Has anyone here gone to Medjugorge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it was a hoax, large inconsistencies would appear. If it was from Satan, well, he’s spent 37 years undermining himself… :man_shrugging:t2:
 
If it’s so obviously fake, why not condemn it? At the very least command people not to attend the Apparitions…
 
Seagull said:
Pope Francis: I am suspicious of ongoing Medjugorje apparitions

“I personally am more suspicious,
I prefer the Madonna as Mother, our Mother,
and not a woman who’s the head of an office,
who every day sends a message at a certain hour.
This is not the Mother of Jesus.
And these presumed apparitions don’t have a lot of value.”

He clarified that this is his “personal opinion,”
but added that the Madonna does not function by saying,
“Come tomorrow at this time, and I will give a message to those people.”

Differentiating between these and the first apparitions, he said, is key.

Pope Francis spoke to the 70 journalists on board with him
during his May 13 flight from Fatima back to Rome.
Click to expand...
Do you have the source with reference properly referenced? As you know, many of these stories come to us via a 90+ year old Italian atheist journalist who doesn’t take notes.

That said,

Cardinal Arinze puts this in current terms.

I’ll say it again, if it is a hoax it would be condemned and disapproved by the Church, period dot end of sentence. There would be no more discussion.
 
Last edited:
Seagull said:
40.png
steve-b:
Do you have the source with reference properly referenced?
Click to expand...
Yes - The Catholic News agency - AND - The Guardian.
Click to expand...
That’s not a reference properly referenced.
 
What do you want ? Actual film footage of the Pope on the airplane of this interview - lol
 
Cruciferi said:
If it’s so obviously fake, why not condemn it? At the very least command people not to attend the Apparitions…
Click to expand...
The Vatican very rarely condemns things. There are a million things the Vatican has not specifically condemned. That does not mean it is prudent for people to patronize those sources.

To put it another way, the Vatican HAS deemed certain things to be from Public Revelation. This should be our 99% priority. The Vatican HAS deemed certain things to be approved Private Revelation, such as Fatima. This deserves, perhaps, 1 percent of our attention.

Medjugorge does not meet either criteria. It is one of the million things the Vatican has not condemned. The lack of Vatican condemnation is not, in any way, an endorsement or condoning, or a “Let’s wait and see on this” position. It does not imply the local bishop’s decision is “on hold” and can be temporarily ignored. The local Church position is therefore the only authoritative one.
 
commenter said:
The lack of Vatican condemnation is not, in any way, an endorsement or condoning, or a “Let’s wait and see on this” position. It does not imply the local bishop’s decision is “on hold” and can be temporarily ignored. The local Church position is therefore the only authoritative one.
Click to expand...
Card Arinze said,

"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.

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."

If this was a hoax, false, invalid, then it is a danger to the faith. Given 30+millions of people have been there on pilgrimage, what’s the Church waiting for?
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
40.png
commenter:
The lack of Vatican condemnation is not, in any way, an endorsement or condoning, or a “Let’s wait and see on this” position. It does not imply the local bishop’s decision is “on hold” and can be temporarily ignored. The local Church position is therefore the only authoritative one.
Click to expand...
If this was a hoax, false, invalid, then it is a danger to the faith. Given 30+millions of people have been there on pilgrimage, what’s the Church waiting for?
Click to expand...
The Vatican rarely condemns anything. There are a million things the Vatican has not condemned, over the centuries; some obscure, some popular. Whether Medjugorje has been visited by 30 pilgrims, or 30 million, is not relevant. It is a little disturbing if people think the number of pilgrims “validates” a site (I know you did not say that, but some do).

The Vatican asserts some things as Public Revelation, and other things as Approved Private Revelation. Those are the 2 categories. Medjugorje falls into neither. People blur the issue by saying that the Vatican must - MUST - either declare it to be a hoax, false or invalid - or else, lacking proof of this - that it then becomes de facto approved, by default, on a level with Fatima.

This “default approval” not only dilutes the meaning of private revelations that actually are approved, it ignores the possibility that Medjugorje falls into that other category: that it might be one of the million things the Vatican has never and will never be condemned, but also not Approved Private Revelation.
 
commenter said:
40.png
steve-b:
40.png
commenter:
The lack of Vatican condemnation is not, in any way, an endorsement or condoning, or a “Let’s wait and see on this” position. It does not imply the local bishop’s decision is “on hold” and can be temporarily ignored. The local Church position is therefore the only authoritative one.
Click to expand...
If this was a hoax, false, invalid, then it is a danger to the faith. Given 30+millions of people have been there on pilgrimage, what’s the Church waiting for?
Click to expand...
The Vatican rarely condemns anything. There are a million things the Vatican has not condemned, over the centuries; some obscure, some popular. Whether Medjugorje has been visited by 30 pilgrims, or 30 million, is not relevant. It is a little disturbing if people think the number of pilgrims “validates” a site (I know you did not say that, but some do).

