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.
Pentecostalism to me has always seemed oddly similar to Catholicism, in terms of susceptibility to, shall we say, idiosyncratic bursts of enthusiasm.
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.
Well, if Acts is to be believed, Saul was on what we would nowadays probably call a routine business trip when God knocked him off his horse.
Granted, Saul obviously had a pre-existing belief in that particular deity, though it would seem rather unlikely that he was someone with an openness to getting the particular message that he did(*).
(*) Assuming the vision would jibe with his own standing beliefs, he more likely woulda heard "Keep up the good work, Saul!!"
The Year 2025 will be for the RC Church a year of Jubilee (every 25 years for 'ordinary 'Jubilees) In calling for the Jubilee the present pope Francis has ask for it to be a year of hope under the motto' Spes non confundit '(Hope does not disappoint).
He writes at the beginning 'Everyone knows what it is to hope. In the heart of each person ,hope dwells as the desire and expectation of good things to come, despite our not knowing what the future may bring. Uncertainty about the future may give rise to conflicting feelings ranging from confident trust to apprehensiveness ,from serenity to anxiety, from firm conviction to hesitation and doubt. God's word helps us find reasons for that hope.'
It was ,no doubt, hope which encouraged many'simple' people to come and listen to the words of Jesus and it is equally hope which spurs on many people to go to sites of special religious importance, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim or Hindu etc. Even sites of secular importance can awake memories of the past as well as giving hope for the future.
In international Catholic terms the best known sites of this type are Lourdes and Fatima and the phenomena can be discussed and dissected, accepted and rejected almost ad nauseam.
What cannot be dismissed is the fact that they provide hope and comfort for many, both for those with unwavering faith as well as those who find it difficult to maintain faith, hope and charity.
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.
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.
There was plenty of awareness of left wing ideas in Portugal in the 30s/40s, even in relatively rural areas, both due to the proximity of Spain, and the political cast of the government.
Memory is a funny thing and very unreliable. Our perceptions of past events change over time. I remember reading how a study revealed how WW1 veterans changed their attitude to the conflict over time. Many weren't at all critical of the conduct of the War nor showed any particularly pacifist views until the 1960s with the growth of anti-war sentiment and various 'peace movements.'
Thing is, we can't 'prove' one way or another whether the apparent apparitions were the 'real deal' nor whether they originally included references to Russia. These may well have been introduced over time as the international political line-up changed.
I've only been on one retreat and that was to an RC retreat centre. And very good it was too.
I noticed in one of the chapels a form of meditative 'service' or 'office' based around how Mary may have viewed, responded to the events of Christ's Passion. It was written in the first person, as though she were narrating the events and describing her thoughts and feelings - obviously with reference to recognisable incidents and passages from the Gospels.
Now, there were no claims that these were the 'actual' words of the Mother of God or that there were any special 'revelations' or visionary experiences attached to their composition.
Likewise, in the Orthodox Easter cycle there are hymns/words that are delivered as though Mary is speaking and reacting to the events of the Passion - and very moving they are too. At least, I find them so.
In neither case is anyone trying to claim that the BVM is 'actually' speaking or dictating those words. But it strikes me that in a spiritual atmosphere where this kind of direct 'first-person' narrative or dramaturgy is woven into the liturgy, it's only going to be a hop, skip and a jump before you find people claiming that Christ, or a Saint or the Theotokos appeared to them and said this, that or the other.
No, I am sufficiently 'open' to such things to accept that this may happen as a possibility. Our faith is a 'supernatural' or 'supranatural' one after all.
But I'm not sure how much of an edifice I'd build on such things.
So, for instance, whilst I was happy to follow the Marian procession for a while when I was in Portugual and quite pleased and amused to be mistaken for a pilgrim, I'm not sure I'd want to go to Fatima or Lourdes myself.
@chrisstiles - indeed, and I don't think we can disaggregate or disentangle any of these things from the social, cultural and political milieux in which they arose.
Back in 2002/03 I think, I attended a conference called 'On Revival' in which various religious 'awakenings' and revival movements were analysed in both theological and sociological terms. I ended up sitting next to a former Pentecostal turned hyper-Reformed guy who was highly disgruntled with the whole thing as he took any attempt at sociological or cultural analysis to be an attempt to diminish the 'sovereignty of God' in the whole thing.
Like as if any of this stuff occurs outside a social context.
I think an 'Incarnational' view can hold all these factors and influences together. To give a socio-economic or socio-political account of the Methodist movement of the 18th century, for instance, doesn't necessarily remove the 'divine' aspect.
It's all compatible with the Orthodox 'synergia' thing ... .
@chrisstiles - indeed, and I don't think we can disaggregate or disentangle any of these things from the social, cultural and political milieux in which they arose.
I wasn't making any kind of wider point; just that a nun in 40s Portugal was very unlikely not to be aware of ideas left wing ideas, and the place of the USSR in the - then - world order.
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.
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.
There was plenty of awareness of left wing ideas in Portugal in the 30s/40s, even in relatively rural areas, both due to the proximity of Spain, and the political cast of the government.
By "the political cast of the government", you mean the existence of the Salazar regime promoted people to seek out left-wing alternatives?
EDIT: Sorry, just read your reply to @Gamma Gamaliel. I assume you mean the government would have been propagandizing the populace against left-wing ideas?
If so, yeah, I agree, and Sister Lucia was likely tailoring her message to fit that agenda.
Don't forget that anti-Communist sentiment was rife in RC circles at that time. You can understand why given what was going on in Russia.
Equally, although I think of the Republicans as the 'good guys' in The Spanish Civil War it's sadly true that over 5,000 RC clergy, monks and nuns were killed by Republican forces.
On Radio 4's Sunday morning religious slot, two RC spokespeople, one clerical, one lay, were interviewed about the new Papal guidelines.
The lay woman, who takes groups to Lourdes and spoke highly of it, pointed out how many so-called apparitions coincided with the end of the Franco regime. As though many conservative and reactionary Catholics were fearful of the inevitable changes that were coming and came out with compensatory or politically-charged 'visions' and 'apparitions' as their way of dealing with it.
