Jump to content

Catholic Apparitions - Convey A Different Focus Than Bible Jesus


Recommended Posts

Hi guys! First post here.


I was raised Catholic but have a lot of angst in terms of how it affected our family life. My mother was obsessed with all the Marian and Jesus apparitions/messages and I read many of them growing up.


Anyway, a few years back (after about 10 years of not having anything to do with Christianity) I encountered a different type of Saviour/Jesus than the one I'd been taught growing up. I Have been learning more about Him since.


My question is this:


Does anyone else find that the Voice/Mood/overall "feel" and message conveyed in revelations given in apparitions to Catholic (e.g Sr Faustina, Fatima ect.) are distinctly different from the ones given in the Gospels? I am quite confused.


Learning the Old and New Testament has given me an awareness and zeal for life. Even the parables were written in a way that "woke us up" into a new paradigm. I still have pain and struggles in life but there is something vivid in the symbolism, events and characters of the bible that liven me and give me hope in the immediacy of God's Kingdom. The writings validate the very real spiritual journey that we're on.


However, when I read messages given to Catholic visionaries, it does the opposite. The messages continually point to Church traditions and prayers. They seem to enclose the mind some sort of humdrum, somber, religious box. Jesus always uses very religious language in them, there is no element of surprise or wonder or spiritual connection.


I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just that I feel like I should believe them because they are "officially" recognised, yet the feel I get from them is the opposite of the Jesus in the gospels.


I'm a researcher at heart and would really like some opinions on it. Have any of you compared the message and tone between the Gospels and the Catholic visions? I'd like to be content with letting the visionary messages go... Maybe it's Catholic guilt that keeps me in partial chains to them!


Any opinions?


Thanks for your time :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome Anna and thanks for the question.


Personally i don't take the book of revelations literally. I think you will find most on this site find very little use for the dogma and doctrines of men even if they are as you say "officially" recognized.


Although i was also raised a Catholic, it is long since become something that is just a vague memory of something i let go of. Progressive Christianity to me is more an individual journey of discovery that sees many roads leading to the same point, It seems to require the ability to live with a degree of uncertainty in ones life and receive new data that arrives with ones own personal experiences and power of reasoning as a guide. New insight seems to appear when that which is then seen as false is let go of. I think we have to let go of traditions and that which does not agree with our personal experience, reason and gained knowledge to make room for new understandings that are ever-growing toward being fully awake.


Perhaps others here can shed some light on the message and tone between the Gospels and the Catholic visions? Personally, i rely mostly on my own experiences and that which i am able to receive from others at this time.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Joseph. I agree also... As do majority if theologians. It's not a literal book. I guess I'm interested in their source... I find Catholic messages to be at odds with the spiritual journey.

I'm very happy to find people who aren't necessarily part if particular denominations, but can come together and share experiences.


It is definitely a letting go process. And learning to live with a degree of uncertainty. I think that's why I find it hard.. Because in a control freak at heart!! Always been a researcher and digging for answers. It's also, funnily enough, why I dislike detailed religious dogma; because it wants to have an answer for everything! And the answers don't always seem to fit.


Thanks Joseph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Catholic messages to be at odds with the spiritual journey.


It is definitely a letting go process. And learning to live with a degree of uncertainty. I think that's why I find it hard.. Because in a control freak at heart!! Always been a researcher and digging for answers. It's also, funnily enough, why I dislike detailed religious dogma; because it wants to have an answer for everything! And the answers don't always seem to fit.



