Messages from God to the World
An Axiomatic Investigation of Marian Manifestations
“Ein innovativer Zugang zum Phänomen Medjugorje” Cardinal Schönborn, Wien
Table Of Contents
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- 0 Introduction
- 0.1 Underlying Logic and Terminology
- 0.2 Definitions
- 0.3 Principles of Deduction
- 1 Mary Speaks and Appears
- 1.1 Religious Experience
- 1.2 Private Religious Visions
- 1.2.1 Examples of Persons Who Had Private Religious Visions
- 1.3 Prophetic Religious Manifestations
- 1.3.1 Examples of Persons Who Experienced Prophetic Religious Manifestations
- 1.3.2 Other Prophetic Religious Manifestations
- 2 The Great Six Prophetic Religious Manifestations
- 2.1 Guadalupe
- 2.1.1 Mary appears to the Nahua-Indio
- 2.1.2 Message to Juan Diego to be directed to the bishop Fray Juan Zumarraga OFM
- 2.1.3 Miracles
- 2.1.4 Pilgrimage
- 2.1.5 Ecclesiastical Approbation
- 2.1.6 Prophetic Religious Manifestation in Guadalupe
- 2.2 La Salette
- 2.2.1 Appearance in La Salette
- 2.2.2 Message to Both Children
- 2.2.3 Secret Messages
- 2.2.4 Miracles
- 2.2.5 Pilgrimage
- 2.2.6 Ecclesiastical Approbation
- 2.2.7 Prophetic Religious Manifestation in La Salette
- 2.3 Lourdes
- 2.3.1 Appearances in Lourdes
- 2.3.2 Messages
- 2.3.3 Miracles
- 2.3.4 Pilgrimage
- 2.3.5 Ecclesiastical Approbation
- 2.3.6 Prophetic Religious Manifestation in Lourdes
- 2.4 Fatima
- 2.4.1 Appearances in Fatima
- 2.4.2 Messages
- 2.4.3 Secret Messages and Predictions
- 2.4.4 Special Request
- 2.4.5 Further Apparitions
- 2.4.6 Miracles
- 2.4.7 Ecclesiastical Approbation
- 2.4.8 Prophetic Religious Manifestation in Fatima
- 2.5 Medjugorje
- 2.5.1 Appearances in Medjugorje
- 2.5.2 Messages Ordered Chronologically
- 2.5.3 Secret Messages
- 2.5.4 Miracles
- 2.5.5 Ecclesiastical Positions
- 2.5.6 Pilgrimage
- 2.5.7 Trip to Russia
- 2.5.8 Prophetic Religious Manifestation in Medjugorje
- 2.6 Kibeho
- 2.6.1 Appearances to Eight Juveniles
- 2.6.2 Messages
- 2.6.3 Prediction of Genocide
- 2.6.4 Miracles
- 2.6.5 Pilgrimage
- 2.6.6 Ecclesiastical Approbation
- 2.6.7 Prophetic Religious Manifestation in Kibeho
- 3 Mary Speaks to the World in PRMf
- 3.1 Important Features of Prophetic Religious Manifestations
- 3.2 Each PRMf is a Miracle of Religion
- 3.2.1 Single and Unique
- 3.2.2 Very Improbable
- 3.2.3 Admirable and Amazing
- 3.2.4 The Possibility of the Miraculous Event is Not Understood
- 3.2.5 Compatibility with Laws of Nature
- 3.2.6 Beyond the Capacities of Creatures
- 3.2.7 Done by the Triune God or by one of the three Divine Persons
- 3.2.8 The Purpose is Salvation
- 3.3 Mary’s Appearances
- 3.4 The Question of Credibility of PRMf
- 3.4.1 Upper Bound for Credibility
- 3.4.2 Axiom for the Upper Bound for Credibility
- 3.4.3 Lower Bound for Credibility
- 4 Religious Belief and PRMf
- 4.1 Christian Revelation
- 4.1.1 Demarcation of Christian Revelation
- 4.1.2 Relevant to Salvation
- 4.1.3 Relevant to the Individual Believer
- 4.1.4 The Truths of Christian Revelation are Believed by Some and Known by Others
- 4.1.5 The System of Christian Revelation
- 4.1.6 Christian Revelation in the Interpretation of the Catholic Church
- 4.1.7 Church Approbation of Apparitions and Miracles
- 4.1.8 Christian Revelation and Members of the Christian Religion
- 4.2 PRMf of Mary and the Christian Revelation
- 4.2.1 Christian Revelation Compared with the Prophetic Religious Manifestation of Mary
- 4.2.2 The Thesis of the Essential Difference
- 4.2.3 The Credibility of the Seers: Not Liers
