Earlier this month, I wrote:
In his pontificate, B16 has been quietly (or not so quietly) dealing with issues that appeared to drift during the pontificate of John Paul II. He reined in the Franciscans in Assisi; he reined in the Neocatechumenal Way; he dealt with the Fr. Maciel matter. I’m wondering if the discussion he had with Bishop Peric included an initiative to clarify where the Church is regarding the subject of Medjugorje.
New evidence has surfaced that my suspicions were correct. Over the weekend I got word from Diane of Te Deum of a story in the European press reporting the formation of a new episcopal commission to investigate Medjugorje. Before I could blog about it, though, word came today that Catholic News Service had confirmed it with the Cardinal who will be overseeing the commission (CHT: Amy).
First,
HERE’S DIANE’S TRANSLATION OF THE EUROPEAN STORY
and
Now for some analysis:
The European story notes that the announcement of the new commission came after the recent meeting of the Bosnia-Hercegovina bishops’ conference in Banja Luka (I just love the sound of that name: Banja Luka. Cool!).
According to the story,
This announcement surprised many, because Medjugorje was not even one of the topics discussed at the meeting.
It also stated:
From our information, the request for the establishment of a new commission comes from the Vatican,
That certainly coheres with the idea of the commission not being discussed at the meeting. If it was the initiative of the local bishops then one would expect it to be discussed. If it were a Vatican initiative, it might not be.
It even more strongly coheres with a few points of evidence from the CNS story. First,
"The commission members have not been named yet," Cardinal Puljic told Catholic News Service in a July 24 telephone interview. "I am awaiting suggestions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" on theologians to appoint.
So that establishes involvement of the CDF on some level, but most tellingly,
When asked if the new commission was the idea of the doctrinal congregation or of the bishops’ conference, Cardinal Puljic said, "I would rather not answer that question."
Okay. That’s it. Slam dunk. Case closed. The Holy See requested the new commission.
Also (though is is a lesser point):
Officials from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were not available July 24 for comment.
Here’s exactly what happened:
<Knowledgable Guess Mode> Pre-16 felt for a long time that the community of the faithful would benefit from a clarification of where the Church is with respect to Medjugorje, and so after he became pope, he resolved to provide one. But this matter is delicate and could not best be dealt with in the manner of a motu proprio as the Franciscans of Assisi were. It needed a more indirect approach. He therefore approached his successor as head of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, and asked him to begin preparations for a new commission conducted under the auspieces of the local bishops’ conference. He also informed Bishop Peric earlier this year and Cardinal Puljic as well. Bishop Peric took the opportunity to signal the likely direction–or at least his desired direction–for the commission’s conclusions by stating B16 privately expressed skepticism about the apparitions and by publicly calling on the seers to stop making their claims. After the remainder of the bishops had been informed of the commission, Cardinal Puljic then made it public.</Knowledgable Guess Mode>
In case anyone needs a reminder of why B16 might feel that a clarification of the Church’s position is needed, I quote a passage from Bishop Peric’s confirmation homily that I quoted in my previous post regarding how serious the situation in the diocese is:
[I]n this local Church of Mostar-Duvno, there exists something similar to a schism. A number of priests that have been expelled from the Franciscan OFM Order by the Generalate of the Order, due to their disobedience to the Holy Father, for years now have been forcefully keeping a few parish churches and rectories along with church inventory. They have not only been illegally active in these parishes, but they have also administered the sacraments profanely, while others invalidly, such as Confession and Confirmation, or they have assisted at invalid marriages. This type of anti-ecclesial behaviour is shocking to all of us. At the same time, this scandal of sacrilegiously administering the sacraments, especially of the Most Holy Body of Christ, must shock all the faithful as well who invalidly confess their sins to these priests and participate in sacrilegious liturgies. We pray to the Lord that this scandal and schism be uprooted as soon as possible from our midst.
According to the CNS story:
The cardinal said he did not expect the commission to be established until sometime in September because of the summer holidays.
He said the primary task of the commission would be to review a 1991 report from the region’s bishops that concluded, "It cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations." [i.e., a non constat de supernaturalite result]
In addition, he said, the commission would be asked to review pastoral provisions that forbid official diocesan and parish pilgrimages to Medjugorje, while at the same time allowing priests to accompany groups of Catholics in order to provide the sacraments and spiritual guidance.
