If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone
Visions of Mary - Is it the Same Lady?
The Roman Church claims that Mary appears to some people. They look up and allegedly see her though nobody else does. It even claims that there is scientific support.
It is truly outrageous how the Catholic Church claims to establish that Mary appeared at Fatima in 1917 and Lourdes 1858 and in other places and never bothers checking the wording of the messages to ensure that they came from the same person. For example, at Medjugorje the Virgin always finishes with “Thank you for your response to my call”. She never does this anywhere else even if she is as garrulous as she as at Medjugorje. Why does she say so little at Lourdes and nothing at Knock and talk so much at other apparitions where she repeats herself all the time and utters trite platitudes? The personalities and wording don’t match.
She always looks different too. At Fatima and La Salette and Lourdes she was very white in her complexion and was darker elsewhere. The Virgin would not have pale Caucasian skin. She was a Jewess. The view that she accommodates herself in personality and wording and appearance to the visionary she appears to is nonsense. Why can’t she appear as a Jew to them when they are put in ecstasy anyway or given a spiritual high by the vision, and accept her whatever way she appears? The apparitions are not of the same person. Even to the naked eye looking at messages from all over the world, the style and content is so different and that certainly points to the visions of being of something that is pretending to be the Virgin Mary or the visionaries being liars. Even if they are really going into miraculous ecstasy, that doesn’t meant they are seeing Mary for real. The view that she makes herself suit the visionaries is just a rationalisation – it is an excuse for believing in the visions as being of Mary despite all evidence to the contrary. Obvious evidence comes first. What is seen and heard comes first. If Mary doesn’t respect that then she doesn’t deserve her apparitions to be believed in. Rationalisations prevent one seeing the truth. For example, if you tell a woman that her husband was seen having sex with a prostitute and she reasons that he was only pretending to have sex she will be blind to the facts. Anything that encourages rationalisation, such that as those apparitions do with them all being different, is bad. In their eagerness to deceive people into believing in apparitions, the Church leaders keep attention away from the obvious and even exclude it from their investigations! So when you see a man standing over a woman murdered about a minute ago you are permitted to overlook the possibility that he was the killer? You must ignore the most obvious route.