What are the views of the Holy Orthodox Church on RCC approved Marian Apparitions?

[adoglover1956]

From the point of view of an ecclesiastical evaluation the status of Medjugorje has not changed since this 1991 declaration. The Holy See has allowed this status to remain as it is. Responding to bishops on the matter it simply repeats the aforementioned decision. However, a response from the Secretary of the Doctrinal Congregation, Archbishop Bertone, to a French bishop in 1996 precipitated a flurry of reports that Medjugorje was off-limits to Catholics. In August 1996 the Director of the Holy See’s Press Office, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, stated:

You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want.

…When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no possibility [for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje] … nothing has changed, nothing new has been said.

…The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the Church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje. This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession.

…Has the church or the Vatican said no [to Catholics visiting Medjugorje]? NO. … 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. News Report.

More recently in a letter to the Bishop of St. Denis, Archbishop Bertone commented on a statement by the current Bishop of Mostar that the alleged apparitions were not simply lacking evidence of supernaturality but were in fact NOT supernatural (i.e. definitively so). He stated:

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-Herzegovina 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 FamilleChretienne, 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 authentication of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church. Letter to Bishop Aubrey

 

[adoglover1956]

Mystical Phenomena. The presence of remarkable phenomena is for many sufficient evidence of the validity of an alleged apparition. For others the judgment by local Church authority that there is no evidence of supernaturality at a site suggests fraud, mental illness or the demonic. The Church for her part, however, takes great care before affirming the certain supernaturality or non-supernaturality of phenomena, as the Roman statements given above show. There are likewise few examples of outright condemnation. When they do occur it is usually on the basis of doctrine which is contrary to the faith

.The reasons for such caution are rooted in the Church’s common teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross both assert that as a general rule mystical phenomena (whether in the lives of saints or in apparitions) are the work of the angels. Unless God Himself needs to act to immediately produce an effect (such as to create out of nothing or to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul), He works through creaturely instruments. Thus the intellectual lights granted in contemplative prayer, the visions and locutions of private revelations, the levitations of the saints, the ecstasies of mystics and visionaries, and most external phenomena associated with mysticism, are produced by the angelic nature. Since both good and evil spirits possess the angelic nature the presence of such phenomena alone is an equivocal sign of authenticity. This means that a great deal of unexplained phenomena can occur without indicating positively that the event is from God. This is why the Church looks, among other things, for evident supernaturality, that is, for effects beyond the ability of men or angels which can be attributed to God alone.

Theologians remain divided in judging which phenomena fall clearly into the category of strict supernaturality. However, the practice of the Church in the canonization process of recognizing as miraculous those cures which meet certain strict criteria is a standard that has been applied in approving apparitions, as well (e.g. Lourdes, Beauraing, Banneux). At Fátima the Miracle of Sun likewise fell into the category of a natural prodigy. It is clear, however, that the phenomena which many laity have experienced in connection with alleged apparitions in our days, and which they consider to be proof that they are authentic, do not in fact rise to the level of evident supernaturality. Angelic or demonic activity would be sufficient to explain them. Without a proof of the supernatural order there is little likelihood of the Church affirming an apparition as authentic.

 

[adoglover1956]

In the case of Medjugorje the commissions found that nothing directly connected with the apparition met this strict standard. As the earlier quoted statements show, the Church remains open to new evidence of supernaturality should it occur and has not judged that Medjugorje is NOT supernatural, much less condemned it.

What the Church has forbidden. From the statements given to date by ecclesiastical authorities it is clear that no one holding an office in the Church (bishop, pastor, rector, chaplain or other) may by virtue of that office lend official sanction to activities which tend to assert the supernaturality of Medjugorje, that is, to contradict the decisions made by competent local authority. Those statements speak only of pilgrimages organized under official auspices; however, common sense tells us that a conference or other activity sponsored by a diocese, parish or other Catholic institution would also be prohibited. Likewise, there could not be public veneration (cultus) of the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Medjugorje, since this would suggest the certainty of her appearing there. The title Queen of Peace, however, is already part of the patrimony of the Church.
The Yugoslavian statement speaks of liturgical-pastoral directives which may be developed. Catholics would be obliged to obey whatever positive or negative directives the Bishops’ Conference or the local bishop issued regarding the site.

