Medjugorje - A True Confession

[Alison]

My sister and I read a whole book that published some lengthy interviews with the visionnaries and like you said nkelly, some of those things also bothered me. I did not question it at the time and tried to see if I could make the visionnaries’ disturbing inconsistencies “fit” with Church teaching, when really that is rather ridiculous to do because charisms are not beyond the authority of the Church founded on Christ.

In addition to the two things you have mentioned nkelly, one of the visionnaries also said that anyone can go to confession even non-catholics; yet, the Church’s view of this is not exactly in contention with what the visionnaries have said. Also, as many others, I noticed a heck of a lot of incongruency among the visionnaries. For instance when asked whether it is necessary to ask God for things that one needs, one visionnary replied that it isn’t necessary since God knows everything, while another visionnary said she disagreed with that answer and said she believed it to be necessary to ask God for what one needs. I don’t know, too much inconsistency. Too much disagreement.

-Alison

 

[setter]

Tominellay:

The Church uses the three formulae posted above…Sorry it isn’t easier.

This may help to clarify:

A LETTER FROM ROME ON MEDJUGORJE
For the 17th Anniversary of the apparitions, the Church just gave a beautiful gift to Our Lady! The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent the following letter to Bishop Gilbert Aubry of Saint Denis clarifying its position on Medjugorje. He received it on June 24th. On the 25th, he spread it to the priests and communities of his diocese (circular # C003) so that they can have the latest statement from Rome and, if necessary, inform the faithful with full knowledge of the facts.

---

CONGREGATIO
PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
Pr. No 154/81-06419
Citta del Vaticano, Palazzo del S. Uffizio
May 26, 1998
To His Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry,
Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion

Excellency:

In your letter of January 1, 1998, you submitted to this Dicastery several questions about the position of the Holy See and of the Bishop of Mostar in regard to the so called apparitions of Medjugorje, private pilgrimages and the pastoral care of the faithful who go there.

In regard to this matter, I think it is impossible to reply to each of the questions posed by Your Excellency. The main thing I would like to point out is that the Holy See does not ordinarily take a position of its own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena as a court of first instance. As for the credibility of the “apparitions” in question, this Dicastery respects what was decided by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia in the Declaration of Zadar, April 10, 1991: “On the basis of the investigations so far, it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.” Since the division of Yugoslavia into different independent nations it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Hercegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for.

What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of “Famille Chretienne”, declaring: “My conviction and my position is not only ‘non constat de supernaturalitate,’ but likewise, ‘constat de non supernaturalitate’ of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje”, should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion.

Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.

I hope that I have replied satisfactorily at least to the principal questions that you have presented to this Dicastery and I beg Your Excellency to accept the expression of my devoted sentiments.

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone
(Secretary to the “Congregatio”, presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger)________________________________________
Fr. Daniel-Ange (France) summerizes this way:
1 -The declarations of the Bishop of Mostar only reflect his personal opinion. Consequently, they are not an official and definitive judgement from the Church.
2 - One is directed to the declaration of Zadar, which leaves the door open to future investigations. In the meanwhile private pilgrimages with pastoral accompaniment for the faithful are permitted.
3 - A new commission could eventually be named.
4 - In the meanwhile, all Catholics may go as pilgrims to Medjugorje.

medjugorje.org/newletter.htm

• EWTN: It should be noted that this appears to correspond to the 3rd of the categories used by the Church since new norms were promulgated in 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

1. constat de supernaturalitate (it is established supernatural)

1. constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established not supernatural)

1. non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural)

 

[Tominellay]

Tominellay:

With regard to the above-referenced letter of (then) Archbishop Bertone of the CDF (Pr. No 154/81-06419), please also consider:

Bishop Peric had written to the Secretary General of “Famille Chretienne” during the course of which correspondence he expressed his opinion that both negative judgments “non constat” and “constat de non” would now apply to Medjugorje…

Bishop Aubry became aware of this opinion. We don’t know what his stake is in Medjugorje…but he then wrote to CDF and asked we don’t know exactly what…which prompted the response from Bertone.