There are parallels within Orthodoxy with some Russian attitudes towards the Tsars of course.
The Catholic laywoman also noted apparent 'visions' in which Our Lady expressed sorrow at women wearing trousers. So there we have it. We now know who to turn to for fashion advice.
Again, I don't wish to appear overly cynical but it's pretty clear that these sort of things tend to be used to reinforce particular theological or political agendas.
There are examples on the Protestant side of things. I was pretty aghast when I watched a US documentary about the Anglo-US War of 1812-14 to see a storm that blew up after the British razed The White House presented as some form of divine judgement. I kid you not. It was soberly presented as some kind of indisputable historical fact that the Almighty had intervened, or at least shown his disapproval, of the British action.
From what I've heard, the impact of that sudden freak storm was exaggerated by US propagandists and did not impede the British operations as much as they made out.
There are British equivalents too, of course, such as the stories of 'The Angels of Mons' in 1914 and of ghostly archers from Crecy or Agincourt coming to the aid of the BEF.
So how on earth is one supposed to know whether these alleged messages from Mary are authentic?
I'm inclined to echo those who prefer to have no truck with them at all (easier for me, perhaps, as I'm not RC), but it must perplex the faithful at times.
If Sister Lucia, or anyone else, *tailors* their message to fit an agenda, whatever that may be, is it still, in fact, an authentic message from Mary?
Well, I am not a believer in supernatural apparitions, so yes, I pretty much concur with what you're suggesting.
Sorry. I'm a COM (Cynical Old Man), and so many of these messages simply seem to echo the Vatican line...
Or someone's line, anyway. According to wikipedia, after the original apparitions in 1917, the children were taken into state custody for a brief period, as the then-anticlerical government thought they were being manipulated by reactionary elements.
That doesn't mean that I disrespect the faith of those who receive these messages as authentic.
Mileages vary. I knew or knew of a number of people who were involved in marian activities back in the 70s and 80s, and alot of them seemed to have politics that weren't too far removed from Salazar himself. I'm sure their belief in the supposed supernaturalism of it all was sincere, but it's always kinda hard to separate that from their evident attraction to the politics.
My main experience IRL of people who set store by Marian apparitions are of those who regard Walsingham (Norfolk UK) as authentic.
AFAICT, the shrine started off back in 1061 when Mary told the Lady of the Manor to build a sort of replica - a 3D visual aid, if you will - of the home at Nazareth where Jesus was brought up, the idea being to remind people of the Incarnation.
Now, that all sounds eminently reasonable to me, and I think it's true to say that Walsingham exists primarily (as our Cell Priest FatherInCharge would say) to point people to Jesus, as Mary herself does in the Gospels.
This all seems a bit different from the repeated messages to be good Catholics etc. that one hears from other places, though I admit I'm probably over-simplifying.
Interesting. From that article:
Despite the decree, Cardia staged another gathering of devotees on May 3, and also announced a new revelation on May 13, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima: “My children, I ask you to pray for all consecrated persons who are trampling on the Body and Blood of my beloved Son with offenses and heresies. This will have grave consequences for the faithful who are led astray. My children, the Church is sinking in a sea of heresies against God,” she claimed the Virgin had said to her.
I assume you mean the government would have been propagandizing the populace against left-wing ideas?
If so, yeah, I agree, and Sister Lucia was likely tailoring her message to fit that agenda.
Yeah, pretty much, but also that there was a relatively comprehensive knowledge of politics on the part of both the rural and urban working class, with books being translated into Portuguese, and organisations on the left of politics drawing popular support (with the PCP being outlawed in 1926)
So it's not a stretch to think that a devout Catholic wouldn't have heard of this, as well as the events in Spain and Russia, and regard this as a terrible threat - even by 1930 when she first made mention of it.
My main experience IRL of people who set store by Marian apparitions are of those who regard Walsingham (Norfolk UK) as authentic.
AFAICT, the shrine started off back in 1061 when Mary told the Lady of the Manor to build a sort of replica - a 3D visual aid, if you will - of the home at Nazareth where Jesus was brought up, the idea being to remind people of the Incarnation.
Now, that all sounds eminently reasonable to me, and I think it's true to say that Walsingham exists primarily (as our Cell Priest FatherInCharge would say) to point people to Jesus, as Mary herself does in the Gospels.
This all seems a bit different from the repeated messages to be good Catholics etc. that one hears from other places, though I admit I'm probably over-simplifying.
Of course, for centuries, Catholics in the UK were accustomed to being kept on a pretty short leash, so Our Lady would likely know(IYSWIM) that going around spouting off triumphalist Catholicism might generate a bit of blowback against her fan base.
And question...
Which denomination maintains the Walsingham shrine these days?
Ok for various reasons on Thursday I ended up looking into what Rome was doing. My reading is that they have moved the power to give appartitions the nod of authenticity from the local Bishop to the Vatican. This seems to be a response to Social Media and the plethorization of current apparitions and spiritual signs that are being publicised through it. The question is how to tell a "true" sign from a "fake" sign.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy have long been suspicious of apparations and other manifestations at least back to 15th Century and probably a lot longer. The desire to control what people accept as true signs has grown and led to ever increasing centralisation of the process. With this centralisation has grown bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has produced delay and delay means that there is a longer period when signs are neither classed as fake or true.
More important that this would be an issuing of some guidelines on how to detect a true sign. I would start with three:
Is the sign/apparition consistent with the Church's teaching i.e. does not sponsor heresy?
Does it lead to greater obedience to Christ?
Does it not appear to be produced to validate requests for money, power or leniency on the part of those promulgating it?
If it satisfies criteria similar to these then an interim cautious toleration may be appropriate by the faithful.
I suppose I must admit, my own attitude is a lot harder. I tend to be sceptical of most things that are promulgated. With Walsingham, though a pilgrim, I am agnostic about the apparition but not about the prayers offered at that place. Whatever the truth of the apparition it has become a place of deep devotion to Our Lady. Then you will not find the original Holy House or the pre-Reformation statute in Walsingham.