- 4.2.4 The Credibility of the Seers: Real Sense Perception
- 4.2.5 Criterion UBC (A5) Applied to the Apparitions
- 4.2.6 Mary Appears with a Glorified Body
- 4.3 The Voluntary Component in Religious Belief
- 4.3.1 Consideration and Investigation
- 4.3.2 Searching for Reasons
- 4.3.3 Higher Epistemic and Deontic Authority
- 4.3.4 Eternal Happiness
- 4.3.5 Direct Voluntary Component
- 4.3.6 The Voluntary Component in Those Who Do Not See
- 4.3.7 The Voluntary Component in Church Approbations
- 4.3.8 The Miracles of Healing in Lourdes belong to God’s Plan and Will
- 5 Jesus Christ Sends Us Messages Through Mary
- 5.1 The Ultimate Origin of the Messages is Jesus Christ
- 5.1.1 Reasons for Christ Being the Origin
- 5.1.2 Christ and Mary Work Together
- 5.2 Mary Reveals Herself
- 5.2.1 Guadalupe: The Ever Virgin Mary
- 5.2.2 La Salette: The Crying Mother
- 5.2.3 Lourdes: The Immaculate Conception
- 5.2.4 Fatima: The Lady of the Rosary
- 5.2.5 Medjugorje: The Mother of God and the Queen of Peace
- 5.2.6 Kibeho: The Mother of the Word
- 5.3 Mary Loves, Suffers and Intercedes
- 5.3.1 Mary – Merciful Mother
- 5.3.2 Mary – Loving Mother
- 5.3.3 Mary – Praying Mother
- 5.3.4 Mary – Helping Mother
- 5.3.5 Mary – Suffering Mother
- 5.3.6 Mary – Interceding Mother
- 5.4 Predictions Contained in the Messages
- 5.4.1 Criterion of Authenticity
- 5.4.2 Predictions Concerning Singular Facts
- 5.4.3 Predictions Concerning Global Facts
- 5.5 Reasons for the Commands of Christ
- 5.5.1 Are the Messages Nothing But Commands?
- 5.5.2 Capable of Knowing God and of Understanding God’s Commands
- 5.5.3 Sin as Moral Evil
- 5.5.4 Unbelief
- 5.5.5 Being Unconcerned about God
- 5.6 Commands of Christ Sent through Mary to Seers
- 5.6.1 Commands to the Seers and Hearers
- 5.6.2 Commands Concerning Epistemic and Deontic Authority and Obeying God’s Commands
- 5.6.3 Commands Concerning Submission, Penance and Suffering
- 5.6.4 Commands Concerning Praying, Sacrifying and Conversion
- 5.7 Commands of Christ Sent to the World through Mary
- 5.7.1 Commands to the People of the Whole World
- 5.7.2 Commands to Believe and to Accept God as an Epistemic and Deontic Authority
- 5.7.3 Obligation to Obey God’s Commands
- 5.7.4 Commands to Subordinate one’s Will, to do Penance and to Freely Accept Suffering
- 5.7.5 Commands to Pray, to Fast and to Sacrifice
- 5.7.6 Command to Convert
- 5.7.7 Mary: Mediatrix for Conversion
- List of Axioms and Definitions
- Subject Index
- Index of Names
As has been said in the preface this study is a scientific investigation of the six great prophetic apparitions of Mary in Guadalupe, La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorje and Kibeho. The investigation is scientific in the sense that the axiomatic method is applied. With the help of this method the features of the apparitions are described by axioms and important demarcations, concepts are made precise by definitions. The theorems which follow logically from both, describe further characteristics of the apparitions. Thus the structure of this investigation forms an axiomatic deductive system. An important advantage of such a system is that critical control is possible to a high degree, even for complex and involved religious and theological statements. In this sense the study is a defence of the rationality of religion, too. The axioms, definitions and theorems are no direct translations of any message given by Mary in her apparitions. However, quotations of such messages are given as a support for several of the axioms or theorems.
