Medjugorje - A True Confession

[Tominellay]

setter,
Mr. Conte is a self-styled “theologian”…

Sensus fidelium does not oppose the authority of an Ordinary in his diocese.

 

[setter]

Once again, we cannot look at the good fruits alone, or judge for ourselves that this is authentic. Judgment is reserved to the Church and it is the job of the local Ordinary to do that discernment. **Bishops Zanic **

and Peric have repeatedly made their positions known and this was backed by the Yugoslav Bishops commission, while it was still in effect.
In service of all due fairness and to offer a contextual counterpoint, the “bad fruit” of our human fraility is not only limited only to the laity. The following article excerpt certainly throws into a questionable light if the Holy Spirit was entirely at work or if man’s frail humanity sought to exert it’s biased influence as Bishop Zanic certainly made his position known.

The ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic stated in an interview that Bishop Zanic held to “ferocious opposition” and “who refused to budge from his own verdict” with the Yugoslav Bishops’ Commission on Medjugorje:

To many, this Declaration appeared ambiguous. Although the supernatural essence of the apparitions is not affirmed, there is recognition of the resulting “cult,” to be “managed” by the resident Bishop. On this subject, **ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic stated in an interview **

with the Italian daily , on January 15, 1991, that only the ferocious opposition of Bishop Zanic, who refused to budge from his own verdict, had impeded a positive decision on the Medjugorje apparitions: “The bishops do not wish to humiliate Monsignor, Zanic,” Franic stated, “And when it was brought to his attention… :hat his opposition was unfounded, he began to cry and shout, and the bishops finally stopped arguing.”

Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, Archbishop of Zaghreb and President of the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference, in an interview with Croatian public television on December 23, 1990, said that the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference, including himself, “has a positive opinion of Medjugorje events.”

How can we explain Bishop Zanic’s behavior? Most conclusions on the subject seem to focus on the long-standing conflicts between the Franciscan and secular clergy in the Mostar region.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/DECORMIR.HTM

Medjugorje enjoys no support among those whom the Church gives jurisdiction for discernment of apparitions - the local Ordinary. The public silence of the Pope also says alot. Supporters will, however, talk about how the Pope (past and present) have privately supported Medjugorje. This has warning flags all over it when supposedly a Pope supports something, but he doesn’t make it known publicly. He silence says more.

Silence can be read in to more than one way, as in the virtue of prudence. Again, let’s not jump to foregone conclusions without factual substantiation.

 

[FCEGM]

Tominellay:

setter,
Mr. Conte is a self-styled “theologian”…

Sensus fidelium does not oppose the authority of an Ordinary in his diocese.

Right, Tom, the “sensus fidelium” cannot be separated from the Magisterial authority of the Church which includes the Bishop (former and present) of Mostar. (It certainly isn’t just the popular sentiments of a large number of people.)

One of the greatest rights of the faithful is to receive the word of God in its purity and integrity as guaranteed by the Magisterium of the Universal Church: the authentic Magisterium of the bishops of the Catholic Church teaching in union with the Pope; and the Holy Spirit is active in enlightening the minds of His faithful with His truth and in inflaming their hearts with His love. But these insights of faith are not independent of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is an instrument of the same Holy Spirit and is assisted by Him, John Paul II, “An address to the U.S. Bishops”, 1979.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Hi Setter,

Welcome to the fray

Now, so you don’t think I am ignoring you, I am on a confessor-imposed Catholic-forums restriction of 20 minutes per day - hardly enough to read what is being thrown out, let alone pulling together an intelligent and informed response. Therefore, I can only take one thing per day here so before you throw any more out, lets chew on the few things you have stated since my last post - if that is ok with you. After all, we do have a life time to debate each point, right?

Let’s start with this:

setter:

In service of all due fairness and to offer a contextual counterpoint, the “bad fruit” of our human fraility is not only limited only to the laity. The following article excerpt certainly throws into a questionable light if the Holy Spirit was entirely at work or if man’s frail humanity sought to exert it’s biased influence as Bishop Zanic certainly made his position known.