One of the problems about accepting the message of the Virgin Mary at Walsingham as 'eminently reasonable, is that one has to accept that other possible apparitions may also be authentic.If the Virgin Mary could speak in an 'eminently reasonable' fashion in England in 1061 ( and when even in that realm she might have been at that time under control of the Vatican) who is then to say that she would not also be able to speak in an 'eminently reasonable' fashion at Lourdes or at Fatima ? Might she not even have learned to speak better over the centuries ?
In spite of what it may seem the Catholic Church as an organism is very careful about approving possible claims of apparitions
although that does not mean that there are not many ,many people who claim to have received special messages.
No Catholic is obliged by the Church to pay any attention to revelations, even those which are 'approved' by the Church.
I have never been to Fatima and have no particular wish to go there but I have been to Lourdes several times. Although I cannot guarantee anything about the political views of those whom I have met there I am certain that few of them were right wing conservative extremists.
Most, as far as I have seen, are people who come there for a particular spiritual experience.
Many of them will not even be regular churchgoers, but like the people who followed Jesus when he was wandering around Galilee,they will come with hope for the future and, where appropriate, a desire to thank God (and his blessed mother) for the gifts which they have received.
My main experience IRL of people who set store by Marian apparitions are of those who regard Walsingham (Norfolk UK) as authentic.
AFAICT, the shrine started off back in 1061 when Mary told the Lady of the Manor to build a sort of replica - a 3D visual aid, if you will - of the home at Nazareth where Jesus was brought up, the idea being to remind people of the Incarnation.
Now, that all sounds eminently reasonable to me, and I think it's true to say that Walsingham exists primarily (as our Cell Priest FatherInCharge would say) to point people to Jesus, as Mary herself does in the Gospels.
This all seems a bit different from the repeated messages to be good Catholics etc. that one hears from other places, though I admit I'm probably over-simplifying.
Of course, for centuries, Catholics in the UK were accustomed to being kept on a pretty short leash, so Our Lady would likely know(IYSWIM) that going around spouting off triumphalist Catholicism might generate a bit of blowback against her fan base.
And question...
Which denomination maintains the Walsingham shrine these days?
There are two shrines - one RC, and the other C of E.
The Orthodox also have a presence at Walsingham, interestingly enough, as the apparent apparition/message post-dates the Great Schism by 7 years ... although to all intents and purposes they tend to regard 1066 (rather than 1054) as the 'cut-off date' as it were when it comes to this country.
We can be just as, if not more, 'political' and prone to agendas as anyone else.
I've never been to Lourdes but for whatever reason tend to see it as offering something rather 'broader' in scope than Fatima. I don't know much about Lourdes. Fatima strikes me as having a rather obvious 'agenda' though, which isn't to say that the children / visionaries themselves had one.
I know people who've been to Lourdes and have been moved by it despite themselves, although highly put-off by the tat and the kitsch.
As an aside, I recently heard an Orthodox priest note disapprovingly that whilst there are something like 300 or so recognised Saints in the British Isles from the pre-Schism period, there are only about 13 between the Norman Conquest and the Reformation.
He put this down to overweening Vatican bureaucracy. Others might argue that it shows a greater level of 'quality control.'
Diarmid McCulloch notes in his big thick book on the history of Christianity how the RC heirarchy was mortified when the Russians canonised a fella who'd collapsed drunk and was robbed while he slept. Suffering as well as sanctity can be grounds for canonisation in the Orthodox Tradition. This instance was rather too much for RC sensibilities, and I can't say I blame them.
My main experience IRL of people who set store by Marian apparitions are of those who regard Walsingham (Norfolk UK) as authentic.
AFAICT, the shrine started off back in 1061 when Mary told the Lady of the Manor to build a sort of replica - a 3D visual aid, if you will - of the home at Nazareth where Jesus was brought up, the idea being to remind people of the Incarnation.
Now, that all sounds eminently reasonable to me, and I think it's true to say that Walsingham exists primarily (as our Cell Priest FatherInCharge would say) to point people to Jesus, as Mary herself does in the Gospels.
This all seems a bit different from the repeated messages to be good Catholics etc. that one hears from other places, though I admit I'm probably over-simplifying.
Of course, for centuries, Catholics in the UK were accustomed to being kept on a pretty short leash, so Our Lady would likely know(IYSWIM) that going around spouting off triumphalist Catholicism might generate a bit of blowback against her fan base.
And question...
Which denomination maintains the Walsingham shrine these days?
There are two shrines - one RC, and the other C of E.
There is also the site of the original shrine, now in private ownership.
I am aware of the Orthodox presence at Walsingham - IIRC, they have a small chapel within the C of E shrine church.
The erstwhile railway station was converted to an Orthodox chapel, although when I visited it some 10 years ago, it was not being used for services, I think.
The Orthodox also have a presence at Walsingham, interestingly enough, as the apparent apparition/message post-dates the Great Schism by 7 years ...
There are currently THREE Orthodox places of worship in Walsingham. Two of these are in Little Walshingham (a pan-Orthodox Chapel within the Anglican Shrine complex and a chapel at the old Railway Station) and a parish church in the nearby smaller village of Great Walsingham.
The Orthodox also have a presence at Walsingham, interestingly enough, as the apparent apparition/message post-dates the Great Schism by 7 years ...
There are currently THREE Orthodox places of worship in Walsingham. Two of these are in Little Walshingham (a pan-Orthodox Chapel within the Anglican Shrine complex and a chapel at the old Railway Station) and a parish church in the nearby smaller village of Great Walsingham.
According to the website of the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Great Walsingham, the chapel in the Anglican shrine is not now in use, and the old station chapel (St Seraphim) is used only on special occasions.
Even so, an impressive presence in this remote part of Norfolk!
The Orthodox also have a presence at Walsingham, interestingly enough, as the apparent apparition/message post-dates the Great Schism by 7 years ...
There are currently THREE Orthodox places of worship in Walsingham. Two of these are in Little Walshingham (a pan-Orthodox Chapel within the Anglican Shrine complex and a chapel at the old Railway Station) and a parish church in the nearby smaller village of Great Walsingham.