Par. 1, Bertone refers to “**so-called ** apparitions of Medjugorje”.

Par. 2, Bertone says “it is impossible to reply to each of the questions”…whatever the questions were, he does not repeat them here…
…and…
…“The main thing…is that the Holy See does not…take a position of its own…
…regarding supposed supernatural phenomena…”

“As for the credibility of the “apparitions”…this Dicastery (CDF) respects what was decided by the bishops (not their investigating committee)…”

Note all references to apparitions are in quotation marks or referred to as being so-called…
Note that the CDF’s usual course of action is not to intervene and that it respects the “non constat” judgment of 1991.
He goes on to say that the bishops of B-H have the ball in their court.
Nothing here indicates that the current judgment may not in fact be the final judgment. Nothing compels the Episcopal Conference of B-H to reopen the case. However, it is plain that one of the four bishops of that conference would now vote “constat de non”…

Par. 4, Bertone continues, not personally, but as the Congregation (CDF), to point out **the condition ** under which private pilgrimages could be conducted.

The church has ruled negatively, and probably for the final time already.
Private pilgrimages are probably “crossing the line”, most of the time.

The above post #88 on this thread dealt with the Bertone letter and any “spin” found on the promo web site…
Also, the Brincard document for the French Bishops Conference adequately addresses the question…

 

[Tominellay]

Also, I think it is useful to present source documents without the commentary from apparitions promoters…The document says what it says; Fr. Daniel-Ange’s comments are an obfuscation, as are the words introducing that doc as a “beautiful gift to our lady”.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

setter:

I have given your conclusion some thought. **Since there has been much, I mean alot, of authentic work of the Holy Spirit --conversion, reconversion, re-ignited and sustained desire and commitment to seeking greater personal holiness and participation in the sacramental life of the Church – as a consequence of Medjugorje, how do you explain such powerful and widespread working, outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the duping of many holy men and women if this alleged apparition is either a hoax or diabolical in origin as you conclude? **

I would be interested if you would answer just some of the questions myself and others have raised. I would be most interested if you would look at some of the criteria that has been posted. However, the focus by defenders of Medjugorje is aimed at one thing: Positive fruits alone.

Back to your question - it has already been answered, when I provided an example on page three of Magdalen of the Cross, who had sold her soul to the devil 3 decades prior. She had stigmata, she levitated, and lots and lots of people came to her and believed in her, including church hierarchy. But, then she confessed having made a deal with Satan, the master of deception.

You dismissed this earlier without seeing what I was getting at - how Satan can decieve. Why would Satan allow a nun to get Stigmata and levitate among other things all the while drawing all kinds of people to convert and to listen to her “messages”? Simple. To get people so bent on believing her that he can eventually turn them against the Church. All it takes is for people to start bashing a bishop verbally or otherwise. Both Bishop Zanic and Peric have been at the receiving end of highly unvirtuous behavior on the part of seers and even followers. If you read the full criteria on discernment, you will see that Holy Mother Church considers the actions of any cult to be among the fruits to be judged - positively or negatively. When a large segment of that cult is blowing off the bishop at the least, and spreading calumnous information at the worst, such as:

“The bishop has not done an investigation” (horribly false and calumnous)

“The bishop does not even believe in Fatima or Lourdes” (Really? Did he tell them that they could spread such lies?)

“The bishop is behind a long standing ‘fued’ between the diocese and the Franciscans” (Good grief, most people have no idea what this so-called ‘feud’ was about and probably have no idea of the level of Vatican involvement, not to mention how many Franciscans were defrocked, by the Vatican, as a result of their disobedience - all the while the Bishop is still in office. Hence, who is really on the wrong side of the “fued”?

The Bishop is an apostolic successor and the Blessed Mother would guide seers to respect him. Most bishops and priests are suppose to be skeptical of such things, considering just how many thousands of reports their are each year. They must protect the faithful and the church from falsehoods and he had just cause to stand against the apparitions after a full and detailed investigation, which is available through his latest statement, his maynooth statement, and the Michael Davies book I have given links to repeatedly in this thread, which the bishop endorses in one of those written statements.

So, all the while people are converting, others are turning against the church because you cannot be for the church when you attack a bishop the way this one has been attacked, and his predecessor.

How do we have so many conversions and people praying (i.e., the good fruits) - Sacramental grace and quite frankly, the protection of the Blessed Mother, not because she appears to any of the “seers”, but because she understands the innocence of those scandalized by it.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

setter:

You insinuate my conscious ignorance and blatant disobediance to proper Church authority when I have committed neither. Why is this? You ask me “Don’t you think it would be charitable …”.

You read more into my question than was there. I asked if you have read what the Bishop has asked us to read.

The Michael Davies book is loaded with diocesan, vatican, and religious order documents, unlike books written by defenders like Laurentin, which have been proven, by the Ordinary, to contain half-truths. Examples are provided in the Davies book.

I’m saying it is charitable and respectful for any serious Catholic to read the Ordinary’s statements, as well as any books he encourages. This is prudent because he is through apostolic succession the authority for things happening in his diocese.

ALL:

So much disinformation and calumny have been spread about this man, that it is no wonder to me why supporters go to defenders of Medjugorje for what they read on the bishop.

I am puzzled why the most ardent defenders in this thread can’t take three days to read a book endorsed by the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, written by Michael Davies - unless for some strange reason, in their hearts, they can’t come to hear anything the Bishop has to say. No one has to pay for it because it is free on the web, in its entirety. All one has to do is to open it on their computer and print out 10 pages at a time and add them to a binder. That is what I did and it took 3 days. The author shows very carefully how documents were used partially to shield information that would be damning. Fr. Laurentin was confronted by Bishop Peric for this and these accounts are affirmed by the diocese. This is fact, not feeling.

Judgment based on “feeling” alone (note I did not say feeling is bad as has been alleged, I’m saying “feeling” alone) is no different than judging authenticity on “good fruits” alone. I don’t know how this can be so difficult to grasp that when you want to weigh something, all of it must go on the scale, not just that which is positive. When it is snowing and you can’t see the house across the street, it does not mean the house is not there. It simply means you cannot see it through the heavy snowfall.

Would defenders of Medjugorje in this thread please read the Davies book? If not, please help me to understand why. The bishop wants us to read it. Shouldn’t we give him that much? I would like to hear from any supporters on this thread why they would refuse to do this. Do you have that much mistrust for anything he would want us to read? If so, why?

If you say you don’t have money to buy it: It’s free - download it.

If you say you don’t know how to download it: Ask

If you say you don’t have time: Get off these forums for a week or two and you will have the time.

After you have done this, then come back and tell me specifically what you had trouble with in the book.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

quote=setter

Please cite me where I have “blown off” proper Church authority in the matter of approval for the alleged apprations at Medjugorje? I will not subject myself to be framed in such an uncharitable manner as you attempt.

Please go back and read my statement very carefully again. I did not say that you actually did blow off the bishop. I say that those who refuse to read material he guides us to, including his most recent statements, is to blow off the local Ordinary. I stand by that.

See my posts above.

If you put half the energy into reading something the bishop asks us to read that you have put into digging up documents from the websites of supporters, you might find it revealing.

When have you gone directly to the Bishop for information on Medjugorje (through his publicized statements and recommendations for reading material)?

I stand by my claim that it is highly uncharitable towards any local bishop to read information only from supporters and not try to understand why he holds the position he does.

It’s as if people are afraid if they read anything the Bishop recommends their foundation may begin to shake. So, instead of putting the time in to read the material, they come into threads like this and vehemently defend Medjugorje.