Now, I can’t make any concrete predictions regarding what the commission will end up announcing, but the direction of these events would not be encouraging for those who would like to see official approval of the apparitions or a loosening of pilgrimage rules–unless B16 is a closet supporter of Medjugorje, which would seem not to be the case if Bishop Peric was honest in what he said in his confirmation homily. Specifically, he said:
[A]ccording to the words of our current Pope, who I encountered during an audience on 24 February this year, [he] commented that at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith they always questioned how all these “apparitions” could be considered authentic for the Catholic faithful.
If that is accurate then it would seem that the holy father’s intention for the new commission would be directed toward one of three ends:
1) Reaffirming the status quo on the apparitions (non constat de supernaturalite) and pilgrimages (unofficial ones permitted with clerical support) in a more forceful manner
2) Reaffirming the status quo on the apparitions (non constat de supernaturalite) but placing new restrictions on pilgrimages (e.g., disallowing priests to accompany pilgrimages to the site)
3) Downgrading the status on the apparitions (i.e., to constat de non supernaturalite) and placing new restrictions on pilgrimages.
The irregular situation of the local ex-Franciscans may also be dealt with anew in an attempt to bring them into line.
Of course, the future is not yet written (from man’s perspective), and none of those things might happen, but if B16 really did take the tone with Bishop Peric that Bishop Peric reported then it sounds as if the best that devotees of the apparitions would be likely to see happen would be a reiteration of the status quo in hopes of ending some current abuses.
Whatever happens, it’s likely to be painful and disappointing to some people on some side of the issue.
So let’s keep the matter in prayer and ask God that healing will be brought to the situation through the commission’s work and that it will reach accurate and wise conclusions that reflect the truth of the matter, whatever the truth may be.
What is the actual relationship (if any) between the ex-Franciscans and Medjugorje? Just curious.
Venerable Aussie,
The Te Deum link that Jimmy posted has some background information about the Franciscans and Medjugorje.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
what was the problem with the Franciscans in Assisi. what were they up to?
Jimmy —
In re: Kathleen McGowan, I believe the name of the city is Marseilles, not “Marseille”. So actually, she has a factual error in the first word of her story.
Either that, or USA Today has abysmal proofreaders.
Pope restricts autonomy of Assisi Franciscans
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Maureen,
As a matter of fact the name of the city is “Marseille” with no s at the end.
As a matter of fact, both spellings are apparently accepted, but from what I’ve seen Marseille is the preferred and Marseilles is the alternate. But I’m sure there are many who would change the order as well.
But the really important question is this:
How would Jimmy pronounce it?
I don’t believe in Medjugorje. But I’m not rooting against it either.
a
HI Venerable Aussie,
There is far more going on with the local Franciscans there than can possibly be explained in this comment box. There are two sources to find information at this time. One is the new book by Donal Anthony Foley: “Understanding Medjugorje…” The other is the book written by Michael Davies, “Medjugorje – After Twenty-One Years”. This latter book, in its 6th edition is only available in free downloadable format (all 217 pages) at the Davies site – see the link my my blog which Jimmy provides. I have to head off to work now.
I believe both of these works have been authorized by the Bishop’s office. Foley makes a strong case, citing Canon Law on how books involving alleged private revelations require the authorization of proper authority to be published. This is to prevent scandal and to prevent a flood of misinformation. Foley goes on to say how the Laurentin and Rupcic books – two key supportive writers have not gotten that permission for their works. My guess is that none of the other pro-Medjugorje works are out there with ecclesiastical blessing either.
I don’t have time to type it out now, but may do it on my own blog in the coming days. Foley digs up a 1996 L’Osservatore Romano piece on the Vassula Ryden case, in which the CDF addressed the problem of circulating writings about and from non-approved sources. He, in part, cites Canon 823:
***********************************
Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.