Let’s look at Padre Pio’s case. Here is an excerpt of key dates:

2 June 1922. Orders of the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) began to restrict the public’s access to Padre Pio.

           **1924-1931**. Various statements of the Holy See             deny the supernaturality of Padre Pio's phenomena. 

           **9 June 1931** (Feast of Corpus Christi). Padre Pio ordered by the Holy See to desist from all activities except the celebration of the Mass, which was to be in private. 

           **Early 1933**. Pope Pius XI orders the Holy Office to reverse its ban on the public celebration of Mass, saying "I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed."

Now, this is a perfect case to reveal that, yes, local superiors can err, and this can lead the Pontiff to follow that lead. But, even if something similar could be proven about the children of Medjugorje, one clear, striking difference exists: The pure and unspiteful obedience of Padre Pio, versus the spiteful, defamatory attacks against the local Ordinar on the part of the “seers” of Medjugorje. One shows a high level of God’s grace, the other shows a lack of God’s grace - hardly supportive of a supernatural event.

You also claim that Bishop Zanic was biased. Please share with us the exact information which leads you to believe that the Bishop neglected to make a reasonable investigation. Based on the book written by Michael Davies, promoted by Bishop Peric just because of the chock full of documents contained, it is clearly evident that a significant investigation took place. If your allegation of bias on the part of Bishop Zanic is based on that statement below by Frane Franic of Split, I will address that momentarily. However, consider that such an allegation could be considered calumny if it is based on falsehoods. This was my error - repeating statements that hurt the credibility and reputation of the local Ordinary based on things I found on the internet, which were later proven horribly calumnous.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

The ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic stated in an interview that Bishop Zanic held to “ferocious opposition” and “who refused to budge from his own verdict” with the Yugoslav Bishops’ Commission on Medjugorje

If I claimed to be seeing the BVM, I would hope, for the sake of all Catholics and faithful concerned, that my pastor, first and foremost, would put me through the gauntlet, followed by my bishop. I would hope they would test my obedience, and measure God’s grace through my virtue or lack thereof. To omit the fruits affiliated with the virtue of a seer or stigmatist, is negligent and counters one of the widest used pieces of criteria in the discernment of authenticity of apparitions. They have the duty to protect the faithful. Consider that the overwhelming majority of claims are proven false. In one of the most stunning cases, we see how followers included priests and members of the episcopate.

Furthermore, he had an absolute duty to go after the event like a pitbull if he believed, through his investigations, that these children were concocting something that didn’t exist, and the Franciscan were supporting them. Much of this broke out at the height of tensions regarding the Herzegovina Question, in which the Franciscans were ordered to turn over a percentage of their parishes to the diocess. This is one of the greatest areas of calumny being spread regarding “the fued”. Much ignorance resides on the part of those who cite this. I should know, I was one who repeated it for 20 years without knowing a single detail about this issue. I dug into it and got pure facts. The VATICAN took action. POPE JOHN PAUL II excommunicated several Franciscans stemming from disobedience to that surrounding the “Herzegovina Question”. Anyone at odds with the local Bishop of Mostar Duvno on “the fued” is at odds with Holy Mother Church who backed the Bishop 200%. In “messages” the BVM seems to support the Franciscans in the issue, but faults the Bishop. The BVM wasn’t contradicting the Bishop, she was contradicting Holy Mother Church - another clear indicator that it is very likley NOT the Blessed Mother. I’d say these were good reasons for the Bishop to go after it like a pit bull.

There is quite valuable information on discernment of spirits in this document which captures the case of Magdalen and it categorizes false aparitions into different classes.