Something is really mixed up here when people will pour all kinds of time into reading Laurentin, Rupcic, “messages” and talk in forums, but won’t take time to read words and material recommended from the local bishop.

What are people afraid of in reading this material?
[/quote]

 

[setter]

Tominellay:

The above post #88 on this thread dealt with the Bertone letter and any “spin” found on the promo web site…
Also, the Brincard document for the French Bishops Conference adequately addresses the question…

Interesting to note: I only posted a document and offered no commentary. Then Tominellay posts a rebuttal to the “Bertone letter” (which is a disrespectful manner in which to refer to an Archbishop holding the office of Secretary to the “Congregatio”) and then offers his own “spin” to counter “any “spin” found on the promo web site” … What gives? It appears to be an attempt to deflect and obfuscate from facts presented at hand from a credible, competent and authoritative source.

One has to really question the intentions and underlying agenda when one tries to create the impression of “spin” and pro-Mej where only the facts of a credible, competent and proper Church authority. I will offer back to the con-Mej folks on this thread their own oft repeated plea – “Let the documents and facts speak for themselves”.

CONGREGATIO
PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
Pr. No 154/81-06419
Citta del Vaticano, Palazzo del S. Uffizio
May 26, 1998
To His Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry,
Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion

Excellency:

What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of “Famille Chretienne”, declaring: “My conviction and my position is not only ‘non constat de supernaturalitate,’ but likewise, ‘constat de non supernaturalitate’ of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje”, **should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar ** which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion.

**Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone **
(**Secretary to the “Congregatio”, ** presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger)

 

[setter]

Tominellay:

Also, I think it is useful to present source documents without the commentary from apparitions promoters…The document says what it says; Fr. Daniel-Ange’s comments are an obfuscation, as are the words introducing that doc as a “beautiful gift to our lady”.

This hardly qualifies as spin. Sentiment, yes; spin, no. This appears simply as another attempt to grab at straws. Very unbecoming in this discussion to offer a totally silly and false association/link that does not exist. I is dissapointing to see how far some folks will go in an attempt to discredit by attempting to create an aurora/cloak of suspicion over a document authored by an authoritative and proper Church authority.

 

[setter]

I would be interested if you would answer just some of the questions myself and others have raised. I would be most interested if you would look at some of the criteria that has been posted. However, the focus by defenders of Medjugorje is aimed at one thing: Positive fruits alone.

Again, I am not per see defending the alleged appraritions at Medjugorge. I entered this thread and continue on this thread to offer counter point to the con-Mej posters who seem to want to exceed the official statements made by competent Church officials, and who seem to have a Mej-bashing and expose as a hoax or diabiolical phenomenon agenda/mission based on their own personal disappointing and hurtful experiences (“bad fruit”).

Back to your question - it has already been answered

, when I provided an example on page three of Magdalen of the Cross, who had sold her soul to the devil 3 decades prior. She had stigmata, she levitated, and lots and lots of people came to her and believed in her, including church hierarchy. But, then she confessed having made a deal with Satan, the master of deception.

You dismissed this earlier without seeing what I was getting at - how Satan can decieve. Why would Satan allow a nun to get Stigmata and levitate among other things all the while drawing all kinds of people to convert and to listen to her “messages”? Simple. To get people so bent on believing her that he can eventually turn them against the Church. All it takes is for people to start bashing a bishop verbally or otherwise. Both Bishop Zanic and Peric have been at the receiving end of highly unvirtuous behavior on the part of seers and even followers. If you read the full criteria on discernment, you will see that Holy Mother Church considers the actions of any cult to be among the fruits to be judged - positively or negatively. When a large segment of that cult is blowing off the bishop at the least, and spreading calumnous information at the worst, such as:
This all your conjecture and conclusion on your part, which may or may not be plausible. However, it is not in the least to be taken as definitive or having finality. I note that you offer one extreme case example of a person who consciously yoked herself with the devil as the basis for concluding that the Mej phenomenon is demonic in origin – please, this is beyond a far stretch for any rational person. I am not sure what point you are getting at other than trying to contaminate the Mej seers with a sort of guilt by association. I will state the obvious again: Under developed virtue and peripheral disobediance is in no way on parity with demonic possession.