Do the decisions of the Church amount to an obligation to believe in the intellect that Medjugorje is not supernatural? The answer is no. First, even private revelations approved by Rome bind the faithful to accept them only based upon reasonableness, not faith. Pope Benedict XIV stated,
Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [Benedict XIV, De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

This means that once a private revelation has achieved Papal approbation it is unreasonable, i.e. imprudent but not against the faith, to not accept it as authentic. The contrary would also be true. If Rome judged a private revelation to not be supernatural, the reasonable person would be satisfied with that conclusion. Would they sin if they did not accept it? They might sin by imprudence, rash judgement or the like, but not against the faith or the obedience they owed the Holy Father. Catholics must always, however, following the external precepts imposed by the Church in such matters, that is, what they may or may not do, as opposed to what they think.

As far as theological judgements made at the local level, therefore, the standard could not be any higher, and is certainly lower. The issue of Medjugorje, therefore, cannot be resolved solely on the basis of the local Church’s finding that there is no evidence to date of supernaturality. This is even more clear in light of the statement of Archbishop Bertone that the Bishop of Mostar’s 1998 statement that it is certainly “not supernatural” is his own personal opinion. Others are therefore entitled to their personal opinions, also.

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

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

And you are completely failing to see my point! The CHURCH teaches that The Local BISHOP has authority in the matter and these (two) have rejected the apparition and ordered the activities to stop but have been met with defiance. If you think that only a “list” of approved and unapproved by the Vatican matters here then you need to study the office of Bishop, its powers and prerogatives afresh.

Ok look, I understand that 2 bishops have rejected the apparition. I’m not arguing against that. Nor is it my intention to go against those bishops. All I am saying is that in the past, some bishops have been wrong concerning some things they have rejected or condemned. A brief brief example is the rejection/condemnation of Galileo Galilei’s works. Which was condemned by at least 7 cardinals, several other bishops and yes, at least 2 Popes. Though I know very well that the Church did not engage in infallibility.

As CAFs tract states:
"Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first."

Now, I don’t wanna change the subject, but this was just a brief example, of errors/mistakes that Priests, Bishops and even Popes made when rejecting something, in which they were wrong. Because these clergy were not speaking as the whole Church in these matters. In the same way, I understand what you said about the local bishops. I already know that beforehand. But you also must understand, that these can make mistakes even in these cases.

The reason why I asked for a “list” is not intended to ignore the Bishops, but looking at what the Church’s position is right now concerning the apparition. And that position is “Under Investigation”. Not approved or rejected, simply no decision has been filed yet. If we were to apply your logic in times of Galileo regarding a condemnation or rejection of bishops, then you would have fallen into a mistake with them.

I know the Vatican has not spoken- But that’s not the ONLY voice that matters here- The BISHOP has spoken. UNTIL a different decision comes down from the Church- The Bishop’s judgement STANDS and that is why Other Bishops forbid pilgrimages to that place- Precisely BECAUSE the Bishop who has authority already made a decision.

Right there you said I know the Vatican has not spoken. Ok here is where I wanted to get at. Yes it is the voice that in the end matters. The Bishops condemnation matters specially during the process of investigation (and can cancel or discontinue prayers/pilgrimages to the said appearance), and If the Vatican disapproves, then there’s no way around it. Its a deception.

But if the Vatican gets in the issue (which it already has), and approves it, the local Bishops’ condemnation wouldn’t matter after the approval (understand this correctly). He (or they) would have to stand corrected. Above the Bishops, there is the Pope, and he has not spoken officially yet (as the whole Church). How many are the cases in which one Bishop says one thing and the Pope says another? Who is more authoritative? Yes you know the answer no need for explanation. Certainly the Pope has given his opinion on the matter, but that’s it. He has not used his power to either approve or disapprove yet.