Spirituality is like climbing a mountain and getting a new and more spacious view where Christianity brings us to the mountain and mysticism increases the connections making the Christian environment richer and more meaningful. The point where we start in Christianity still exists and is still a part of our culture if we were raised Catholic or another denomination, but it appears smaller as we climb the mountain and awaken to an all-inclusive, and an all-encompassing comprehension. We climb from learning about the events of Jesus to an actual spiritual experience where unchanging stories are transformed into an exciting encounter with the mind of Christ in meaning and love. The higher up the mountain we climb, the more we are making progress in the heart of Christ. The spiritual experiences encountered are just resting places where we drink from the pure water of love within and do not worry about the tarnished container outside. There is no path to love; there is only a discreet, inconspicuous experience of love, peace and happiness where these resting periods in the space of happiness are of great consequence so we love what we are doing. “The business and method of mysticism is love,” says the mystic Evelyn Underhill. “Fear is driven out by perfect love.” (John 4:18)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for reply, Soma. I certainly relate to your statement that spiritual experiences along the way are like resting places .. Consolidating what's happened so far and opening us up to new perspectives and onward travels. When I try merge Catholic doctrines and extra visionary messages with my journey, it just doesn't seem to fit at all. But looking at it as a starting point and a background does help. I really enjoy reading Spong and C S Lewis. Francis McNaught is another one I'd like to read.


I do find it hard letting go of absolutes... But it's more of a "mind" thing. When it comes to the reality of the journey, they aren't as relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catholic doctrine is for the mind to bring one to God in duality, but the supernatural experiences or message you so elegantly expressed our from the soul beyond the mind and they put us in God and God in us. As Christians we have chosen the powerful image of Jesus Christ to represent the expression of the tangential point between the predicaments of living in a duality that exists in this world and the unity encompassed in Eternity. The love of Christ embodies our awareness as seen through our dualistic mind that expands our limited awareness to an experience in the universal consciousness where infinity contains and is at one with our duality. It is not that the material world will one day dissolve into Jesus Christ, but that the ego's extroverted tendencies will disappear exposing an ocean of diverse frequencies, vibrating, and communicating on different levels united in a whole. I think this is similar to your experience. The Christ mind expresses this unity of self with God in the same way as the quantum physicist says that joy and happiness increases as we move towards this wholeness or the quantum self. Erwin Schrödinger was an Austrian physicist and theoretical biologist, known as one of the fathers of quantum mechanics said, “Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, Anna. I wasn't raised Catholic and although the Protestants don't often speaking of visions and such (though some do), they do hold to other such "images" of Jesus such as a Substitutionary Atonement or "Lord of America" or some other overlay placed upon him.


This is, of course, nothing new. We usually find in Jesus what we are looking for. This is why we have four different gospels with different takes on Jesus and what he meant to certain early groups. And the message of the gospel that the apostle Paul had is definitely at odds with the gospel that Jesus preached. Paul claims that he didn't learn about Jesus and the gospel from any of Jesus' disciples, but from a "revelation." He even dares to say that the Jewish sage, Jesus, is not to be regarded any longer, that Paul's gospel is the true one. So differences about Jesus are nothing new.


As a more rational person (I hope), I have to live in a middle ground where, as has been pointed out, nothing is carved in stone. I do my research and have to live with my findings while trying to remain open to further insight.


On one end is the historical Jesus which, biblical scholars tell us, cannot really be gotten to. Jesus wrote nothing down (that we know of). The gospels were written by others and influenced by Gnosticism, Greek thought, and tweaked by the Church from the beginning and down through history so that we don't really know for sure what the historical (flesh and blood) Jesus was like. Although some scholars have made great strides in working on this (Borg, Crossan, Spong), they are quick to say that all we have is probabilities as to what this person (Jesus of Nazareth) was like and what he said and did.


At the other end is what I call the "mystical Christ" who, people claim, is alive and well and is with them together. IMO, this "Christ" is so unlittle like our best estimates of the historical Jesus that I see little correlation. Some people seem to think it is some kind of divine inner consciousness or heightened awareness. Others claim to channel this "Christ" and receive continued revelations. For me, being a rationalist and believing that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, this side of "Christ" is a bit to New-Agey and "woo-woo" for me. The claims are, from my point of view, far too esoteric and anecdotal-based.


So I live in the middle ground where I judge the alleged teachings of the Jesus of the gospels are their own merit, trying to determine is they make rational sense, are morally good, and bear good fruit. I realize we can't (currently) get at the historical Jesus. But I'm not in favor of creating him in our own image either and making him whatever we want him to be. But his alleged teachings have proved themselves and often borne much fruit. So I would compare any other revelations or visions to the core of these teachings to see how they stack up.

Edited by BillM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service