Blessed virgin mother Mary and her visitations

Of course or I at least assume the people reading know about the visitations of our lady to Fatima Guadalupe ect

Now I heard some people saying our lady of Czechoslovakia is one example I know but a more personal one is that my church is named our lady of albanians does this mean like others our lady of Fatima Guadalupe Czechoslovakia ect are all of them named that cause of the blessed mother visitation to those places ?
Was there an apparition of mary in albania
Is that why my church is named such
This is late at night I’m thinking this I don’t think my priest or anyone else I know would be very happy to get a phone call at 2 in the morning lol
My mind can’t stop thinking at night and wondering and asking all of life’s questions lol

But please anyone please give me some answers
Thank you all in advance

Apparitions of the Blessed Mother (or Jesus or any other Saint) are considered private revelation. As such, no Catholic is required to accept or believe in them, even if the Papal Office has approved them (as is the case with Fatima & Guadalupe). (It would be improper to speak against any such approved apparition, but no Catholic is required to believe them.)

This even applies to devotional practices such as the Rosary, which is so ingrained in Catholic devotions that many Catholics think it is a required belief. My Parish is named “The Queen of the Most Holy Rosary,” for goodness sake But the Rosary is a private revelation, and no Catholic is ever required to accept or pray a Rosary. We ought not go around saying the Rosary is completely bogus, but we are not required to believe otherwise.

All apparitions start out at a local level. They all start small. And they mostly go away. The local Bishop must give approval for public veneration, and this approval is hard to come by. If the apparition is recognized and interest extends beyond the Bishop’s own Diocese, it is usually brought before the national council of Bishops for that country or region (in the United States, that would be the USCCB). If the national council approves, it might (and I mean might) be brought up for approval by the Holy See. Approval at this level is extremely rare.

My own Parish is named after the Rosary (it is usually called “Holy Rosary” - a private revelation), so there’s no reason why your church could not be named in honor of an apparition (which is also a private revelation) which has been approved for veneration by your Bishop.

The alleged apparitions at Međugorje in Herzegovina have been refused recognition by both the local Ordinary and the National Council of Bishops. Yet, some people (for some reason) have faith in these apparitions, and will not disbelieve unless the Vatican also refuses recognition. But this will never happen, because if the national Council of Bishops refuses recognition, it will never even receive Vatican consideration.

Here’s a funny story - my brother is a priest (Father Eric Filmer). In the back of the Sanctuary of his parish there is a showcase featuring beautiful hand-painted china plates commemorating the globally-approved Marian apparitions of the Church. But there’s one plate that he keeps in the bottom drawer of his desk - Our Lady of Međugorje. When his predecessor ordered the plates, the company anticipated official Vatican approval and included this plate. Alas, official approval is extremely unlikely, and the plate will probably remain in his desk drawer forever (or until the next Pastor of that Parish has to figure out what to do with it).

Yes, it’s true that both local bishops refused to give any credence to Medjugorje, but I thought the Vatican took an unprecedented step and removed the local bishopric from their assessment of the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje and assigned an outside (picked by our Pope Emeritus) committee to study it. No apparition can be approved until it ends, anyway, right?

I prefer to wait and see…our Faith is so rich, there’s no urgency, IMO, to rush to the latest phenomenon. Better safe than sorry.

Sorry-- to the OP, there are now ELEVEN approved Marian apparitions. The one you mentioned in Albania is not one of them. Our Lady has a lot of titles, I don’t think any church’s name is necessarily in honor of an apparition.

Most placename titles of Our Lady are not about apparitions. Rather, they’re about the people of that place dedicating themselves to Our Lady, and thanking her for her help. Any place can be used as a title of Our Lady, because she is the mother of all Christians all throughout the world. (And heck, the whole world has been consecrated to her.)

So if you want to talk to Our Lady until the title of Our Lady of Possum Creek or the Blessed Virgin of Hoboken, there’s nothing strange or interesting about it. It’s normal stuff.

That said… most places in the world where there are Catholics have had wonderworking icons or statues or paintings, or Marian miracles, or apparitions, or what-have-you.

So if you were from Lower Slobovia, and somebody wants you to paint a picture of the Madonna of Lower Slobovia, obviously your artistic thoughts will tend to turn to whatever great things Mary might have done in Slobovia, whether that be an apparition or a battle that was miraculously won.

After a while, if enough painters think the same way, you get a standard portrayal of Our Lady of Slobovia. If they don’t, you get lots of different ideas on what she should look like; and you have Mary in all sorts of positions, with and without Baby Jesus.

Well, you’re probably correct - I haven’t been keeping up. When the national council of (then) Yugoslavia refused to recognize Medjugorje then I lost all interest (not that I ever had much interest to begin with - only the “ongoing” nature interested me - most apparitions are onesey-twosey things, not every day for years on end).

If you are correct then obviously this is completely unprecedented. But I would be completely astonished if they overruled the local Bishops, who were unanimous (with one abstention) in refusing to recognize it… I think my brother’s plate will remain in his desk drawer.

Years ago a woman posted on the forum about concerns for her mother, who had become enamored with an alleged apparition in the US - one that none of us had ever heard of (and, obviously, nothing ever came of it). The mother would drive hundreds of miles on a regular basis to visit the “site.” None of us could understand this. It’s not exactly like the Catholic Church is lacking in approved Marian devotions (sites, rosaries, the Blue Army, and scads and scads of others). I agree with you - why mess around with something that, for all you know, might even be the work of the devil? Laypeople are ill equipped to discern these things - that’s why the Church gets involved. Let the Church do Her thing!