After a demarcation between private religious visions and prophetic religious manifestations by two definitions (ch. 1) a detailed description of the apparitions at the six locations is given (ch. 2). The apparitions as miracles and their credibility are discussed in ch. 3. Mary’s prophetic manifestations are related to religious belief in general and to Christian revelation in particular and their voluntary component is investigated (ch. 4). ←15 | 16→The messages of Mary given at the six locations are studied in detail in ch. 5 concerning the following points: their source, Mary’s names revealed by her, her characteristics in salvation, the predictions, the commands and commandments sent through Mary.
Remark on the origin of the axioms, theorems and definitions. All axioms A2-A16 appear for the first time in this book and are not taken (neither in parts nor as a whole) from another source. The short axiom A1 (Mary speaks to the World, ch. 1) is the last theorem (T513) of ASG (“An Axiomatic Study of God”).
For the proof of most of the theorems the axioms above together with definitions are sufficient. However for some theorems we need in addition some theorems which have been proved in ASG to which we refer. We do not take over theorems of ASG or repeat their proofs but refer to ASG in such cases. In order to recognize theorems which need theorems of ASG for their proof we mark them with an asterix. Examples are the theorems T10*, T25*, T94* and some others.
All definitions except the ones mentioned below appear for the first time in this book and are not taken from another source. Definitions D4 and D5 are taken from Weingartner (2018) ch. 5, definitions D3, D9, D20.1, D22.1-D22.3, D23 and D24 are taken form ASG (=Weingartner, 2021a). The exact references are given at the respective places.
The underlying logic is the classical two-valued Propositional Logic (CPC) restricted by intuitionistic and relevant inference (cf. 0.3) and extended by a Modal System not stronger than system T or by the one included in the six-valued decidable logic RMQ.1 Furthermore some epistemic and other operations ←16 | 17→applied to propositional variables are used and determined by axioms or definitions. In addition a small part of First Order Predicate Calculus is used.
1. We use the following types of variables: propositional variables ‘p’, ‘q’, ‘r’ representing states of affairs. Individual variables ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’, for human persons (H). The quantifiers are restricted accordingly: ∀x∈H, ∃x∈H. The variable ‘c’ refers to a human-like glorified person which the witnesses see and hear.
The variable ‘R’ represents one of the descriptions which Mary gave during the apparitions for describing herself.
Moreover, we use variables for time and position (place): t, s.
When using more than one variable of the same type, we assume referential difference but drop the additional remark x ≠ y, p ≠ q for reasons of simplicity. Exceptions are mentioned.
In addition, we use the following constants: g (for: God), and sn (for God the Son).
2. The copula ‘is’ is expressed by the two primitives ∈ and e , where ∈ is used for individual variables or constants (representing individuals) and e is used for states of affairs. For example: ‘g∈CT’ for ‘g is creator’ or ‘x∈H’ for ‘x is human’; ‘p e ME’ for ‘the state of affairs p is a moral evil’.
Moreover individual variables or constants are used in the following cases:
(a) p e PRMf (hm; x,y; s, t); q e Mess(hm; x; s; t);
r e MirR(s, t) etc. standing for: ‘p is a prophetic religious manifestation of Mary for x and y at place s and time t’; ‘q is a message of Mary given to x at place s and time t’; ‘r is a miracle of religion at place s and time t’.
(b) Predicate cases: Glf (c) . . . c is glorified; Sin(x) . . . x sins; Virt(x) . . . x is virtuous; Unc(x) . . . x is unconcerned etc.
