Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[pablope]

Then what is the Church’s response? How does it deal with this?

Vatican’s response is there no Church or parish sanctioned activities regarding Medjugorje. if someone wants to go visit Medjugorje, they are on their own, if I recall what I read several months ago about this.

 

[Good_Fella]

For the sake of our favorite apparitions, we should, according to you, discard Hebrews 13:17 and ignore our leaders.
**Hmmm … funny to see the extend some fellows would go just to justify their defiance of church authority.**But take note: according the CATHOLIC CHURCH, the local ordinary has the final say about apparitions in his diocese … and the local bishop clearly said “Mary is not appearing at Medjugorje”.
You may not like it but …

placido

First of all, I would not be defying Church authority by personally believing in any Marian apparition or disbelieving in the ones that have been officially approved by the local bishops in their fallible judgment. Private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith. Second, the bishop of my archdiocese has permitted the faithful to make pilgrimages to Medjugore if they want to with the proviso that they should keep in mind that Medjugorje is not an official Marian shrine - at least not yet. So nobody is defying Church authority.

 

[Good_Fella]

It seems you are (perhaps innocently) misrepresenting the reasons why the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has intervened. Please make sure of your facts.

placido

I am aware of all the facts and am not distorting anything, but because the topic is on Marian dogmas and it is against the forum rules to discuss Marian apparitions that are unapproved or pending approval, we should end this discussion now.

For what it’s worth, I know Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians who have made pilgrimages to Medjugore. So at least the place holds some ecumenical value and has led the way to countless conversions from all faiths and atheism because of personal experiences of extraordinary grace.

PAX :heaven:

 

[placido]

First of all, I would not be defying Church authority by personally believing in any Marian apparition or disbelieving in the ones that have been officially approved by the local bishops in their fallible judgment.

On a point of correction:

1. By believing in an apparition declared as false by the Church, YOU ARE defying Church authority;
2. By not believing in an apparition declared by the Church as “worth of belief”, YOU ARE NOT defying Church authority.

Private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith.

Nobody said otherwise.

Second, the bishop of my archdiocese has permitted the faithful to make pilgrimages to Medjugore if they want to …

And your bishop IS NOT the bishop of the diocese under which Medjugorje falls. Therefore, your bishop has no authority over Medjugorje … that is Catholic Church teaching.

…with the proviso that they should keep in mind that Medjugorje is not an official Marian shrine - at least not yet.

Oh! Medjugorje is “not yet” a Marian shrine, yet you prefer it instead of the ones already officially declared by the Church? A “welcome distraction” from the official ones … perhaps!

So nobody is defying Church authority.

And you would rather prefer a place declared, by the local bishop, as “non constat de supernaturalitate” (it is not established that something supernatural is here), which is just another form of saying “constat de non supernaturalitate” (it is established that there is nothing supernatural here) – simply because by doing so you do not defy Church authority.

placido

 

[placido]

I am aware of all the facts and am not distorting anything, but because the topic is on Marian dogmas and it is against the forum rules to discuss Marian apparitions that are unapproved or pending approval, we should end this discussion now.
PAX :heaven:

I agree … and thanks for the friendly reminder on forum rules.

For what it’s worth, I know Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians who have made pilgrimages to Medjugore. So at least the place holds some ecumenical value and has led the way to countless conversions from all faiths and atheism because of personal experiences of extraordinary grace.
PAX :heaven:

According one of the Medjugorje messages that seems to contradict Catholic teaching, all religions are equal … that may be why Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. are making pilgrimages.

placido

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The Church’s response is – like it always has been – renewed exhortation to heed the Word of God; and the Word of God (both oral and written) says we have to obey our leaders and to be submissive to them … oh yes, that is contrary to the Lutheran alternative.

placido

Oh so the church has given up on excommunications? That’s a relief!

 

[PRmerger]

Oh so the church has given up on excommunications? That’s a relief!

Not sure what this means, although it seems to be a little inflammatory? For surely you are aware that the Church has not “given up on excommunication”.

And it’s a peculiar response. As anyone been threatened with excommunication by the CC for believing for or against Mary’s apparition at Medjugorje?

 

[placido]

Oh so the church has given up on excommunications? That’s a relief!