PS:- You are the one who made comments that “Heresies in the message” and “Disobedience to Bishops” don’t make it a lie, “They make THE BISHOP disobedient”- That’s what prompted me to post that article in full. THE CHURCH herself is the one that made obedience and freedom from any doctrinal error, criteria for judging false apparitions.

Certainly I maintain my position that they don’t make it a deception. I’m not arguing that it is used as criteria for judging false apparitions or not. But it is just that, “criteria”. There is a difference between that, and a final judgement from the whole Church.

You keep telling us to wait for the Vatican before rejecting the Apparition.

Yes, this sums up my position. Why? Because the Church wont make a mistake in its final decision that’s why. It cannot approve what is a lie. On the other hand, we (yes I include myself) can error in our judgements.

-Is it a sin to reject apparitions- even approved ones?

No. And I have never argued this. In fact if you read my last posts, I clearly stated that you don’t even have to believe in them. The questions you are asking only back up what I have posted. You can freely not be devout to any particular Virgin Mary of any particular apparition. It is not a sin. You are free on that, and no one here is arguing that.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Why should you tell anyone that they should not reject Medgugorje or any claimed apparition before the Vatican does? You have it backwards.

No I don’t have it backwards. I am “suggesting” to not reject any apparition until it is formally rejected by the Church. This is not thinking backwards. Rather I am relying completely on whatever the Church says. If the Church says rejected, I say rejected. If the Church says approved, then I say approved. What has the Church said so far? quoting you: “I know the Vatican has not spoken”

If it has not spoken, it has not spoken. Therefore, we don’t have guarantee whether its a deception or not. All I’m “suggesting” is we shouldn’t make our own judgement, rather we should rely on the Church’s position. You seem to have made your own judgement concerning the apparition. The poster named adoglover1956 also made his judgement already pretty much calling the apparition SATANIC (see post 19). I’m not saying its not satanic, neither that it is. I say “What has the Church said officially about it?” If the answer is “No decision yet”, then my answer is “No decision yet”.

I recommend all Catholics to do the same, rely on the Church. If rather one wants to rely on his/her own knowledge rather than on the Church herself, and therefore make one’s own judgement, good luck.

We don’t give it ANY credence, based on what the Bishops have judged UNLESS the church has, through the proper channels deemed it authentic.

This is exactly what Ive been stating…
I say don’t give it credence unless the Church approves. But at the same time I say don’t disapprove it, unless the Church disapproves. Because there is a risk making a mistake concerning one’s own judgements.

UNTIL then, it’s the BISHOP’s and through them, the Church’s word against the visionaries- Again, it’s the Church for me.

Ok, I don’t argue against anything stated here.

 

[adoglover1956]

A last statement in the string of posts that I have supplied. TEN more secrets??? Is the Virgin Mary…out Blessed Mother in the business of just providing countless secrets? I hope not. By promising nothing but secrets she is holding the faithful somewhat hostage. Let me string you along for 31 years and maybe longer. What’s the point?

Deceitful “visionaries” that have been caught in the act of lying. Messages the “visionaries” have given to the local bishop telling them they have been wrong in accusations against a priest. Only to find out the priest was guilty of adultery. Come on. None of this happened with Fatima or Lourdes. There was no confusion. There was a steady message. The visionaries were always told be to faithful to the church and the local priest and bishop. Isn’t the difference clear?

Here a secret…there a secret…everywhere a secret. Three were enough and they were very prophetic very close to they time they were given. Communism and the world wars. We can say one thing about Med…lot’s of money is being made by travel agents and local hawkers.

God bless

 

[adoglover1956]

ChrisRedfield47…

My friend…the local church has condemned the apparitions. I find it hardly likely that the Vatican will counter that. Especially given the fruits of the apparition.

 

[Marybeloved]

Ok look, I understand that 2 bishops have rejected the apparition. I’m not arguing against that. Nor is it my intention to go against those bishops. All I am saying is that in the past, some bishops have been wrong concerning some things they have rejected or condemned. A brief brief example is the rejection/condemnation of Galileo Galilei’s works. Which was condemned by at least 7 cardinals, several other bishops and yes, at least 2 Popes. Though I know very well that the Church did not engage in infallibility.