Sorry but you are wrong.

First you have to understand that the local Bishops are the competent Church authority in this matter, not Rome. There were three Bishops Commissions which all declared there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there. They also said the alleged seers are frauds. However, some local priests refused to be obedient and are saying the apparitions are true. They have had their faculties suspended (cannot hear Confession, say Mass etc). Medjugorie has caused controversy and has divided Catholics. Now who likes to divide the faithful - God or Satan?? Think about it.

Second, Pope Emeritus while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger said that Medjugorie was a hoax.

Then while he was Pope, it was the local bishops who asked the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to get involved because of the controversy. It was not Rome who took this matter out of the hands of the local Bishops.

Please note the very first action of the CDF in Rome was to suspend another priest at the centre of the controversy who is trying perpetuate the apparitions as being true.

Some people think no decision has been made but that is wrong. What you have to understand is that the Church HAS MADE A DECISION. It was made by the local Bishops who are the competent Church authority. This decision remains valid and in force.

All the CDF will do is to either confirm or overturn it.

However, in my personal view Medjugorie is not from God and there are so many negatives about the alleged seers. Satan is the the one who divides the faithful.
I believe the CDF will confirm the existing decision.

Thank you for that, I knew the commission had finished and gave their findings to the Pope just about one year ago. I didn’t know that the bishops asked the Vatican to intervene, I thought it was the other way around. There are conflicting reports on this everywhere I look. No matter what, I will abide by the Pope’s ruling. There cannot be an approval until they investigate everything AFTER the so called apparitions end, anyway, but there certainly can be a condemnation. I only stick with what has been approved, but others in my church have said if you falsely condemn something of God that is true, you are blaspheming, so it is better to believe or not believe, but don’t speak any bad about it until the Church has ruled, because you could find yourself “fighting against God himself”. Have you ever heard of something like that?

I am also wondering if you have any source for Cardinal Ratzinger calling it a hoax. I only found his response in 1986 about what people were claiming he and St Pope John Paul II said about Medjugorje was ‘nothing but falsehoods’ or something like that. It sounded like people were saying that they believed, and it was a false rumor. But I’d still like to see where he thinks it’s a hoax, because that goes against the blasphemy “rule” I just mentioned.

Thanks and God bless you.

Actually the Commission submitted its report to the CDF who will examine it and report to the Pope who I understand will have the final say.

If you were not already aware, in November 2013 CDF prefect Archbishop Gerhard Mueller sent out an instruction to forbid ‘seer’ Ivan Dragicevic from speaking in the United States.

I don’t understand your comments on blasphemy. When it comes to private revelations Catholics are not obliged to believe them even if they are approved by the Church. In short, I can say I do not believe in a particular approved private revelation and that is not only not blasphemy but not even a sin of any kind.

Yes, I knew about the situation with Ivan D and he claims he is obeying. (I’m taking everything with a grain of salt regarding Medjugorje because of all the conflicting info. You are certainly correct in saying it is divisive!)

I will find try to find some other source re: what I said about blasphemy with regard to apparitions, but I was asking if you’d ever heard of it as you seem knowledgable on these matters. I’d never heard it before I was “chastised” by a religious for saying negative things about an unapproved apparition site in Ohio USA. She said you can choose to believe or not believe, but DON’T speak bad about it because “you may find yourself fighting against God Himself.” To clarify – I was told that falsely condemning something that is truly of God is blasphemy. I’m not saying I believe that, I’m trying to find out if it is true.

I know we are under no obligation to believe even the approved apparitions, as they are not needed for salvation; everything necessary for salvation has already been revealed to the Church in the Deposit of Faith.

Thank you for responding. I welcome anything that will help me learn what Holy Mother Church teaches, that’s why I’m here. May I also say that since finding CAF (I’ve been lurking for about a month) my prayer life, my faith and especially attending Mass is 100x better and more meaningful than ever! It’s like my eyes have been opened and I’m so grateful for this grace God has bestowed on me through CAF and the great people who are here to help. Thank you to all of them!

It’s not blasphemy to say good or bad things about an unapproved apparition, or anything else that you have no reason to think is something from God. The worst you could do is “saying embarrassingly badly judged things,” which is not a sin.

If you knew for a fact that something was from God, only then could it be blasphemy.

What the person said to you was a misquote of Rabbi Gamaliel’s comment in the Acts of the Apostles 5:33-40 –

When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while.

And he said to them, "Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

"For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed.

And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God."

And they consented to him. And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

I’m pretty sure you weren’t trying to get anybody put to death, so it doesn’t really apply.

Gamaliel didn’t say, “And seeing as how us Jews never ever argue out and develop religious matters, and neither do Christians, obviously we don’t have anything at all to talk about here in the Sanhedrin, so let’s just go home and skip the whole representative democracy thing!”

The bishops who figured out what books should be in the Bible didn’t say, “And don’t let me hear you argue one thing against 7th Enoch, because if we all keep our mouths shut, God will just send us a bulletin by angel mail, telling us what books are inspired!”

Part of how God expresses His will is by letting us argue things out, and gradually see what He wants us to do.

I will also say that the Apostles didn’t have much patience with crazy heretical stuff. St. John refused to be in the same building with one guy, because John figured he didn’t want to be there if God decided to smite him.

Got it. Thank you very much! God bless you.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit