Medjugorje - A True Confession

[Lux_et_veritas]

setter:

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.

Hi setter,

Peace be with you.

Generalizations simply do not work when working to understand truth. We need to take each fact and look at what is available. Luke did an outstanding dissecting the Papal Blessing issue. A supporter of Medjugorje attempted to use that blessing as a means to legitimize authenticity. This was done innocently, exactly as I had done when I was first confronted (with a frying pan to my face I’ll add) as I had used it to defend Medjugorje’s “authenticity”. Someone with the same level of patience and charity as Luke was able to lay out exactly how such a blessing can be exploited and it was one of several pivotal issues which caused my belief in Medjugorje to begin to unravel. One person says, “Here is a papal blessing”; another person says, “Yes, but…here is something to consider”. Look at the website where such propoganda was being promoted, as well.

I’ll have to go to the next post to address Frane Franic.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

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

I would welcome any documentation of retraction by the ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic.

I don’t think it is necessary to wait for any kind of retraction because Archbishop Frane Franic did not want to budge from his position. While you have one Archbishop who made this exact accusation against the local Ordinary of Mostar-Duvno (not wanting to budge), lets look at some statistics.

Out of charity for the local Ordinary where any such phenomena are occuring, we must use prudence by seeking out his opinion first. I was able to do that using the Michael Davies book, all 217 pages fully available for free download.

This statement, from Bishop Pavao Zanic was in a January 20, 1988 letter to the wife of Michael Davies, Marija, addresses the Bishop’s position with regards to Archbishop Frane Franic of Split. Keep in mind an Archbishop does not hold a superior position over any other bishop and this Archbishop has no jurisdiction over Medjugorje. The statement below by Bishop Zanic gives you an undeniably powerful statistic to ponder.

“…Archbishop Franic has caused me dreadful problems, although the mere fact that he thinks something does not mean that it must be true. One of the first questions asked by the sectaries of Medjugorje is: “How is it that Archbishop Franic believes?” I, for my part, say to them, that there are thirty-five bishops in Yugoslavia, and that he is the only one who believes, so that argument is worthless. For them, however, it is enough that one archbishop believes….”

It is enough that one Archbishop believes, but they do not consider the 34 who do not. Lets reach further into more statistics provided by Michael Davies in the beginning of his book.

“…Only one Croatian bishop, Archbishop Franic of Split, a charismatic, expressed belief in the apparitions, and not one of the 100 diocesan clergy in Herzegovina accepts them as authentic. Only two members of the 15 man commission which examined the events at Medjugorje, accepted the authenticity of the apparitions (and they were both Franciscans). The Franciscans themselves are divided on the matter. Some of the most influential among them support the position of bishops Zanic and Peric. Supporters of the authenticity of the apparitions have been unable to suggest any credible ulterior motive to explain the rejection of their authenticity by the clergy of every rank in the former Yugoslavia outside the Franciscan Order…”

Is it some kind of conspiracy that they could find 100 diocesan clergy who would be against the apparitions? Supporters will point back to that "long standing fued between the bishop and the Franciscans (Herzegovina Question), without knowing anything about it and yet the Bishop enjoys full support of the Holy See on the matter. But supporters claim, “The Bishop is at fault”. Tomorrow I’ll explain why I believe they feel this way. It’s all in the messages.

Are you willing to accept the position of just 1 out of 35 bishops of the former Yugoslav Bishops Commission, against the local Ordinary of Mostar and 34 other Bishops of that commission? Remember, there was a vote, which the Holy See sought, and Archbishop Franic stood all alone. This is hardly a reason to disregard the position of the other 34 and gives validation to the point raised by Bishop Zanic above.

To hold on to his position, and his harsh word’s for Bishop Franic about his “not wanting to budge”, is no different than citing one out of 7 supreme court judges who dissented on a high court decision as reason to validate the losing side.

Are you not at all interested in what the other 34 bishops thought or said? Why look only at Archbishop Frane Franic?

Setter - I read all 217 pages of Michael Davies book in about a week, after printing about 30 pages at a time. Consider balancing out what supporters have given you, with what Bishop Peric encourages us to read. Click on “Updated Version…” in this website: mdaviesonmedj.com/

 

[LukeQ]

Setter,
Back in an earlier quote of yours, you supplied an unnamed reference as follows:

Quote:
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.”

