Instructions Issued on Medjugorje by CDF via Apostolic Nuncio

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward_george
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan said:
Again, I would ask what was the official church position prior to this? It seems much stronger to me, as I only remember clerics not being permitted to lead pilgrimages.

Is the the Zada Declaration you refer to?

If so, the new instructions do much more than just reflect this statement.
Click to expand...
The offical position prior to the Zadar declaration? It was that of the Bishop of Mostar which was pretty much the same*, non constat de supernaturalitate*, don’t organise official pilgrimages from parishes, you can’t stop groups going there if has not been proven false but to allow official groups to go there implies canonical legitimacy. This has been the position of the church, widely ignored, since at least 1991.

This new instruction simply restates that the phenomena occurring in Medjugorje have not been definitively judged either way and that events which promote the Medjugorje as established, verified fact are not in line with Church teaching.
 
travissbeloved said:
Can’t we as Catholics have the mindset that it is possible that it is true too? I went to Medjugorje when I was 15 and it was a beautiful experience. My father had a complete reversion to the Catholic church through Mary that he believes stems from his visit to Medjugorje. I know we have to wait until the apparitions are completed and the Vatican has says something but it is also something to say that the fruits coming out of Medjugorje are not at all evil…they seem to come from Christ. I hold the position that it is a definite possibility that they are real and if they are not then I will accep tthat as well. All I’m saying is that the fruits I have seen are not those that the Evil one would find joy in.
Click to expand...
Bayside devotees say the same thing.

Everyone uses the fruits line to bolster an alleged apparition.
 
I’m not bolstering it or saying that it is absolutely true, I’m just saying the probability of it being true is just the same as the probability of it not being true. There’s such a negative connotation around it when there should be a neutral connotation around it. Just because the Church has not approved of it yet does not mean that they have condemned it either. They’re just saying not to be involved in it until the time comes where they can decide whether or not it is truth. And saying that some people stray from the Church because of Medjugorje is the same as saying people strayed from the Church because of Vatican II. Just because it sends some extremists off on the wrong track doesn’t mean it’s not valid.
 
MODERATOR NOTE

You are free to discuss the news item here however:

Remember in your discussions that the following is banned at CAF:

Promoting unapproved apparitions and revelations (those not approved by the Church for private or public devotion) or alleged private locutions
 
I apologize, I do not promote it in any way, I just don’t agree with all the negative connotations around the subject. I think it’s best if this thread is discontinued.
 
I really don’t think we need to read to much into this. CDF is just playing by the letter of the law. besides, during the consecration of the world to our lady of Fatima. A large medjugorje group was invited by Pope Francis to attend. They were actually given a very coveted location close to the steps. During the event the Pope went out of his way to acknowledge them by waving and them waving back.

THis in itself is probably an innocent gesture also, I say once again I see no evidence of anything new or explosive in the situation.

Peace:thumbsup:
 
dshix said:
There is no one here who hates Medjugorje. It isn’t that we have some pre-conceived notion that it is evil, but that we have seen bad results from it.

We know things by their fruits, and Medjugorje has successfully been a significant cause of dissension among the faithful. [Not speaking on Medjugorje, just apparitions in general. Dissension should not be used a sign of authenticity. To use your own words, Jesus ‘successfully was a significant cause of dissension among the faithful’ - the Jews, who were the only faithful people on the earth at the time of His arrival. He ended up on a cross with the chief priests challenging Him to come down from that cross if He was the Son of God. (Matt 27:41-43)]

Those who believe in it often say they will apostacize if the Church condemns it [Interesting. I never heard or read of anybody saying that - any sources?], and the many Medjugorje events that happen all over the place are often hosted by charlatans.

Yes, we await the Church’s decision on the matter.

And yes, we will condemn anyone who says that this apparition is an approved, correct apparition before the Church says so.
Click to expand...
God bless you.
 
In the final decision the Vatican will need speak very clearly–many posters here do not seem to well accept what this letter says. (But of course it will be the final statement which will have real authority.)
I have not made a decision about Medjugorje in my own mind, waiting for this decision from the Vatican, which I plan on accepting, whatever it says. I hope Catholics also will as a rule accept the decision in humility of soul even if it goes against their own opinions.
 
I thought Medjugorje had been ruled a fraud by it’s local bishops?

And does this mean that “Direction For Our Times” groups must stop since the woman at the head of that claims she got filled with the Holy Spirit at Medjugorje?
 
Jimmy Akin just did one of his “things you need to know” articles about Archbishop Vigano’s letter:

14 things to know and share about the new letter on Medjugorje

He raises a point that I had not considered that this is the first time in his recollection of a statement being made regarding Medjugorje-related events outside of Medjugorje. Previously, the word has always been that one could not organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje as to a Marian apparition site (though, of course, one can always make a personal pilgrimage to another Catholic Church – and there’s a Catholic Church in Medjugorje). But there’s never been anything said about attending one of the speaking engagements of one of the purported visionaries.

It still does seem to me the somewhat obvious course of action, though, in light of where things are at.
 
Ragamuffingirl said:
I thought Medjugorje had been ruled a fraud by it’s local bishops?
Click to expand...
Not quite a fraud. There are three designations for a private revelation:
  1. It can be confirmed that it is of supernatural origin *
  2. It can be confirmed that it is not of supernatural origin *
  3. It cannot be confirmed that it is of supernatural origin *
The local bishop designated it as part of the third category. It’s not as strong as a condemnation, but it’s also definitely not an approval. And now the CDF is conducting their own investigation, which I think everyone hopes will definitively settle the matter.

