Vatican's commission completes investigation on Medjugorje, submits report [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lormar said:
I still want to know if it is approved if the Vatican will officially change Our Lady’s birthday which they apparently had wrong for two thousand years. :confused:

This is one of the many things I have never understood about the alleged apparition.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Mary’s birth date has never been officially decided by the Church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

**The earliest document commemorating this feast comes from the sixth century. **St.Romanus, the great ecclesiastical lyrist of the Greek Church, composed for it a hymn (Card. Pitra, “Hymnogr. Graeca”, Paris, 1876, 199) which is a poetical sketch of the apocryphal Gospel of St. James. St.Romanus was a native of Emesa in Syria, deacon of Berytus and later on at the Blachernae church in Constantinople, and composed his hymns between 536-556 (P. Maas in “Byzant. Zeitschrift”, 1906). The feast may have originated somewhere in Syria or Palestine in the beginning of the sixth century, when after the Council of Ephesus, under the influence of the “Apocrypha”, the cult of the Mother of God was greatly intensified, especially in Syria. St. Andrew of Crete in the beginning of the eight century preached several sermons on this feast (Lucius-Anrich, “Anfänge des Heiligenkultus”, Tübingen, 1906, 468). **Evidence is wanting to show why the eighth of September was chosen for its date. **The Church of Rome adopted it in the seventh century from the East; it is found in the Gelasian (seventh cent.) and the Gregorian (eighth to ninth cent.) Sacramentaries. Sergius I (687-701) prescribed a litany and procession for this feast (P.L. cxxviii, 897 sqq.). Since the story of Mary’s Nativity is known only from apocryphal sources, the Latin Church was slow in accepting this oriental festival. It does not appear in many calendars which contain the Assumption, e.g. the Gotho-Gallican, that of Luxeuil, the Toledan Calendar of the tenth century, and the Mozarabic Calendar. The church of Angers in France claims that St. Maurilius instituted this feast at Angers in consequence of a revelation about 430. On the night of 8 Sept., a man heard the angels singing in heaven, and on asking the reason, they told him they were rejoicing because the Virgin was born on that night (La fête angevine N.D. de France, IV, Paris, 1864, 188); but this tradition is not substantiated by historical proofs. The feast is found in the calendar of Sonnatius, Bishop of Reims, 614-31 (Kellner, Heortology, 21). Still it cannot be said to have been generally celebrated in the eighth and ninth centuries. St. Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres (d. 1028), speaks of it as of recent institution (P.L., cxli, 320, sqq.); the three sermons he wrote are the oldest genuine Latin sermons for this festival (Kellner, “Heortology”, London, 1908, 230). The octave was instituted by Innocent IV (a. 1243) in accordance with a vow made by the cardinals in the conclave of the autumn of 1241, when they were kept prisoners by Frederick II for three months. **In the Greek Church the apodosis (solution) of the feast takes place 12 Sept., on account of the feast and the solemnity of the Exaltation of the Cross, 13 and 14 Sept. **The Copts in Egypt and the Abyssinians celebrate Mary’s Nativity on 1 May, and continue the feast under the name of “Seed of Jacob” 33 days (Anal. Juris Pont., xxi, 403); they also commemorate it on the first of every month (priv. letter from P. Baeteman, C.M., Alikiena). The Catholic Copts have adopted the Greek feast, but keep it 10 Sept. (Nilles, “Kal. Man.”, II, 696, 706).
 
JamesCaruso said:
Good points.

Are you aware of the new policy of the Holy See regarding Medjugorje? It doesn’t mean we must change our opinions, but it does put a damper on Medjugorje.

FYI, the 2013 letter of the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States (Archbishop Vigano) to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Monsignor Jenkins) tells me that the the Church has raised the bar for allowing pilgrimages to Medjugorje. In his letter he writes, “…[C]lerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such “apparitions” would be taken for granted.” He asked this policy to be conveyed to the American Bishops. This is certainly a more strict policy than before when the only prohibition was against officials of the Church lending any official sanction to Medjugorje.

