Marian apparitions

Just a quick question…

Is there a claimed Marian apparition that has been denounced as a fraud by the RC? I know there are some the RC has affirmed as genuine and some they are not making decisions on. It is my understanding the ones they do not make a decision either way on are OK for Catholics to go to and venerate at their own descretion until such a decision dictates otherwise.

But are there any which the RC has proclaimed false?

BTW, I should clarify, I am speaking of something only the RC ruled on…not something that was discovered thru a blatant error in the claim.

Two of many such come to mind - Bayside (New York) and Necedah (Wisconsin).

I’m sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear. I am asking about one that wasn’t an obvious fraud.

Obviously, anyone claiming catholics should prepare for a spaceship to come pick them up and
Vatican II is false and should not be followed,
The Church is full of "traitorous bishops, heretical cardinals, and BLACK POPES,
the Holy Father is not to be trusted
Christ said the First Mass in Latin and not Arimatic;
the Apostles wrote in Latin and not in Greek and Hebrew.
There is nothing wrong with NOT being a Catholic.

is a no-brainer!

Since Bayside, New York, came out of Necedah, I don’t think I have to comment on that one…

C’mon, if it was that easy to tell who’s a fake and who’s real, we wouldn’t need the RC to investigate. I am asking for one where the RC was actually need to prevent its members from being deceived.

It is hard to say definitively that the Church has completely denounced one apparition or another because the cases go through a process. In some cases the local bishop has stated that he has found nothing supernatural in the messages and events and that has been enough to stop the ongoing occurrences. In other cases, the events continue(d) despite the bishop’s warnings and the Holy See has gotten involved.

This site maintains a thorough list on the status of most alleged and approved apparitions over the last 100 years:

campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

Thank you for that excellent resource, HCC. One that’s on the list was that of the case of Teresa Lopez. A priest who is a good friend of our family was involved in the investigation in Denver in 1990 of her false claims; he proved her plagiarism.

I timed out and had to re-sign in and lost my entire post…very upsetting.

So I’ll just say thank you for that list. I have not found one instance thus far to show the RC being guided by the Holy Spirit to discount a fraud, which is what I was looking for. Rather, the obvious being brought to the attention of the RC by regular people is what seems to lead to the denial of hoaxes like Achill in Ireland.

Thank you for your help.

What would you be looking for to prove the involvement of the Holy Spirit?

Would not the testing of the Spirits of the supposed apparitions by the lay faithful be a way for the Spirit to work?

If not why not?

Here check this out.

campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

It is enough. Christians shouldn’t need anything more than the guidance of the Holy Spirit along with crystal clear Bible passages to know when something isn’t of God.

Unfortunately it is the “faithful” who follow these “apparitions” mindlessly until the church says differnet and even after for some.

I understood the RC is the authority who claims they can verify reality from scam. I was just wondering if they had identified any that were not blatantly obvious scams that should be seen by anyone with normal intelligence and common sense.

The Church usually rules on these things through the local bishop.

Your list is out of date as the one listed for Rochester, NY, in 1993 has been condemned by the bishop of Rochester.

My suggestion is that you stay away from all apparitions and messages unless they have been approved by the Church.

Thanks Gary. That’s the one I looked at. There is only one on the list that has been disapproved on both counts…which is a mystery to me as if it is found “negative” on the supernatural occurances, why does the RC still approve it on the “faith expression & devotion”?

Anyway, I did not check those out, only the one that is definitely declared a hoax. and that one was disappointing as to how the RC handled it.

They wanted to clean it up a little.

…Archbishop Michael Neary investigated Mrs. Gallagher and declared her “charism” contained no evidence of miracles or supernatural intervention. He did, nonetheless, **allow the House of Prayer to continue. **Fruits were good in terms of prayer and money for the Island. ,

“Personally I don’t believe in such things, but whether Christina Gallagher really does work miracles doesn’t matter to most of us on this island. She has saved the island from dying. She has brought us jobs where they never existed and to us locals that’s all that matters.” said Katherine McHugh, a local on the Island.

Archbishop Neary’s secretary, Father Brendan Kilcoyne, said that His Excellency wanted to bring the House of Prayer closer to the structure of the Church… although he discovered no evidence of the supernatural, he graciously allowed the center to stay open.

The “house of prayer” closed because Galliger didn’t want to cooperate with the church. She closed it herself and moved elsewhere.

It leaves a bad impression of the motives of the RC. Not saying that is true, just saying that is the appearance it gives.