You just don’t get it- and this example you’ve given proves it. The Church’s Councils have given the BISHOPS first and main AUTHORITY in matters of apparitions in their jurisdictions. You keep insisting that as long as the Vatican has not spoken, then “the church” has not spoken- That’s exactly what I’m saying is FALSE. The Vatican is not the only way the Church speaks. Canon Law gives different powers and prerogatives to different offices- In THIS case, the BISHOP has FIRST and MAIN authority. You are not just free to ignore their judgments unless you think you’re free to ignore Ecumenical Councils and Canon Law that gives them that power and authority (indeed we must say “governs” the power and authority, because the authority comes straight from Jesus Christ). THAT is placing your own opinion above the Church.

You are trying to override and rubish the Bishop’s judgments by saying that we should not reject this apparition before the Vatican says so, as though the Bishop’s judgments amounts to nothing more than a bowl of soup. What is wrong here is not your understanding of apparitions but of the CHURCH. The Pope is not the ONLY authority, he’s the foremost one. He does not function in some corner all by himself- He’s one of the BISHOPS, he works WITH them.

The examples you give as to bad Bishops and Cardinals apply EQUALLY to Popes- Or do you just assume that all the Popes we’ve had were Saints? Not trusting that the Bishops’ judgements in this matter have any weight is basically refusing to trust that the process the CHURCH has set up is valid and basically saying that the ONLY way that God, The Holy Spirit guides the Church is via the Pope and no one else- That’s simply NOT true. If God and the Church give a Bishop certain prerogatives in his jurisdiction, the CATHOLIC thing to do, is to TRUST that authority, SUBMIT to that authority and that process and believe that GOD works THROUGH that process, not against it. You believe that God only works through the Vatican and never through the Bishop even when the Bishops exercise their legitimate authority- NOT Catholic teaching.

 

[GraceDK]

I know its besides the point here, but I wish you to know that I and 7-8 of my friends have become Catholics directly through visits in Medjugorje.
Some of us were Protestants, some of us were Atheists, some of us were New Agers etc.
In Medjugorje an inner transformation happend in me so I started hungering for the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

I wished to say this because someone says that the fruits have been bad and have been division.
I have met many American Catholics who are against Medjugorje. In Europe its a huge pilgrimage place, and I hardly meet any blatant anti-Medjugorje statements here.

When you go there you encounter a LIVING Catholic Church full of young and old. You see priests and religious, you see happy and devout… you see endless lines of people waiting to go to confession after they haven’t been in confession for 10-30 years.
I personally know two priests who go to Medjugorje frequently. I also know a conservative Cardinal who went not long ago, as a pilgrim.

Now one thing was overlooked in this thread… The point where someone claimed that “The Apparition said all Religions are dear to God”.
I would like a credible link to a credible source for this statement.

I am in no way in favour of syncretism, and should it be proven that the apparition said all religions are equal, neither would I wait for Church judgement, and She would have to make none, for the fakeness would be obvious…
But it simply doesn’t make any sense from what I have seen, that pilgrims are certainly not relativists but the most serious Catholics I have met. Many of us have converted precisely because we know that the fullness of faith is found in the Catholic Church. You also don’t see other faiths publicly represented there.

Let us not forget that when we read about Padre Pio, it was said about him that he was crazy and bad, by the bishop too… but people kept coming by the hundreds and today he is declared a saint.
At any other pilgrimsite the spontaneous massive number of pilgrims to a place that seems to urge people to more devotion and sacramental life, has always been the beginning of approved apparitions.

Lastly. It matters little to me personally. I had Christ before I went to Medjugorje and I had Him after. He ALONE is the Bread of life. People who get steeped in apparitions and private revelations instead of focusing on Jesus Christ, the Sarcaments and Scripture are to me, weak witnesses for our faith.
I have met some Catholics who say: to Jesus through Mary but who seem to trust Mary much more than Jesus. Such people you also find in Lourdes and Fatima.
I have never really been a fan of Fatima, and am happy Im not asked to believe in any of them. To me apparitions can only ever be means, stations on the way… must never become ends in themselves. Neither must Mary or any saint.

