VOX POPULI following condemned seer

[Joe_5859]

May the Good Lord preserve us from the toxic venality abounding in the world; and bring us into His abundant life here and in eternity. AMEN

Here’s an excerpt from the TIMES UK article by Simon Caldwell February 11, 2006.

In September, for instance, Dominic Sanchez Falar founded the “Mary is God Catholic Movement”, which claims that the third secret of Fátima revealed Mary’s divinity. This secret was covered up, he says, by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Rantings of this kind would be risible/grab were they not gaining so much currency, particularly in the US.
Pope Benedict, for one, takes them seriously. Three years ago, while Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), he said that private revelations posed a threat to the unity of the Church and warranted an “exemplary/your pastoral response” from the Holy See.
By that time the future Pope had already ruled against claims that Mary appeared at Garabandal, Spain; forbade Catholics to go on pilgrimage to Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the Virgin Mary is also said to be appearing; warned the faithful against the apocalyptic murmurings of Vassula Ryden; and ordered Father Stefano Gobbi to stop using Our Lady Speaks to Her Beloved Priests as the title for books containing similar eschatological content.
Benedict is now already moving against private revelations in a way his predecessor did not. Two cases signal his intent. Barely a month after his election, the CDF issued two documents. One was a decree removing Father Gino Burresi from active ministry, and the other was a letter to the Filipino bishops effectively declaring as false the claims of Ida Peerdeman, a Dutch seer, that the Virgin Mary had revealed new truths about her status…

…Days later the CDF took the unusual step of overruling the decision of Bishop Joseph Maria Punt, of Haarlem in the Netherlands, to approve claims that the Virgin Mary had appeared in Amsterdam/ankles under the guise of “Lady of All Nations who once was Mary”, sounding the death knell for an international movement to redefine the Virgin as “coredemptrix, mediatrix and advocate”.

Okay, this is a quote from a news article, not a Church document (and you haven’t even provided a link to the news article let alone to any corroborating Church document). Where is this CDF document overruling Bishop Punt’s decision? I have scanned both the CDF’s Disciplinary Documents and Doctrinal Documents for the past ten years and I have not located any such statement.

Please, provide documentation from ecclesial authorities (and a link would be nice) that Ida Peerdeman or “Our Lady of Nations” has been condemned. If this cannot be produced, I implore you to cease from spreading this false information. Spreading false information such as this could be considered calumny against Ida, Bishop Punt, and Dr. Miravalle.

 

[Joe_5859]

“Hear and obey.” In 2006 Benedict XVI again reiterated the decades-long condemnation of Ida Peerdeman and her low-brow thuggery in having “Mary” shake her fist and demand the “Final Dogma” of three titles that do not make one coherent idea. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has spoken, the Rock has stood firm, the cats still refuse to be herded. Get sheeply. VOX POPULI is raising cash, not consciousness. The Vatican overruled Bishop Punt’s approval of “The Lady of All Nations” in spite of his pathetic attempt to divorce it from Ida Peerdeman. It’s over. Pray for Miravelle and this unseemly rebellion. This “scholarship” that can’t recognize a Vatican condemnation or realize that the Vatican cannot be overruled by a bishop is bogus and not worthy of judging the stuff of dogma.

Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the fire of love which is your Son Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN

Again, where is the link (or even the specific date or title) of this condemnation? Surely it should not be difficult to produce.

I have scanned the titles all of Benedict XVI’s letters, Apostolic Exhortations, Apostolic Letters, Encyclicals, Motu Proprios, Messages, and even his homilies and speeches for the year 2006 and have not located anything that gives credence to the claims you are making.

I also did a google search of the Vatican website for Peerdeman and Our Lady of All Nations which yielded no results. The only result for Bishop Punt was an Audience on John Paul II from April 15, 1998 (the Spanish and Italian translations) where JPII is greeting him at the end of the Audience.

Needless to say, I have found no evidence that this ecclesial condemnation or reversal of Bishop Punt’s statement exists. If you have evidence, please provide it. If not, please recant this false information.

 

[JPUSC]

OK, so I’m confused. Is Our Lady of All Nations approved or not?

Personally, I am uncomfortable with the image of Our Lady of All Nations and the prayer, “The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary”.

The first time I heard that prayer was when I was visiting another parish. I thought I had misheard something when it came to that phrase.

Whatever the status of these apparitions are, I think the Akita apparitions are legit and it doesn’t matter if the statue was made in the image of Our Lady of All Nations.

 

[Joe_5859]

OK, so I’m confused. Is Our Lady of All Nations approved or not?

Personally, I am uncomfortable with the image of ‘Our Lady of All Nations’ and the prayer, “The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary”.

The first time I heard it was when I was visiting another parish. I thought I misheard that phrase when I heard it.

Whatever the status of these apparitions are, I think the Akita apparitions are legit and it doesn’t matter if the statue was made in the image of Our Lady of All Nations.