*********************************************
Now, I just received an email from Louis Belanger, editor of the 1989 book, “The Hidden Side of Medjugorje” which was written by Fr. Ivo Sivric, OFM (deceased), who was native to the area, but educated in, and living in the US. In the email I’ve received (and I hope to have this up on my website soon – once I figure out how), he attached documents showing authorization to publish the Sivric/Belanger book.
All those having authorized books should show their authorization on their websites.
Foley had several other points listed from the L’Osservatore article, but it is too much for me to get into here. It can be found on page 188-190 of his book. I’m almost done with it, and hope to do a review of it soon. I’m just short on time.
Correction on the Foley book pages. The above should read 198-199.
My mistake, I didn’t realize that in English both spelling were allowed. The official name of the city is “Marseille” and any Francophone European woule expect it so, but I didn’t know that as far as Anglophones were concerned both were ok; Mea Culpa.
Thanks Diane K for the background. Like many bloggers here I’m sure, I have (extended) family who have been to Medj. but I’ve never really given it a lot of thought.
If it was the initiative of the local bishops then one would expect it to be discussed. If it were a Vatican initiative, it might not be.
Jimmy fails to note that the local bishops have for a long time asked for an international commission, stating that this “apparition site” is no longer local or even national in scope, but involves the world.
Okay. That’s it. Slam dunk. Case closed. The Holy See requested the new commission.
Not necessarily. Since, as I stated above, the regional bishops have asked for such a commission for quite some time before. They have made statements that they had a rather positive view of events but went to the neutral choice out of respect for the local authority who literally threw a tantrum against any positive decision. Then we have, which is not included in this “analysis”, the worldwide reaction, with loads of letters and other contacts, to the CDF after the most recently publicized homily of the local bishop with its rather subversive timing to the 25th anniversary, celebrated by something like 250,000 pilgrims. This was another interjecting of the local bishop’s private opinion into the matter. It was actually done before the anniversary, but was held for public announcement to coincide with the later date. It caused great confusion …. again. Perhaps the CDF then had to react in some public way to answer this confusion of the faithful devotees that they heard from in great numbers.
Bishop Peric took the opportunity to signal the likely direction–or at least his desired direction–for the commission’s conclusions by stating B16 privately expressed skepticism about the apparitions and by publicly calling on the seers to stop making their claims.
And you really believe that this pope enjoys any such publicity as to his personal opinions on a subject still under what should be an objective investigation and who was the one with the backing of JPII who made an unprecedented intervention to prevent a negative decision at that time (’86)? That action of removal of the dossier was said to have surprised the bishop when he was so certain of having his way! This pope tells no one about his plans of action or thoughts except those few personally trusted colleagues. He is very private. That has been written of quite often since his pontificate began. You believe that he enjoys the local bishop blabbing about personal conversations … even if true?? Rather, you have to remember that the bishop has also stated that our former pope, JPII, also backed the local bishops’ negative opinions! We have now documented letters, besides the statements of very orthodox, faithful, and trustworthy bishops, priests, of JPII’s great affection for Medj, calling it a continuation of Fatima. Now, perhaps Benedict only acted in obedience to JPII’s convictions at the time, but he has so far continued, in his talks, the connection to JPII’s pontificate in spirit. The whole world knows of JPII’s favor for Medj … and so does Benedict. I don’t doubt that he will work to rein in excesses and give clearer guidance, but I doubt if some final decision will all of a sudden come to pass. Even though this is a new commission, it will still have to consider all of the former scientific exams (three now….and the last most recently submitted to the Vatican which only points to normalcy of seers with no fraud) and other most positive fruits. If this pope should differ in opinion, then we will have two popes with two different opinions of an apparition site…which often happens with local authority.
It is also known that a Vatican well respected theologian witnessed the tirade by the local bishop re: his beliefs even in Fatima and Lourdes … no! Since the regional bishops’ conference wishes to respect the local bishop, as they desire same for their own jurisdictions, they are probably happy that the CDF will take this action at least partially out of their hands
Yes, prayer should be done by all to discern the Father’s will in all of this.
BTW, the Franciscans of the shrine itself have done nothing but attempt to clear up any differences with the local bishop. The head of their order is doing the same. The question then, is just who has been misusing authority?
Chris K,
“This was another interjecting of the local bishop’s private opinion into the matter.”