BTW – Something for you to consider: satan, the accusor, can deceive both ways, as in trying to bring irrepute to an authentic spiritual phenomenon.

**The Bishop **

is an apostolic successor …, which is available through his latest statement, his maynooth statement, and the Michael Davies book I have given links to repeatedly in this thread, which the bishop endorses in one of those written statements.
Is this an official declaration or more reiteration of his non-offical personal opinion?

So, all the while people are converting, others are turning against the church because you cannot be for the church when you attack a bishop the way this one has been attacked, and his predecessor.

You judgment?

How do we have so many conversions and people praying (i.e., the good fruits) - Sacramental grace and quite frankly, the protection of the Blessed Mother, not because she appears to any of the “seers”, but because she understands the innocence of those scandalized by it.

Any scandal saddens the heart of our Blessed Mother, especially when done in willful intent.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

General Reminder:

Please refrain from assuming the intentions of others. It appears that both sides have erred in this regard. Saying that Satan is behind another person’s viewpoint is unacceptable. Keep the charity up or the thread will be closed.

 

[setter]

You read more into my question than was there. I asked if you have read what the Bishop has asked us to read.

The Michael Davies book is loaded with diocesan, vatican, and religious order documents, unlike books written by defenders like Laurentin, which have been proven, by the Ordinary, to contain half-truths. Examples are provided in the Davies book.

I’m saying it is charitable and respectful for any serious Catholic to read the Ordinary’s statements, as well as any books he encourages. This is prudent because he is through apostolic succession the authority for things happening in his diocese.

ALL:

So much disinformation and calumny have been spread about this man, that it is no wonder to me why supporters go to defenders of Medjugorje for what they read on the bishop.

I am puzzled why the most ardent defenders in this thread can’t take three days to read a book endorsed by the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, written by Michael Davies

It just seems strange that one has to read a certain book and the statements made by the local ordinary to really understand the danger posed by this alleged apparition. The common Catholic would think that by now if truly diabolical action is a play here in a widespread global deception, that one would not have to personally read to discover this, as there are many more intelligent and astute Catholic observers than I who would be broadcasting this.

 

[Tominellay]

Do take the time to read this material, setter; it will be well worth your trouble…

 

[pbaylis]

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure disobedience is bad, but we’re dealing with humans here. Even Jesus disobeyed I don’t know how many people, including his mother (see finding at the temple) and the entire jewish legal fraternity at that time who tried to tell him not to pick corn on the sabbath, not heal on the sabbath, etc, etc. Just as there is righteous anger (Jesus overturning the moneychangers table), there is probably also such a thing as righteous disobedience.

THIS CAN BE A TOUCHY SUBJECT. PLEASE BE CHARITABLE IN YOUR RESPONSES TO EACH OTHER OR I WILL REQUEST THE THREAD BE CLOSED! THANK YOU FOR COOPERATING.… etc

 

[pbaylis]

Political red tape. The same disease the pharisees had. There is the Canon, ok, we’ll follow that. But as far as personal revelations and miracles goes, I’m on my own and I believe in Medjugorje and Garabandal and every other Marian apparition like I believe I have two eyes and a nose. It does me no harm to do so. I pray the rosary and try to live a good life and not sin. Furthermore it leads me to pray for my neighbour much more than I have been doing. I’m not off on some secret mission to scandalise the Catholic Church.

John Paul II definitely approved of Medjugorje. I believe he told Vicka (one of the visionaries) that he believed it to be the continuation of Fatima. One of his bishops returned from Medjugorje and JPII asked him “Do you believe?” The bishop replied “Yes, I believe. Do you believe?” and JPII replied “Yes, I believe”.