(c) Relation cases: GG(g,x) . . . God gives grace to x;
SentM(g,sn) . . . God sends the Son as Messiah;
EPAut(g,x) . . . God is an epistemic authority of x etc.
Some of the predicates or relations are defined, others are undefined.
3. With respect to states of affairs, the set-theoretical elementhood relation e is used as for example: p ε T(ChC),
Op ε T(g-Commands) standing for ‘p belongs to the theorems of the Christian Creed’ and ‘Op belongs to the theorems of God’s Commands’.
Theorems understood in general should be distinguished from the theorems of this study (book) which have numbers (T1-T134). Theorems in general are understood as true propositions of some domain; for example theorems of Mathematics, theorems about the Universe, theorems of the Christian Creed etc. The theorems of this study are true relative to the axioms (A1-A15) and those of the definitions which are used to derive theorems. We assume that the axioms A1-A15 are true and also the respective definitions. Then the theorems T1-T134 are also true since they follow logically from these axioms and the respective definitions.
Norms, written as Op, Oq, Or, . . . , are understood as being translated into that-clauses so that they can be true or false.
Thus “it is forbidden to lie” or “lying is forbidden” or “that lying is forbidden is true” are theorems of God’s Commandments and therefore theorems.
4. There are different operators attached to proportional variables by which new statements (true or false) are formed:
xKp . . . x knows that p (is the case); xGLp . . . x believes that ←18 | 19→p; snCp . . . God the Son causes that p (is the case);
xWxGLp . . . x wills that x believes that p; xSAp . . . x should act in such a way as to bring about that p obtains. Operators which are used both, for God and for men as gWp (God wills that p) and xWp (person x wills that p) have to be understood in an analogous way.2
5. There are the modal operators ‘□’ (standing for ‘necessary’) and ‘◊’ (standing for ‘possible’) in accordance with the underlying system of Modal Logic.
6. Propositional Quantifiers
Adding propositional quantifiers to classical two-valued Propositional Logic (or some weaker forms like Intuitionistic Logic or some Relevance Logic) is only a conservative extension as has been shown by Kreisel (1981b) and Kreisel and Krivine (1972), p. 9f.
The quantifiers ∀p and ∃p are to be read as: “for all states of affairs p” and “for some states of affairs p”.
Concerning operators (GL, W, C . . . ) and the existential quantifier ∃p, it has to be noted that they do not automatically have existential import; i.e. ∃p (for some states of affairs p), xCp do not guarantee that p obtains. This becomes clear from the following cases:
(a) Since God’s will is always fulfilled (never fails) (∀p) (gWp → p) holds; therefore (∃p)(gWp ∧ ¬p) never holds and gWp guarantees that p obtains. However, the will of humans is not always fulfilled; therefore (∃p) (xWp ∧ ¬p) holds and xWp does not guarantee that p obtains.
(b) In case of set-theoretical elementhood (∃p) has always existential import: (∃p)p ε T(CR), for some p, p be ←19 | 20→longs to the theorems of creation, implies that p obtains, since p is a theorem.
(c) The copula ‘is’ for states of affairs does not have existential import. Thus for saying “some state of affairs is a moral evil that obtains” (∃p)(peME) is not sufficient but only (∃p)(peME ∧ p) is.
Definitions are understood as true equivalences. As true equivalences they could also be called axioms. The reason why we treat them as definitions is that they answer a “What is it?”-question or questions of the form: “What is the meaning of . . . ?” Axioms, on the other hand, state that something is the case either for all or for some states of affairs.
(a) The definitions in this study are all explicit definitions. This means that the definiendum and the definiens of each definition are connected by an equivalence and therefore separated from each other.
- ISBN (PDF)
- ISBN (ePUB)
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- Publication date
- 2021 (November)
- Marian Apparitions Messages of Mary Messages to the World Prophetic Manifestations Religious Visions Credibility of Apparitions Logic and Religion Mary and Salvation Guadalupe-Fatima Medjugorje-Kibeho
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2021. 270 pp.