The local bishop is the authority on the matter.
Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
“The question then, is just who has been misusing authority?”
Anyone who assumes an authority they do not have.
If the new commission gives a verdict of Constat de non supernaturalitate will you accept that judgement?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Just to clarify – when the bishop refers to the “local church of Mostar-Duvno” he is not specifically referring to the parish of St. James in Medjugorje. In fact, the Franciscans he is referring to where not connected with the Medjugorje parish. There seems to be some confusion in the reporting of this story that makes it seem that the bad priests were in Medjugorje. In fact, the bishop’s homily was much broader.
Also, it seems that there is quite a contingent of those rooting for the “debunking” of Medjugorje and the books being pushed are the “anti-Medjugorje” books. I would submit that the books that speak of the abundance of good fruits outweigh the negative books quite handily. And not only of the fruits, but of the extensive testing of the visionaries and their experiences. There is a book by Father Rene Laurentin, a renowned Mariologist, entitled “The Apparitions at Medjugorje Prolonged.” Father Laurentin speaks quite positively of Medjugorje.
Also, when one speaks of good fruits as not being necessarily a proof of the apparitions, I agree. However, in the case of Medjugorje we are not talking about a stream or trickle of good fruits, but an avalanche. One cannot easily disregard this phenomenon.
So, please, when speaking of Medjugorje, please refer to some of the positive publications in order to balance the opinions being promoted. As someone who has personally benefited from the graces received at Medjugorje, I have a very positive view. I wait for the confirmation of this view from the Holy See and the bishops’ commission ( in spite of many others who seem to be anxiously cheering for the negative).
“The question then, is just who has been misusing authority?”
Anyone who assumes an authority they do not have.
Correctamundo Inocencio. But you don’t seem to know about the intervention of CDF authority over the local bishop’s in the question of this particular apparition site. Again, just who has been misusing authority? You appear to believe that it is the Vatican for if, according to your statement, the local bishop alone still has the authority here for the ruling, the place would be condemned and without any pilgrimages allowed!! And, so far, it isn’t. Are you saying that the Vatican had no authority to overrule the normal bishop’s authority over this apparition site and that their recognized guidance should be overruled by the bishop? See, this is the confusion established by the bishop interjecting his opinion into the situation (and that is how it has been described by the CDF)… and probably why the CDF is going to oversee the future commission.
If the new commission gives a verdict of Constat de non supernaturalitate will you accept that judgement?
Are you insinuating that I would be unfaithful? I’ve never written anything of such sort. You would be better to turn the question to the present and known Church guidance as to whether the debunkers themselves are accepting the current stance of the Church and not attempting to influence the uninformed that something has been condemned or given the negative choice of the three. Hmmm.
Carrie Tomko has the following post on her blog:
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
EMAIL FROM MARK WATERINCKX
It is officially confirmed now. The Vatican asks the Bosnia-Hercegovina-bishops conference to install a new commission about Medjugorje. And following the directives of the Vatican itself they have to consider the FACTS before the fruits. So the chance of a recognition of the ‘apparitions’ is 0%. The real problem of this sad story will be the psychology of the Medjugorje-supporters.
http://www.carrietomko.blogspot.com/
This is welcome news if it’s true. The facts of Medjugorje are the problem, which is why supporters always want to insist that the fruits alone matter.
The 1978 guideline for discernment of apparitions is clear on this point–that facts must be considered before fruits are considered.
“The real problem of this sad story will be the psychology of the Medjugorje-supporters.”
Is conversion now considered some sort of mental disorder?
Mark:
it depends whether or not their conversion can withstand the inevitable negative declaration of the commission.
There are people with a lot of emotional capital invested in Medjugorje, and I fear that many may become so disillusioned that they leave the Church. This highlights the danger of a spiritual life that revolves around private revelations.
Here is an article that enumerates some of the problematic facts surrounding Medjugorje.
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/MedjugorjiLies.html
Can anyone explain to me how to create a live link.
This is welcome news if it’s true. The facts of Medjugorje are the problem, which is why supporters always want to insist that the fruits alone matter.
The 1978 guideline for discernment of apparitions is clear on this point–that facts must be considered before fruits are considered.
ml, are you saying that the former commission missed out on some facts … after 25 years of consideration which included such objective facts as the very scientific studies conducted three separate times? Guess you better make a listing and send it on … or they just might miss them. Just can’t trust those bishops!! And the sources you cited are where you get your complete information? I see. And once others go to the link you provided I think they might just also understand!
MaryC,
I see you too have found the go-to link for obsessive Medj. debunkers! Have you read up on some of the history its manager has had with Fatima and those whom he’s now broken off with? Whoooo … ooooh, with the obsessive conspiratorial types! Better to stick with the very respected and renowned Marian experts like Fr. Laurentin or the Vatican respected Marian library at the U. of Dayton. Or even read some of the statements from the bishops in the conference themselves. And Mr. Foley is another obsessed debunker. He can’t wait for the Church to act … he has to pre-judge the Church according to his own prejudices. If it doesn’t match the “apparition proprieties” that he is comfortable with (Fatima) it’s evil! He conveniently leaves out other more similar contemporary APPROVED places such as Kibeho, Rwanda, also involving teens (he thinks they should only be children like Fatima … Mother Mary doesn’t usually chose others!) or Akita or Amsterdam or others that are recognized separately from the legitimate adult visionaries involved. There are a lot of red flags there too! Often wonder why people love to stay away from the legitimate books and sites. Just don’t want to learn all of the facts rather than gossip?
Chris K.
Are you insinuating that I would be unfaithful?
It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Instead, you hedge with:
You would be better to turn the question to the present and known Church guidance as to whether the debunkers themselves are accepting the current stance of the Church and not attempting to influence the uninformed that something has been condemned or given the negative choice of the three.
The difference is this: you have much more invested in being a true believer, than I do as a former believer and now a skeptic. If I’m wrong because I’m listening to the bishop, I’m not under the pain of sin. If you’re wrong because you’re NOT listening to the bishop, you’ll have to answer for your disobedience. Without getting into Paschal’s wager, et al., which is the prudent path, in your opinion?
If you want to continue to charge that the Bishop does not have the power to speak for the Church (read: VATICAN) in primary oversite of Medjugorje, then the teaching on Apostolic Succession is a fraud, plain and simple. The power of the Vatican to intervene does not remove the potency of the bishop’s decree. And as Jimmy points out, the CDF’s stake in this may be primarily to definitively deal with issues that are not going to either approve or disapprove of the visions themselves. And ironically, these “side” issues have to do with disobedience to the local bishop (which is what you are encouraging by promoting Medjugorje) and not the authenticity of the seers.
You see, it doesn’t matter whether the visionaries are for real or not. Those who profane the local bishop by willfully disobeying his decrees are profaning Christ Himself. The Bishop is absolutely within his rights to tell these people to knock it off. At the end of the day, they’re PRIVATE revelations and unneccessary for your salvation or mine. If the Blessed Mother is truly appearing to these visionaries, she can’t possibly be revealing anything so important to our souls that it would justify disrespecting the authority granted BY CHRIST to Bishop Peric. What the true believers of Medjugorje have done is raise these messages to a level of PUBLIC revelation, which is directly contrary to the dogma that all public revelation ceased with the death of John.
Is Mary at Medjugorje? OF COURSE SHE IS. So is Jesus. And the Holy Spirit. And the Father. Is she the “Gospa”? According to two successive bishops at Mostar, she IS NOT.
Truly – it’s a wicked generation that looks for a sign. His word should be good enough for you, but it’s not.
I really take umbrage at MaryC’s insinuation that conversions connected with Medjugorje are so tenuous that they would disappear at the drop of a negative decision. Obviously, MaryC does not have much in depth experience with the vast throngs who have converted. She posts a link to “unitypublishing” that supposedly lists “facts” surrounding Medjugorje. Who is unity publishing? What makes you so sure these are facts?? Let’s wait for the commission. And, sorry, but my conversion does not “revolve around” private revelations. I guess I’m a sorry sack who needed a knock on the head to straighten out my secular soul. Too bad I wasn’t as grace filled as the rest of you who were able to become incredibly “orthodox” without having to resort to silly supernatural experiences. Why would the Father resort to such embarrassing feats? Doesn’t he know we’re very educated and practical, we don’t need this kind of stuff. It distracts us from arguing about how the priest should stand at Mass and the proper translation of the creed. Now that’s for us educated folk…not this mystical nonsense.