Thinking back to my visits to Medjugorje, I would say that pilgrims in general go there because they believe the Virgin is appearing there, and when they get there, they “participate in meetings… [and]… public celebrations during which the credibility of …[the] “apparitions”… [is] taken for granted.” Therefore, I will not be going back until this is either changed or further clarified, not that I had any trip currently planned.

EWTN issued a commentary on Medjugorje and concluded the following regarding the 2013 letters (there were two in all):

*These 2013 letters clearly represent a change of pastoral attitude on the part of the Holy See, one which began before the end of the pontificate of Pope Benedict and which has now been affirmed by Pope Francis. An attitude of seeming tolerance has been replaced with a firm call for acceptance of the ecclesiastical judgments made to date, or at least publicly acting in accordance with them. Whether this is simply to dispose all parties (pro and con) to accept the final judgment of the Church when the Pope issues it, whatever that judgment may be, or, in view of a decision of the same character as the previous ones, remains to be seen.
*
Click to expand...
Yes, I am very aware of the letters, they actually only re-iterate what has been the Church’s stance from day one, which is that essentially nothing should take place UNDER OFFICIAL CHURCH SPONSORSHIP which presumes the supernatural in events the RCC has not yet officially ruled on.
We must also remember that Our opinions are just that, and that neither us nor EWTN should suppose to speak for Holy Mother Church, nor read anything into Church statements that would have us pre-empting the decisions that are the perogative of the official CHurch alone !
Professor Miraville states this quite well in his recent response to those who claimed the letters were a negative decision by the Vatican, from which i quote:

"Medjugorje has not been declared “constat de non” (not authentic)
The Vatican restrictions upon Medjugorje arrangements far from equal a formal condemnation, and those who give this impression in fact disobey Church authority by usurping the role of Pope Francis, says Professor Mark Miravalle who advises Medjugorje’s supporters to pray and obey.
Pilgrimages are still permitted, Medjugorje has not been condemned, and the restrictions the Vatican has recently imposed upon public arrangements do not change anything in this regard. Indeed, anyone who pictures the restrictions as a formal condemnation is disobeying rightful Church authority by preempting a decision that has not yet been taken.
These are the main points of an article by Professor Mark Miravalle, after an October 21 directive has restricted Medjugorje arrangements in the United States, if arrangers take the credibility of the apparitions for granted.
Miravalle, a University of Steubenville Professor of Theology and Mariology and an expert on Church evaluation of acclaimed apparitions, has written several books on Medjugorje.
“To the larger public, I would say: be clear and beware not to take the new restriction for what it is not: a definitive Church statement against Medjugorje’s authenticity. The CDF has a right, for whatever reason, to implement further restrictions while the ongoing Vatican Commission completes its study, which will ultimately go before Pope Francis for final judgment” Mark Miravalle writes.
“But the fact remains, the Church process is not over. Medjugorje has not been declared “constat de non” (not authentic, ed.) by the U.S. Nuncio letter, and any conclusion or promulgation at this time that Medjugorje has been officially condemned would be its own form of disobedience to proper Church authority. To do so would be to usurp the role of the CDF and ultimately of Pope Francis himself to make the final discernment of the authenticity of Medjugorje—a critical and historic discernment which belongs to the Church’s Magisterium alone” the Professor continues.
In his statement, Mark Miravalle also addresses Medjugorje’s millions of followers worldwide whom he asks to “pray and obey”:
“This new restriction (which is nothing like a formal prohibition) can, in fact, become a providential opportunity to show the world that the great majority of Medjugorje followers live and breathe at the heart of the Church, in full obedience to the Church, and are not “fringe fanatics” whose faith hinges only on an alleged apparition, as some critics may at times assert. The proof is obedience” he writes.
 
