The Apparition No One Wants To Talk about: Our Lady of Akita


#1

The last two threads that have dealt with this subject matter have very nearly become a battleground and have been either been closed or pulled because of the deterioration of decent, mature conversation.

Please use this thread to resume discussion of the topic. If it cannot be discussed charitably and without accusations or insults, then this too, will be closed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Now chat away. :slight_smile:


#2

Hi Klara Collins,

 Thanks for restoring the thread, although I see that many indispensable pages of informative theological discussion were lost.

The apparitions of Sister Agnes Sasagawa in Akita Japan were deemed “Worthy of Believe” by both the Local Bishop Ito and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

apparitions.org

EWTN (Thistle – posting 62):

Church Approves Messages, Weeping Statue As Supernatural

April, 1984—Most. Rev. John Shojiro Ito, Bishop of Niigata, Japan, after years of extensive investigation, declares the events of Akita, Japan to be of supernatural origin, and authorizes throughout the entire diocese the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita.

On April 22, 1984, after eight years of investigations, after consultation with the Holy See, the messages of Our Lady of Akita were approved by the Bishop of the diocese. In the Japanese village of Akita, a statue of the Madonna, according to the testimony of more than 500 Christians and non-Christians, including the Buddhist mayor of the town, has shed blood, sweat and tears. A nun, Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa has received the stigmata and has received messages from Our Lady.

June, 1988—Vatican City—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief.

God Bless


#3

Resources for alleged supernatural events involving Akita

The following information indicates that although the original local bishop “approved” the events at Akita, this is not the stance taken by Rome.

A copy of a letter to the editor of the British Catholic magazine, “Christian Order,” from the Apostolic Nuncio in Tokyo, Ambrose de Paoli, sent in late 1999, was published in the magazine, and in it he makes the following statement:

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has asked me to respond to your query re: Akita. I enclose a copy of the statement which the Bishop of Niigata sends to overseas bishops who seek information about Akita.

“The Holy See has never given any kind of approval to either the events or messages of Akita.”


Poem of the Man-God
#4

Can one go to the Vatican site and find an official list of approved apparitions??


#5

Thank you Adrift!

I have never seen anything on Akita being approved by the Holy See either, and the date of your link is much later than the OP’s referenced link in 1988 by Card. Ratzinger.

In light of your valuable resource, I would think this thread should not be permitted to continue, for the apparition is yet unapproved.

I clicked this from your resource link and found:

Please note that “unapproved” in this connection means “unapproved by the Universal Church” - some of these, including Amsterdam and Akita, have received forms of local episcopal approval. This is not the same as approval by the whole Church though.


#6

The site I used uses a very narrow view of approval. It is not universally approved but there is an approval from the Bishop.


#7

Don’t I wish:yup:


#8

Now THAT is very telling about just how much the CHURCH values private revelation.


#9

I couldn’t find one on vatican.va, but I found a couple (not sure how accurate they are):

catholicdoors.com/isit/approved.htm

and this

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/may-june99/Apparitions.html


#10

[quote=Adrift]The site I used uses a very narrow view of approval. It is not universally approved but there is an approval from the Bishop.
[/quote]

Without doing tons of research about Medjugorie in old threads containing hundreds of posts, it seems to me that this, too, was only approved by the local bishop, but not the Holy See. As such, the forum does not permit discussion on that apparition.

I’m at a loss to know the purpose of original poster and subsequent renewal of the thread. :confused:
I did not read anything in the deleted thread that denoted what the advocates feel our obligation should be. Nor did I find respect of the Church’s teaching that apparitions are left up to individual’s devotion and the attraction of personal grace, and are not obligatory for belief — including the prominent Church-approved apparitions such as Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe.


#11

According to this, Akita is fully approved:

apparitions.org/

APPROVAL CODES:
**http://www.apparitions.org/pictures/star.gif - Full Church Approval
http://www.apparitions.org/pictures/disapproval.gif - Disapproval by the Church
B - Bishop Letter (Reference) ** **MAJOR APPARITIONS OF JESUS AND MARY **


#12

But can we trust that site?


#13

If it helps, this link to a 1999 article from catholic.net (which is a reputable web site I believe :slight_smile: ) does list Our Lady of Akita as one of the approved Marian apparitions (scroll down) along with Fatima and more well known (and some other lesser known) apparitions. . .and it gives some good reasons why knowledge of the messages can be important to us as individuals. Certainly it appears John Paul 2 thought these private revelations could be helpful to many. catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/may-june99/Apparitions.html

Of course, no one is obliged to have a devotion to Our Lady of Akita or Our Lady of Fatima, or to ‘know’ about them. . .but one also has to consider that what that means is that one can say, “I don’t really know or care to know about XX Marian apparition” but one cannot say, “I don’t accept it or anything about it.”

Since the Church has judged the apparitions ‘worthy of belief’ and containing nothing against Catholic teaching, rejection of the teachings simply on the basis that "they’re private revelation so they have no value’ is just plain wrong.

So many people can say that they don’t care to know the mesages of Fatima or Akita. I can’t call them** wrong** but there’s a provisio–

Provided the people who do not want to know or accept anything from “private revelation” are following and fully accepting ‘public revelation’, they are absolutely in line with Church teachings.

However, one cannot make the mistake of assuming that because something is mentioned in a ‘private’ revelation’, that it is only to be ‘employed’ by those who believe in the private revelation.

The revelations all call, for example, for prayer, and penance. These are things which we are all called to in public revelation as well, not only in private revelation. So to say that, "just because a Marian apparition spoke of having to do prayer and penance doesn’t mean that I have to do it, because apparitions are private revelations and I don’t have to believe’ would be specious reasoning, and dangerous as well.