MaryC didn’t say everyone who believes in Medjugorje will fall away from the Church. Reread her post. She is correct that there are people who become attached to specific apparation claims and who will reject the authority of the Church if the claims are rejected. Bayside is a recent example of this. When the local bishop ruled against it, Bayside supporters worked up a number of arguments to support their disobedience to his ruling and they continue to promote Bayside and Veronica Leuken as authentic.
Christopher makes excellent sense.
Michael Davies: Medjugorje After 21 Years, 1981-2002 (free 217-page online book listing many of the more notable problems with Medjugorje).
Chris K:
the Church in the shape of, not one, but TWO local bishops has acted, and stated quite clearly, that nothing supernatural has occurred at Medjugorje. It is up to the local bishop to decide the authenticity or otherwise of reported apparitions in his diocese, not Father Laurentin or anyone else. Rome has never overturned the negative verdict of a local ordinary in this matter.
Pro- Medj folk who call opponents nut-jobs are simply using ad-hominem tactics to avoid facing the facts. Even Fr Laurentin has had to admit that the ‘seers’ have lied.
Incidentally, if, as medj supporters claim, JPII was favourably disposed; why did he install Bishop Peric as successor to Bishop Zanic, the former being as equally opposed to the ‘apparitions’ as his predecessor?
If you want to continue to charge that the Bishop does not have the power to speak for the Church (read: VATICAN) in primary oversite of Medjugorje, then the teaching on Apostolic Succession is a fraud, plain and simple. The power of the Vatican to intervene does not remove the potency of the bishop’s decree.
Well, you must be living in a different Church than most of us. (BTW, I’ve always spoken to the “apparition” site itself.) If that is so, then why for the past 15 years since the Zadar declaration hasn’t the bishop’s decision and stated choice for ruling been honored by the Church? Your hierarchy pyramid must be turned upside down.
If you’re wrong because you’re NOT listening to the bishop, you’ll have to answer for your disobedience.
Yoo hoo! Again, I’ve spoken only to the legitimate authority of the Church over the appartion site itself. In that I am obedient. Is the bishop??
The difference is this: you have much more invested in being a true believer, than I do as a former believer and now a skeptic.
At the present time I have nothing more invested than following the current guidance of the Church with what is permitted and with what my own local bishop advises.
Truly – it’s a wicked generation that looks for a sign. His word should be good enough for you, but it’s not.
Wow, you really sit on a pretty high judgment seat of your own making! No one was “looking” for this “sign”. It was given. It just happened. When a gift is freely given by heaven for the benefit of God’s children at particularly horrendous times in human history (and anyone who’s been reading the papers for the past few decades might agree that we are in such times … perhaps worse than ever before with the whole world in danger of annihilation and people dropping like flies away from Truth), then it would seem prudent to accept any possible graces so mercifully offered noting all the while their obvious good fruits. Remember the fellow who was blind from birth and was healed by the Lord? When others disputed it due to their prejudices and ignorance he could only speak honestly to his own human experience. Simply, “I was blind … now I see”.
Lourdes: I wasn’t disparaging private revelations per se, I understand how they can be an aid to a person’s spiritual life. Nor do I suggest that those who believe in Church approved apparitions are mentally or spiritually deficient.
What I have observed, particularly in regard to Medjugorje, is that it’s supporters tend to be so single-minded in their adherence that any objection is met with an angry and defensive attitude.
I fear that a negative verdict regarding Medjugorje will result in many, not all, such people leaving the Church in disillusionment.
Chris K:
“ml, are you saying that the former commission missed out on some facts … after 25 years of consideration which included such objective facts as the very scientific studies conducted three separate times? Guess you better make a listing and send it on … or they just might miss them. Just can’t trust those bishops!! And the sources you cited are where you get your complete information? I see. And once others go to the link you provided I think they might just also understand!”