“Our Lady of All Nations” has been determined to be of supernatural origin (and thus approved) by the local bishop of Haarlem/Amsterdam, under whose jurisdiction this decision falls. Here is Bishop Punt’s letter from May 31, 2002, making this declaration.

According to Nordskoven (depending upon which post you read) either the Bishop had no authority to make this statement, or Pope Benedict, or the CDF overruled his decision. I have searched and searched and found no documentation to support these claims. I have asked for documentation and thus far have received nothing.

Therefore, at this point in time, I can only conclude that the apparitions of “Our Lady of All Nations” have been approved.

I admit, I am also uncomfortable with that line “who once was Mary”. The way I heard it described is that it can be akin to saying “the man Benedict XVI, who once was Joseph Ratzinger.” It’s not that he isn’t Joseph Ratzinger anymore, it’s just that (as happens frequently in Scripture) a new name denotes a new role. I suppose it’s similar to Mary appearing to Bernadette at Lourdes and, when asked her name, she says “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

Of course, as this is private revelation, as with all private revelations, even if they are approved, we’re under no obligation to follow them. But we shouldn’t try convincing people that they haven’t really been approved or, even worse, that they’ve actually been condemned.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

While I am a “Johnny-come’-lately” to this thread, let me throw in just a couple facts.

Fact # 1
The Church does not teach that Mary is Co-Redemptrix
This matter is under consideration by theologians far more knowledgeable than any of us. Until and unless it is declared dogma, it is not taught and should not be taught.

*Fact #2
We do in fact have the Incarnate Word because of the Immaculate Conception (explanation needed)
Jesus is not the Immaculate Conception. Mary, his mother, our mother, was Immaculately Conceived so that Jesus, The Son, The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, could take flesh from her when in the womb. Theologians teach that He could not take on sinful flesh as that would have been a theological impossibility and rendered him in need of redemption himself. The Redeemer does not have to be redeemed, but came to give redemption.

Just a few facts to chew on.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon ed B

 

[Tominellay]

It’s my understanding that the Amsterdam apparitions were judged ‘non constat de supernaturalitate’ more than once, and that at least once, the ‘non constat’ formula was upheld by the CDF, and that all this goes back to the 1950s…
Much more recently, Bishop Punt, the Ordinary of the local diocese, has ruled ‘constat de supernaturalitate’. The CDF, in deference to the authority of the Ordinary, does now refer to the events in The Netherlands as apparitions, rather than as alleged apparitions. However, the CDF disallows the use of the phrase ‘who once was Mary’ in public devotion.
Again, the above is my understanding of the situation…

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s my understanding that the Amsterdam apparitions were judged ‘non constat de supernaturalitate’ more than once, and that at least once, the ‘non constat’ formula was upheld by the CDF, and that all this goes back to the 1950s…
Much more recently, Bishop Punt, the Ordinary of the local diocese, has ruled ‘constat de supernaturalitate’. The CDF, in deference to the authority of the Ordinary, does now refer to the events in The Netherlands as apparitions, rather than as alleged apparitions. However, the CDF disallows the use of the phrase ‘who once was Mary’ in public devotion.
Again, the above is my understanding of the situation…

And remember, the ‘non constat de supernaturalitate’ is not a condemnation, but rather a “we need more information”. ‘Constat de non supernaturalitate’ is the designation for an apparition that is condemned.

Where did you hear that the CDF disallows the use of the phrase “who once was Mary”? I have not heard that. Did they make some statement that you could link to?

 

[JPUSC]

If this is the article about cloning Jesus that you were talking about, it’s just a hoax:

snopes.com/religion/clone.asp

 

[Tominellay]

I wish I could give you a protocol number, but at this time I cannot. However, several internet web sites have reproduced a letter from Abp. Angelo Amato, S.D.B., then-Secretary of CDF, in reply to an inquiry from a member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. The letter states that:

1. although the apparitions have received approval from the Ordinary, Bishop Punt, CDF has expressed concern re the phrase “who once was Mary”;
2. CDF has already indicated in a letter to the Apostolic Nuncio to The Netherlands Abp. Bacque, that Marian devotions must develop not according to a new title such as “who once was Mary”;
3. the bishop recipient of the letter is asked to advise the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines that the CDF does not allow any Catholic community to pray to Mary with the use of the phrase “who once was Mary”.

I believe the letter is dated May 20, 2005.
I will confirm the date of the letter and protocol number when I am able; but these are the facts as I understand them…

Now, there are some unusual aspects to the Amsterdam story.
a) The case seemed to be closed in 1974 when CDF ruled on it.
b) Bp. Punt became an auxiliary bishop in 1995, and the apparitions were resurrected by Bps. Bomers and Punt in 1996.
c) Bp. Bomers died in 1998.
d) Bp. Punt succeeded as Ordinary in 2001, after almost three years’ vacancy.
e) Bp. Punt approved the apparitions in 2002, within ten months of succeeding.
f) CDF disallows the phrase “who once was Mary”…