New Papal guidelines on apparitions and so on
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Only The Vatican could have a department set up for this sort of thing ...
I noticed on the BBC lunchtime news that the RCC has updated its guidelines on the evaluation of apparitions, weeping statues and similar phenomena for the first time in half a century.
That's quick work ...
The report didn't give a great deal of detail on how the guidelines differ to previous ones, but it did say that an examination of the 'character' of witnesses would now form part of the process. Didn't it do so before?
I was in Portugal last week and was mistaken for a pilgrim several times as I happened to unwittingly walk along one of the pilgrimage routes to Fatima for a while and was wearing a hat, carrying a small haversack and carrying a stout stick.
I must have looked the part but if they'd investigated my character they'd have found I was a phoney.
I watched a Marian procession the last night I was there and followed the float for a while.
What do Shippies, RC or otherwise, make of the new guidelines?
We Orthodox tend to concede that the RCs are more rigorous than we are when it comes to investigating the provenance of relics or looking into wierd and wonderful happenings. Although as Our Lady is said to have called for the 'conversion' of Russia at Fatima, we've always been sceptical of that ...
But come to think of it 🤔... 😉
Over to you.
I noticed on the BBC lunchtime news that the RCC has updated its guidelines on the evaluation of apparitions, weeping statues and similar phenomena for the first time in half a century.
That's quick work ...
The report didn't give a great deal of detail on how the guidelines differ to previous ones, but it did say that an examination of the 'character' of witnesses would now form part of the process. Didn't it do so before?
I was in Portugal last week and was mistaken for a pilgrim several times as I happened to unwittingly walk along one of the pilgrimage routes to Fatima for a while and was wearing a hat, carrying a small haversack and carrying a stout stick.
I must have looked the part but if they'd investigated my character they'd have found I was a phoney.
I watched a Marian procession the last night I was there and followed the float for a while.
What do Shippies, RC or otherwise, make of the new guidelines?
We Orthodox tend to concede that the RCs are more rigorous than we are when it comes to investigating the provenance of relics or looking into wierd and wonderful happenings. Although as Our Lady is said to have called for the 'conversion' of Russia at Fatima, we've always been sceptical of that ...
But come to think of it 🤔... 😉
Over to you.
Comments
Well, if a particular part of the church sets these kinds of things as the criteria for beatification and canonization, then it's as well to have them as well defined as possible.
Obviously you and I may hold different views, but it seems to me to be a logical conclusion of a road that starts with accepting a certain view of Sainthood.
Indeed. As with much (everything?) else with Rome there's always a logic and procedure behind it.
I'm not sure the Marian apparitions have much to do about Sainthood though but are attempts to prove that Rome has friends in high places. Our Lady seems to support The Vatican line judging by the content of her communications.
But we Orthodox have no room to talk when it comes to that sort of thing - miraculous signs to apparently show who has the right date for Easter and so on. Then there are the accounts of 'myrrh-streaming' icons and such like.
If you are baptized, you have achieved sainthood, just saying.
Donald Trump was baptized. Just saying.
So I'd pretty much expect the apparition industry, for lack of a better word, to chug on as before, with roughly the same broad degree of church sanction as it gets now.
I do get the vague impression that these new regs are designed to restrain some of the tackier eruptions of quasi-idolatry among the faithful, but I doubt they will do much to eliminate tabloud stories about the face of Jesus appearing in someone's soap dish in rural Arizona.
@Gramps49, as a Lutheran I'd have thought you'd realise that baptism isn't a 'work'. Surely baptism confers grace not 'achieves' it.
😉
Besides, although I think @chrisstiles has a point, I'm not so convinced that RC apparitions and so on (or Orthodox ones for that matter) are necessarily about conferring or recognising Sainthood.
I may sound cynical but some of this stuff is about claiming divine sanction for particular party-lines.
The Orthodox are as guilty of this as anyone else.
But whatever the case, thanks @stetson for clarifying what the new regs consist of.
There were some moving interviews in it. I'm a Presbyterian, but I found the faith of some of those in the article admirable.
And what @Hedgehog said.
Yes. However much some people may sneer at Marian apparitions and so on, the fact remains that they mean a great deal to many people.
I suppose the main Marian shrine in the UK is Walsingham, where there are separate RC and Anglican churches and pilgrimage centres. Whatever the basis for the original establishment of the place (way back in 1061, IIRC), both shrines seem to do a great deal of positive work in the way of teaching and healing, as well as worship.
FatherInCharge is very much devoted to *Holy Mary*, as he puts it, and Our Place has a small Walsingham Cell (about 12 members) which goes on a short pilgrimage to Norfolk early each May. We're just a bit too far away for a day trip to be reasonably achievable!
