Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Oh crud.  Is Ballantine back?

Groan.Heaven Help us!

In fact, I still think he may think of himself as a supporter of Fr. Feeny even if not accepting his schism and heresy.

Quote from: Meg

I don't know much about this situation with the supposed seer, and I don't really have a right to an opinion on it, but just looking at what's been posted, I have to wonder if the seer has always assumed that the apparition is/was the BVM. After all, the seers at Fatima, as well as St. Bernadette at Lourdes, did not, as far as I know, insist that it was the BVM from the beginning (that they saw). Rather, the BVM was referred to, in both cases, I think, as "The Lady." The seers did not insist at all that what they saw was the BVM. In this they were very humble.

I think that the Medj folks also insist that the apparition that they claim to see is the BVM.

The seer in this case, however, could be entirely credible, except for this one thing, IMO. Should she really assume (if this is what she's always believed) that the apparition is the BVM? Is it really her decision to make?

In Mystical theology it is generally conceded that in the matter of apparitions or locutions the recipient of these events in addition to the experience of the mystical phenomena generally has an added intimation of the authenticity of their experience - there is a "genuineness" that assures them of the reality of what they undergo. We have no way of knowing what Mrs. Anderson has experienced or did experience in these alleged phenomena.

We do, however, have plenty of other evidence which can be analyzed and many of these have been lucidly adduced here among the rantings of the partisans. Please read above.

Typically one looks for the evidence of the apparitions in the virtues displayed by the seer - particularly humility, docility and charity, and where the Church is involved in analyzing the events - obedience. The way we can discern the presence of these virtues is by the behavior of the seer in the external forum i.e. what we read and see. For a real seer to be believed one wouldn't expect pages of screed attacking a bishop - + Fellay, for example, nor an attempt to draw bishops into conflict with each other or enter into squabbles online in internet fora wanting to defend oneself against the questions (or ridicule - not here myself - for once at least) of others.

I have read most of the accounts of the "phenomena" but for me the irreconcilable problem is that a seer who "pushes' herself with a website and previously (now all deleted) insults all who question the veracity of what has been claimed cannot in my judgment be squared with an authentic visionary. The letter at the beginning of this thread is "proof positive" for me against the claims.

Would Our Lady write what she wrote ? Would, therefore, one graced by Our Lady do so either ? My answer is no and therefore, no to the phenomena.

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Meg

I don't know much about this situation with the supposed seer, and I don't really have a right to an opinion on it, but just looking at what's been posted, I have to wonder if the seer has always assumed that the apparition is/was the BVM. After all, the seers at Fatima, as well as St. Bernadette at Lourdes, did not, as far as I know, insist that it was the BVM from the beginning (that they saw). Rather, the BVM was referred to, in both cases, I think, as "The Lady." The seers did not insist at all that what they saw was the BVM. In this they were very humble.

I think that the Medj folks also insist that the apparition that they claim to see is the BVM.

The seer in this case, however, could be entirely credible, except for this one thing, IMO. Should she really assume (if this is what she's always believed) that the apparition is the BVM? Is it really her decision to make?

In Mystical theology it is generally conceded that in the matter of apparitions or locutions the recipient of these events in addition to the experience of the mystical phenomena generally has an added intimation of the authenticity of their experience - there is a "genuineness" that assures them of the reality of what they undergo. We have no way of knowing what Mrs. Anderson has experienced or did experience in these alleged phenomena.

We do, however, have plenty of other evidence which can be analyzed and many of these have been lucidly adduced here among the rantings of the partisans. Please read above.

Typically one looks for the evidence of the apparitions in the virtues displayed by the seer - particularly humility, docility and charity, and where the Church is involved in analyzing the events - obedience. The way we can discern the presence of these virtues is by the behavior of the seer in the external forum i.e. what we read and see. For a real seer to be believed one wouldn't expect pages of screed attacking a bishop - + Fellay, for example, nor an attempt to draw bishops into conflict with each other or enter into squabbles online in internet fora wanting to defend oneself against the questions (or ridicule - not here myself - for once at least) of others.

I have read most of the accounts of the "phenomena" but for me the irreconcilable problem is that a seer who "pushes' herself with a website and previously (now all deleted) insults all who question the veracity of what has been claimed cannot in my judgment be squared with an authentic visionary. The letter at the beginning of this thread is "proof positive" for me against the claims.

Would Our Lady write what she wrote ? Would, therefore, one graced by Our Lady do so either ? My answer is no and therefore, no to the phenomena.

Well stated. Thank you.