 

[Sam_777]

I have never really been a fan of Fatima, and am happy Im not asked to believe in any of them.

Interesting GraceDK !, I was like you till this weekend, read more here.

 

[adoglover1956]

I know its besides the point here, but I wish you to know that I and 7-8 of my friends have become Catholics directly through visits in Medjugorje.
Some of us were Protestants, some of us were Atheists, some of us were New Agers etc.
In Medjugorje an inner transformation happend in me so I started hungering for the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

I wished to say this because someone says that the fruits have been bad and have been division.
I have met many American Catholics who are against Medjugorje. In Europe its a huge pilgrimage place, and I hardly meet any blatant anti-Medjugorje statements here.

When you go there you encounter a LIVING Catholic Church full of young and old. You see priests and religious, you see happy and devout… you see endless lines of people waiting to go to confession after they haven’t been in confession for 10-30 years.
I personally know two priests who go to Medjugorje frequently. I also know a conservative Cardinal who went not long ago, as a pilgrim.

Now one thing was overlooked in this thread… The point where someone claimed that “The Apparition said all Religions are dear to God”.
I would like a credible link to a credible source for this statement.

I am in no way in favour of syncretism, and should it be proven that the apparition said all religions are equal, neither would I wait for Church judgement, and She would have to make none, for the fakeness would be obvious…
But it simply doesn’t make any sense from what I have seen, that pilgrims are certainly not relativists but the most serious Catholics I have met. Many of us have converted precisely because we know that the fullness of faith is found in the Catholic Church. You also don’t see other faiths publicly represented there.

Let us not forget that when we read about Padre Pio, it was said about him that he was crazy and bad, by the bishop too… but people kept coming by the hundreds and today he is declared a saint.
At any other pilgrimsite the spontaneous massive number of pilgrims to a place that seems to urge people to more devotion and sacramental life, has always been the beginning of approved apparitions.

Lastly. It matters little to me personally. I had Christ before I went to Medjugorje and I had Him after. He ALONE is the Bread of life. People who get steeped in apparitions and private revelations instead of focusing on Jesus Christ, the Sarcaments and Scripture are to me, weak witnesses for our faith.
I have met some Catholics who say: to Jesus through Mary but who seem to trust Mary much more than Jesus. Such people you also find in Lourdes and Fatima.
I have never really been a fan of Fatima, and am happy Im not asked to believe in any of them. To me apparitions can only ever be means, stations on the way… must never become ends in themselves. Neither must Mary or any saint.

It’s great that you and your friends have been brought to Christ or have deeper faith in Christ after having been there. There are still many questions that have not been answered.

As for the comment regarding all religions…It wasn’t dear to God it was equal in God’s eyes. That just can’t be. And if it is…then accepting Christ and the Gospel is no more special than accepting Buddha. Do you see? Confusion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You aren’t going to find a synod ruling on apparitions. I had merely hoped to provide a a typical Orthodox point of view.).

Sounds like what I already stated.

Typical? you have done a survey of the EO? How much research have those you interviewed done on the topic, and do you have that list? What questions did you ask? Do you have a witness, is it taped? How many did you interview in the EO, and what were the statistics? Right, thats what I thought.

you may disagree with her conclusions, but I would say the article detailed several of the apparitions quite well.).

Isn’t even remotely qualified to make medical assessments to an individuals state of mind, “SAINTS” no less, whom she “never” met. There’s no need to even dive futher into her Witch Hunt which culminates with UFOs. Its a bias “opinion”

Huh? You need a degree (a PhD no less) to deny a supposed miracle? That position makes little sense even from your point of view (as there are dozens of Atheist Psychiatrists who would say such people are delusional).).

Good list the DOZENS of Atheist Psychiatrists love to hear what they have to say, or is this more speculation of top of speculation? Next, did they observe the individuals, read the medical reports, then what is the basis of their conclusion? Let me know when you acquire that information.

To deny a miracle in one thing, she proceeded to assume “delusion” which she is unqualified to do.

In light of the fact that there are literally thousands of secularists professionals who would deny these events? What you are committing is the reverse form of the argument from authority fallacy. Degrees do not validate a claim anymore than a lack of a degree invalidates a claim.