This quote which records a TV interview with ax-Archbishop of Split, Frane Franic gives the impression that in the 3rd Bishop’s Conference, all the bishops voted against their positive judgement to appease Bishop Zanic in a negative vote.

From a quote from Bishop Peric:
mdaviesonmedj.com/page_lateststatement.htm

A characteristic of the third Commission was to work on the findings and results of the previous Commissions and ex novo. Everything was done under oath and no statements for the public were made.

The above states that the Commision was done under Oath. For your unknown source reference to suggest that ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic states in a TV interview that the Bishops voted against their favourable decision to appease Bishop Zanic implies that all the Bishops committed Perjury under Oath. I don’t think so and to imply otherwise would suggest a serious breakdown in Cannon Law.

To hold to these kinds of arguements threatens the unifying nature of our Church.

I am still waiting on an explaination as to the Medjugorje misrepresentation of a Papal Blessing to manufacture Papal Approval - it seems very silent out there

Luke

 

[LukeQ]

I missed the 20 minute expiry time to edit my post above.

I would like to correct a statement that Setter’s reference was unnamed - I did not see the URL. it is actually EWTN. My apologies.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/DECORMIR.HTM

I would also like to add the following paragraph in relation to the EWTN article:

Your reference which is EWTN appears not to be well researched as it makes a presumption about Pope JP2 being simpathetic to Medjugorje referencing his alleged infamous conversation with Bishop Paul Hnilica. This conflicts with Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that such favourable comments on Medjugorje that either he or the Pope has made are total fabrications. (Sources for this have been posted in this thread already). Good journalism reports both sides and on this issue. The article is left wanting in this area and futher supports my claim as to the questionable nature of the reported TV interview and how it has been reported.

Luke

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

LukeQ:

I missed the 20 minute expiry time to edit my post above.

I would like to correct a statement that Setter’s reference was unnamed - I did not see the URL. it is actually EWTN. My apologies.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/DECORMIR.HTM

I would also like to add the following paragraph in relation to the EWTN article:

Your reference which is EWTN appears not to be well researched as it makes a presumption about Pope JP2 being simpathetic to Medjugorje referencing his alleged infamous conversation with Bishop Paul Hnilica. This conflicts with Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that such favourable comments on Medjugorje that either he or the Pope has made are total fabrications. (Sources for this have been posted in this thread already). Good journalism reports both sides and on this issue. The article is left wanting in this area and futher supports my claim as to the questionable nature of the reported TV interview and how it has been reported.

Luke

Hi Luke,

Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter is dated two years after the article EWTN has, and that article is originally from the Nov 1996 issue of “Inside the Vatican”. Here is that letter from Cardinal Ratzinger.

*Joseph Cardinal **Ratzinger ***
I-00120 CITTÀ DEL Vaticano

22 Juli 1998

Herrn …

00069 Trevignano Romano (RM)

Dear Mr. …

First of all, I have to apologize for answering your kind letter from 27th May only today. The burden (i.e. work load) of the last few weeks has been so heavy that I had to postpone my private correspondence again and again so that only now, as my vacation is about to begin, I can at last try to answer the more important letters.

I thank you very much for sending me the memorandum by Claus Peter Clausen, whom in fact I know as the author of the Schwarze Briefe (Black Letters). I can only say that the statements attributed to the Holy Father and me are freely invented.

With my best wishes for your manifold activities.

Josef Ratzinger

 

[setter]

Lux_et_veritas:

Hi Luke,

Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter is dated two years after the article EWTN has, and that article is originally from the Nov 1996 issue of “Inside the Vatican”.

Thank you for the clarification.

Can anyone tell me if the following article excert is in any way no longer accurate or relevent, including the St. Augustine quote:

Medjugorje​

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 my paraphrase):

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

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

ewtn.com/expert/answers/medjugorje.htm

 

[LukeQ]

Setter,

I answered this question to Proofs on a March 22 post. While your quote is correct, it is incomplete and reasoning would dictate as well:

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 statement (Bishop Zanic), goes into greater depth and is worth reading to get the full meaning.

There are better documents than this EWTN paper around. Actually, the only documents we really need as Obiedient Catholics are those that come from the Bishop of Mostar and the Bishop’s Conferences and those from the Holy See which just so happen to support the Bishop of Mostar and the Bishop’s Conference. The Holy See and Mostar are in union and we should not challenge this as does the offical supporters of Medjugorje.

The other challenge we, (most on this board including me), are facing is dates: ie: I knew the reference to the false quotes of the Pope was wrong, made in 1996, but the denial of any quotes made by Cardinal Ratzinger was 2 years after it.

And - of course St. Augustine’s quote is current and will remain so but it is dangerous to use such general quotes in areas of specifics. It is a good guide to follow but as regards to Medj, decisions have been made to varying degrees and prudence (and the Local Bishop’s directive), would dictate for people to not take Medjugorje on board as part of their spirituality - therefore the relivence of St Augustine’s “freedom” in this quote is not suitable as regards Medjugorje.

What I think is needed here is if we draw up some principles or major points from which both sides of the argument agree and move from there.

I am still interested in your views on the Medjugorje Papal Blessing scam - there seems to be avoidence by the pro Medjugorje fans on this point.

Setter - also, do you accept what I wrote about how the 3rd Commission was under Oath and to suggest that the ax-Archbishop of Split allegedly stated on TV that the Bishops voted against their favourable decision to appease Bishop Zanic implies that all the Bishops committed Perjury under Oath? Reasoning does not support this nor does Cannon Law but this false logic causes division in the church against those who have Apostolic Succession.

Luke

 

[Tominellay]

Here’s a “cute” item I found on the INSIDE THE VATICAN web site…It seems that Pope John Paul II has given another ringing endorsement…juxtaposed on the page with an appeal for donations…

www.insidethevatican.com/about-us.htm#pope

…'nuff said…

 

[Tominellay]

…just clicked on the Donations Needed line in the box to the right of the Pope’s “endorsement”, and this page came up, with a variation on the paragraph I quoted in my previous post, also titled “What Better Recommendation?”:

insidethevatican.com/donations.htm

 

[LukeQ]

It is bazaar that a professional publishing body would give as its top billing credentials, an unsubstantiated comment that the Pope when speaking with an unnamed businessman would support this independent paper which is in competition with the Vatican’s offical newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.

This is just a further example of how people and organisations may manufacture alleged private Papal statements and publish these to support their cause. And not too far different from the misuse of Papal Blessings to manufacture Papal Approval - (still not comments here?)

Whether or not the Pope actually stated approval for this paper; (which is hardly unlikely as the Vatican has its own media outlet), quoting an unauthorised comment by the Pope that cannot be verified is hardly an indicator for good quality journalism - and this poorly referenced material is used to substantiate credibility. Again, not too far different from the Offical Medjugorje site using as reference a tabloid newspaper that promotes pornography, (refer my previous posts this week).

What then is problematic to this thread is the posting of seemly offical sources of information that are not so.

The danger we all face is finding a juicy piece of journalistic prose on Medjugorje that supports our respective points of view, BUT, we fail to ask some serious questions to verify the credibility and integrity of the source material:

1. Who has written the article and published it and what are their credentials;
2. What is the objective of the published item;
3. Is the author objective;
4. Does the author’s writings conflict with ANY offical documents and directives given by the Church as represented by the relivent Local Ordinary, His Bishop’s Commision and the CDF or is it in keeping with all Church directives and techings from the Local Ordinary through to the CDF;
5. Is the article written in the spirit of the Church’s offical position on the subject;
6. Is the article written in the spirit of Cannon Law which defines clearly who are the authorised authorities in these matters.

I know that in the past I did not use such a litmus test. I’d rather believed hearsay from well intentioned pious friends who were not privy to the offical position. Instead, their reference was other pious friends who inturn referenced the offical self proclaimed supporters of Medjugorje and its publications, all who reside at Medjugorje, the “seers” and local priests acting in disobiedience to their Local Bishop and the travel agencies. The main message that came from these sources was that the Local Bishop was wrong and all whom don’t believe are not part of the remnant “the Gospa” is building. Such claims denied the Local Bishop’s charism through Apostolic Sucession - a practice and theological error that is heretical.

Luke

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

setter:

Thank you for the clarification.

My use of the actual letter from Cardinal Ratzginer was provided to show that it came in 1998, two years after the “Inside the Vatican” article, reprinted on the EWTN page. Therefore, any statements prior to that, suggesting statements made by Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly supporting Medjugorje, are null and void. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “they were freely invented”.

With unapproved apparitions, in particular those later debunked, there is a big emphasis on so-called “private support”, as if officials aren’t big enough to make the support public for everyone’s benefit. This is always highly suspect and any notion that officials can’t talk for this reason or that reason, is just off-base. If they can’t talk publicly, they wouldn’t be talking privately. And, for it to show up in a publication which literally promotes Medjugorje, against the will of the local Ordinary and Bishop’s commission makes it even worse.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

setter:

Thank you for the clarification.

Can anyone tell me if the following article excert is in any way no longer accurate or relevent, including the St. Augustine quote:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/medjugorje.htm

setter,

In addition to what others have already addressed, is what the French Bishops Commission wrote. This entire document should be read, start to finish, but they address the issue you raise in the EWTN article. Keep in mind, most EWTN articles are older. It is unfortunate that EWTN does not have dates on these pages, but my suspicion is that it was written not long after the 1998 clarification on pilgrimages out of the Vatican.

The French Bishops then addressed this in their statement, which is the most concise I’ve seen thus far. It makes all of the points many of us have been trying to make on this thread, but far better. In part, with regards to the string of statements on pilgrimages, they had this to say:

— On 26th May 1998, Msgr. Bertone replies, this time to Bishop Aubry, Bishop of Saint-Denis-de-La-Reunion. After having recalled the Zadar Declaration, he adds: “I point out first of all that it is not the habit of the Holy See to assume, in the first instance, its own position vis-à-vis supposed supernatural phenomena.”

Addressing the question of pilgrimages, the Secretary of the Congregation points out:
“Finally, concerning pilgrimages to Medjugorje which take place in a private manner, this Congregation holds that they are permitted on condition that they are not considered as an authentication of events in course which still necessitate an examination by the Church.” Let us recognize that it is not easy to apply faithfully this recommendation. How, in fact, to organize a private pilgrimage without it being motivated by the conviction that the events of Medjugorje are of a supernatural origin? Since this conviction is at the origin of the pilgrimage, does not this latter not become de facto “an authentication of events in course which still necessitate an examination by the Church”? [Emphasis is the French Bishop’s]

It is just this difficulty which Cardinal Kuharic and Bishop Zanic foresaw in their joint declaration of 9th January 1987.7

Further down they had this to say. Certainly they are not the Ecclesial authority over Mejdugorje. But they point out that neither are all these other ecclesiastics whom promote Medjugorje. The same would apply to theologians. The bottom line is, “who has jurisdiction”?

In conclusion, allow me to make the following reflection:

"I have no authority to pronounce any ecclesial judgement whatsoever on the events of Medjugorje. I am therefore the first to have to give an example of obedience, notably in respecting the pastoral decisions of my confrere of Mostar and in complying with joy to his wishes.

"I do not see how I can go to Medjugorje without giving my support, by the very fact of my having come there, to the events who’s discernment and assessment rests henceforth with the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such support would fly in the face of a traditional teaching of the Church, recalled in Lumen Gentium and applicable to all the successors of the Apostles11: “Individual bishops, in so far as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal.” [emphasis mine]

Therefore, when we cite other theologians or bishops, cardinals, etc., we need to keep this in mind. The French Bishop’s Commission supports Bishop’s Zanic and Peric, and the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those ecclesiastics supporting and promoting Medjugorje (even to the point of their names appearing on pro-Medjugorje websites which arrange “pilgrimages” does not support the Bishop or this commission. They should have their names removed so as not to lead the faithful to think they are promoting that which they have no business promoting. They may discuss it, but they may not promote it without violating the will of the Ordinary, whose job it is to discern.

Please do read the French Bishop’s Commission statement. You won’t find it on any sites which promote Medjugorje. Keep in mind these same websites are providing “messages” which can only be obtained through outright disobedience to the 1985 directive of Bishop Zanic to cease their public disclosure.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

In continuation of the above…

What must the Blessed Mother, the Queen of Peace, and model of humble obedience think of such disquiet and disobedience?

 

[setter]

LukeQ:

Setter,
I answered this question to Proofs on a March 22 post. While your quote is correct, it is incomplete and reasoning would dictate as well:

There are better documents than this EWTN paper around. Actually, the only documents we really need as Obiedient Catholics are those that come from the Bishop of Mostar and the Bishop’s Conferences and those from the Holy See which just so happen to support the Bishop of Mostar and the Bishop’s Conference. The Holy See and Mostar are in union and we should not challenge this as does the offical supporters of Medjugorje.

The other challenge we, (most on this board including me), are facing is dates: ie: I knew the reference to the false quotes of the Pope was wrong, made in 1996, but the denial of any quotes made by Cardinal Ratzinger was 2 years after it.

And - of course St. Augustine’s quote is current and will remain so but it is dangerous to use such general quotes in areas of specifics. It is a good guide to follow but as regards to Medj, decisions have been made to varying degrees and prudence (and the Local Bishop’s directive), would dictate for people to not take Medjugorje on board as part of their spirituality - therefore the relivence of St Augustine’s “freedom” in this quote is not suitable as regards Medjugorje.

What I think is needed here is if we draw up some principles or major points from which both sides of the argument agree and move from there.

I am still interested in your views on the Medjugorje Papal Blessing scam - there seems to be avoidence by the pro Medjugorje fans on this point.

Setter - also, do you accept what I wrote about how the 3rd Commission was under Oath and to suggest that the ax-Archbishop of Split allegedly stated on TV that the Bishops voted against their favourable decision to appease Bishop Zanic implies that all the Bishops committed Perjury under Oath? Reasoning does not support this nor does Cannon Law but this false logic causes division in the church against those who have Apostolic Succession.

Luke

Your entire above post impresses me as 1) more consiracy theory, 2) guilt by association, 3) casting the cloud of suspicion over what “he said, she said”, and 4) power struggles.

I am left wondering exactly whose agenda that you are really serving to refute at all cost these alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary? If this removes me from the debate in your eyes, then so be it. I will post a well balanced article I came across that I believe deals more maturely that the emotional rhetoric and bickering and agenda pursuit that I find too evident on this thread.

 

[setter]

My use of the actual letter from Cardinal Ratzginer was provided to show that it came in 1998, two years after the “Inside the Vatican” article, reprinted on the EWTN page. Therefore, any statements prior to that, suggesting statements made by Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly supporting Medjugorje, are null and void. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “they were freely invented”.

Fair enough. Again, I am not an avid “fan” or “debunker” of these alleged apparitions.

With unapproved

apparitions
Take your choice: “unapproved”, “not yet approved”, “not disapproved”, “neither approved or disapproved”, …though I note that your choice of “unapproved” carries more the implication of “disapproved” in the official sense, ehh?

, in particular those later debunked, there is a big emphasis on so-called “private support”, as if officials aren’t big enough to make the support public for everyone’s benefit. This is always highly suspect and any notion that officials can’t talk for this reason or that reason, is just off-base. If they can’t talk publicly, they wouldn’t be talking privately. And, for it to show up in a publication which literally promotes Medjugorje, against the will of the local Ordinary and Bishop’s commission makes it even worse.

So, your point? IMO, this has absolutley no official bearing on the authenticity of these alleged apparitions. Are you guilty of trying to create guilt by association? More personal agenda stuff, presumption that this is absolutuely not an authentic work of the Holy Spirit? Please stick with the relevent core facts.

 

[LukeQ]

Setter,

I have no intention of removing you or anyone from this debate. All I have done is to to refute claims by way of more appropriate documents through reasoning and logic. The charges you lay against me are unfounded.

I have never mentioned conspiracy theories as I stick to the facts.

I do not believe in guilt by association.

I do not have a personal agenda.