The seer Ivan had his daily apparition the day after JPII died and Ivan testified that JPII was standing next to Mary, looking younger and with a broad smile on his face.

LukeQ:

Hi LambofGod,

you wrote:

Besides the humour at face value to what you wrote, (and by jingo, this thread needs a little light relief…), Seriously, the paper’s journalistic standard is not of the New York Times or the Sydney Morning Herald, given its pronographic content - (I am not going to tell you exactly where it is so as not to scandalise this site’s readers, but what I saw was clearly stated in my post of last week). Please re-read my post to verify what I have stated and how presumption was created that a Papal Blessing incorrectly translates into Papal Approval. Enough on this.

This thread is on Medj. but as you mention Garabandal, this false apparition was condemned by sucessive Local Ordinaries through the power of Apostolic Sucession as granted through the Magisterium of the Church from 1961. That is, it has been unapproved by the Church for 35 years! See this link and read the pdf files: theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/garaband/garaband.html
Let’s not write on Garabandal here.

Pope John Paul II was Catholic and he had a special devotion to Our Blessed Mother. However, He not only used Faith but Reason as expressed in his Encyclical. We must test everything and be obiedient to the Church. There are only 11 or 14 approved Marian apparitions in 20Century but there has been 400 or so reports of alleged apparitions of which Medjugorje is one. 386 of those are either unapproved or condemned by the Church.
LambofGod - are you saying we should instantly believe all 400 appartions even if Holy Mother Church through Her Local Ordinaries, (Bishops), and the CDF have ruled there is no evidence of the Supernatural or that there is evidence of no Supernatural occurence?

Our Lord warned us in the Gospel not to run over here or there searching for Him and warned us that others would say that he is Him. St Louis de Montfort said:

theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/unapprov.html

So, wWe must be prudent, patient and obiedient to the Church and give thanks for the approved appartions of Loudes and Fatima.

LambofGod - I can say that all people from both sides of this debate have indeed a strong Faith in God as expressed through His Church and also, I would never go as far as to question the spiritual suppleness of anyone’s heart.

To All - The dialogue in these last two posts highlights the polarisation of views on this topic very well. It is the reason why I post, in order to quell the divide as I have been on both sides of the fence.

Can we resume to Lux’s thought provoking analysis?

Luke

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Well, it appears that some in this thread do not feel Holy Obedience means anything. Apparently, some believe God does not grace “seers” with extraordinary virtue when he allows His Mother to appear to them. Such has been the case with other visoinaries which were approved, unike those in Medjugorje, which is inconsistent with others. The French Bishops point out the importance when they say this in their statement. They are not passing judgment in their document, but explaining the process of investigation and they raise questions surrounding certain facts documented by the diocese. Finally, it is opportune to ask ourselves if the events of Medjugorje have produced good fruits in the visionaries who, at least during the duration of the “apparitions”, must by their life be the first witnesses of the grace of which they say they benefit. From there it follows that we ask ourselves the following questions: “Have they obeyed the Bishop of Mostar? Have they respected him?..” Such questions and still others yet, are habitually part of a serious investigation into an event of apparitions. In order for the investigation to arrive at a solid conclusion, it is necessary that these fundamental questions receive a clear and objective response.

We would like to say nothing about the doubtful or even bad fruits. But the truth obliges us to say that they exist. Let us quote, as examples, the calling into question, even to the point of defamation, of the Local Ordinary as well as the disobedience with regard to his legitimate authority; the exacerbation of the Herzegovina ‘question’ following the words attributed to “the Gospa”, words in favour of the Franciscans and against the Bishop (10).

Bishop Zanic, Posizione, pp. 3, 4, 9, 10 etc.

Further back in this thread, we have posted statements published from a “seer” diary, among other things recorded by the diocese in the early years of investigation.