According to the website of the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Great Walsingham, the chapel in the Anglican shrine is not now in use, and the old station chapel (St Seraphim) is used only on special occasions.
That means that that community no longer use it. It is currently used by two other different Russian communities. I am not sure how frequently they have services there.
The Orthodox also have a presence at Walsingham, interestingly enough, as the apparent apparition/message post-dates the Great Schism by 7 years ...
There are currently THREE Orthodox places of worship in Walsingham. Two of these are in Little Walshingham (a pan-Orthodox Chapel within the Anglican Shrine complex and a chapel at the old Railway Station) and a parish church in the nearby smaller village of Great Walsingham.
According to the website of the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Great Walsingham, the chapel in the Anglican shrine is not now in use, and the old station chapel (St Seraphim) is used only on special occasions.
That means that that community no longer use it. It is currently used by two other different Russian communities. I am not sure how frequently they have services there.
What do you mean by "two other different Russian communities"? Do you mean two Russian parishes?
Over a period of several weeks this year I was reading a fascinating article on Marian apparitions in one of our vet's waiting room's National Geographics. Google tells me the article appeared in 2015, but it's behind a subscription wall, and our cat has died, so I don't know the the conclusion.
There were some moving interviews in it. I'm a Presbyterian, but I found the faith of some of those in the article admirable.
I’m very sorry to hear about your cat. Prayers ascending and sending hugs. ❤️
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
The long-eared Christmas donkey has much to answer for.
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
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 think “convertitis” shows up in all kinds of denominations, from what I’ve seen. Probably other religions, and definitely in politics.
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
The long-eared Christmas donkey has much to answer for.
Holy crap. Don't think I'd ever heard of that one before. Thanks for one more reason to avoid Rankin-Bass.
The Orthodox also have a presence at Walsingham, interestingly enough, as the apparent apparition/message post-dates the Great Schism by 7 years ...
There are currently THREE Orthodox places of worship in Walsingham. Two of these are in Little Walshingham (a pan-Orthodox Chapel within the Anglican Shrine complex and a chapel at the old Railway Station) and a parish church in the nearby smaller village of Great Walsingham.
According to the website of the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Great Walsingham, the chapel in the Anglican shrine is not now in use, and the old station chapel (St Seraphim) is used only on special occasions.
That means that that community no longer use it. It is currently used by two other different Russian communities. I am not sure how frequently they have services there.
What do you mean by "two other different Russian communities"? Do you mean two Russian parishes?
Both groups (either separately or together) are too small to constitute "parishes". The Diocese of Sourozh (Moscow Patriachate Diocese for UK and Ireland) lists the chapel with one nun (who lives in Walsingham) as contact. The Diocese of Western Europe of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR - now under the Moscow Patriarchate) lists the chapel with one visiting priest (who lives in South Wales). The last time that I was there (in 2022) the priest (from ROCOR) had come from London for the weekend services.
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
The long-eared Christmas donkey has much to answer for.
Holy crap. Don't think I'd ever heard of that one before. Thanks for one more reason to avoid Rankin-Bass.
Aw, I love Rankin-Bass. I'm not sure that's one I'm into, mind you, but I love them otherwise. (NOT THE CRICKET ON THE HEARTH! DEAR MERCIFUL GOD, NOT THE CRICKET ON THE HEARTH!)
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
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 think “convertitis” shows up in all kinds of denominations, from what I’ve seen. Probably other religions, and definitely in politics.
The Orthodox also have a presence at Walsingham, interestingly enough, as the apparent apparition/message post-dates the Great Schism by 7 years ...
There are currently THREE Orthodox places of worship in Walsingham. Two of these are in Little Walshingham (a pan-Orthodox Chapel within the Anglican Shrine complex and a chapel at the old Railway Station) and a parish church in the nearby smaller village of Great Walsingham.
According to the website of the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Great Walsingham, the chapel in the Anglican shrine is not now in use, and the old station chapel (St Seraphim) is used only on special occasions.
That means that that community no longer use it. It is currently used by two other different Russian communities. I am not sure how frequently they have services there.
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
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 think “convertitis” shows up in all kinds of denominations, from what I’ve seen. Probably other religions, and definitely in politics.
"There's no zealot like a convert".
Indeed.
Although some of the 'anti-convert' types among the 'cradle Orthodox' come pretty close. 'What do these converts know? They haven't been Orthodox for 2,000 years unlike me. They are all bringing nasty evil Western baggage with them. They are the spawn of Satan. They are all part of a CIA/Zionist plot to undermine the True Faith ...'
So, sadly, we get the worst of both worlds such as callow - largely American - yoof who come across Orthodoxy online and see it as some kind of revolt against the modern world and an 'anti-woke' crusade.
Or we have loud and lairy You Tubers who think it's still 1453 or who think the Pope is the Antichrist.
Then you get people who keep their heads down and get on with things and leave the loonies to it.
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
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 think “convertitis” shows up in all kinds of denominations, from what I’ve seen. Probably other religions, and definitely in politics.
"There's no zealot like a convert".
Indeed.
Although some of the 'anti-convert' types among the 'cradle Orthodox' come pretty close. 'What do these converts know? They haven't been Orthodox for 2,000 years unlike me. They are all bringing nasty evil Western baggage with them. They are the spawn of Satan. They are all part of a CIA/Zionist plot to undermine the True Faith ...'
So, sadly, we get the worst of both worlds such as callow - largely American - yoof who come across Orthodoxy online and see it as some kind of revolt against the modern world and an 'anti-woke' crusade.
Or we have loud and lairy You Tubers who think it's still 1453 or who think the Pope is the Antichrist.
Then you get people who keep their heads down and get on with things and leave the loonies to it.
Welcome to Trad Anglo Catholicism (minus the tweed) just swap a few details on who is falling out with whom, and why.
Though I will die in a ditch in defence of Saepius Officio.
About 40 years ago, when I was working in Stockport, there was a brief flurry of activity around one of the Catholic churches. I'm not quite sure what the apparent miracle was, but I seem to recall it was something like the BVM's statue weeping. Or it might have been her roses renewing themselves. Something like that.
