Are the visionaries in Medjugorje real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shanishani7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shanishani7

Guest
Some people always have visionaries of virgin mary in Medjugorje, the most famous one is Mirjana.

Are the apparitions in Medjugorje approved by the Church already? I heard that Vatican do not approve these visionaries, what are the reasons?

And do you all think Mirjana’s visionaries and messages every month real? If not, then why does she need to pretend? I think she does see Mary talking to her… and I can’t think of why she needs to pretend…
 
Some people always have visionaries of virgin mary in Medjugorje, the most famous one is Mirjana.

Are the apparitions in Medjugorje approved by the Church already? I heard that Vatican do not approve these visionaries, what are the reasons?

And do you all think Mirjana’s visionaries and messages every month real? If not, then why does she need to pretend? I think she does see Mary talking to her… and I can’t think of why she needs to pretend…
There is a ban on discussing unapproved apparitions, including Medjugorge.
 
Banned Topics List

Catholic Answers has an obligation to protect our members and assure that the Forums remain a respected discussion environment in which members feel secure in participating.

To achieve this, it is necessary to ban certain topics, content, and posting techniques. If you are unsure whether or not something falls within the scope of this list, inquire of a moderator privately, before posting

Advocating violence or threatening a person or institution
Inappropriate language or graphics (crude, obscene, rude, vulgar, or blasphemous)
Pornography and links to pornographic sites or sites which host links to or advertise pornographic sites
Sexually explicit or graphically violent material or content that is inappropriate for non-adult members or might offend adult members
Hate material and links to sites that promote bigotry, hatred, or prejudice toward those of any race, religion, ethnicity, culture, or nationality
Derogatory terms characterizing a class of people by religion (Papists, Prods, Fundies), political affiliation, or national/ethnic origin
Blatantly disrespectful characterization of any faith, (“Rome is the Whore of Babylon”, “Nazarenes are Holy-Rollers”, “Jews are Christ-killers”, “Muslims are terrorists”) its tenets, practices, or adherents
Proselytizing Catholics or encouraging them to leave the Church
Debating moderator action, including discussing, disputing, or speculating as to why a member’s posting privileges were restricted, why posted messages were edited or deleted, or why threads were closed or removed from public fora
Posts in circumvention of a restriction, suspension, or ban imposed by staff
Solicitation of personal information (e.g., age, income, or location), beyond that freely offered by members through inclusion in their public profiles
Identifiable information pertaining to individuals, including the names of non-public personages who have not consented to being identified, their mailing or e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or details of their private life (or such information - not already in the public domain - which relates to a public personage who has not consented to it being revealed)
Private correspondence or e-mail from a third party
Discussion of political candidates, including posts that name a candidate, allude to a particular candidate, use euphemisms for a candidate, or refer to surrogates for a particular candidate
Rumored “conversions in process” that involve third parties, particularly public figures. Exception: If the possible conversion is itself a news story, that news story may be discussed in the Catholic News sub-forum so long as a link to the news story is provided in the original post
Encouraging “swarming” of other forums to engage in debate of anti-Catholic postings there
Links to blatantly anti-Catholic sites, except as a valid reference point for discussion
Addresses or telephone numbers of individuals, institutions, or commercial enterprises to promote activity that might negatively affect another’s life or business operations
Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion
Soliciting or proffering financial, legal, medical, or mental health advice
Asserting credentials as a clergyman, religious, theologian, or legal or medical professional, on which members might rely to their detriment, when the credentials cannot be verified to the satisfaction of CA staff
Lengthy excerpts of articles or publications that exceed standards for “reasonable use” (generally no more than three paragraphs) or might otherwise be construed to infringe copyright
Unlinked news stories or those not linked to a publicly accessible website (one that does not require registration or payment)
Intentionally deceptive material, including plagiarism (presenting another’s work as one’s own) or text attributable to or quoting others that has been altered
False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation
Promoting unapproved apparitions and revelations (those not approved by the Church for private or public devotion) or alleged private locutions
Soliciting business for any commercial enterprise without prior approval by CA staff
Soliciting donations for any individual or institution without prior approval by CA staff
Spamming (multiple or repetitious messages consisting of identical or nearly identical text or links without substantive commentary)
Using “sock puppet” identities to deceive others, promote an agenda, bolster one’s own credibility, filibuster, or engage in debate with oneself in furtherance of a point of view
 