Those literal thousands are whom you are talking about, list them, and we can take it from there. You did not do this, sorry. I’ll be waiting on a list of exactly ONE THOUSAND!!!

We are discussing ONE whom YOU posted, unqualified, and not here to confront.

“Degrees do not validate a claim anymore than a lack of a degree invalidates a claim”

Are you even remotely serious? This woman is calling people “delusional”. INSULTING SAINTS is un CHRISTIAN. Let alone unqualifed to medically do so.

Next time you are “sick and on the death bed” go see this “author” for medical advice if you believe your own words.

From your credentialist viewpoint the testimony of the apostles would have been discredited due to their lack of formal education.).

The Apostles were EYE witness to the Miracles they witnessed. WAS THIS AUTHOR? They passed their testimony to their students, thus the unanomous testimony of the ECFs in Bible. Did she recieve testimony from an eyewitness chosen by Christ? Didn’t think so.

Have you read about the signs the antichrist will perform?).

The only one who took anything at face value is YOUR author. The church actually investigated these approved sights. And then raised these individuals to SAINTS.

What exactly will the Antichrist do Mark?

Revelation 13:13.).

Let me know when the Second Beast with Horns arrive’s and throws fire from the sky in your literal interpretation of allegory verse. and we will resume the topic of conversation of Revelation.

And is your opinion this will all occur in Revelation to convert followers to Jesus Christ? Maybe its a UFO Mark?

I have made no statement as to whether or not I believe in the apparitions. I have simply provided a fair assessment from an Orthodox perspective (as requested by the OP).).

You just stated above the author provides “a typical Orthodox point of view”. I guess your own words would indicate its not so typical then?

You provided an “opinion” from a FAST GOOGLE SEARCH and a medical one at that, from someone unqualified to provide such a view.

Sura 54:1-2

I don’t read FICTION.

“The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain. And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.”).

Great whats next Kipling and more Poetry, and fiction, nothing to do with what we are talking about:shrug:

Not even the Catholic hierarchy accepts such supernatural occurrences as miracles from God simply because they occur

EXACTLY nor do they deny them as your article does without proper investigation by those actually qualified to do so.

Ummm…And Fatima is an APPROVED MIracle from GOD the CC accepts as “Worthy of Belief”.

That seems contrary to your entire stance and this article.

 

[GraceDK]

It’s great that you and your friends have been brought to Christ or have deeper faith in Christ after having been there. There are still many questions that have not been answered.

As for the comment regarding all religions…It wasn’t dear to God it was equal in God’s eyes. That just can’t be. And if it is…then accepting Christ and the Gospel is no more special than accepting Buddha. Do you see? Confusion.

I do agree with you. Which is why I wanted the poster to give a source to this statement. Because there is a lot of bogus on the internet, and alot of rumours about what the apparition in Medjugorje did and did not say. Until I can see a credible source where the words are listed as authentic sayings from the Gospa I will not believe it, because as I said Im sure that all them very serious Catholics I’ve met in Medjugorje would never have been there if they thought such a thing had been said.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s great that you and your friends have been brought to Christ or have deeper faith in Christ after having been there.

Right, I have no doubt this happens, nor do I believe its a issue anyone here would debate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

They are simply not deemed “Worthy of Belief” by the Vatican.

For me its not at all difficult. Their is NOTHING “Supernatural” which has occured at this sight, and that “is” what has been constantly emphasised by the Bishops.

As to the Vatican…and YOUR statement, “And that position is “Under Investigation”. Not approved or rejected, simply no decision has been filed yet.”

Umm, no its a little deeper than that…

"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.

Cardinal Bertone

 

[GaryTaylor]

USCCB…

Bishop Peric discussed Medjugorje with Pope Benedict XVI earlier this year during a visit to the Vatican. In a summary of the discussion published in his diocesan newspaper, Bishop Peric said he had reviewed the history of the apparitions with the pope, who already was aware of the main facts from his time as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“The Holy Father told me: We at the congregation always asked ourselves how can any believer accept as authentic apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?” Bishop Peric said.