Many of the sayings attributed to Mary and/or others seem to be rather vague, almost bland IYSWIM, and often just another exhortation to go to Mass and Confession, and to be loyal to the Pope. I'm probably doing them an injustice, but have there ever been any really noteworthy sayings?
[total tangent] My eyes do weird things sometimes. I first read this as, "However much some peole may sneer at Martian apparitions..."
The Orthodox weren't happy about that for obvious reasons.
Then there are all the stories/myths about The Vatican having information about the end of the world which the Virgin Mary is said to have passed on and which they have yet to reveal ...
I'm with @North East Quine on this one. My own Big T Tradition has odd apparitions and so on - generally in hagiographies of Saints - but ordinarily discourages such things, or at least doesn't put a strong emphasis on them other than at a 'popular' level as it were.
Yet I find myself admiring the faith of some of those who lay claim to this sort of thing.
It can easily become a racketeering thing, of course.
In addition to @Gamma Gamaliel's example of Fatima's Consecration Of Russia, Our Lady Of Medjugorje was supposedly intervening in some sorta land dispute between monks and the parish, with implications for Croatian nationalism and its clashes with the Yugoslav state(*).
(*) I'm guessing that last bit about the political clashes woulda put the cult of Medjugorje at some odds with the Yugoslav Orthodox, which would give the messages the same sectarian overlay as Fatima, as referenced by Gamma Gamaliel.
When I first heard about the Consecration Of Russia as a teenager, I assumed the idea was to rescue it from the commies, but as of late, I've wondered if the implied villains were the Orthodox.
I believe an exact quote from the visions was:
If first communicated in 1917(by whomever you believe communicated it), and refering to the Communists, it would in retrospect sound like a disquietingly accurate forecast about how the main ideological conflicts of the next 70 years would shape up in the geostrategic realm.
But if it was suddenly "remembered" by one of the seers in August of 1941, a few weeks after the launch of Operation Barbarossa, it becomes a bit less impressive as prognostication, but much more interesting for the study of political propaganda.
And if it all must means just Catholic vs. Orthodox, then either the BVM or her ghost-writers really flopped at riding the wave of history. These days, gonzo-porn art collectives in Moscow are doing more to challenge the further entrenchment of Orthodoxy than the prayers of the pilgrims at Fatima.
I wonder what sorta reaction it woulda garnered in June of '41 if some old Irish nun in London claimed to have previously gotten messages from Mary denouncing Russia as a world threat.
😉
One presumes the BVM will have framed her messages in grammatically correct French, Portuguese or Bosnian ...
On the Fatima thing and Russia. It may have been a later dig at Bolshevism but from what I can gather many Orthodox saw it as a piece of Papal pulpiteering.
But then again, it doesn't take much to get some Orthodox going about the 'Papists', or the 'Latins' ...
I was in what was then Yugoslavia back in the 1980s, when Medjugorje first began to be noticed, and it was even then apparent that the RC Church (at least TPTB) weren't too keen on it all.
This website gives a lot more information (including the latest messages from Mary):
https://www.medjugorje.ws/
Make of it what you will. I keep an open mind, because, obviously, it means much to a lot of people of far greater faith than I.
For many who hear or believe that they are hearing the voice of God that voice will usually speak in familiar terms.
According to the story told by Bernadette, the seer of Lourdes ,the Lady spoke to her in her local patois and not in 'correct' French. I can't remember the dialect words which used to surround the famous statue in the grotto but it has been changed over the years to 'correct' French 'Je suis l'Immaculée Conception'.
The apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima are NOT part of Catholic doctrine but they are approved by the Church for personal devotion.
Had the pope or other papal authorities really wanted to get rid of the Orthodox Church why would they have approved prayers for the restoration of Christianity to Russian life ?
The Orthodox have long memories. They haven't forgotten (or forgiven) Jesuit incursions during the Counter-Reformation when the RCC tried to make good losses in Western Europe by expansion into Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
Neither have they forgotten the Sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders, even though the Pope condemned that at the time.
They draw a veil over the 12th century 'Massacre of The Latins' though ...
Of course, all these things are more complicated than a rough outline suggests but the Russians and the Greeks have always thought the 'Latins' or 'The Franks' were trying to get one over on them.
So they've tended to see Fatima against that background.
Some Orthodox can be more anti-Catholic than certain Ulster Protestants.
So that's alright then... 😉
But there is an implicit expectation of reunion with Rome.
That's the sticking point for some Orthodox. If they want reconciliation with Rome at all they'd want it on their own terms, not Rome's.
I keep out of arguments like that.