Promoting is banned. Gentle warnings should be allowed. The church has not approved that movement. The person you mentioned may not be faking, but she may very well be being misled by demons. Hence why the church investigates.
 
The visionaries are real people who say they see (or have seen ) Mary in apparitions. Are the apparitions true? The Church has not given approval of these apparitions, and unlike most apparitions that the Church has said are worthy of belief, this one has lasted very long, and the “messages” seem to be a replay of the message the day before. So, although you cannot talk about the messages on this website, your question is valid. No one knows for certain but God and Mary, however, this one has a lot of controversy around it. I would suggest looking up info about the apparition, for AND against, to get a better idea of why there is controversy. Google Medjugorje, false apparition and read everything. It sounds like you already have some information about it being true. There are a few Youtube videos as well, both for and against. Make certain you are very informed. I know more people who believe the apparitions (my mother included) than don’t, but none of these people have read about the problems surrounding these apparitions. Many things concern me about it. Also know, you do not have to believe ANY apparition, even if the Church has said it is worthy of belief, it is not required of you to believe any of them or read or follow any of the messages.
 
I recommend you read Simcha Fisher’s latest blog post regarding this.
It’s a real eye opener.
 
The jury is still out on this one. But there is some truth to them, in some small way.
 
As recently as 2013, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that the current official position is that of the 1991 declaration of the Bishops of then Yugoslavia*: non constat de supernaturalitate.

This basically means that it is not certain or beyond doubt that the alleged apparitions are of supernatural origin.

Unfortunately, folks on both sides of this issue tend to go overboard. Some think that it IS certain the alleged apparitions are from God, others think it is certain they are not from God. That’s not what the Church says, and the Church has much, much more information than any individual has access to.

The Church says that we are not certain at this point, and that, while private individuals can accept this phenomenon in a private manner, they should not do so publicly in a way that takes Medjugorje’s validity for granted. That would be to go beyond what the Church has said.

*Please note that, contrary to what is often stated, the 1991 decision of the Bishops trumps anything the local ordinary has said. As Cardinal Bertone, writing, I believe, on behalf of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote in 2008, “Bishop Peric’s statement expresses a personal opinion of his own. It is not a definitive official judgment on the part of the Church. The Church defers to the Zadar statement issued on 10th April 1991 by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia and the statement leaves the door open to further investigations of the affair. So the process of verification needs to move forward.”
 
I didn’t post the link soon enough, but here’s an except from the blog post I referenced:

*When Our Lady first allegedly appeared to the six youths in 1981, she reportedly told them she would only appear three more times.

She has since appeared, according to the alleged visionaries, 47,000 more times.*

**This, to me is a red flag. **

When Pope Francis visited the region in 2015, he came within twenty minutes of the Medjugorje shrine but did not make a stop, presumably not wanting to lend it credibility by his presence, especially after the apostolic nuncio said “clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.”

The Pope is now sending a Bishop to Medjugorje purely to assess the pastoral needs of Catholics who travel there on pilgrimage. He will not be making any pronouncement on the validity of the alleged apparitions.

Read the blog. I’m out.
 
As recently as 2013, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that the current official position is that of the 1991 declaration of the Bishops of then Yugoslavia*: non constat de supernaturalitate.

This basically means that it is not certain or beyond doubt that the alleged apparitions are of supernatural origin.

Unfortunately, folks on both sides of this issue tend to go overboard. Some think that it IS certain the alleged apparitions are from God, others think it is certain they are not from God. That’s not what the Church says, and the Church has much, much more information than any individual has access to.