Anyway, the Catholic Diocese quickly investigated it and found it was a hoax.
I must admit, I was impressed with their speed and rigour, though the romantic in me feels that Stockport, a rather mundane locus, would have benefited from a miraculous statue.
About 40 years ago, when I was working in Stockport, there was a brief flurry of activity around one of the Catholic churches. I'm not quite sure what the apparent miracle was, but I seem to recall it was something like the BVM's statue weeping. Or it might have been her roses renewing themselves. Something like that.
Anyway, the Catholic Diocese quickly investigated it and found it was a hoax.
I must admit, I was impressed with their speed and rigour, though the romantic in me feels that Stockport, a rather mundane locus, would have benefited from a miraculous statue.
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
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 think “convertitis” shows up in all kinds of denominations, from what I’ve seen. Probably other religions, and definitely in politics.
"There's no zealot like a convert".
Indeed.
Although some of the 'anti-convert' types among the 'cradle Orthodox' come pretty close. 'What do these converts know? They haven't been Orthodox for 2,000 years unlike me. They are all bringing nasty evil Western baggage with them. They are the spawn of Satan. They are all part of a CIA/Zionist plot to undermine the True Faith ...'
So, sadly, we get the worst of both worlds such as callow - largely American - yoof who come across Orthodoxy online and see it as some kind of revolt against the modern world and an 'anti-woke' crusade.
Or we have loud and lairy You Tubers who think it's still 1453 or who think the Pope is the Antichrist.
Then you get people who keep their heads down and get on with things and leave the loonies to it.
Welcome to Trad Anglo Catholicism (minus the tweed) just swap a few details on who is falling out with whom, and why.
Though I will die in a ditch in defence of Saepius Officio.
Ok. But I don’t think you have the added ethno-centric issues.
I've not had that much exposure to Trad Anglo-Catholicism, to be fair. They do put on a good show from what I've seen. It all looks a bit fussy to me, though and whilst I've enjoyed and appreciated those few Anglo-Catholic services I've attended I've never been convinced by their claims that the CofE has always been 'Catholic' rather than Protestant.
I don't get into issues like declaring other people's ordinations or rituals as 'null in void' - not that it would be my place to do so - or Saepius Officio or responses to it.
That's for Rome and Canterbury to sort out. That may sound like a cop-out ...
FWIW @Forthview, I've spent some time on a WhatsApp platform this week trying to convince mewling and puking Orthodox yoot' and zealous converts that it really doesn't help to label Roman Catholics as 'Papists' or to accuse all Protestants of being 'Nestorian.'
Oooh! Why are we 'Nestorian'?
The long-eared Christmas donkey has much to answer for.
Holy crap. Don't think I'd ever heard of that one before. Thanks for one more reason to avoid Rankin-Bass.
Aw, I love Rankin-Bass. I'm not sure that's one I'm into, mind you, but I love them otherwise. (NOT THE CRICKET ON THE HEARTH! DEAR MERCIFUL GOD, NOT THE CRICKET ON THE HEARTH!)
I saw their Easter thing in the late 1970s, but I think I was in my 50s before I Iearned that the guy speeding around in the train with the smug/braindead facial expression was Fred Astaire.
On what basis are people, here and elsewhere, making the claim that the RCC is stringent about classifying apparitions?
I remember in the lste-80s, a middle-aged Catholic professional, who would have attended mass at least once a week, showing me a book on Medugorje, which seemed to be promoting the idea that the sightings were authentic. His caveat was something like "You don't have to believe this, but it's interesting to read what these people have to say." I believe he also knew some pilgrims who had gone, and considered them basically trustworthy.
And I really didn't get the idea that anyone in the Church hierarchy was doing much to present a skeptical alternative view to him, and this was a guy who probably had contact with clergy and lay leadership on a regular basis. So, I sorta came away with the impression that while the Church had possibly issued some statement saying that Medugorje was doubtful, they were somewhat reticent about emphasizing this stance among the true-believers.
(And, no, the guy was not a member of some sorta sedevacantist schism that thought the official hierarchy were impostors.)
I've never been convinced by their claims that the CofE has always been 'Catholic' rather than Protestant.
The clever sleight-of-hand by which Anglo-Saxon Episcopalians are rescued from the label "WASP".
As I understand it, claims that the CofE and the Anglican Communion generally are Catholic rather than Protestant go back to the Oxford Movement, and predate the term WASP, let alone anybody thinking it was a label to be rescued from.
(But yes regardless of whether it is Catholic the Anglican Communion is Protestant in any sense of the term that doesn't rely on a false dilemma.)
Today's Gospel passage read in Roman rite churches has the writer of St Mark's gospel telling us that Jesus said 'No-one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us' Like many other utterances of Jesus recorded in what Christians call Sacred Scripture they have to be looked at carefully and interpreted by individuals and also by church communities, particularly if the community believes itself to be part of the Body of Christ.
There will always be people who will want to accept the messages of those who believe that they have had some sort of contact with Court of Heaven.
The local bishop responsible for Medjugorje was initially supportive of the young people who claimed to have messages from the Lady but very soon decided that he wanted nothing to do with them. Since then his successors have also distanced themselves from any talk of messages from the Virgin Mary.
The Vatican also has not until recently 'approved' of the pilgrimages to Medjugorje.
Recently, however, given the fact that Medjugorje draws large crowds and that it is a place of many spiritual 'graces' ,it has approved of the fact that the pilgrimages may be accompanied by Catholic clergy who may minister to the pilgrims, without at the same time in any way pronouncing upon the authenticity or otherwise of any apparitions.
From WIKI On 2 April 1995, at the high point of conflict within the local diocese, Bishop Ratko Perić was kidnapped by Croat militiamen, beaten, and taken to a chapel run by one of the Franciscans associated with Međugorje, where he was held hostage for ten hours. At the initiative of the mayor of Mostar, he was freed without bloodshed, with the help of the United Nations Protection Force.[17][18][19]
You can see why church authorities might feel the need to tread carefully.
The days of the Inquisition are over. The heirarchy can say what they want, but they can't force the laity to agree.