No, the Catholic Church has not given up on excommunications because it has no authority to give up; BTW, giving up would be going against the Word of God (cf Matthew 17:18).

placido

 

[Good_Fella]

On a point of correction:

1. By believing in an apparition declared as false by the Church, YOU ARE defying Church authority;
2. By not believing in an apparition declared by the Church as “worthy of belief”, YOU ARE NOT defying Church authority

1. Again, the Church doesn’t officially declare any private revelation true or false until all supernatural events have come to an end. The apparitions to the visionaries of Medjugorje are still happening. Thus the Vatican intervened to defer the judgment of the ordinary bishop. And like I said, private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition), so there’s no question of defying the teaching authority of the Church by believing in a Marian apparition that has been fallibly judged false. There’s a big difference between something being “worthy or unworthy of belief” and “must be assented to by an obedience of faith”.
2. If I refuse to believe in an apparition declared “worthy of belief” but am not being defiant or disobedient by refusing to believe, then how can I be defiant and disobedient by believing in an apparition that has been ruled “unworthy of belief”? It’s like saying that a Catholic isn’t being disobedient or unfaithful by refusing to believe in the Immaculate Conception, but is being defiant by believing in it before it becomes a traditional doctrine of the Church. Was Aquinas being disobedient by refusing to believe in the IC at one point in his life? I don’t think so.

And your bishop IS NOT the bishop of the diocese under which Medjugorje falls. Therefore, your bishop has no authority over Medjugorje … that is Catholic Church teaching.

But if my bishop allows me to make a pilgrimage there, is he defying Church authority? Are the priests, bishops, and cardinals, who personally believe in Medjugorje, also defying Church authority?

Oh! Medjugorje is “not yet” a Marian shrine, yet you prefer it instead of the ones already officially declared by the Church? A “welcome distraction” from the official ones … perhaps!

What makes you think that I prefer one Marian shrine over another? I have been to Lourdes, Fatima, Akita, and, oh yes, Medjugorje.

And you would rather prefer a place declared, by the local bishop, as “non constat de supernaturalitate” (it is not established that something supernatural is here), which is just another form of saying “constat de non supernaturalitate” (it is established that there is nothing supernatural here) – simply because by doing so you do not defy Church authority.

Something that hasn’t been established as definite is contrary to something that has been established as definite. Something that has not yet been established might very well be in the future - but fallibly so. We can never know with a certitude of faith, as we do with regard to Marian dogmas, that the private revelations which have been approved by the Church are actually true. The charism of infallibility conferred on the Supreme Universal Magisterium does not extend to PRs. Any judgment passed by the ordinary bishop is fallible and prone to uncertain error.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I agree … and thanks for the friendly reminder on forum rules.

Then let’s stop right now before this thread gets derailed. PM me if you have to, but I’m not really inclined to spend my time defending or promoting any private revelation. I just want to make it clear that no judgment can be passed until all events come to an end. This is a stipulation established by the CDF for the proper course of investigation by a local commission.

According one of the Medjugorje messages that seems to contradict Catholic teaching, all religions are equal … that may be why Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. are making pilgrimages.

Our Lady allegedly said: “Members of all faiths are equal before God.”

PAX :heaven:

 

[placido]

Our Lady allegedly said: “Members of all faiths are equal before God.”
PAX :heaven:

No, she allegedly said:

1. “All religions are equal before God” (Oct. 1, 1981) Quoted in “Chronological Corpus of Medjugorje” p. 317.
2. “In God there are no divisions or religions; it is you in the world who have created divisions.” (Faricy, p.51)

placido

 

[placido]

Then let’s stop right now before this thread gets derailed. PM me if you have to, but I’m not really inclined to spend my time defending or promoting any private revelation.
PAX :heaven:

I am happy to hear that. BTW I was only responding to what you said; it was not me who brought up this topic.

placido

 

[placido]

1. Again, the Church doesn’t officially declare any private revelation true or false until all supernatural events have come to an end.
   PAX :heaven:

What you are implying is that all the declarations by the local bishop and commissions were a nullity … a waste of time.