Lormar said:
I still want to know if it is approved if the Vatican will officially change Our Lady’s birthday which they apparently had wrong for two thousand years. :confused:

This is one of the many things I have never understood about the alleged apparition.
Click to expand...
I would hope that the actual birth date of Our Lady, or even of Jesus Himself, being inaccurate , which they most like are , would not shake your faith. 🙂

They are estimates at best since no exact birth records exist from 2000 years ago. The point is,we celebrate them as a commemoration with great joy. The dates themselves are not matters of Doctrine
 
Memaw said:
I am sure the Bishops have understood than much more than you or I ever will. In fact better than anyone visiting the place no matter how many times they have been there. So that is why we trust in the judgment of the Holy Church and the Popes decisions even tho he has never been there. My posts should tell you that I am waiting for the Church to tell me if it is “Worthy of Belief.” I know many, many people that have been there, some several times, and many conflicting stories. One even offered to pay my way, if I would go back with her, but of course I didn’t. So I don’t think one cup of coffee and one hour would do much right now, but thanks for the offer. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
Yes you are right, the local Bishop understood very much more than we ever will. Absolutely. Hence his drastic reversal. Spirit and World in conflict. He did what he honestly felt he must do for the sake of the local church. I will never fault him for that. The decision is now in the Pope’s hands. All of us must now be patient and wait, and abide in obedience to the Holy Father. As God would want, as Our Lady would want.

I only mentioned my own experienced because it is so profound and encompassing. Many refuse to believe me, but none have been able to offer any alternate explanation for it. For me the intercession of Our Lady is an inescapable conclusion. I know there are many who could never accept that, and that’s ok too.

I will leave it at that as I exit this conversation, but in closing I would like to ask all to please just be careful, be gentle and charitable in how you speak about this matter, especially in consideration of the POSSIBILITY that Our Lady just might have actually been pleading with us for these past 32+ years to return to her Son.

If anything let us try to err on Her side, rather than on the side of Satan who would call us fools to believe that God would intervene in our lives in such a way.
 
Bob4BVM said:
Yes, I am very aware of the letters, they actually only re-iterate what has been the Church’s stance from day one, which is that essentially nothing should take place UNDER OFFICIAL CHURCH SPONSORSHIP which presumes the supernatural in events the RCC has not yet officially ruled on.
We must also remember that Our opinions are just that, and that neither us nor EWTN should suppose to speak for Holy Mother Church, nor read anything into Church statements that would have us pre-empting the decisions that are the perogative of the official CHurch alone !
Professor Miraville states this quite well in his recent response to those who claimed the letters were a negative decision by the Vatican, from which i quote:

"Medjugorje has not been declared “constat de non” (not authentic)
The Vatican restrictions upon Medjugorje arrangements far from equal a formal condemnation, and those who give this impression in fact disobey Church authority by usurping the role of Pope Francis, says Professor Mark Miravalle who advises Medjugorje’s supporters to pray and obey.
Pilgrimages are still permitted, Medjugorje has not been condemned, and the restrictions the Vatican has recently imposed upon public arrangements do not change anything in this regard. Indeed, anyone who pictures the restrictions as a formal condemnation is disobeying rightful Church authority by preempting a decision that has not yet been taken.
…
“This new restriction (which is nothing like a formal prohibition) can, in fact, become a providential opportunity to show the world that the great majority of Medjugorje followers live and breathe at the heart of the Church, in full obedience to the Church, and are not “fringe fanatics” whose faith hinges only on an alleged apparition, as some critics may at times assert. The proof is obedience” he writes.
Click to expand...
I believe the Apostolic Nuncio’s letter speaks for itself without the need for amplification by experts. My post, you seem confused, did not state or infer in any way that the letter was a condemnation of Medjugorje. What is was in my reading was a prohibition against clerics or the faithful (that would be me) participating in meetings or public celebrations during which the credibility of such “apparitions” would be taken for granted. I say that because that is exactly what it says. Now, if he djd not mean meetings in Medjugorje, but only meant meetings in the United States of America, that is a clarification that he or someone else in a position to make such authoritative clarifications would have to make, not Professor Miravelle, no matter how erudite a Professor he is, and I have great admiration and esteem for the Franciscan University at Steubenville and its staff. My post was not at all addressing the status of Medjugorje, but it was addressing the words of the Apostolic Nuncio. I do not agree at all with your assertion that the letters do nothing but reiterate the Church’s former position from day one. We were never told before that we, the faithful, should not attend meetings or public celebrations where the credibility of the apparitions is taken for granted. Thinking back to my visits to Medjugorje, iIn every Mass at St. James in Medjugorje, and every meeting in the houses of the visionaries, and every meeting on the mountaintops of Medjugorje, and every meeting and religious ceremony in other Churches connected in some way with the apparitions (for example, Fr. Jozo’s church when I was there) the credibility of the apparitions was taken for granted. Until a further clarification comes out, this means to me that I should not return to Medjugorje, not because it has been condemned, but because the Nuncio deems Catholic participation in meetings in which the credibility of the apparitions is taken for granted to be impermissible. I believe Our Lord and Our Lady would want us to be obedient to the wishes of Church authorities, even when they go against past practice, and even when they seem unfair.