Bishop Peric noted that Yugoslavian bishops in 1991 issued a statement that “it cannot be confirmed that supernatural apparitions or revelations are occurring” at Medjugorje.

Bishop Peric said he told the pope that his own opinion was even stronger – not only that a supernatural element cannot be proven, but that “it is certain that these events do not concern supernatural apparitions.”

The USCCB sight went on to state it is concerning that the faithful are traveling so far to receive Confession/Communion and Spiritual guidence which they could receive at a local Parish. [to paraphrase] For that is ALL that is happening there.

Here listen again, here is what the Pope stated…“how can any believer accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?”

And the lasted apparition was Ummm…Feb 2nd 2012. Course there could be another more recent.

 

[Art321]

It is sad reading how Orthodox stand against Catholics…and the need for the Latin Church to draw on the disciplines and mysticism of the Orthodox.

I pray for our renewal of unity that we once had.

I just needed to point something out in this post. I don’t agree with your statement of the Latin Church. It seems you are trying to say that there isn’t any mysticism in the Latin Church and I couldn’t disagree with you more. I have also seen very similar comments to this around the forums. The fact remains that the Latin Church has plenty of mysticism in its theology and practices although it may be true that the Eastern Churchs are a bit stronger in this category. I don’t see anything wrong with the Latin Church except getting rid of the lukewarmness that has crawled in the past few decades. It is true we can learn somethings from the Eastern Churches but just the same they can also learn many things from us.

Just wanted to point that out.

 

[adoglover1956]

I do agree with you. Which is why I wanted the poster to give a source to this statement. Because there is a lot of bogus on the internet, and alot of rumours about what the apparition in Medjugorje did and did not say. Until I can see a credible source where the words are listed as authentic sayings from the Gospa I will not believe it, because as I said Im sure that all them very serious Catholics I’ve met in Medjugorje would never have been there if they thought such a thing had been said.

Perhaps following this link down to item #6 may help. #8 also helps…however I have no problem with “mixed” marriages.

catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2010/03/the-deviations-of-medjugorje.html

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

You just don’t get it- and this example you’ve given proves it. The Church’s Councils have given the BISHOPS first and main AUTHORITY in matters of apparitions in their jurisdictions. You keep insisting that as long as the Vatican has not spoken, then “the church” has not spoken- That’s exactly what I’m saying is FALSE.

I do get it. If your logic were true regarding local bishops authority, then why is there no official decree of rejection yet? You yourself said 2 local bishops have given their judgement. If that were sufficient, then the case wouldn’t be “under investigation”, without a “decision yet to be taken”. The case would be rendered as “Rejected”. Which is not.

You are not just free to ignore their judgments unless you think you’re free to ignore Ecumenical Councils and Canon Law that gives them that power and authority (indeed we must say “governs” the power and authority, because the authority comes straight from Jesus Christ). THAT is placing your own opinion above the Church.

No one is ignoring their judgements, this is exactly what I have not stated. And what Ive stated is to not place your opinion above the Church. Your arguments in no way go against what I have posted.

You are trying to override and rubish the Bishop’s judgments by saying that we should not reject this apparition before the Vatican says so, as though the Bishop’s judgments amounts to nothing more than a bowl of soup. What is wrong here is not your understanding of apparitions but of the CHURCH. The Pope is not the ONLY authority, he’s the foremost one. He does not function in some corner all by himself- He’s one of the BISHOPS, he works WITH them.

I am not stating the Pope is the only Authority, nor that the local bishop should be ignored.

Medjugorje is not just some local issue that the Bishop must solve. Some 30 million pilgrims have visited Međugorje since the supposed apparitions. It is not just a local issue. Rather a worldwide one. Usually the Vatican gets involved.

Go to this link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition

Scroll down to: Local Diocese Approval. Let me quote what it says here:​

"If the local bishop authorizes devotion inspired by an apparition to proceed, based on an initial assessment, that permission is to be distinguished from formal approval, which recognizes an event as being supernatural in origin. Such approval may follow years or even centuries later. A recent example of such a delay is the case of Our Lady of Laus, in which devotion was approved by the local diocese in 1665, but which obtained formal recognition as a supernatural event only in 2008.