The apparitions to the visionaries of Medjugorje are still happening. Thus the Vatican intervened to defer the judgment of the ordinary bishop.
PAX :heaven:

That is here where you err. Since you have no clue how the Vatican became involved, let me give you some quotes:
“The Vatican spokesman, Fr. Lombardi, reviewed the history of investigations into the possible Marian apparitions of Medjugorje, noting that they began on a diocesan level. When it was seen that the phenomenon was broader than the diocese, it was passed on to the episcopal conference of the former Yugoslavia, which, he noted, no longer exists.
The commissions at those levels never came to a conclusion on the question of whether or not the alleged apparitions are supernatural, so the bishops of Bosnia and Herzegovina have asked the CDF to take over investigations, the Vatican spokesman explained.”
In other words, the Vatican DID NOT intervene to defer the judgment of the ordinary bishop. It was asked to assist.

And like I said, private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition), so there’s no question of defying the teaching authority of the Church by believing in a Marian apparition that has been fallibly judged false.
PAX :heaven:

Very interesting … you see nothing wrong in FALLIBLY believing in a Marian apparition that has been judged false. So, ignore the fallible leader, ignore Hebrews 13:17 and follow your own fallible opinion.
How convenient!

placido

 

[Good_Fella]

What you are implying is that all the declarations by the local bishop and commissions were a nullity … a waste of time.

That is here where you err. Since you have no clue how the Vatican became involved, let me give you some quotes:
“The Vatican spokesman, Fr. Lombardi, reviewed the history of investigations into the possible Marian apparitions of Medjugorje, noting that they began on a diocesan level. When it was seen that the phenomenon was broader than the diocese, it was passed on to the episcopal conference of the former Yugoslavia, which, he noted, no longer exists.
The commissions at those levels never came to a conclusion on the question of whether or not the alleged apparitions are supernatural, so the bishops of Bosnia and Herzegovina have asked the CDF to take over investigations, the Vatican spokesman explained.”
In other words, the Vatican DID NOT intervene to defer the judgment of the ordinary bishop. It was asked to assist.

The commissions have declared that nothing has yet been established - whether it be true or false.

If the CDF has taken over the investigations, and they are still in progress, then naturally the decision reached by the ordinary bishop has been put on hold. Normally, when a bishop passes judgment, he receives a letter from the Vatican that sanctions his decision, and the case is closed until it may be reopened by a succeeding bishop. The private revelations of Ida Peerdman were judged false by several bishops until their successor Bishop Punt of Haarlem, Amsterdam, gave them his approval in May, 2002. I agree with the other bishops.

Very interesting … you see nothing wrong in FALLIBLY believing in a Marian apparition that has been judged false. So, ignore the fallible leader, ignore Hebrews 13:17 and follow your own fallible opinion.
How convenient!

If I believe that a bishop has erred in his judgment, I don’t have to accept it. I thoroughly read the Bishop of Mostar’s final statement and see no valid reason for rejecting the claims of the visionaries. And as long as the investigations are still proceeding, there can be no final judgment. This is what Pope Urban Vlll has to say about private revelations that are currently under investigation:

"In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."

PAX:heaven:

 

[placido]

The commissions have declared that nothing has yet been established - whether it be true or false.

What about giving a quote and reference?

If the CDF has taken over the investigations, and they are still in progress, then naturally the decision reached by the ordinary bishop has been put on hold.

No, the decision reached by the local bishop remains valid until proven correct/incorrect.
But you don’t really care about any declaration. Even if Vatican issues a declaration tomorrow … you will simply say “but events are still on-going”.

Normally, when a bishop passes judgment, he receives a letter from the Vatican that sanctions his decision, and the case is closed until it may be reopened by a succeeding bishop. The private revelations of Ida Peerdman were judged false by several bishops until their successor Bishop Punt of Haarlem, Amsterdam, gave them his approval in May, 2002.

That is exactly what I meant … did you not say local bishops are “fallible”? But here you prefer the “fallible” local bishop over and above the CDF. Not only were the “various bishops” wrong (according to you) but the CDF was wrong too because it agreed with the “various bishops” judgement.
BTW, did the “successor Bishop Punt of Haarlem, Amsterdam,” receive a letter from the Vatican that sanctions his decision? Where is the evidence? Or do you apply double standards?

If I believe that a bishop has erred in his judgment, I don’t have to accept it.

That, effectively, makes you the final judge.

I thoroughly read the Bishop of Mostar’s final statement and see no valid reason for rejecting the claims of the visionaries. And as long as the investigations are still proceeding, there can be no final judgment.