How do you explain the BVM supporting Franciscan priests and claiming “the Bishop is wrong” as Vicka suggested she said? Thirteen times, the Blessed Mother “supported” Franciscans, many of whom were later removed from the priesthood by the Vatican, like Fr. Ivica Vego, who had impregnated Sr. Leopolda - a nun from my order. How did such a distasteful thing become public? The “seers” claimed that he was innocent and the bishop was wrong about him and that he should be able to celebrate Mass (all the while he was starting a family, and now resides somewhere in Medjugorje with a family of four or five).

The point is not that Fr. Ivica Vega and Sr. Leopolda fell from grace. The point is that at least one “seer” claims the Blessed Mother says “Ivica is innocent and the bishop is wrong”. Tell that to the Vatican and to the children he fathered.

This says nothing of other heresies that have been identified to date, as attributed to the “gospa”. When I get time, I’ll make a list of them, as they come from the “messages” and diaries.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

pbaylis:

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure disobedience is bad, but we’re dealing with humans here. Even Jesus disobeyed I don’t know how many people, including his mother (see finding at the temple) and the entire jewish legal fraternity at that time who tried to tell him not to pick corn on the sabbath, not heal on the sabbath, etc, etc. Just as there is righteous anger (Jesus overturning the moneychangers table), there is probably also such a thing as righteous disobedience.

Jesus disobeyed? Many times? How did he disobey her at the temple? He went with her.

Stay tuned - more will be addressed on this issue because I believe this is a serious misunderstanding of that passage. To claim that Jesus, who is God, could be imperfect through disobedience, is to indirectly deny his divinity.

Jesus is Divine. He is God. God is perfect and perfection does not have human-like flaws, which includes disobedience. To say that God is capable of disobedience, is likely heresy, but l’m sure not intentional.

“Jesus was obedient to death - death on a cross”. He even obeyed Pilate in going to his death because of the “authority given him” by the Father.

 

[irishgal]

If one searches hard enough on the internet one can find a wealth of information about Unity Publishing and its founder. If anyone is using their web site and its publications for your source of anti-Medjugorje information, you should investigate further what its true agenda is.

That being said, I do not intend to enter into any argument or further discussion regarding the validity of Medjugorje. For the record, shown below is substantiation of how the Catholic Church feels about Medjugorje and some additional documents from Church Officials. Some of this information has been posted before, but I pray that you will read it all with an open mind and heart after having prayed to the Holy Spirit for discernment.​

"What Does Rome Say About Medjugorje?

For the 17th Anniversary of the apparitions, the Church just gave a beautiful gift to Our Lady! The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent the following letter to Bishop Gilbert Aubry of Saint Denis clarifying its position on Medjugorje. He received it on June 24th. On the 25th, he spread it to the priests and communities of his diocese (circular # C003) so that they can have the latest statement from Rome and, if necessary, inform the faithful with full knowledge of the facts.

---

CONGREGATIO
PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
Pr. No 154/81-05922

Citta del Vaticano, Palazzo del S. Uffizio
May 26, 1998
To His Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry,
Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion

Excellency:

In your letter of January 1, 1998, you submitted to this Dicastery several questions about the position of the Holy See and of the Bishop of Mostar in regard to the so called apparitions of Medjugorje, private pilgrimages and the pastoral care of the faithful who go there.

In regard to this matter, I think it is impossible to reply to each of the questions posed by Your Excellency. The main thing I would like to point out is that the Holy See does not ordinarily take a position of its own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena as a court of first instance. As for the credibility of the “apparitions” in question, this Dicastery respects what was decided by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia in the Declaration of Zadar, April 10, 1991: “On the basis of the investigations so far, it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.” Since the division of Yugoslavia into different independent nations it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Hercegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for.

What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of “Famille Chretienne”, declaring: “My conviction and my position is not only ‘non constat de supernaturalitate,’ but likewise, ‘constat de non super- naturalitate’ of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje”, should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion.

Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.

I hope that I have replied satisfactorily at least to the principal questions that you have presented to this Dicastery and I beg Your Excellency to accept the expression of my devoted sentiments.