Pseudo-scientific experiments are not going to play into the decision. I linked above to Michael Davies’ online book that gives numerous examples of the problems with Medjugorje. You might contest some of them, but you can’t contest all of them, and these are the FACTS of the case that have to be considered first.
I linked to Carrie Tomko’s site only because of the post referencing the email from Mark Waterinckx, and I clearly said “If this is true.” Spirit Daily can be loony on various subjects, but that doesn’t mean the inside information he gets from email correspondents is necessarily incorrect.
What Tomko wrote–that the commission will be directed to study the facts of Medjurgorje before the fruits–is, as I noted, consistent with the 1978 CDF guidelines. Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric have written extensively about the problems with the facts of Medjugorje that can’t be dismissed; if these things are true (the things in Michael Davies’ book), then the Virgin Mary is not appearing at Medjurgorje.
Medgugorje is an isolated village where pilgrims are exposed to multiple channels of ordinary and sacramental grace, and that alone explains the conversions people have there. Sandra Miesel is a Church historian who has written many times that people attributed miracles to what turned out to be false saints’ relics. Bayside was supposedly the site of all sorts of extraordinary phenomena, miracles of spiritual and physical healing (including a nun), and powerful conversions. Those things didn’t make Veronica Leuken and her claims true.
Chris K.
after 25 years of consideration which included such objective facts as the very scientific studies conducted three separate times?
Science? Science is a tinker toy to Satan. He can drum up enough “convincing data” to make your head spin.
Science deals with the natural. God deals with the supernatural. Hypnosis can produce the same effects the seers “experience” during their “visions”.
And let’s not talk about one of the seers startling when someone feigned poking her in the eye during an “ecstasy”. The experience of “ecstasy” makes the person experiencing it impervious to outside distraction, other than the words of their priest if he is present. And “no”, the Blessed Mother wouldn’t drop the baby Jesus. He’s not a football.
the Church in the shape of, not one, but TWO local bishops has acted, and stated quite clearly, that nothing supernatural has occurred at Medjugorje.
Sorry, MaryC, but you’re not up on the facts. The dossier was removed from Zanic and given over to the bishops’ conference before any “action” was taken. From there came the Zadar declaration which the Church accepted. The current bishop only agrees in his opinion with his predacessor. There has been no other commission or study for this bishop to “act”. There have been no TWO official local bishops’ actions. And you are misstating the actual choice by the bishops’ commission. IF it were as you would like to believe, the local bishop would have had his way since the 80s with the placed condemned and no pilgrimages permitted. The Church acted within its rights to prevent such a negative decision which they obviously believed resulted from a prejudiced examination and wanted an objective study. Now, you may continue stating otherwise, falsely, but it changes nothing for the moment. Wait and see what will progress.
Rome has never overturned the negative verdict of a local ordinary in this matter.
Rome hasn’t had to “overturn” anything because it never got to that stage before Rome intervened. It sorta nipped it in the bud, so to speak.
And Popes don’t install bishops based on opinions of private revelations!!
Believe me there is very little to compare in Bayside and Medjugorje other than the fact that they were both claimed apparitions of the blessed mother. I am very familiar with both and the messages coming out of Bayside were not in line with Church teaching. None of the supposed messages from Medjugorje stray from the teaching of the Magisterium.
In addition, the hierarchy very quickly put the smack down on Bayside. That has not happened in Medjugorje.
Finally, why not quote someone like Archbishop Hannan, the former ordinary of New Orleans or others in the Church hierarchy who have favorable impressions of Medjugorje. The priest who is the vocations director at the Shrine for Divine Mercy in Stockbridge, MA also received a conversion through Medjugorje. There are many other priests and religious who could be cited as Medjugorje converts. I don’t believe there was a single vocation coming out of Bayside.
Anyway, my point is that it’s all very nice to stack up the critics. But there should be balance in your observations. And which bishop authorized Donal Anthony Foley’s book? I read that he’s from England, so does that mean what he says should be accurate because his bishop said go ahead and write something? If it has an imprimatur it only means that nothing he wrote goes against the teaching of the Church, it doesn’t mean it is factually accurate.
And, MaryC, thank you for your clarification, but I still think you are underestimating the vast majority of those who have had a positive experience in Medjugorje. If anything, the experience has deepened my trust in the Church hierarchy and that has been my experience with othersas well.