Regarding the first cause, persons acting untruthfully, he describes the well known case of Magdalen of the Cross, a Spanish Franciscan nun who lived at the beginning of the sixteenth century, while also alluding to more than twenty cases of such simulation which were condemned by the Holy Office in the mid-seventeenth century. This indicates that the activities of those falsely claiming “revelations” are not something new. (The following extracts are taken from Fr. Poulain’s book, Revelations and Visions: Discerning the True and Certain from the False or the Doubtful.)

                                     "She was born in 1487, entered the Convent at the age of seventeen, in 1504, and was three times Abbess of her Monastery. From the age of five the Devil appeared to her under the form of different saints, and inspired her with a strong desire to pass as a saint herself. She was thirteen when he considered that her soul was sufficiently possessed by the spirits of vanity, pride, and sensuality; he plainly declared his identity to her, and promised that if she would enter into an agreement with him, he would spread abroad her reputation for sanctity and would procure her, for thirty years at the least, all the pleasures that she desired. She agreed, and Satan became her counsellor, although there were days when she would gladly have driven him away, so terrified was she at the fearful shapes that he took.

                                     "Thanks to his aid, she realised all the outward appearance of divine marvels: ecstasies, levitation, predictions that were often fulfilled. She made herself the stigmatic wounds, and for eleven years persuaded others that she lived without taking any food; while procuring it for herself secretly. For thirty-eight years, up to 1543, she succeeded in deliberately deceiving the greatest theologians in Spain, the Bishops, Cardinals, Inquisitors, and great nobles about the Court. People came from all sides to consult her, and alms were showered upon her. Having been at death's door, she confessed everything publicly, and then regretted her avowals. Exorcism had to be resorted to before the Devil lost his hold over her will. Finally, she was condemned to be confined in another Convent of her Order."

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I would like to make an offer, especially to those who are supportive of Medjugorje:

How about we take, as a next step, to explore the Herzegovina Question in detail. I can start by providing a brief history. We can then take a look at what occured right before the “apparitions” with regards to the diocese and the Franciscans.

Because so many books and websites use this so-called “fued” as fuel to attack the credibility fo the Bishop, I think it is important to understand in factual terms. Some websites are even showing portions of the truth, then spinning it.

I propose to use Vatican, Diocesan, and Religious Order documents so that you may read them in their entirety.

 

[LambOfGod]

God Bless Everyone (*)

A letter from Pope John Paul II to Fr. Jozo Zovko of Medjugorje.

From Zagreb Daily Newspaper “The Vercernji List”
Headline Reads:

A Surprising Gesture From the Vatican. The Pope Thanks Jozo for Medjugorje!

The cover photo was taken when the Holy Father welcomed Fr. Jozo in 1992, in the midst of the Bosnian war. At that time the Pope told him: “I am with you, protect Medjugorje! Protect Our Lady’s messages!”

The article in the paper shows Fr. Jozo at his desk, reading the Pope’s letter, with a caption to the left of the picture: “The Pope has signed a thankyou note to Fr. Jozo Zovko.” A translation of the article from Croatian reads:

Siroki Brijeg - The world renowned Franciscan, Fr. Jozo Zovko, was more than surprised when yesterday Polish pilgrims came to thank him for twenty-one years of testifying to the Medjugorje apparitions, and especially when they handed him a thankyou note personally signed by the shaky hand of their best known compatriate, John Paul II. Actually, after coming back from Poland the Pope wrote from the Vatician to personally thank and send his apostolic blessing to Fr. Jozo Zovko.

“Our Poland is greatful for your every word, for everything that you have done for us” said the Pope’s collaborator, Krystyna Gregorezyk, who personally handed the thankyou note to Fr. Jozo in the Siroki Brijeg church.

English Translation of letter:

“I grant from the heart a particular blessing to Father Jozo Zovko, o.f.m. and I invoke a new outpouring of graces and heavenly favors, and the continuous protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary”. Joannes Paulus II

Photo of letter, Front cover News Paper photo of Pope John Paul II with Fr. Jozo and a little more of what Pope John Paul II said about the testimonies reported to him by Polish pilgrims on linl below.

medjugorje.org/frjozoletter.htm

St Faustina From Divine Mercy Note Book 6, 1936

As I was praying for Poland, I heared the words: I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming.