The Vatican asserts some things as Public Revelation, and other things as Approved Private Revelation. Those are the 2 categories. Medjugorje falls into neither. People blur the issue by saying that the Vatican must - MUST - either declare it to be a hoax, false or invalid - or else, lacking proof of this - that it then becomes de facto approved, by default, on a level with Fatima.

This “default approval” not only dilutes the meaning of private revelations that actually are approved, it ignores the possibility that Medjugorje falls into that other category: that it might be one of the million things the Vatican has never and will never be condemned, but also not Approved Private Revelation.
Click to expand...
This does not address Cardinal Arinze’s points that I gave in a link.
 
steve-b said:
This does not address Cardinal Arinze’s points that I gave in a link.
Click to expand...
Correct. I don’t know what the Cardinal’s expectations were, in 1998. 2 decades and 2 popes later, it seems the Vatican’s interest now is mainly in pastoral care of the pilgrims. I will certainly abide by any definitive papal decision if there ever is one. There might never be one.

I am just pointing out that there are an awful lot of things the Vatican has never definitively condemned as invalid, false, or a hoax. This non-condemnation does not in any way make them approved, or semi-approved, or approval-pending, or approved-by-the-number-of-pilgrims, or almost like the same class as Fatima-until-the-pope-declares-otherwise.

The 2 categories are: Public Revelation; and Approved Private Revelation. They are not equally important. Prudence leads me to focus only on these.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
40.png
steve-b:
This does not address Cardinal Arinze’s points that I gave in a link.
Click to expand...
Correct. I don’t know what the Cardinal’s expectations were, in 1998. 2 decades and 2 popes later, it seems the Vatican’s interest now is mainly in pastoral care of the pilgrims. I will certainly abide by any definitive papal decision if there ever is one. There might never be one.

I am just pointing out that there are an awful lot of things the Vatican has never definitively condemned as invalid, false, or a hoax. This non-condemnation does not in any way make them approved, or semi-approved, or approval-pending, or approved-by-the-number-of-pilgrims, or almost like the same class as Fatima-until-the-pope-declares-otherwise.

The 2 categories are: Public Revelation; and Approved Private Revelation. They are not equally important. Prudence leads me to focus only on these.
Click to expand...
  1. The article and Arinze’s points were from 2017 so we’re talking about current views
  2. you didn’t address his point that "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."
Card Arinze doesn’t mess with rules. He follows them.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
steve-b:
If there was a difinitive ruling, it would be shut down metaphorically speaking. No more pilgrimages would be approved
Click to expand...
Pilgrimages that presume the authenticity of the alleged apparitions are forbidden.
Click to expand...
NO they are not. Only pilgrimages that are sponsored by a diocese are forbidden. Priests and bishops go to Medjugorje all the time.

I have been twice and there are countless masses throughout the day in several different languages. Many of which have multiple priests on the Alter.
 
Seagull, I highly recommend going and seeing this for yourself. Make your own decision on whats going on. If you are looking for a very spiritual pilgrimage with lots of authentically Catholic events you will not be disappointed. You don’t even need to do anything with the apparitions while there and you will still have an amazing pilgrimage just the same.
 
michaelArc said:
I will be muting this post as doing a back-and-forth is futile with staunch supporters of Medjugorje. But at some point, one has to ask the Holy Spirt for the grace of wisdom to use some discernment. Unfortunately if your mind is made up, then no amount of facts and evidence will ever persaude you otherwise. But be careful of the Devil’s hook, that will lead you to believe that the pronouncements of the church are wrong, while your subjective experiences are right.
Click to expand...
Which pronouncements are you referring to? Where do you see anyone refusing to listen to the Church while believing he/she is right and the Church wrong.

I am a firm believer in Medjugorje but if the Church ever condemns the apparitions I will side with the Church. As a matter of fact one of our Lady’s messages tells us to always obey the Church and respect our priests.
 
Like with Fatima I don’t know what to think of Medjugorge. I leave that in the hands of the competents people and the bishops.

What the Virgin said in the Bible, and what is said about her in it and by the Church Fathers is more than enough for me.
 
I personally avoid Medjugorge… the CDF has instructed Catholics to avoid events where the authenticity of the supposed apparitions is taken for granted. In my experience, it is very difficult to find a Medjugorge related event where the attendees don’t talk as though the apparitions happened… tough to have a conversation with my pastor about it as he is a stern Medjugorge supporter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top