Surely as a Christian (is the pope a Christian ?) it would be his duty to pray for a return of freedom of religion to the Soviet Union.
Have Popes historically been in favour of freedom of religion so much as freedom of Catholicism?
In a nutshell, Orthodox views on the Papacy range from:
- It'd be fine for him to be 'first among equals' as long as he doesn't claim to be 'Universal Pontiff' and lord it over everyone else ...
To
- 'Papalism' is a heresy, all Popes are heretics and hey, let's call a spade a spade, he's the Anti-Christ.
You'll find some beardy-wierdies on Mount Athos and elsewhere coming out with all that sort of guff.
Quite apart from Orthodox concerns about the Papacy, the idea of consecration to the 'Immaculate Heart of Mary' doesn't sit very well with us either. We sort of get what such language is trying to convey but we don't think in those sort of terms by and large.
If it helps to show where I'm 'at' in all of this, I spent most of yesterday at the home of an RC priest and his lovely, lovely family. He was received through the Ordinariate as a former Anglican priest.
I felt as comfortable with him as I would with an Orthodox cleric or Protestant minister of whatever stripe. We'd have our differences both theologically and politically but in common we have Christ.
On the Fatima thing and subsequent Papal declarations, I fully accept that the 'target' was thd atheistic Soviet Union and not the Orthodox Church - which can be quite touchy at times - but I was outlining some concerns I've picked up on the Orthosphere.
I'm not saying I share those concerns necessarily, but I do have some reservations about the Papacy and some aspects of RC dogma of course.
These ought to be ironed out around a table in a spirit of love and mutual respect.
I think I would want to stress, just as you have ,that what we hold in common is Christ.
I understand that some Orthodox can be touchy about Catholicism and in particular about the pope who after all inhabits the 'first and Old' Rome and not the second or the third' New 'Rome.
One can never ever completely separate religion and politics, nor can one make an Italian see things in the exactly the same way as a Russian but there has to be Christ who is the supreme bridgebuilder (or to use a Latin term Pontifex Maximus.)
(I ALWAYS enjoy and believe that I understand your posts !)
ps I was very honoured recently to be asked to read in Italian in the High Kirk of St Giles' in Edinburgh at the funeral of a good friend who was a Presbyterian minister.
I accept that the popes,in talking about the freedom of religion, would be understanding that as freedom of Catholicism, but I think that most upholders of any religion would be thinking first and foremost ,historically, about freedom of their own brand of religion,whatever that might be.
Don't ask ... 😉
Partly because Protestants can have a 'problem' with Mary and in particular the term 'Mother of God' - although 'Theotokos' is more accurately rendered 'God-bearer.'
Nestorius was squeamish about that.
Also, because they feel some Protestants are confused around issues to do with the human and divine nature of Christ as defined at the Council of Chalcedon.
I've heard some Orthodox joke that there are four persons in the Godhead in some Protestant circles - the Father, a divine Son, a human Son and the Holy Spirit.
For my own part I think there can be a certain sloppiness in some Protestant presentations - particularly at the popular level - but I wouldn't go round accusing my Protestant brothers and sisters of being 'Nestorian.'
Most of them wouldn't know what it meant. I didn't. When someone pointed it out to me, I said, 'Well, that alright then because now I know what it is, I know I'm not that ...' 😉
But it can be confusing and I'm sure there have been times both in my Protestant days and subsequently where I've been bamboozled by some theological point or other.
The other reason quite frankly, is that some Orthodox - particularly converts - are so 'up themselves' to use a very direct theological term, that they delight in going on social media to slag everyone else off in order to demonstrate their own credentials.
It's called 'convertitis'.
So they'll think it's a badge of Orthodoxy to criticise all other Christian confessions or diagnose wierd, wonderful and obscure heresies in other people rather than doing what they are supposed to be doing. Such as loving their neighbour as themselves.
I suspect it may come down to views of the Eucharist.
It's never been presented that way to me. More about understandings of the human and divine nature's of Christ.
Under the Provisional Government?
I think you've got your time-line mixed up. The Romanovs were executed in July of 1918. In July of 1917, the Bolsheviks weren't even in power yet.
One of the odder(to my eyes) bit of political imagery I've seen was when Pope John Paul II was touring some Orthodox-majority country, and protestors turned out carrying placards with iconography of Mary weeping(because she's so sad about what Catholics do). Pretty sure it's the only time I've seen a religious image of Mary used to articulate ANTI-Catholic opinions(*).
(*) Some fundies, of course, will use such images as examples of Catholic idolatry to be condemned, but they would say the same thing about Orthodox icons.
The story of what is alleged to have happened at Fatima was not known beyond the frontiers of Portugal until much later.
