Then we can talk about whether or not God wants to establish devotion to Mary’s Immaculate Heart.
Ciao for now.
Jim, you asked, “Now, Tim, if one denies the possibility of miracles today, doesn’t that undercut the miracles of the Bible?”
I do not deny the “miracles” performed by the visions of Mary. In fact, I wholeheartedly affirm their reality. Too often, people assume they are not from God, and therefore are not real. Others believe they are real, and therfore they must be from God. But there is a third option: that they are real, but are not from God. That is my position.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy,
Is it a given with you that the Marian apparitions are from the dark side because the divert glory from God to a creature?
The Bible is replete with examples of God wanting to share with us; Mark 10:37, Isaiah 17:3,,John 5:44, 17:22, Rom 2:6-7, 9:10, 2 Cor 3:18, 2 Pet 1:3-4, etc. etc.
Jesus is the rock and shepherd, so is Peter. He is the judge, so are his Apostles, Jesus is the vine, we the branches.
I know you are familiar with, “God became man so that man could become god(like)”.
If Catholic honor given to Mary is excessive, Just what would you consider an appropriate amount?
It has been pointed out to me that Protestants give to God what we give to Mary. But they don’t give to God what we Catholics give to God. We offer sacrifice to God. And only to God.
We are called to be like Christ, to love what Christ loves, to want what Christ wants. Who did Christ love more than Mary?
The 7 last words of Christ on the cross were all to fulfill scripture. This includes the exchange of John to Mary/Mary to John. For sure, it is a touching thought to see in it nothing more than dying a son making provision for his widowed mother. But to stop there is to miss a much, much deeper significance.
Timothy, notice that rather than Jesus making provision for Mary, He seems to make provision for John the beloved disciple. “Woman, behold your son” is uttered first. Mary is given the mission of looking after John, Now notice that the wife of Zebedee, John’s mother in the flesh, was present. Then John is told to take Mary as his own ( notice the language used by John in the first chapter verse twelve of his Gospel). Fast forward to the Woman of Revelation whose other children are all those who follow Jesus.
Mary is mother of the whole Christ, head and members. Yet no mother gives birth to all of her children at one time. Rather, each birth is one of a kind. This happens at each Christian’s Baptism. The Baptismal font according to the Fathers is referred to as both the Womb of Mary and the Amniosis of the Church.
Mary is not a remake of Ishtar. She is not a kinder, gentler Kali. She is not another face of the New Age Gaia. She is the Jewish Daughter of Zion, the Biblical New Eve, the fulfillment of her OT types found in Jael, Esther, Bathsheba, Judith, etc.
She is your mother, just as much as she is mine, Timothy. And she is the mother who wants you in heaven more than you do yourself.
Okay, closing out. I have my weekly Holy Hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament in a couple of hours. I promise to make reparation for your book, Graven Bread.
Over here, people prostrate themselves in front of Our Lord upon coming into His presence and say the words of the Angel of Fatima when He brought Communion to Lucia, ” O My God, I believe , I adore, I hope and I love thee. I ask pardon for those who don’t believe, adore hope in or love thee.
MOST Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly.
I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity
of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world,
in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference
by which He is offended. And through the infinite merit
of His Most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.”
I will think of Graven Bread when I say it,
Ciao
By the way Timothy, where is the Protestant equivalent to Lourdes? You know, where Jesus ( not Mary ) works miracles of healing and conversion?
Who has the Shroud of Turin? How is it that the Catholic never got around to destroying this proof of Jesus in order to elevate Mary over him?
Can you tell me about the miracles performed by Calvin? How about Luther? He threw an inkwell at Old Scratch didn’t? He was a visionary.
Where can I go to see Protestant shrines and other cool stuff?
Is speaking in tongues or handling snakes in the Ozarks okay? Or is it unbiblical? I doubt if you would say these are miraculous happenings. So would I. But I see a real difference between some poor hillbilly drinking poison and then finding himself blind, and the case where the girl born without eyes was able to see via the intercession of Padre Pio.
Does the Bible say all miracles will cease? No? Then where are yours?
Jim,
I have no miracles to offer you. No affirmations from visions at sites of Protestant pilgrimages. Nothing from Calvin or Luther.
You wrote, “Does the Bible say all miracles will cease? No? Then where are yours?”
I have none.
Warm regards,
Tim
Tim, Elsewhere you wrote, “The Apparitions do not merely reinforce existing beliefs; they actively introduce and influence new Roman Catholic teachings and practices”
What would some of those teachings be?
Jim,
I would offer the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility as examples of doctrines, and the miraculous medal as an example of a practice. We can certainly discuss this more as I will probably make an entry dedicated to it.
Thanks,
Tim