Sure. But the Catholic I was talking to struck me as someone who, if told in no uncertain terms that the Church disapproves of Medugorje, would have ceased entertaining notions that it was real.
Comments
Pentecostalism to me has always seemed oddly similar to Catholicism, in terms of susceptibility to, shall we say, idiosyncratic bursts of enthusiasm.
Well, if Acts is to be believed, Saul was on what we would nowadays probably call a routine business trip when God knocked him off his horse.
Granted, Saul obviously had a pre-existing belief in that particular deity, though it would seem rather unlikely that he was someone with an openness to getting the particular message that he did(*).
(*) Assuming the vision would jibe with his own standing beliefs, he more likely woulda heard "Keep up the good work, Saul!!"
He writes at the beginning 'Everyone knows what it is to hope. In the heart of each person ,hope dwells as the desire and expectation of good things to come, despite our not knowing what the future may bring. Uncertainty about the future may give rise to conflicting feelings ranging from confident trust to apprehensiveness ,from serenity to anxiety, from firm conviction to hesitation and doubt. God's word helps us find reasons for that hope.'
It was ,no doubt, hope which encouraged many'simple' people to come and listen to the words of Jesus and it is equally hope which spurs on many people to go to sites of special religious importance, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim or Hindu etc. Even sites of secular importance can awake memories of the past as well as giving hope for the future.
In international Catholic terms the best known sites of this type are Lourdes and Fatima and the phenomena can be discussed and dissected, accepted and rejected almost ad nauseam.
What cannot be dismissed is the fact that they provide hope and comfort for many, both for those with unwavering faith as well as those who find it difficult to maintain faith, hope and charity.
There was plenty of awareness of left wing ideas in Portugal in the 30s/40s, even in relatively rural areas, both due to the proximity of Spain, and the political cast of the government.
Memory is a funny thing and very unreliable. Our perceptions of past events change over time. I remember reading how a study revealed how WW1 veterans changed their attitude to the conflict over time. Many weren't at all critical of the conduct of the War nor showed any particularly pacifist views until the 1960s with the growth of anti-war sentiment and various 'peace movements.'
Thing is, we can't 'prove' one way or another whether the apparent apparitions were the 'real deal' nor whether they originally included references to Russia. These may well have been introduced over time as the international political line-up changed.
I've only been on one retreat and that was to an RC retreat centre. And very good it was too.
I noticed in one of the chapels a form of meditative 'service' or 'office' based around how Mary may have viewed, responded to the events of Christ's Passion. It was written in the first person, as though she were narrating the events and describing her thoughts and feelings - obviously with reference to recognisable incidents and passages from the Gospels.
Now, there were no claims that these were the 'actual' words of the Mother of God or that there were any special 'revelations' or visionary experiences attached to their composition.
Likewise, in the Orthodox Easter cycle there are hymns/words that are delivered as though Mary is speaking and reacting to the events of the Passion - and very moving they are too. At least, I find them so.
In neither case is anyone trying to claim that the BVM is 'actually' speaking or dictating those words. But it strikes me that in a spiritual atmosphere where this kind of direct 'first-person' narrative or dramaturgy is woven into the liturgy, it's only going to be a hop, skip and a jump before you find people claiming that Christ, or a Saint or the Theotokos appeared to them and said this, that or the other.
No, I am sufficiently 'open' to such things to accept that this may happen as a possibility. Our faith is a 'supernatural' or 'supranatural' one after all.
But I'm not sure how much of an edifice I'd build on such things.
So, for instance, whilst I was happy to follow the Marian procession for a while when I was in Portugual and quite pleased and amused to be mistaken for a pilgrim, I'm not sure I'd want to go to Fatima or Lourdes myself.
And yes, Pentecostalism does have parallels and similarities to forms of religious enthusiasm found in both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
@Forthview - yes, I get that.
@chrisstiles - indeed, and I don't think we can disaggregate or disentangle any of these things from the social, cultural and political milieux in which they arose.
Back in 2002/03 I think, I attended a conference called 'On Revival' in which various religious 'awakenings' and revival movements were analysed in both theological and sociological terms. I ended up sitting next to a former Pentecostal turned hyper-Reformed guy who was highly disgruntled with the whole thing as he took any attempt at sociological or cultural analysis to be an attempt to diminish the 'sovereignty of God' in the whole thing.
Like as if any of this stuff occurs outside a social context.
I think an 'Incarnational' view can hold all these factors and influences together. To give a socio-economic or socio-political account of the Methodist movement of the 18th century, for instance, doesn't necessarily remove the 'divine' aspect.
It's all compatible with the Orthodox 'synergia' thing ...
I wasn't making any kind of wider point; just that a nun in 40s Portugal was very unlikely not to be aware of ideas left wing ideas, and the place of the USSR in the - then - world order.
By "the political cast of the government", you mean the existence of the Salazar regime promoted people to seek out left-wing alternatives?
EDIT: Sorry, just read your reply to @Gamma Gamaliel. I assume you mean the government would have been propagandizing the populace against left-wing ideas?
If so, yeah, I agree, and Sister Lucia was likely tailoring her message to fit that agenda.
Sorry. I'm a COM (Cynical Old Man), and so many of these messages simply seem to echo the Vatican line...
That doesn't mean that I disrespect the faith of those who receive these messages as authentic.
Equally, although I think of the Republicans as the 'good guys' in The Spanish Civil War it's sadly true that over 5,000 RC clergy, monks and nuns were killed by Republican forces.
On Radio 4's Sunday morning religious slot, two RC spokespeople, one clerical, one lay, were interviewed about the new Papal guidelines.
The lay woman, who takes groups to Lourdes and spoke highly of it, pointed out how many so-called apparitions coincided with the end of the Franco regime. As though many conservative and reactionary Catholics were fearful of the inevitable changes that were coming and came out with compensatory or politically-charged 'visions' and 'apparitions' as their way of dealing with it.
There are parallels within Orthodoxy with some Russian attitudes towards the Tsars of course.
The Catholic laywoman also noted apparent 'visions' in which Our Lady expressed sorrow at women wearing trousers. So there we have it. We now know who to turn to for fashion advice.