As folks may have ascertained I have no truck with the fuss surrounding the mother of Jesus. And don't get me started about supposed apparitions and the like.
Fair enough, I've heard that criticism aimed at the more spiritualised (or completely absent) views of how Christ is present in the elements.
I have heard that Nestorius may have been less 'Nestorian' than he was accused of being.
The irony, of course is that the 'Oriental Orthodox' portrayed the Chalcedonians as being 'Nestorian.'
Lots of Chinese Whispers all ways round.
@Alan29 - yes, relations between Rome and Constantinople are quite cordial, which is one of the reasons why Patriarch Bartholomew is regarded with suspicion in some quarters.
There are others. It's all a bit of a mess with jurisdictional tensions and fallings-out.
@Stetson, at the risk of sounding cynical, it seems to me that Mary is co-opted as a spokesperson or rallying figure on both sides of various controversies or debates.
Perhaps she 'temps' at The Vatican or job-shares at The Phanar.
One day we might all be surprised and find that she likes to hang-out at the local Baptist church.
No, I'm being far too irreverent. What I mean, of course, is that from where I'm standing, most of these alleged apparitions seem to be co-opted to serve a particular agenda or other.
I was in Portugal while the Fatima commemorations were in full swing, although I wasn't in Fatima itself. I was mistaken for a pilgrim though. I was happy to follow a Marian procession for a while in the town where I was staying. I found it quite moving.
I don't begrudge our RC brothers and sisters their apparitions and pilgrimages. I do note that they operate at the level of popular spirituality and the hierarchy itself is generally quite guarded about this sort of thing.
I have a number of times, so your mileage may vary, it may be more of a US thing though.
Relations between most senior church leaders seem to be better than you would think if one were only observing their respective online theobros jousting.
What would really help prove these apparitions to me is if the BVM were to appear to a buncha kids at a co-operative feminist child-care centre in Stockholm Sweden, and deliver her usual message in the most flowery Catholic prose. I wouldn't even need her to denounce the dominant ideology of the place, but just give me some evidence that she's capable of interacting with people from the polar-opposite of her usual cultural milieu.
... just give me some evidence that she's capable of interacting with people from the polar-opposite of her usual cultural milieu.
This.
I remember seeing a documentary on the telly about one or other of these apparitions, and it may have been Fatima, I can't remember, where there was actual old footage of the kids apparently seeing these 'visions'.
They would stare off into space, smiling beatifically or stand rigidly and apparently oblivious to what was going on around them. It looked pretty disturbing to me.
I tend to think that reactions and impressions of this kind - whether in a Roman Catholic or Orthodox context or in the context of Protestant 'revivalism' where physical phenomena occur - it's a feature of groups or societies being 'steeped' in the sort of narrative that produces these kind of 'results.'
Whether these children 'saw' something or imagined they 'saw' something it then became the 'role' of the prevailing religious authorities to make sense of it.
Take the thing about Russia. Portugal was engaged in WW1 and was not so remote that concern about what was going on there - in broad terms - wouldn't have reached even rural areas. In mentioning Russia it doesn't mean that the children had an 'agenda' as such - either around Bolshevism or relations between the RC and Orthodox Churches.
The adults and religious authorities would have then 'contextualised' whatever it was the children claimed to have heard and inevitably done so according to the prevailing ideology of the Christian tradition they represented.
I'd also add that these sorts of things are not uncommon during times of stress and tension. There was even a claim of an image of a sorrowing Christ with tears and crown of thorns on the wall of a Welsh non-conformist chapel in 1914 which was later taken to be a portent of the outbreak of WW1, and that in an early Pentecostal setting not an RC one.
Sorry, cross-posted.
Whether we accept such apparitions or not, I think it's axiomatic that they are going to occur in settings which are primed and ready for them - such as highly religious rural Portugal in the early 20th century or in the highly-charged atmosphere of some forms of Protestant revivalism.
In hagiography, I notice how it tends to be ascetics and hermits who tend to get the visions and revelations and what have you.
They tend not to occur, it would seem, to people living a 'regular' kind of busy 21st century lifestyle.
They don't seem to happen on the top deck of the bus to town or on the tube or during an ad break when someone's watching the telly.
You've either got to be a peasant, a child, an ascetic or someone sitting on a pole somewhere.
There can be something of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' about all of this but that doesn't mean the apparent recipients didn't experience 'something' or thought they had.
What's not clear to me is at what point the seers publically verifìed that the original messages in 1917 had mentioned Russia. If it wasn't until 1941, then it seems quite likely that Sister Lucia, by then an adult nun and not entirely uneducated, would have had at least a basic awareness of the international political line-up.