Can I have a reference for that last quote Ginger2 as I am from that area originally and I remember matters being dealt with better than is portrayed here

The Archbishops own words:

While recognising the difficulty involved in treating such matters, I find myself obliged to state that no evidence has been presented which might prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of supernatural phenomena of whatever kind in this situation other than that of faith. Mrs. Gallagher and her associates retain, of course, the right to believe and state their belief that such have indeed occurred and continue to occur. The question, as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven.

and

My chief concern at this point is that the work termed ‘The House of Prayer’ be integrated into the life of Achill parish, of this Archdiocese and of the Church in general in a more stable and ordered manner than has heretofore been the case.

but

Diocesan efforts to integrate this work ended in July, 1998 when it was closed by Mrs. Gallagher. Celebration of the sacraments and reservation of the Blessed Sacrament at the ‘House of Prayer’ are not permitted. Any work carried on since then has been entirely of a private nature and has no Church approval whatever.

and so

In summary the ‘House of Prayer’ has no Church approval and the work does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities.

Source: tuamarchdiocese.org/2008/02/achill-house-of-prayer/

a rather biblical approach of searching for the lost sheep I would say

In 1997, the archbishop noted, “acting on foot of a report from the commission, I issued a lengthy public statement to the effect, in essence, that no evidence of supernatural phenomena had been observed but that the **persons involved gave every evidence of good faith. **Arising from that, I proposed a basic canonical structure that would gradually integrate the work of the house into the life of Achill Parish and the archdiocese.”

However, Archbishop Neary stated: "While this was then attempted by the archdiocese, I became increasingly perturbed by an apparent absence of enthusiasm on the parts of Mrs. Gallagher and her associates.

“The relationship deteriorated to the extent that Mrs. Gallagher, in July 1998, closed the House of Prayer at Achill, expressing to the media at the time a sense of having been harshly treated by the archdiocese. In order to clarify the issue for the faithful I issued another statement, regretting the development and expressing grave misgivings as to the wisdom with which Mrs. Gallagher had been advised and had acted in the matter.” - zenit.org/article-21962?l=english

Another recent source, doesn’t give much history but keeps to current events at that time:
archive.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000228.shtml

And unitypublishing.com/aug30_98.html
It’s important to put all the sources together and pay attention to the timeline as well as any perceived descrepancies.

It’s pretty obvious this particular diocese wanted to keep the place up and running with Gallallger still there. She didn’t cooperate, but it seems from another thread in this forum people were still going to this “house” in 2005.

I notice you only quote from 2008 as tho that is the consistant opinion. Opinions change as events develop.

the first two sources give a more reasonable account of what happened the third web site I had never heard of before and after having a look around I would not consider reliable as it seems to be a one man band with a particular right wing, anti-government agenda.

I’m not sure exactly how this episode leaves a bad impression, the Bishop tried to correct error in a constructive way, they refused and he withdrew the faculties of the church from the house of prayer, and said that it was not an apparition. it was ten years later before the trouble started

but we are I’m afraid straying off topic

No actually, if you check the hyperlink then you will see it gives all three documents, the one from 1997, 1998 and 2008. this was the approach of the Diocese

Really, How whould “Christians” have known Akita was real? Without the Catholic Church on this one, no-one but those who read the 3rd secret would have known?

This one heck of a post here. I’m scared to see what you post next. Little full of “self” arn’t we?

And actually me as a Catholic am more affraid for those running around with just the BIble thinking they “GOT IT” Like the Christian Cult in Southern Calif. :eek:

But you sound like you have a bit down with you. But remember this, all come to humility in this life. “NO Exception” to the hard fast rule. Hang around a couple decades and tell me what you think then.

Not sure what you are talking about…

Are you suggesting anyone claiming catholics should prepare for a spaceship to come pick them up and
Vatican II is false and should not be followed,
The Church is full of "traitorous bishops, heretical cardinals, and BLACK POPES,
the Holy Father is not to be trusted
Christ said the First Mass in Latin and not Arimatic;
the Apostles wrote in Latin and not in Greek and Hebrew.
There is nothing wrong with NOT being a Catholic.

is NOT a no-brainer!.. for a catholic, that is? Look at thew above claims. Is this something that would make you unsure as to whether or not this “prophet” was real or fake?

I’m a protestant and I can tell she’s a nut job!

Same is true of Gallagher. She’s out carousing the night clubs and living the high life until she goes to “church” and then suddenly becomes a pious pauper! I think this was a no-brainer. What I object to is the church’s apparent indifference. It appears at first glance they didn’t want to give up a profitable entity and were trying to keep it alive by **keeping the false prophet in service **and only taking away a few privilages.

That’s what the RC tried to do.

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