I wish that you stay on this board as a fellow Catholic and in a peaceful manner we can seek resolution. If you continue in this way the moderators will shut down this thread and none of us want that.

If it it sthe Papal Blessing issue that has caused your concern, please counter my evidence and reasoning through reasoned dialogue.

Luke

 

[setter]

Lux_et_veritas:

setter,

In addition to what others have already addressed, is what the French Bishops Commission wrote. This entire document should be read, start to finish, but they address the issue you raise in the EWTN article. Keep in mind, most EWTN articles are older. It is unfortunate that EWTN does not have dates on these pages, but my suspicion is that it was written not long after the 1998 clarification on pilgrimages out of the Vatican.

The French Bishops then addressed this in their statement, which is the most concise I’ve seen thus far. It makes all of the points many of us have been trying to make on this thread, but far better. In part, with regards to the string of statements on pilgrimages, they had this to say:

Addressing the question of pilgrimages, the Secretary of the Congregation points out:
“Finally, concerning pilgrimages to Medjugorje which take place in a private manner, this Congregation holds that they are permitted on condition that they are not considered as an authentication of events in course which still necessitate an examination by the Church.” Let us recognize that it is not easy to apply faithfully this recommendation. How, in fact, to organize a private pilgrimage without it being motivated by the conviction that the events of Medjugorje are of a supernatural origin? Since this conviction is at the origin of the pilgrimage, does not this latter not become de facto “an authentication of events in course which still necessitate an examination by the Church”? [Emphasis is the French Bishop’s]

Further down they had this to say. Certainly they are not the Ecclesial authority over Mejdugorje. But they point out that neither are all these other ecclesiastics whom promote Medjugorje. The same would apply to theologians. The bottom line is, “who has jurisdiction”?

In conclusion, allow me to make the following reflection:

"I have no authority to pronounce any ecclesial judgement whatsoever on the events of Medjugorje. I am therefore the first to have to give an example of obedience, notably in respecting the pastoral decisions of my confrere of Mostar and in complying with joy to his wishes.

"I do not see how I can go to Medjugorje without giving my support, by the very fact of my having come there, to the events who’s discernment and assessment rests henceforth with the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such support would fly in the face of a traditional teaching of the Church, recalled in Lumen Gentium and applicable to all the successors of the Apostles11: “Individual bishops, in so far as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal.” [emphasis mine]

Therefore, when we cite other theologians or bishops, cardinals, etc., we need to keep this in mind. The French Bishop’s Commission supports Bishop’s Zanic and Peric, and the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those ecclesiastics supporting and promoting Medjugorje (even to the point of their names appearing on pro-Medjugorje websites which arrange “pilgrimages” does not support the Bishop or this commission. They should have their names removed so as not to lead the faithful to think they are promoting that which they have no business promoting. They may discuss it, but they may not promote it without violating the will of the Ordinary, whose job it is to discern.

Please do read the French Bishop’s Commission statement. You won’t find it on any sites which promote Medjugorje. Keep in mind these same websites are providing “messages” which can only be obtained through outright disobedience to the 1985 directive of Bishop Zanic to cease their public disclosure.

I appreciate your passion and sincerity, and much presented I find agreeable, but your post is but an attempt via technicality, extrapolation and implication to prematurely indict and debunk de facto the authenticity of an alleged apparition, that has been thoroughly investigation but not disapproved. Am I not correct? If anything, this demonstrates presumption, lacks in balance for encompass of all contributing factors, and circumvent of proper ecclesial authority for ruling on the authenticity of alleged spiritual phenomena.

 

[LukeQ]

Setter - you stated:

but your post is but an attempt via technicality, extrapolation and implication to prematurely indict and debunk de facto the authenticity of an alleged apparition. Am I not correct?

The liability of proving authenticity of an apparition has always been with the “seer/s” and particular to Medjugorje, they have not been able to do that. Lux, myself and others on this thread have not tried to debunk authenticity. We can’t debunk something that has not been proven to exist because in the eyes of the Church through the Local Ordinary and Bishops’ Commissions there is no authenticty in Medjugorje that has been uncovered because there is no evidence of the Supernatural.

It would be interesting to see what other readers to this thread think about the more recent dialogue.