The spark, Pope John Paul II “Be Not Afraid”

In Jesus Name Thy Will Be Done, Amen and Amen (*)

 

[LukeQ]

Dear LambofGod,

I have written a reply in 2 parts as the text is too long.

PART 1
Your post regarding the Papal Blessing of Fr Jozo is poorly researched and totally misinterpreted and is a great illustration of the dangers of immediately believing what we see on the internet as being true - Allow me to explain:

Your story is posted on the offical Medjugorje website and uses as its reference a Zagreb, (Croatian), Newspaper - “Večernji list”. This newspaper is a tabloid newspaper that publishes full frontal nude girls in full pornograhpic display as shown on their website. Another section of the newspaper shows a man and woman naked together in a bathtub and other sexually provocative pictures. This newspaper seems to share the same journalistic credibility standard similar to the Birtish tabloid - “The Sun”. Is this the kind of jouralism the offical Medjugorje website uses to build a case for Papal approval?

As to the story itself, the photo of Fr Jozo with the Pope and his Papal Blessing is taken out of context and the coments made by a Ms Krystyna Gregorezyk are dubious as they conflict with offical Church documents.

Firstly, Pope JP2 was photographed with 1000’s of people from the known to the unknown throughout his Pontificate. Such a photograph and Papal audience does not represent Papal approval for the person or endorsement of their cause. Politicans are very concerned with whom thay are photographed with as to be cautious of the media missinterpreting association with approval. The Papacy does not operate this way so it is possible, as history has shown, for the Pope to be photographed with Communist leaders and excomunicants - as was the case with a South American Jesuit Priest who was a supporter of Liberation Theology.

Secondly, As to the alleged quote of the Pope asking Fr Jozo to protect Medj. and the messages, this was relayed verbally through Ms Krystyna Gregorezyk acording to the newspaper article and not written . This amounts to hearsay and is not evidence. The style of the article and the hypothesis of the Medj website commentry is designed to lead the reader to think that the Papal Blessing and the Thankyou are one in the same written document but they are not. Therefore the “Thankyou” can be disregarded as papal approval of Medjugorje, particularly when referencing Cardinal Ratzinger, Now Pope Benedict XVI:
Ratzinger’s frei erfunden In 1998, when a certain German gathered various statements which were supposedly made by the Holy Father and the Cardinal Prefect, and forwarded them to the Vatican in the form of a memorandum, the Cardinal responded in writing on 22 July 1998: “The only thing I can say regarding statements on Medjugorje ascribed to the Holy Father and myself is that they are complete invention” - frei erfunden - (O. P., p. 283).

Luke

 

[LukeQ]

PART 2

Thirdly, as regards to the Papal Blessing, I quote from "
Medjugorje after Twenty-One Years — 1981-2002 The Definitive History - M Davies
(a link of which is posted in the first few posts of this thread)

“As regards the so-called “thank you note…personally signed by the shaky hand of…John Paul II.” It is simply the standard blessing that can be purchased at any bookstall or souvenir shop in Vatican City. One simply selects a card or more expensive parchment blessing, gives the name of the person for whom the blessing is equired, pays the price, and a week or so later it will arrive at the designated address. The one purchased for Father Zovko is of the cheaper variety and is not even dated. In order to prove how easy it is to obtain these blessings I asked a priest resident in Rome to obtain another one for Father Zovko. He went for a “top of the range” parchment blessing with identical wording to the one received by Father Zovko, but written out in beautiful calligraphy with floral decorations and dated 14 November 2002. It cost me 35 euros. I sent it to Monsignor Peric.”

