Lux_et_veritas said:
To Cardinal Schonborn’s letter, I say that he, like any other priest or bishop is entitled to his personal opinion and that letter remains his personal opinion. Does this sound familiar
?
Cardinal Schonborn does not have jurisdiction over Medjugorje. Bishop Peric does.
Yours is a distorted presentation. Let me clarify: Cardinal Schonborn is offering
clarification to the Flock as is proper to his office regarding “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.” He is not offering interpretation, extrapolation or speculation, i.e.,
not his personal opinion. Beyond this clarification, he does go on to express personal sentiment that is independent of his clarification of the official Church position.
This statement by Cardinal Schonborn is
unlike those of Bishop Peric that exceed the official investigation and declaration of his jurisdiction. The attempts by con-Mej folks to falsely cast an aurora/cloud of suspicion over a competent and credible shepherd of the Church comes across as unbecoming and uncharitable.
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
.
You can post all you want from Laurentin and Rupcic as well. They do not have jurisdiction over Medjugorje.
You appear to be struggling with making a clear distinction between
official documents and declarations,
clarification by *competent and credible * Church sources/hierachy, and the realm of
personal opinion. As I get up to speed more on this Mejugorje approval stuff, I can see how to blur the distinction is but a way to win favor for one’s personal belief/preference/cause on a not yet approved or condemned apparition.
With regards to Unity Publishing:
Anything I have pasted from there has been copies of letters, just like the one pasted above from Cardinal Schonborn, which does not link to any place. One thing I’ve learned about avid Medjugorje defenders: Discredit anything at all that comes from the Unity Publishing website, even though all that I have posted from the site can be found on other websites because they are public record from the Holy See or elsewhere.
Michael Davies does not come out quite so squeaky clean from association with those fanatical fringe groups attempting to bash Medjugorje as you present and would have us believe:
.Rick Salbato, head of the San Jose-based Unity Publishing, Inc, is a fierce critic of Medjugorje. He has joined forces with Philip Kronzer to expose the “deception” of Medjurgorje through literature and videos. Kronzer, a successful businessman with $12 million in assets, has produced two videos on the Medjugorje apparitions, …The videos, “Visions on Demand” and “Divine or Deceived?”,
were filmed on location in Medjugorje and Rome and
feature such well-known Catholic authors and Medjugorje critics as **Michael Davies ** and E. Michael Jones, editor of the Catholic journal, Fidelity. “Visions on Demand” portrays the Medjurgorje apparitions as a font of lies and disobedience to Church authority, while “Divine or Deceived?” attempts to show the Marian center as a cover for an immense money smuggling operation.
sffaith.com/ed/articles/1998/1198cz.htm
I have done the same with **the Michael Davies book **
and have repeated many times that
if one were to strip the commentary out of the book, it would remain half full with diocesan, vatican, and religious order documents. Included are full length transcripts of audio interviews which were truncated by Laurentin.
When one looks at the entire transcript, without it having been sanitized in the manner that it was, it reveals something quite negative. An example can be found somewhere in this thread so i am not going to repeat it. People are going to have to take the time to read and find it.
I will await the non-commentary, no interpretation book edition with
all the official declarations, documents and competent and credible statements. Again, I get the real sense of pulling for straws to cast the cloud of irrepute over these alleged apparitions – " …it reveals something quite negative".