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone
(Secretary to the “Congregatio”, presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger)

Fr. Daniel-Ange (France) summerizes this way:

1. The declarations of the Bishop of Mostar only reflect his personal opinion. Consequently, they are not an official and definitive judgement from the Church.
2. One is directed to the declaration of Zadar, which leaves the door open to future investigations. In the meanwhile private pilgrimages with pastoral accompaniment for the faithful are permitted.
3. A new commission could eventually be named.
4. In the meanwhile, all Catholics may go as pilgrims to Medjugorje.

Part 2 - see next post

 

[irishgal]

Continuation of my previous post No. 1:

As you can see by the end of my last post, Catholics are HAVE NOT BEEN FORBIDDEN to go to Medjugorje.

…continuing on with the letters from Catholic heirarchy regarding Medjugorje and the Catholic Church:​

A clarification from Cardinal Schonborn:

The letter of Archbishop Bertone to the Bishop of Le Reunion sufficiently makes clear what has always been the official position of the hierarchy during recent years concerning Medjugorje: namely, that it knowingly leaves the matter undecided. The supernatural character is not established; such were the words used by the former conference of bishops of Yugoslavia in Zadar in 1991. It really is a matter of wording, which knowingly leaves the matter pending. It has not been said that the supernatural character is substantially established. Furthermore, it has not been denied or discounted that the phenomena may be of a supernatural nature. There is no doubt that the magisterium of the Church does not make a definite declaration while the extraordinary phenomena are going on in the form of apparitions or other means. Indeed it is the mission of the shepherds to promote what is growing, to encourage the fruits which are appearing, to protect them, if need be, from the dangers which are obviously everywhere.

It is also necessary at Lourdes to see to it that the original gift of Lourdes not be stifled by unfortunate developments. Neither is Medjugorje invulnerable. That is why it is and will be so important that bishops be very conscientious about their mission as shepherds for Medjugorje, so that the obvious fruits that are in that place might be protected from any possible unfortunate errors.

I believe that the words of Mary at Cana: “Do whatever He tells you,” make up the substance of what s he says throughout the centuries. Mary helps us to hear Jesus and she desires with her whole heart and with all her strength that we do what He tells us. This is what I wish for all the communities of prayer which were formed from Medjugorje; this is what I wish for our diocese and for the Church.

…Personally, I have not been to Medjugorjre, but in a certain way I have been there many times through the people I have met and the people I know. And in their lives I am seeing good fruit. I would be lying, if I said this fruit did not exist. This fruit is concrete and visible and I can see in our diocese and in many other places graces of conversion, graces of a supernatural life of faith, graces of joy, graces of vocations, of healings, of people returning to the Sacraments - to confession. All this is not misleading. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, as a Bishop, I can only see the fruit. If we had to judge the tree by it’s fruit, like Jesus, I must say that the tree ia fruitful!

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn

Cardinal Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, who gave the Holy Father and his Papal Household their 1998 Lenten Retreat (and who was head of the church’s commission responsible for the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”), gave the preceeding testimony in Lourdes on July 18, 1998. The Cardinal’s words were published in “Medjugorje Gebetsakion”, #50, and in “Stella Maris”, #343, pp. 19, 20. "

OUR LADY OF PEACE, PRAY FOR US!

 

[setter]

Tominellay:

Do take the time to read this material, setter; it will be well worth your trouble…

This material that you and others repeatidly insist that I need to read *in order to be enlightened to the real happenings * behind Medjugorje phenomenon is just opinion and interpretation. Frankly, I will await the prompting of the Holy Spirit if this is needed material for my discernment. Otherwise, I will not partake in someone else’s bias to “indoctrinate” my understanding.

I am becoming more impressed as this thread unfolds that much subjective hurt and disillusionment have skewed many poster’s ability to measure a balanced and mature discernment and to refrain from overstepping the bounds of what has been officially declared for the alleged spiritual phenomenon at Medjugorje.