I do not see the words of Professor Miravelle addressing this subject in particular, at least not in what you posted, but he focused on whether the letters were a condemnation of Medjugorje. The way it stands in my mind now is that Medjugorje is still not approved nor condemned, but there are restrictions on the types of meetings and public celebrations I can attend, and those to me preclude me from visiting Medjugorje under the normal circumstances that prevail there. You are entitled to your own opinion. I’m just going by what the letter said. If you have anything that addresses the specific wording that is my concern, or the authority of the Apostolic Nuncio to establish such a policy, I would certainly welcome it. Peace, from a fellow lover of Medjugorje, a place where I found such peace that I did not wish to return home.
 
zab said:
If you read the history of the commissions, you will read that, “The Vatican spokesman reviewed the history of investigations into the possible Marian apparitions of Medjugorje, noting that they began on a diocesan level. When it was seen that the “phenomenon was broader than the diocese,” it was passed on to the episcopal conference of the former Yugoslavia, which, he noted, no longer exists.” catholicnewsagency.com/news/holy_see_confirms_formation_of_medjugorje_commission/

And to make this point, There are several places in the United States, where so-called “apparitions” have occurred and in each of these situations, it happened after one of the founders had made a visit to Medjugorje. Because of the international effect that the Medjugorje phenomenon has, Bishop Peric knew that another commission was needed. This does not call the other commissions into question.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it, or its effects, are now on a world level so that a Vatican ruling is needed, or something to that effect? It still seems to me to call the original investigation into question, but maybe I can’t see it as clearly as you. I am not sure how spreading effects affects the disposition already made, unless it is thought that the original disposition might somehow not be correct, even though it was made at a Diocesan level. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I doubt a new investigation would be occurring if no one called the original one into question, whether it was done at the correct level or not, and that itself seems to be only a ploy to reopen the investigation that many were at odds with.
 
Bob4BVM said:
If anything let us try to err on Her side, rather than on the side of Satan who would call us fools to believe that God would intervene in our lives in such a way.
Click to expand...
The Church has always called to err on the side of caution in these matters. To begin with the premise that the apparitions/visions/supernatural occurrences are false or are of Satan.

Mary wants for us to follow her Son and hence, the Church, not out own emotional or psychological fancies.
 
ringil said:
The Church has always called to err on the side of caution in these matters. To begin with the premise that the apparitions/visions/supernatural occurrences are false or are of Satan.

Mary wants for us to follow her Son and hence, the Church, not out own emotional or psychological fancies.
Click to expand...
I know that when I went to M, people were “trying” to see, or at the very least, hoping to see, miracles. If they were there to see, I wanted to see them, as well.

I remember being on one mountaintop where one of the visionaries was supposed to have a vision, and suddenly people started oohiing and ahhing, “Look! Lights on the other mountain!” They were only people with flashlights making their way up the mountain where the large cross of M stands.