In other words, even the current CDF investigation is just a waste of time and resources. You will not accept their findings because the events are still on-going.
How convenient!

placido

 

[placido]

This is what Pope Urban Vlll has to say about private revelations that are currently under investigation:

"In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true

."
In what context did Pope Urban VIII say that? And who has the authority to “prove” a private revelation to be “false”? Do you recognize that authority ALWAYS or SOMETIMES only?

placido

 

[Monica4316]

Scripture and Mary:

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

people might be surprised

 

[Good_Fella]

What about giving a quote and reference?

I already did above. See the declaration of the Yugoslavian Bishop’s Conference, 10 April 1991: Non-constat de supernaturalitate (A supernatural origin has not been proved) as opposed to Constat de non supernaturalitate (A non-supernatural origin has been proved), which you contend.

Meanwhile, the CDF has confirmed the legitimacy of personal belief in the apparitions and pilgrimages to Medjugorje during the course of futher investigations, which explains why nearly all the bishops of the world have allowed their flock to go there. See Protocol No. 154/81 - 06419: 26 May 1998. Thus, the Bishop of Mostar’s opinion is not the official stance of the entire Church. As late as August 2006, Cardinal Puljic (formerly Bishop of Sarajevo) announced the formation of a new commission of inquiry to continue ecclesiastical investigations. Neither of the commissions concluded whether the apparitions are true or not, and neither of them exist anymore. As a result, on the request of the bishops of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Vatican Press Office announced on 17 March 2010 that an international commission of inquiry would be formed under the auspices of the CDF, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, and composed of cardinals, bishops, and lay experts. A decisive verdict is still pending, whether you like it or not.

No, the decision reached by the local bishop remains valid until proven correct/incorrect.

But the Bishop of Mostar declared Constat de non supernaturalitate ( A non-supernatural origin has been proved).

The decision reached by the local bishop may be valid, but it can still be overturned depending on the decision reached by a subsequent commission.

But you don’t really care about any declaration. Even if Vatican issues a declaration tomorrow … you will simply say “but events are still on-going”.

If the visionaries are clearly exposed as frauds during the course of further investigations, the events will no longer be going on. But until then, no decision will be reached until after the claimed apparitions have stopped. At that time, if certain prophecies fail to transpire, the Vatican’s appointed commission will condemn them without hesitation.

That is exactly what I meant … did you not say local bishops are “fallible”? But here you prefer the “fallible” local bishop over and above the CDF. Not only were the “various bishops” wrong (according to you) but the CDF was wrong too because it agreed with the “various bishops” judgement.
BTW, did the “successor Bishop Punt of Haarlem, Amsterdam,” receive a letter from the Vatican that sanctions his decision? Where is the evidence? Or do you apply double standards?

I don’t agree with Bishop Punt because he did not follow protocol by heading a legitimate commission of inquiry. As far as I know, the Vatican remained silent, since it doesn’t normally get involved in these matters. Medjugorje is different because of its global effect on the sensus fidelium.

That, effectively, makes you the final judge.

But Bishop Zanic failed to prove that the events in Medjugorje are not of a supernatural origin. So the Vatican thought, too. The Conference of Yugoslavian Bishops came to a more prudent conclusion: it remains to be proved that the events are of a supernatural origin. I agree with the commission of 1991.

In other words, even the current CDF investigation is just a waste of time and resources. You will not accept their findings because the events are still on-going.
How convenient!

I will accept the findings of the CDF, whether or not the visionaries are proved false. Until then I will heed the advice of Pope Urban Vlll.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

In what context did Pope Urban VIII say that? And who has the authority to “prove” a private revelation to be “false”? Do you recognize that authority ALWAYS or SOMETIMES only?

placido

In the context that the apparitions are still under investigation.

 

[placido]

I already did above. See the declaration of the Yugoslavian Bishop’s Conference, 10 April 1991: Non-constat de supernaturalitate (A supernatural origin has not been proved) as opposed to Constat de non supernaturalitate (A non-supernatural origin has been proved), which you contend.
PAX :heaven:

Non-constat de supernaturalitate is not “as opposed to” but just another form of saying Constat de non supernaturalitate … which simply means “there are no characteristics that show it to be from God” thereby attributing it to fraud or another spirit.

placido