And further
“If Father Zovko was indeed “visibly shaken” when presented with the pre-printed standard blessing (not a thank-you note), and made the effusive remarks attributed to him, it denotes rank dishonesty as he must certainly be aware that these “particular apostolic blessings” are on sale in Rome for anyone willing to pay the fee. Photocopies of the blessing are now on sale in Medjugorje as proof that the Pope believes in the authenticity of the alleged apparitions, and of course, those naive enough to spend their money to make the trip, will certainly not question its authenticity.”

Personally, I can vouch for the fact that these Papal Blessings are purchased at the Vatican - Friends of mine got one for their 50th Wedding Aniversary. These Blessings are not an appoval of the person’s holiness or ratifying their activities, just as the Blessing at the end of Mass is not.

Finally, none of this manufactured Papal approval through this tabloid newspaper that promotes pornography can turn arround the facts of Fr Jozo’s status as a Priest who is forbiden to hear confessions or say Mass:
7 February 2000
A Letter From Monsignor Peric Concerning Father Zovko

Mostar, 7 February 2000

Prot.: 131/2000

Dear Father Franken,
I answer to your letter of 6 February 2000. Thank you for your book Een Reis naar Medjugorje, Van Spijk Venlo - Antwerpen, 1999. I hope to have an English version soon.
Regarding Father Fra Jozo Zovko, OFM, member of the Franciscan province of Herzegovina (several times mentioned in your book, especially p. 102), I am obliged to inform you that he was revoked of “every faculty and canonical mission in the diocese of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan” by my predecessor Monsignor Pavao Zanic, who died on the last 11 January, in a letter of his Diocesan Chancery Office, Nr. 622/89, of 23 August 1989.
As the present diocesan bishop of these two dioceses of Herzegovina, I uphold this decision, and action. Furthermore, since he has heard confessions without the necessary faculty, he has also fallen into the penalties prescribed in canon 1378 § 2, 1 º. I notified him of this in my letter, Nr. 423/94, of 14 June 1994.
The Congregation for the Evangelizatlon of the Peoples requested in 1990 that he went away from Medjugorje, into a “convento lontano”, but he is still very involved in the Medjugorje affair, residing in Siroki Brijeg and visiting Medjugorje. Fr Jozo Zovko is a disobedient Franciscan.
Father Zovko is constructing a Convent of great proportions in Siroki Brijeg in this Diocese without the permission of the ecclesiastical authority. According to the project, of 1997, it costs about 8 millions DEM. From where, I do not know it.

Availing myself of this opportunity, I wish to express to you my regards and greetings,

       Monsignor Ratko Peric

Bishop of Mostar-Duvno and
Administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan

Reverend Father Rudo Franken
Markt 7, 6088 BP Roggel
The Netherlands.

I hope this clarifies the falsity of the interpretation of this article and the Medjugorje website commentary.

Luke

 

[LukeQ]

The matter of the “Papal Blessing” and how it is used by groups to missrepresent a Papal approval for their cause outrages me as it would, I imagine, for all Catholics.

The Marian Movement of Priests, MMP, who are supporters of Medjugorje also use the purchased Papal Blessing as a form of Papal endorsement for their movement and it is posted on their website for all to see.

This is gross disception on the part of the offical promoters of Medjugorje anf the MMP.

This misuse of the Pope’s Blessing, which is really the Blessing of our Lord Jesus Christ is a blatant sacrilege.

Luke

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Thank you very much, Luke. When I saw what LambofGod posted, I was tryting to figure out how I was going to address this in a mere 15 minutes.

You nailed all the details and I hope LambofGod ponders all that you have taken the time to post.

I also hope LambofGod, and others coming to discuss this topic will spend some time reading through the nearly 300 posts in this thread to be aquainted with all that has been said and previously addressed. Otherwise, the thread will become repetitious - one of many reasons a mod may use to close the thread. Once that happens, this thread will never again be within eyeshot of the front pages, but buried in time and much valuable information would be lost. Should that ever become necessary, perhaps the mods would consider “tacking” it to the top when it is locked down so the wealth of information and dialogue is available for a very long time.