In M, there are also people staring directly into the sun to see a miracle, and with that nerve damaging ritual, who knows what they might see…

In retrospect, I found immense peace in that place, and peace is the main theme that is spoken of there (Our Lady, Queen of Peace), but I think it was owing to my actual drawing nearer to Jesus through drawing nearer to Mary whether or not she was actually “appearing” there. Faith is greatly heightened when you think Our Lady might be appearing in the place where you are visiting, and so that does make it an occasion to draw nearer spiritually to her. On the down side, it may also open one up to some deception of the devil to mislead God’s children. I always “test” the messages coming from the visionaries (St. Paul says, “Test the spirits”) and I have always found them consistent with the Church’s teachings, but even if M were a false happening I would expect nothing less from that master of deceit, Lucifer, until one day he tilts a message his way to mislead the faithful. In that day, those who follow signs and wonders will follow him, and those who follow the teachings of the Church will follow Christ. I’m kind of glad I did not see any miraculous happenings, because if I had, I might have been tempted to take my eyes off Christ, if that were possible (since he does say, “My sheep know my voice”). As dumb as sheep are, and I am one of them, we do know his voice.
 
Bob4BVM said:
I would hope that the actual birth date of Our Lady, or even of Jesus Himself, being inaccurate , which they most like are , would not shake your faith. 🙂

They are estimates at best since no exact birth records exist from 2000 years ago. The point is,we celebrate them as a commemoration with great joy. The dates themselves are not matters of Doctrine
Click to expand...
If you invest in a set of Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, you will find out that both dates are rich in Tradition and there is more reason to believe both dates accurate than not.

You are right that the dates are not a matter of doctrine. Neither are private revelations.
 
Lormar said:
I still want to know if it is approved if the Vatican will officially change Our Lady’s birthday which they apparently had wrong for two thousand years. :confused:

This is one of the many things I have never understood about the alleged apparition.
Click to expand...
“That is a liturgical celebration by the Church, not an assertion of an historical date. The association of Mary with August 5th historically is the apparition of Our Lady of the Snows, a day on which, as promised by a vision, snow fell in Rome to mark the place where the Pope was to build a “temple” to the Blessed Virgin. That “temple” is the Pontifical Basilica of St. Mary Majors (the highest ranked Marian church in the world), the dedication of which is celebrated each August 5th. Could that be the actual day of Mary’s birth? Who knows? One could even argue that snow better signifies her Immaculate Conception than her birth” (Colin B. Donovan / EWTN).
 
EasterBeagle said:
“That is a liturgical celebration by the Church, not an assertion of an historical date. The association of Mary with August 5th historically is the apparition of Our Lady of the Snows, a day on which, as promised by a vision, snow fell in Rome to mark the place where the Pope was to build a “temple” to the Blessed Virgin. That “temple” is the Pontifical Basilica of St. Mary Majors (the highest ranked Marian church in the world), the dedication of which is celebrated each August 5th. Could that be the actual day of Mary’s birth? Who knows? One could even argue that snow better signifies her Immaculate Conception than her birth” (Colin B. Donovan / EWTN).
Click to expand...
Thank you for your beautiful explanation. Many come to the wrong conclusion when they don’t understand the true meanings. God Bless, Memaw
 
Thank you all for your explanations and quotes. I am willing to wait until the Church approves or disapproves of the apparitions.
Whether they are true or mass hysteria is very important to me. However, whatever it is, I will accept with no problem.
I have been showing a bumper sticker in my car for two years but will remove it tomorrow.
👍
 
Regarding the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith, I know that there are several members, two of which attracted my attention. First Cardenal Christopher Shonborn (Vienna), and the second Cardenal Muller (USA Nuncio).

The Cardenal from Vienna indicated for us to have faiht that the Vatical will eventually approve Medjugorje. He has opened the door of his church to the visionaries.
While the American Bishops have been told not to take for granted the apparitions and for the priests not to have meeting on Medjugorje. It seem there are two different and opposite position from two members from the Congregation Doctrine of Faith.

Question: Is there anyone who could and would clarify the position of the Church in Europe, South America, and North America, and finally the United States of America?
 
rospina said:
The Cardenal from Vienna indicated for us to have faiht that the Vatical will eventually approve Medjugorje. He has opened the door of his church to the visionaries.
Click to expand...
The link you sent me does not in any way suggest that he has “indicated that the Holy Father will eventually approve Medjugorje”…

Not sure where you are getting that from.

What the article did say is that the Holy Father has all the information and he may take a year or even more to DECIDE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top