The letter is basically asking us to abide by the local bishop’s judgment. And if it cannot be confirmed to be supernatural, then it naturally follows that we are not to take its authenticity for granted.***
 
Joe_5859 said:
Jimmy Akin just did one of his “things you need to know” articles about Archbishop Vigano’s letter:

14 things to know and share about the new letter on Medjugorje

He raises a point that I had not considered that this is the first time in his recollection of a statement being made regarding Medjugorje-related events outside of Medjugorje. Previously, the word has always been that one could not organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje as to a Marian apparition site (though, of course, one can always make a personal pilgrimage to another Catholic Church – and there’s a Catholic Church in Medjugorje). But there’s never been anything said about attending one of the speaking engagements of one of the purported visionaries.

It still does seem to me the somewhat obvious course of action, though, in light of where things are at.
Click to expand...
One of the parishes in my county had a Priest who was a strong believer in Medjugorie. The other two churches never have had Priests who took any position on it I’m aware of. Anyhow, in that Parish, prior to his transfer, he used to publish weekly purported messages from Mary via Medjugorie, which were not contemporaneous (ie., necessarily recent) but they were published as actual statements nonetheless.

I’m very skeptical on Medjugorie, and this always bothered me as it appeared to be an endorsement of it. Under this directive, should that sort of behavior cease?

FWIW, he no longer is at that Parish, having been transferred to an assignment at the Cathedral, which I suppose to be wholly unrelated to this in any fashion.
 
Yeoman said:
One of the parishes in my county had a Priest who was a strong believer in Medjugorie. The other two churches never have had Priests who took any position on it I’m aware of. Anyhow, in that Parish, prior to his transfer, he used to publish weekly purported messages from Mary via Medjugorie, which were not contemporaneous (ie., necessarily recent) but they were published as actual statements nonetheless.

I’m very skeptical on Medjugorie, and this always bothered me as it appeared to be an endorsement of it. Under this directive, should that sort of behavior cease?

FWIW, he no longer is at that Parish, having been transferred to an assignment at the Cathedral, which I suppose to be wholly unrelated to this in any fashion.
Click to expand...
I would think so. But I suppose that’s between the priest and the bishop. :o

I first heard of Medjugorje from a priest, too, and he was definitely a believer in it. This was fifteen years ago, though. Maybe he’s changed his mind by now. 🤷 I’ve known lots of people who have gone over there (including some who lived there for several years and knew all the visionaries personally). Some had pretty profound conversion experiences. But that in and of itself doesn’t prove anything concretely. Good fruit is a necessary by-product of a legitimate apparition but it’s not the determining factor. God draws good out of bad all the time.

I’m glad the CDF is taking their time with it and making sure they get it right. But it sure will be nice once they’ve reached their verdict. :o
 
It seems the main concern - as it should be - is not allowing the visionary to talk and have the propurted vision within this or any church. He then refers back to a letter from Feb 2013 and the original of Apr '91.

I don’t think anything has changed from these two letters. Maybe I’m wrong but it is the way I read it.

P:thumbsup:EACE!
 
Joe_5859 said:
Jimmy Akin just did one of his “things you need to know” articles about Archbishop Vigano’s letter:

14 things to know and share about the new letter on Medjugorje

He raises a point that I had not considered that this is the first time in his recollection of a statement being made regarding Medjugorje-related events outside of Medjugorje. Previously, the word has always been that one could not organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje as to a Marian apparition site (though, of course, one can always make a personal pilgrimage to another Catholic Church – and there’s a Catholic Church in Medjugorje). But there’s never been anything said about attending one of the speaking engagements of one of the purported visionaries.

It still does seem to me the somewhat obvious course of action, though, in light of where things are at.
Click to expand...
13) Is the timing of this letter significant?
It may be.
You will recall that this letter reaffirms the policy announced in a previous letter, which was dated February 27, 2013.
That was the day before Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation took effect.
The transition from one pope to another could affect this kind of policy, and so to have a new letter released now can plausibly be read as an indication that Pope Francis supports the present policy.
It is easy to see how some on the American side might have asked for a clarification of whether the policy—announced just before Benedict left office—is still in effect.
Archbishop Müller meets with Pope Francis on a regular basis, and my guess is that he queried Pope Francis about the matter. For a letter to be sent to all U.S. bishops, I would expect that he would do that.
The timing of this letter thus may indicate that Pope Francis has reaffirmed the policy, though, as we noted, it is a provisional one that does not tell us anything in particular about the final decision.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/14-things-to-know-and-share-about-the-new-letter-on-medjugorje/#ixzz2jyWL0hOd

In my own diocese we have a priest who leads pilgrimages to Medjugorje. They are advertised on local Catholic radio.

I am very thankful that as a Catholic I do not have to believe in any apparition anywhere at any time.

Keeps the faith really simple, I think. 🙂
 
Joe_5859 said:
Jimmy Akin just did one of his “things you need to know” articles about Archbishop Vigano’s letter:

14 things to know and share about the new letter on Medjugorje

He raises a point that I had not considered that this is the first time in his recollection of a statement being made regarding Medjugorje-related events outside of Medjugorje. Previously, the word has always been that one could not organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje as to a Marian apparition site (though, of course, one can always make a personal pilgrimage to another Catholic Church – and there’s a Catholic Church in Medjugorje). But there’s never been anything said about attending one of the speaking engagements of one of the purported visionaries.

It still does seem to me the somewhat obvious course of action, though, in light of where things are at.
Click to expand...
This has been my point, several posters have stated this is really nothing new. But it is, this is much more restrictive than any of the previous positions taken by the Church, AFAIK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top