Again, I don't wish to appear overly cynical but it's pretty clear that these sort of things tend to be used to reinforce particular theological or political agendas.
There are examples on the Protestant side of things. I was pretty aghast when I watched a US documentary about the Anglo-US War of 1812-14 to see a storm that blew up after the British razed The White House presented as some form of divine judgement. I kid you not. It was soberly presented as some kind of indisputable historical fact that the Almighty had intervened, or at least shown his disapproval, of the British action.
From what I've heard, the impact of that sudden freak storm was exaggerated by US propagandists and did not impede the British operations as much as they made out.
There are British equivalents too, of course, such as the stories of 'The Angels of Mons' in 1914 and of ghostly archers from Crecy or Agincourt coming to the aid of the BEF.
I'm inclined to echo those who prefer to have no truck with them at all (easier for me, perhaps, as I'm not RC), but it must perplex the faithful at times.
Well, I am not a believer in supernatural apparitions, so yes, I pretty much concur with what you're suggesting.
Or someone's line, anyway. According to wikipedia, after the original apparitions in 1917, the children were taken into state custody for a brief period, as the then-anticlerical government thought they were being manipulated by reactionary elements.
Mileages vary. I knew or knew of a number of people who were involved in marian activities back in the 70s and 80s, and alot of them seemed to have politics that weren't too far removed from Salazar himself. I'm sure their belief in the supposed supernaturalism of it all was sincere, but it's always kinda hard to separate that from their evident attraction to the politics.
My main experience IRL of people who set store by Marian apparitions are of those who regard Walsingham (Norfolk UK) as authentic.
AFAICT, the shrine started off back in 1061 when Mary told the Lady of the Manor to build a sort of replica - a 3D visual aid, if you will - of the home at Nazareth where Jesus was brought up, the idea being to remind people of the Incarnation.
Now, that all sounds eminently reasonable to me, and I think it's true to say that Walsingham exists primarily (as our Cell Priest FatherInCharge would say) to point people to Jesus, as Mary herself does in the Gospels.
This all seems a bit different from the repeated messages to be good Catholics etc. that one hears from other places, though I admit I'm probably over-simplifying.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2024/05/self-professed-visionary-wants-respect-in-wake-of-vatican-apparition-rules
Interesting. From that article:
Despite the decree, Cardia staged another gathering of devotees on May 3, and also announced a new revelation on May 13, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima: “My children, I ask you to pray for all consecrated persons who are trampling on the Body and Blood of my beloved Son with offenses and heresies. This will have grave consequences for the faithful who are led astray. My children, the Church is sinking in a sea of heresies against God,” she claimed the Virgin had said to her.
Cynic that I am, I see nothing new here...
Yeah, pretty much, but also that there was a relatively comprehensive knowledge of politics on the part of both the rural and urban working class, with books being translated into Portuguese, and organisations on the left of politics drawing popular support (with the PCP being outlawed in 1926)
So it's not a stretch to think that a devout Catholic wouldn't have heard of this, as well as the events in Spain and Russia, and regard this as a terrible threat - even by 1930 when she first made mention of it.
Of course, for centuries, Catholics in the UK were accustomed to being kept on a pretty short leash, so Our Lady would likely know(IYSWIM) that going around spouting off triumphalist Catholicism might generate a bit of blowback against her fan base.
And question...
Which denomination maintains the Walsingham shrine these days?
The Roman Catholic hierarchy have long been suspicious of apparations and other manifestations at least back to 15th Century and probably a lot longer. The desire to control what people accept as true signs has grown and led to ever increasing centralisation of the process. With this centralisation has grown bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has produced delay and delay means that there is a longer period when signs are neither classed as fake or true.
More important that this would be an issuing of some guidelines on how to detect a true sign. I would start with three:
If it satisfies criteria similar to these then an interim cautious toleration may be appropriate by the faithful.
I suppose I must admit, my own attitude is a lot harder. I tend to be sceptical of most things that are promulgated. With Walsingham, though a pilgrim, I am agnostic about the apparition but not about the prayers offered at that place. Whatever the truth of the apparition it has become a place of deep devotion to Our Lady. Then you will not find the original Holy House or the pre-Reformation statute in Walsingham.
In spite of what it may seem the Catholic Church as an organism is very careful about approving possible claims of apparitions
although that does not mean that there are not many ,many people who claim to have received special messages.
No Catholic is obliged by the Church to pay any attention to revelations, even those which are 'approved' by the Church.
I have never been to Fatima and have no particular wish to go there but I have been to Lourdes several times. Although I cannot guarantee anything about the political views of those whom I have met there I am certain that few of them were right wing conservative extremists.
Most, as far as I have seen, are people who come there for a particular spiritual experience.
Many of them will not even be regular churchgoers, but like the people who followed Jesus when he was wandering around Galilee,they will come with hope for the future and, where appropriate, a desire to thank God (and his blessed mother) for the gifts which they have received.
There are two shrines - one RC, and the other C of E.
No.
We can be just as, if not more, 'political' and prone to agendas as anyone else.
I've never been to Lourdes but for whatever reason tend to see it as offering something rather 'broader' in scope than Fatima. I don't know much about Lourdes. Fatima strikes me as having a rather obvious 'agenda' though, which isn't to say that the children / visionaries themselves had one.
I know people who've been to Lourdes and have been moved by it despite themselves, although highly put-off by the tat and the kitsch.
As an aside, I recently heard an Orthodox priest note disapprovingly that whilst there are something like 300 or so recognised Saints in the British Isles from the pre-Schism period, there are only about 13 between the Norman Conquest and the Reformation.
He put this down to overweening Vatican bureaucracy. Others might argue that it shows a greater level of 'quality control.'
Diarmid McCulloch notes in his big thick book on the history of Christianity how the RC heirarchy was mortified when the Russians canonised a fella who'd collapsed drunk and was robbed while he slept. Suffering as well as sanctity can be grounds for canonisation in the Orthodox Tradition. This instance was rather too much for RC sensibilities, and I can't say I blame them.
There is also the site of the original shrine, now in private ownership.