#14

Does the Catechism spell all this out this way?


#15

From the Catechism:

Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

So what is contained does not ‘improve or complete’ but helps people live that revelation more fully.

And what is discerned by the authority of the Church is 'whatever constitutes an authenic call of Christ or His saints.

So yes, I think what I said is pretty much backed by the Catechism.

The apparitions do not belong to the “deposit of faith” because that (public revelation) ceased with the Ascension of Christ; however, the deposit of faith can be further understood and more fully lived in any era.


#16

But no downside to not believing them in anyway - if you are called to them or helped by them it is one thing but if you skipped them it is OK too.


#17

Sort of.

It’s like anything else. . .you can go ahead and ace a geometry test, say, never touching a textbook or practicing problems if you happen to be a geometry whiz.

Or you can choose to study, practice, get extra help, etc.

The average person is going to do better (all things considered) if he/she does something, whether it is study, practice, extra help, or a combination of any and all. But it is up to them.

I like to take extra help when offered, even on a subject I could ace if I did nothing at all. Personally, I find that no knowledge is ever ‘wasted’. But I do know that for some, no ‘extra’ help is really needed. . .so if they choose to go it alone, it’s a reasonable choice.

I’m only saying that for most people, some knowledge of approved Marian apparitions and their messages could help them have a fuller understanding of Catholic teachings and help them to live ‘more fully’. It doesn’t need to be ‘every’ apparition (we are speaking of the approved ones only) and it doesn’t need to be today. . .it could be next week, month, year, even decade.


#18

So some of your comments regarding some reactions to these apparations/word of these apparitions being ‘wrong’ is not how the Church views it but your feelings? I am just trying to sort out one from the other.


#19

Could you be a little more specific? I mean, obviously my ‘feelings’ are my feelings but in my posts, I think that I pretty much stuck to what the Church teaches.

No one ‘has’ to have a devotion to an approved apparition. No one ‘has to’ believe in anything the apparition says which is ‘outside’ Church teaching (though the approved apparitions obviously do not claim, for example, that the Trinity is now the Fab Four or Dynamic Duo). However, if an apparition speaks of the need for prayer and penance, or other teachings that are specifically part of Church teaching (see the Catechism under Penance) it would be wrong to say, “I don’t have to do prayer and penance because that is what Our Lady of Fatima spoke of, and it’s a private revelation so I am not bound to prayer and penance.”

Now if, for example, a person said, “I do not want to do the 5 First Friday devotions because it isn’t part of Catholic teaching”. . .that is perfectly fine. Nobody is called specifically to attend Mass on 5 consecutive First Fridays. It is a noble and laudable practice but it isn’t commanded of all Catholics though prayer and penance are.

Even the rosary–to which I have a personal devotion–is not specifically ‘demanded’ of Catholics, though any Catholic who reads the Bible is going to say the Our Father and most of the Hail Mary simply by reading Scripture. A Catholic is free to never say the rosary at all. Of course, a Catholic who studies Catholic teachings (as the Catechism calls us to do) would see how important the prayer was to us as Catholics. IOW, one would not simply dismiss the Hail Mary as ‘unnecessary’ simply because it is not specifically ‘demanded’ of us.

Are we on the same page pretty much? I think we are.


#20

Hi,

I hope you could allow a moment for a proud father to brag. Our daughter met the Pope yesterday in Yonkers. Ten top students were selected from the Diocese of Rockville Centre Catholic Schools to meet the Pope. She had to undergo FBI clearence a few months ago, unfortunately they did not permit her to bring a camera. Also, my dad, who was the main Design Engineer for many of the Buildings at JFK Airport, was invited out of retirement to preside over Hanger 119 (the largest hanger) during the Popes visit, where over 5000 people attended the Papal arrival. He was also invited out of retirement last year for the first arrival of the Airbus A380 in the same hanger, which he welcomed with Mayor Bloomberg. My partner and I still come across blueprints that my dad signed off on from the mid 1950’s. My dad was hoping to personally speak with the Pope, but unfortunately the opportunity didn’t present itself.

April, 1984—Most. Rev. John Shojiro Ito, Bishop of Niigata, Japan, after years of extensive investigation, declares the events of Akita, Japan to be of supernatural origin, and authorizes throughout the entire diocese the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita.

On April 22, 1984, after eight years of investigations, after consultation with the Holy See, the messages of Our Lady of Akita were approved by the Bishop of the diocese. In the Japanese village of Akita, a statue of the Madonna, according to the testimony of more than 500 Christians and non-Christians, including the Buddhist mayor of the town, has shed blood, sweat and tears. A nun, Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa has received the stigmata and has received messages from Our Lady.

June, 1988—Vatican City—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief.

It is difficult to understand how Cardinal Ratzinger (Head of the Holy Office and now Pope Benedict) could be overruled a year later Ambrose de Paoli, claiming that someone from the Vatican told him to tell a British magazine that this never took place.

Apparitions.org is commonly quoted and the most recognized definitive Catholic resource used by Catholic Forum moderators. Cardinal Ratzinger’s judgment is the one that prevails.

stfrancisvernon.org/akita.htm

olrl.org/prophecy/akita.shtml

newjerusalem.com/akita1.htm

tldm.org/News10/Akita.htm

ewtn.com/library/MARY/AKITA.HTM

theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Akita.htm

endtimesreport.com/akita.html

marianland.com/tearsoflove05_akita.html

mypeoplepc.com/members/deaconjohn/marianwebpage/id5.html

angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Akita.html

God Bless


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.