Luke

 

[setter]

LukeQ:

Setter,

I have no intention of removing you or anyone from this debate. All I have done is to to refute claims by way of more appropriate documents through reasoning and logic. The charges you lay against me are unfounded.

I have never mentioned conspiracy theories as I stick to the facts.

I do not believe in guilt by association.

I do not have a personal agenda.

I wish that you stay on this board as a fellow Catholic and in a peaceful manner we can seek resolution. If you continue in this way the moderators will shut down this thread and none of us want that.

If it it sthe Papal Blessing issue that has caused your concern, please counter my evidence and reasoning through reasoned dialogue.

Luke

I stand by my post. I do not want to give the appearance of bickering, but I believe that you missed my entire point. I gave you my observational feedback dosed with some interpretation, by way of a more or less disinterested (though I like to advocate for the apparent underdog) knowlegde of Medjugorje. I found the flavor of many posts less than objective in evidence presentation and willingness to argue from foregone conclusion beyond what has officially been declared. This despite not final ruling or exhaustive directive as to the approval/disapproval. IMO, this is presumptious, …I will stop here as I have already stated. Perhaps I am finding that I do not have the same stake in these alleged apparitions as others either way, since I do not have a significant concern over your represented issue of Papal Blessing. But, I will call things as I see them at my level of participation.

 

[setter]

Lux_et_veritas:

In continuation of the above…

What must the Blessed Mother, the Queen of Peace, and model of humble obedience think of such disquiet and disobedience?

I agree whole heartidly. I came across this article [excerpt] from a reputable magazine that presents while I believe to be a balanced and impassioned summary report (dated 1996) of the Medjugorje phenomenon. Again, I await any “updates” to this dated article.

Medjugorje Deception or Miracle?
By: Antonio Gaspari
Taken From the November 1996 issue of “Inside the Vatican.”

VATICAN REACTION

Cardinal Ratzinger has not pronounced negatively on the Medjugorje apparitions. Nevertheless, the troubling aspect of a parallel magisterium, that is, continuing Marian messages as reported by the six visionaries, induced his office to discourage pilgrimages to the site. In June 1985, then-Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Alberto Bovone (presently Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints), wrote a letter to the Italian Bishops’ Conference (Italians have always been the most numerous group of pilgrims) urging them to “publicly discourage the organization of pilgrimages to Medjugorje.”

This year that position was reaffirmed by the new Secretary, Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone, in a letter sent to the (French) Bishop of Langres, Monsignor. Leon Taverdet, who asked whether it was “advisable for Catholics to make pilgrimages to Medjugorje?” Bovone’s letter, published in the French daily {La Croix}, referred to the Yugoslav Bishops “note” of 10 April, 1991, which stated: “It is not possible to affirm that we are dealing with supernatural apparitions or revelations,” and based its prohibition on that statement. The French ban was couched in these terms: “Official Church pilgrimages to Medjugorje as a site of authentic Marian apparitions are not to be organized, since that would contradict what has been affirmed by the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference.”

Most Vatican-watchers believe, along with many members of the Curia, that an official Holy See judgment on Medjugorje will never be announced, firstly because the Church cannot express a definitive opinion while the event is still going on; secondly, because the issue has become complicated by the personal involvement of certain bishops; and thirdly, because continuing Medjugorje “messages” could contradict Church teaching.

Doubts arise concerning the nature of the apparitions. Are these true divine apparitions, or only personal visions. The difference is that apparitions, even supernatural apparitions, have an outward aspect, verifiable by experts; whereas visions, which indeed are experienced by many saints, are purely subjective in origin. One thing is, however, perfectly clear. While the Vatican hesitates concerning Medjugorje, pilgrims continue to flock towards what they consider a truly holy site.

POPE JOHN PAUL II’S OPINION

In line with Roman Catholic tradition, Pope John Paul II considers the Medjugorje phenomenon an issue for the local hierarchy. It is, however, common knowledge, that the Pope is sympathetic to the Marian site. In a meeting with Bishop Paul Hnilica, the Pope reportedly said: “If I were not the Pope, I would probably visited Medjugorje by now.” During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: “All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?”

medjugorje.org/mediv1.htm