Has anyone here gone to Medjugorge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What are we up to now? 30,000 messages in Medjugorge? I find it amusing how the Blessed Mother talks about the price of fish and comments on seers hair.

I’m particularly interested in reading about Tomislav Vlašić, the former priest and spiritual director of the seers who couldn’t stick to his vows and got a nun pregnant. He’s been doing it all again btw, this time the focus is on The Central Nucleus!

All hail to The Central Nucleus! :roll_eyes:

It saddens me on how gullible some people are, but it’s not surprising when you consider one will pay a $1000 for a flight in the hope of finding a spiritual experience.
 
Last edited:
It is not diabolical, however, to assert that the apparitions are fraud, since that is what the local bishop has determined.
 
I planned to go from Dublin with an organised group long ago.But it wasn’t safe at that time and I decided not to risk it 🤔
 
I hear the President of Ireland is actually a S.S.A man ( same sex attraction )
 
Greenfields2h
I planned to go from Dublin
with an organised group.
But it wasn’t safe -
I decided not to risk it 🤔

That Ireland - still isn’t safe !
That’s just my opinion - my Catholic opinion.
Hit them where it hurts - their wallet - the Ireland tourist industry !
 
Note what I typed “long ago” .

There are a lot of Australian words I could use about now but will refrain…🤨
Ireland needs prayers, not codecention S.
 
Even if the first apparitions were of our Lady, because others clearly aren’t, I will treat the “seers” as if none of their so called visions are genuine.
 
steve-b said:
The Vatican hasn’t given a ruling.

Officially, We await a ruling
Click to expand...
An official and valid ruling is in force and that was made by the competent Church authorities which are the local bishops.
Whether the CDF overturn or confirm the existing decision does not mean it is not currently valid and in force. It is!
 
thistle said:
40.png
steve-b:
The Vatican hasn’t given a ruling.

Officially, We await a ruling
Click to expand...
An official and valid ruling is in force and that was made by the competent Church authorities which are the local bishops.
Whether the CDF overturn or confirm the existing decision does not mean it is not currently valid and in force. It is!
Click to expand...
From the link you didn’t open,
Card Arinze (Mar 14, 2017) said (emphasis mine)
"The Medjugorje apparitions are currently not officially approved by the Church as being of supernatural origin (constat de supernaturalitate), but neither are they condemned by the Church as being false or invalid (constat de non supernaturalitate). Bishop Peric’s position as the local bishop is taken to be his “personal opinion,” according to a 1998 CDF letter."

If you read the entire article, this is NOT a closed case.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
From the link you didn’t open,
Card Arinze (Mar 14, 2017) said (emphasis mine)
"The Medjugorje apparitions are currently not officially approved by the Church as being of supernatural origin (constat de supernaturalitate), but neither are they condemned by the Church as being false or invalid (constat de non supernaturalitate). Bishop Peric’s position as the local bishop is taken to be his “personal opinion,” according to a 1998 CDF letter."

If you read the entire article, this is NOT a closed case.
Click to expand...
I think you are not paying attention to my previous posts. I did not say it was a closed case.

The OFFICIAL decision of the local Bishops is NOT a personal opinion. It is the result of three Bishops Commissions. They are the competent Church authorities in this matter, not Rome. The valid and in force ruling is that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings.
The only reason Rome got involved was because the local bishops asked them to due to the division among Catholics. The CDF’s first action was to suspend a priest at the centre of promoting the apparitions as being real.

All that is required now is for the CDF to either overturn or confirm the official decision that has already been made and stand in force.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
all
that is required now is for the CDF to either overturn or confirm the official decision that has already been made and stand in force.
Click to expand...
Well, I would add that at present it’s still required that laity abide by the current position, that it is not approved. There’s a mistaken idea when the Church is looking further into something, that the current policy is therefore suspended.
 
thistle said:
40.png
steve-b:
From the link you didn’t open,
Card Arinze (Mar 14, 2017) said (emphasis mine)
"The Medjugorje apparitions are currently not officially approved by the Church as being of supernatural origin (constat de supernaturalitate), but neither are they condemned by the Church as being false or invalid (constat de non supernaturalitate). Bishop Peric’s position as the local bishop is taken to be his “personal opinion,” according to a 1998 CDF letter."

If you read the entire article, this is NOT a closed case.
Click to expand...
I think you are not paying attention to my previous posts. I did not say it was a closed case.

The OFFICIAL decision of the local Bishops is NOT a personal opinion. It is the result of three Bishops Commissions. They are the competent Church authorities in this matter, not Rome. The valid and in force ruling is that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings.
The only reason Rome got involved was because the local bishops asked them to due to the division among Catholics. The CDF’s first action was to suspend a priest at the centre of promoting the apparitions as being real.

All that is required now is for the CDF to either overturn or confirm the official decision that has already been made and stand in force.
Click to expand...
Card Arinze’s point is from Mar 14 2017. There are also bishops who disagree with Bp Peric’s position. That’s why Card Arinze said the Church has NOT said Medjugorje is “false or invalid”.
 
Of all the phrases cited to justify imprudent behavior, here are some leading contenders:
  • The Church has not made a FINAL decision;
  • This matter is still under review; the bishop’s or pastor’s or Vatican II decision is therefore not binding on me;
  • A future commission may overturn this Vatican decision on contraception or Medjurgorje or women’s ordination or SSPX, therefore I can follow my conscience/spiritual leading/website in the meantime.
  • The Vatican has not definitively, dogmatically, officially PROVED X to be false. Therefore X must be true, and I can act in the meantime as if it were true.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
Of all the phrases cited to justify imprudent behavior, here are some leading contenders:
  • The Church has not made a FINAL decision;
  • This matter is still under review; the bishop’s or pastor’s or Vatican II decision is therefore not binding on me;
  • A future commission may overturn this Vatican decision on contraception or Medjurgorje or women’s ordination or SSPX, therefore I can follow my conscience/spiritual leading/website in the meantime.
  • The Vatican has not definitively, dogmatically, officially PROVED X to be false. Therefore X must be true, and I can act in the meantime as if it were true.
Click to expand...
What I wrote came from Card Arinze, reference properly given. It did not come from me. So…Are you prepared to lecture and dress down the good Cardinal on this?
 
Last edited:
It’s quite clear that the Vatican is taking Medjugorje seriously.

Matthew 7:16

“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”

Something is going on on there…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top