This task of reading the entire thread before making a first post into it will test anyone’s virtue, but patience is a solid virtue worth practicing. Nothing is lost by coming back a few days and reading, reading, reading, then posting.

** My request to newcomers into the thread is to consider reading all arguments listed before posting a new argument. If your particular concern has not been addressed or if you feel something was missed in the many deep debates, then please make your post so we can talk about that issue. **

This thread is intended to help people wade through much subjective, and often deceptive information, to arrive at that which is objective and truthful without all the hype and emotion.

If it is too painful, then I urge you to explore how much of your faith is based on places like Medjugorje. Pick up the biography of Bernadette of Lourdes and read it. Shift from non-approved apparitions to those already approved. Fatima and Lourdes are top of the list.

 

[FCEGM]

LukeQ:

The matter of the “Papal Blessing” and how it is used by groups to missrepresent a Papal approval for their cause outrages me as it would, I imagine, for all Catholics.

The Marian Movement of Priests, MMP, who are supporters of Medjugorje also use the purchased Papal Blessing as a form of Papal endorsement for their movement and it is posted on their website for all to see.

This is gross disception on the part of the offical promoters of Medjugorje anf the MMP.

This misuse of the Pope’s Blessing, which is really the Blessing of our Lord Jesus Christ is a blatant sacrilege.

Luke

Thank you, Luke, for your very valuable contribution to the discussion. I knew Diane had a time limit during Lent and might not have the time to post the needed refutation, thus I was hoping that someone would have the ability to respond - et voila!

 

[setter]

Let’s look at Padre Pio’s case… But, even if something similar could be proven about the children of Medjugorje, one clear, striking difference exists: The pure and unspiteful obedience of Padre Pio, versus the spiteful, defamatory attacks against the local Ordinar on the part of the “seers” of Medjugorje. One shows a high level of God’s grace, the other shows a lack of God’s grace - hardly supportive of a supernatural event.

Simply stated, many astute and holy men and women of the Church simply do not agree with your "facts"and conclusions. This whole thread can be boiled down to a “he said”, “she said” argument and who can supply the greatest preponderance of evidence for their belief, conviction or personal preference; each side claiming to adhere to the criteria for spiritual discernment. One side will ultimately be disproved.

You also claim that Bishop Zanic was biased. Please share with us the exact information which leads you to believe that the Bishop neglected to make a reasonable investigation.

Please read my previous post with a quote by the ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic.

Based on the book written by Michael Davies, promoted by Bishop Peric just because of the chock full of documents contained, it is clearly evident that a significant investigation took place. If your allegation of bias on the part of Bishop Zanic is based on that statement below by Frane Franic of Split, I will address that momentarily. However, consider that such an allegation could be considered calumny if it is based on falsehoods.

This was my error - repeating statements that hurt the credibility and reputation of the local Ordinary based on things I found on the internet, which were later proven horribly calumnous.
I would welcome any documentation of retraction by the ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic.

 

[setter]

If I claimed to be seeing the BVM, I would hope, for the sake of all Catholics and faithful concerned, that my pastor, first and foremost, would put me through the gauntlet, followed by my bishop… Consider that the overwhelming majority of claims are proven false. In one of the most stunning cases, we see how followers included priests and members of the episcopate.

Furthermore, he had an absolute duty to go after the event like a pitbull if he believed, through his investigations, that these children were concocting something that didn’t exist, and the Franciscan were supporting them. Much of this broke out at the height of tensions regarding the Herzegovina Question, in which the Franciscans were ordered to turn over a percentage of their parishes to the diocess. This is one of the greatest areas of calumny being spread regarding “the fued”. Much ignorance resides on the part of those who cite this. … The BVM wasn’t contradicting the Bishop, she was contradicting Holy Mother Church - another clear indicator that it is very likley NOT the Blessed Mother. I’d say these were good reasons for the Bishop to go after it like a pit bull.