The erstwhile railway station was converted to an Orthodox chapel, although when I visited it some 10 years ago, it was not being used for services, I think.
There are currently THREE Orthodox places of worship in Walsingham. Two of these are in Little Walshingham (a pan-Orthodox Chapel within the Anglican Shrine complex and a chapel at the old Railway Station) and a parish church in the nearby smaller village of Great Walsingham.
According to the website of the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Great Walsingham, the chapel in the Anglican shrine is not now in use, and the old station chapel (St Seraphim) is used only on special occasions.
Even so, an impressive presence in this remote part of Norfolk!
(Apologies for prolonging the tangent)
That means that that community no longer use it. It is currently used by two other different Russian communities. I am not sure how frequently they have services there.
What do you mean by "two other different Russian communities"? Do you mean two Russian parishes?
I’m very sorry to hear about your cat. Prayers ascending and sending hugs.
The long-eared Christmas donkey has much to answer for.
I think “convertitis” shows up in all kinds of denominations, from what I’ve seen. Probably other religions, and definitely in politics.
Holy crap. Don't think I'd ever heard of that one before. Thanks for one more reason to avoid Rankin-Bass.
Both groups (either separately or together) are too small to constitute "parishes". The Diocese of Sourozh (Moscow Patriachate Diocese for UK and Ireland) lists the chapel with one nun (who lives in Walsingham) as contact. The Diocese of Western Europe of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR - now under the Moscow Patriarchate) lists the chapel with one visiting priest (who lives in South Wales). The last time that I was there (in 2022) the priest (from ROCOR) had come from London for the weekend services.
Aw, I love Rankin-Bass. I'm not sure that's one I'm into, mind you, but I love them otherwise. (NOT THE CRICKET ON THE HEARTH! DEAR MERCIFUL GOD, NOT THE CRICKET ON THE HEARTH!)
"There's no zealot like a convert".
Thank you for the update.
Indeed.
Although some of the 'anti-convert' types among the 'cradle Orthodox' come pretty close. 'What do these converts know? They haven't been Orthodox for 2,000 years unlike me. They are all bringing nasty evil Western baggage with them. They are the spawn of Satan. They are all part of a CIA/Zionist plot to undermine the True Faith ...'
So, sadly, we get the worst of both worlds such as callow - largely American - yoof who come across Orthodoxy online and see it as some kind of revolt against the modern world and an 'anti-woke' crusade.
Or we have loud and lairy You Tubers who think it's still 1453 or who think the Pope is the Antichrist.
Then you get people who keep their heads down and get on with things and leave the loonies to it.
Welcome to Trad Anglo Catholicism (minus the tweed) just swap a few details on who is falling out with whom, and why.
Though I will die in a ditch in defence of Saepius Officio.
Anyway, the Catholic Diocese quickly investigated it and found it was a hoax.
I must admit, I was impressed with their speed and rigour, though the romantic in me feels that Stockport, a rather mundane locus, would have benefited from a miraculous statue.
This is Stockport in the UK?
Ok. But I don’t think you have the added ethno-centric issues.
I've not had that much exposure to Trad Anglo-Catholicism, to be fair. They do put on a good show from what I've seen. It all looks a bit fussy to me, though and whilst I've enjoyed and appreciated those few Anglo-Catholic services I've attended I've never been convinced by their claims that the CofE has always been 'Catholic' rather than Protestant.
I don't get into issues like declaring other people's ordinations or rituals as 'null in void' - not that it would be my place to do so - or Saepius Officio or responses to it.
That's for Rome and Canterbury to sort out. That may sound like a cop-out ...
Ah, yes. The clever sleight-of-hand by which Anglo-Saxon Episcopalians are rescued from the label "WASP".
I saw their Easter thing in the late 1970s, but I think I was in my 50s before I Iearned that the guy speeding around in the train with the smug/braindead facial expression was Fred Astaire.
On what basis are people, here and elsewhere, making the claim that the RCC is stringent about classifying apparitions?
I remember in the lste-80s, a middle-aged Catholic professional, who would have attended mass at least once a week, showing me a book on Medugorje, which seemed to be promoting the idea that the sightings were authentic. His caveat was something like "You don't have to believe this, but it's interesting to read what these people have to say." I believe he also knew some pilgrims who had gone, and considered them basically trustworthy.
And I really didn't get the idea that anyone in the Church hierarchy was doing much to present a skeptical alternative view to him, and this was a guy who probably had contact with clergy and lay leadership on a regular basis. So, I sorta came away with the impression that while the Church had possibly issued some statement saying that Medugorje was doubtful, they were somewhat reticent about emphasizing this stance among the true-believers.
(And, no, the guy was not a member of some sorta sedevacantist schism that thought the official hierarchy were impostors.)
(But yes regardless of whether it is Catholic the Anglican Communion is Protestant in any sense of the term that doesn't rely on a false dilemma.)
There will always be people who will want to accept the messages of those who believe that they have had some sort of contact with Court of Heaven.
The local bishop responsible for Medjugorje was initially supportive of the young people who claimed to have messages from the Lady but very soon decided that he wanted nothing to do with them. Since then his successors have also distanced themselves from any talk of messages from the Virgin Mary.
The Vatican also has not until recently 'approved' of the pilgrimages to Medjugorje.
Recently, however, given the fact that Medjugorje draws large crowds and that it is a place of many spiritual 'graces' ,it has approved of the fact that the pilgrimages may be accompanied by Catholic clergy who may minister to the pilgrims, without at the same time in any way pronouncing upon the authenticity or otherwise of any apparitions.
On 2 April 1995, at the high point of conflict within the local diocese, Bishop Ratko Perić was kidnapped by Croat militiamen, beaten, and taken to a chapel run by one of the Franciscans associated with Međugorje, where he was held hostage for ten hours. At the initiative of the mayor of Mostar, he was freed without bloodshed, with the help of the United Nations Protection Force.[17][18][19]
You can see why church authorities might feel the need to tread carefully.
Sure. But the Catholic I was talking to struck me as someone who, if told in no uncertain terms that the Church disapproves of Medugorje, would have ceased entertaining notions that it was real.