The Church says that we are not certain at this point, and that, while private individuals can accept this phenomenon in a private manner, they should not do so publicly in a way that takes Medjugorje’s validity for granted. That would be to go beyond what the Church has said.

*Please note that, contrary to what is often stated, the 1991 decision of the Bishops trumps anything the local ordinary has said. As Cardinal Bertone, writing, I believe, on behalf of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote in 2008, “Bishop Peric’s statement expresses a personal opinion of his own. It is not a definitive official judgment on the part of the Church. The Church defers to the Zadar statement issued on 10th April 1991 by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia and the statement leaves the door open to further investigations of the affair. So the process of verification needs to move forward.”
Thank you for this information. Much more informative than someone’s opinion on a blog somewhere.
 
I didn’t post the link soon enough, but here’s an except from the blog post I referenced:

When Our Lady first allegedly appeared to the six youths in 1981, she reportedly told them she would only appear three more times.

She has since appeared, according to the alleged visionaries, 47,000 more times.

**This, to me is a red flag. **
It makes you wonder whether there could have been real apparitions at first and they wanted to continue or Satan or… :hmmm:
 
ncregister.com/daily-news/faithful-await-vatican-verdict-on-medjugorje
The visions are instead considered non constat de supernaturalitate, which allows for personal belief in the authenticity of the apparitions along with personal (not diocesan sponsored) pilgrimages to the apparition site, pending the Pope’s awaited decision.
Notwithstanding the contentious debate over the visions, more important for Cardinal Arinze are the positive effects Medjugorje has had on the faithful who visit.
“One point that is not doubted is that people who go there actually repent. They actually go to confession, go to Mass — that is, they become better Christians,” he said.
 
Notwithstanding the contentious debate over the visions, more important for Cardinal Arinze are the positive effects Medjugorje has had on the faithful who visit.
“One point that is not doubted is that people who go there actually repent. They actually go to confession, go to Mass — that is, they become better Christians,” he said.
The problem with this is that even though there may be short-term good results for these people, what happens if/when the Church officially condemns the apparitions?

Many, many people have said that they would not be able to obey the Church and would separate from the Church if she would make such a declaration. An apparition which inspires such a spirit of disobedience cannot be considered to be having good fruits.
 
The problem with this is that even though there may be short-term good results for these people, what happens if/when the Church officially condemns the apparitions?

Many, many people have said that they would not be able to obey the Church and would separate from the Church if she would make such a declaration. An apparition which inspires such a spirit of disobedience cannot be considered to be having good fruits.
I don’t think the question of apparition or no apparition brings about that sort of disobedience. It is ‘my will vs. thy will’. The same disorder that had disciples of Jesus no longer follow Him after His Bread of Life discourse.
 
There are some people, who, at mere mention of her name, rush forward and proclaim everything hunkey-dorey.
The fact remains, this “event” does not conform to any of her approved, legitimate apparitions, no matter how well-intentioned the faithful who seek her and love her.

Do these same people throng to the Eucharistic table? There, Jesus is truly present: Body Blood, Soul and Divinity. I think Our Lady would like to see us **there. **
 
I didn’t post the link soon enough, but here’s an except from the blog post I referenced:

*When Our Lady first allegedly appeared to the six youths in 1981, she reportedly told them she would only appear three more times.

She has since appeared, according to the alleged visionaries, 47,000 more times.*

**This, to me is a red flag. **
Fr. Zovko, the parish priest, had been interviewing the young adults and recording the conversations. On June 30, 1981, he asked how much longer this would be going on. Mirjana replied, “Something tells me, two or three more days.” This information can be found in chapter five of Donal Foley’s book Medjugorje Revisited, a book which is an extensive argument against the “apparitions” validity.

“Something tells me” does not imply “The apparition told us.”

Mrs. Fischer has incomplete information, which itself is a bit of a red flag as to the credibility of her analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top