To offer the counterpoint: More peripheral “phenomenon” of human activity and what the BMV was purported to have said to distract from an authentic movement and grace extension by God? Exactly the proven strategy of the devil for discrediting authentic spiritual phenomenon.

There is quite valuable information on discernment of spirits in this document

which captures the case of Magdalen and it categorizes false aparitions into different classes.

Regarding the first cause, persons acting untruthfully, he describes the well known case of Magdalen of the Cross, a Spanish Franciscan nun who lived at the beginning of the sixteenth century, while also alluding to more than twenty cases of such simulation which were condemned by the Holy Office in the mid-seventeenth century.
I will point out the obvious lack of comparision: Medjugorje has not yet been approved or condemned.

This indicates that the activities of those falsely claiming “revelations” are not something new.

An obvious statement for any Catholic.

(The following extracts are taken from Fr. Poulain’s book, Revelations and Visions: Discerning the True and Certain from the False or the Doubtful.

)

                                     "She was born in 1487, entered the Convent at the age of seventeen, in 1504, and was three times Abbess of her Monastery. From the age of five the Devil appeared to her under the form of different saints, and inspired her with a strong desire to pass as a saint herself.

I think that comparing this possessed woman with the holy devout families in the Croation village has extended the point of your argument to the ludicrous. No excuse for such vicious mud slinging no matter where you stand on the issue. :tsktsk: Maybe you need to exercise a bit more humility in persuing your agenda on an objective and more charitable and informed basis. Please read the history of the Catholic faith of these folks against very oppressive persecution.

Exorcism had to be resorted to before the Devil lost his hold over her will.

Are you suggesting exorcism for the alleged seers at Medjugorje?

Bye way of better informing yourself:

Mystical Phenomena.The presence of remarkable phenomena is for many sufficient evidence of the validity of an alleged apparition. For others the judgment by local Church authority that there is no evidence of supernaturality at a site suggests fraud, mental illness or the demonic. The Church for her part, however, takes great care before affirming the certain supernaturality or non-supernaturality of phenomena, as the Roman statements given above show. There are likewise few examples of outright condemnation. When they do occur it is usually on the basis of doctrine which is contrary to the faith.

Since both good and evil spirits possess the angelic nature the presence of such phenomena alone is an equivocal sign of authenticity. This means that a great deal of unexplained phenomena can occur without indicating positively that the event is from God. This is why the Church looks, among other things, for evident supernaturality, that is, for effects beyond the ability of men or angels which can be attributed to God alone.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/medjugorje.htm

 

[LukeQ]

Hi Setter,

There are many good people also defending the local Bishop and the Commissions too, which has the support of Cardinal Ratzinger, (who is now the Pope). This is not a he said she said discussion. The negative side has a wealth of documentation supported by the workings of the Church as defined by Cannon Law and Apostolic Sucession. Supporting documentation to my statement is within this thread.

I’ll leave the rest of your post to Diane if that is okay.

I do have a question for you.

Are you not outraged how The Medj. offical promoters and the MMP use the Pope’s blessing in a deceptive way to give the impression of Papal approval? This is Our Lord Jesus Christ’s blessing being used here to promote a cause. It is a disgrace.

Luke

 

[pfoos]

[Are you not outraged how The Medj. offical promoters and the MMP use the Pope’s blessing in a deceptive way to give the impression of Papal approval? This is Our Lord Jesus Christ’s blessing being used here to promote a cause. It is a disgrace.

Luke
[/QUOTE]

Luke,

The Holy Catholic Church has never made an official statement for or against Medjurogje or the Marian Movement of Priests. So if you have problems with Medjugorje, don’t go there. If you don’t like the Marian Movement of Priests, don’t join in any cenacles. Be at peace, and use your time more constructively.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[LukeQ]

Pfoos - I beg to differ from your opinion and so does the weight of offical Church documents. The Local Bishop’s findings are in the form of offical Church documents as is the Bishops’ Conference.