Moreover, Marian apparitions often involve complications at the local diocese, and a letter of approval or disapproval from a local bishop, does not automatically signal approval or denial. A recent example is the apparitions of Our Lady of Kibeho in the 1980s in Kibeho, Rwanda. In 1982 the teenagers who saw the visions reported truly gruesome sights and said that the Virgin Mary asked everyone to pray to prevent a terrible war. Some today regard the visions as an ominous foreshadowing of the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, and particularly in that specific location in 1995, where some teenagers died a decade after their vision. The apparitions were accepted by the local bishop (accused by many of complicity in the genocide himself), but have not been given final approval by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."​

The “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” if ya didn’t know, is the oldest of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia. Among the most active of the congregations, it oversees Catholic Church doctrine. Its offices are housed at the Palace of the Holy Office at the Vatican.

If you read the 2 paragraphs (which I hope you actually did), they state 3 different things which support my position:

1- Local Bishop decrees are not sufficient. This is not the same as stating they should be ignored.

2- Even if the Bishops approves/rejects, there is a process of Investigation which is made precisely because bishops can make mistakes. If not, why then would there be such process?

3- It also says it could take several years for a “formal” approval or rejection. Even centuries. The approval of our Lady of Guadalupe for example took some 200 years after the actual apparition. How many Local Bishops would you have in that amount of time?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Have there been Bishops, Approving or Rejecting an actual apparition, and be proven to be mistaken by the actual decree of the Vatican? Yes

What I posted, simply supports my position that Local Bishop’s decree are not sufficient

Remember, St. Juan Diego told the local Bishop, Juan de Zumárraga, of the apparition (of our Lady of Guadalupe); doubtful, he asked for proof. Juan Diego later returned to the Tepeyac desert hill; again, the Lady appeared to Juan Diego, who told her of the bishop’s request for proof of her apparition.

This bishop was highly skeptical and had not St. Juan Diego brought the Tilma as proof, this Bishop probably would have not approved such apparition.

The reported Garabandal apparitions from 1961 to 1965 were examined by the local Bishop and were declared as not having evidence of being of supernatural origin. However the apparitions were not declared as a hoax and the possibility of future approval was left open.

The examples you give as to bad Bishops and Cardinals apply EQUALLY to Popes- Or do you just assume that all the Popes we’ve had were Saints?

This is a good example of a post you give trying to imply I assume something I don’t. Of course not all the Popes we’ve had were saints. No one is arguing this.

Not trusting that the Bishops’ judgements in this matter have any weight is basically refusing to trust that the process the CHURCH has set up is valid and basically saying that the ONLY way that God, The Holy Spirit guides the Church is via the Pope and no one else- That’s simply NOT true.

No one is saying don’t trust a Bishop. No one is saying their judgements have no weight. No one is saying that the bishops should be ignored because we have a Pope. I think Ive stated this numerous times.

If God and the Church give a Bishop certain prerogatives in his jurisdiction, the CATHOLIC thing to do, is to TRUST that authority, SUBMIT to that authority and that process and believe that GOD works THROUGH that process, not against it. You believe that God only works through the Vatican and never through the Bishop even when the Bishops exercise their legitimate authority- NOT Catholic teaching.

Again I never said I believe God only works through the Vatican. Though: God does work through it. Nor did I say don’t submit to your local authority. I would have to count how many times I actually posted that I didn’t state this. I said: The Local Bishop’s approval or rejection is not always enough for a formal approval/rejection of the whole Church. As quoted in the above link I posted.

Let us look at what the current Pope said in 1991 (when he was a cardinal).​

“Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) said in a 1991 interview in reference of Medugorje: “If we have only a local phenomenon, it’s not necessary that the Vatican intervene.” In situations of greater importance, however, the Vatican may either confirm or override the bishop’s decision with its own declaration. No reported claim of a supernatural apparition can receive approved status until the alleged phenomena have ceased.”

Medugorje is a situation of greater importance, not just a local issue.