As regards Medj - are you dismissing all these offical documents as stated in this thread with their corresponding links? Do you not accept that the Church acknowleges the Local Bishop as the authority of Apparitions for his diocese and in particular, Cardinal Ratzinger when head of the CDF supported the findings of the Bishop’s Commission regarding Medjugorje.

The purpose of my last post to which you refer was to clearly state the grave situation of the misuse of a general Papal Blessing for the purposes of manufacturing Papal credibility towards the causes of MMP and Medjugorje. You must agree that the bestowing of such a blessing is in no means a Papal approval. To portray that it is, is grounds for deception on behalf of the offical promotors towards The Church Faithful.

As regards to your personal advice to me, I invite you to read my first few posts in this thread so you may better understand my motivations for uncovering the truth in this area. I use to be a supporter of Medj and a frequent MMP Cenacle participant but I decided to look into the Offical Church position rather than just take the position of the offical Medj supporter party line in a no questions asked / accept all matter. I have been to Medj twice.

I recommend that you read this whole thread with an open mind and thoroughly research the negative position as I did. You may be suprised and it may hurt emotionally but battle through with the Grace of God. I suffered great pain when I realised the truth about Medj but my love of the Church one out.

God bless,
Luke

 

[pfoos]

The answer from Colin Donovan at EWTN:

In August 1996 the Director of the Holy See’s Press Office, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, stated:
You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want.

…When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no possibility [for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje] … nothing has changed, nothing new has been said.

…The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the Church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje. This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession.

…Has the church or the Vatican said no [to Catholics visiting Medjugorje]? NO. … The difference, in the terms of canon law, is that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you are saying this is true
What the Church permits. As the already cited statements note, Catholics may go to Medjugorje. Such pilgrimages may even include priests acting as chaplains, as opposed to officially sponsoring them. Also, the Church has not suppressed discussion of Medjugorje, therefore, it is allowed. Common sense, however, says that Catholics on both sides of the Medjugorje issue should exercise prudence and charity in speaking of others who believe differently. Medjugorje is not a litmus test of orthodoxy, though every Catholic will have a moral obligation to accept the judgement of Rome, in the manner Pope Benedict explained, should it ever be rendered.

St. Augustine probably gave the simpliest and most helpful rule for all matters of the Church’s life when he said

In necessary things unity,
in undecided things freedom,
and in all things charity.

​

 

[LukeQ]

Poofs,

I find it interesting that you have avoided what I wrote about the Papal Blessing being used to manufacture Papal approval of Medj and how this is deceptive in projecting a false credibility to MMP and Medjugorje.

However, allow me to coment on your post. Your quotation is nothing new to this thread but it leaves out one important point.

Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls statement concurs with the Bishop of Mostar’s guidelines and is true in that:

• Organised Pilgrimages at a Diocesan or parish level are not permitted;
• People are permitted to go their and receive the sacrements- of course this is the case. The Catholic Church does not have duristiction over the faithful visiting any part of the world and the Church has a responsibility to care for the spiritual needs of its flock.

At this point, I believe we are all in agreement. However, what is missing from the statement from the Bishop’s directive is that people cannot go to Medjugorje as a spiritual response to the messages. Unfortunately, this part is missing from his statement.

Through reasoning, a permitted spiritual response by the faithful prompting a visit would infer Church approval, contradicting the statement:
“The difference, in the terms of canon law, is that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you are saying this is true”

Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls statement as a reference concurs with the Bishop’s statement on pilgimages. (I am not presenting the Bishop’s statment here as it appears with links in earlier posts.) There is no conflict other than the Bishop’s statment goes into greater depth and is worthreading to get the full meaning.

Do you realise that by presenting this document, you are in fact supporting the Bishop of Mostar’s offical documented position?

Are we then in agreement?

I’m still curious as to why you are avoiding the Papal Blessing issue and that the offical website for Medjugorje uses as a source of credibility, a tabliod newspaper that promtes and publishes pornography.

Luke