I will tell you that my entire family has been hit like a wave with graces that began after we visited Medjugorje. It has resulted in the formation of prayer groups, vocations, spiritual renewal and more.
Also, it seems like one of the criticisms of the visionaries by Donal Foley is that they put up pilgrims in their homes. This doesn’t seem very different from other Catholic evangelists or apologists who rely on Paypal donations, etc. to support themselves. I don’t think those donations go to charity, either. Believe me when I tell you that these visionaries do not appear to livehigh on the hog. Of course, I may be fooled by appearances, but it’s a very simple village and the cost of $1,800 for a week’s stay including airfare, doesn’t seem out of line to me.
Again, let’s wait for the determination of the commission, but if we must pre-judge, let’s please look at both sides more carefully.
Pseudo-scientific experiments are not going to play into the decision.
Apparently you are not aware of those professionals conducting the objective tests. Figures!
The experience of “ecstasy” makes the person experiencing it impervious to outside distraction,
And you are correct. The visionary was reacting to the vision itself, not to outside distration … just as she and others have been witnessed to suddenly smile or cry or sigh or shake their heads in agreement or show other human reactions … to what they experience in the vision … not to outside stimulation. They don’t lose their human response while in that “other world”. Facts again are a bit truncated here.
Science? Science is a tinker toy to Satan. He can drum up enough “convincing data” to make your head spin.
Well you and Satan just got rid of a whole bunch of saints, based on objective medical examination of miracles. And you just can’t believe those close medical exams of P. Pio to attempt to find the origins of his stigmata. Proved they were real…yeah, that old tool of Satan really worked there! And you sorta sliced off whole portions of JPII’s excellent writings on science and its usefulness in partnering with faith. That evil science! Pretty soon the debunkers will have a very naked Church left!
So the Blessed Virgin Mary actually dropped the baby Jesus according to one of the seers? Are they sure that it wasnt Brittany Spears?!
I guess I would blink too… yes apparitions must be true!
Well, you must be living in a different Church than most of us. (BTW, I’ve always spoken to the “apparition” site itself.) If that is so, then why for the past 15 years since the Zadar declaration hasn’t the bishop’s decision and stated choice for ruling been honored by the Church?
What do you mean, has it been “honored”? It doesn’t need to be “honored” by the Church. The decisions stands on the integrity of the office of Bishop. It doesn’t need further approval or disapproval from the Vatican. You err in equating “the Church” strictly with “the Vatican”. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. First and foremost, he is a bishop endowed with the same power as the Bishop of your own local dioceses. What he has in addition, as pope, is infallibilty on matters of faith and morals. This is not a matter of “faith and morals”, so by definition, he has nothing to add to the discernment of the local bishop. The weighing in of the Vatican is not in order to supplement the bishop. The bishop, himself, has requested this of the CDF if that’s what it takes to convince his flock that he is correct. I’d call that a spiritual work of mercy.
Yoo hoo! Again, I’ve spoken only to the legitimate authority of the Church over the appartion site itself. In that I am obedient. Is the bishop??
Are you saying the bishop doesn’t have legitimate authority over his flock? He’s not allowed to expect obedience of his flock? Why don’t we just outsource that position to Bangalore then? Maybe we can have customer service at Dell Computer handle questions on Medjugorje while they’re at it.
and with what my own local bishop advises.
Your own local bishop is not the local ordinary of Mostar. It’s not his jurisdiction to discern this matter.
No one was “looking” for this “sign”.
I submit that those who most vehemently disagree with the bishop are more worried about protecting their own understanding of the signs they perceive at Medjugorje, instead of being humble in the pursuit of truth. The bishops words are not “mud”.
Remember the fellow who was blind from birth and was healed by the Lord? When others disputed it due to their prejudices and ignorance he could only speak honestly to his own human experience. Simply, “I was blind … now I see”.
I don’t doubt the conversions going on at Medjugorje. They’re a lot like the conversions going on in my home diocese – only we’re not building hotels and running tourbuses around my church, then sticking a shiv’ in the back of the bishop when it’s convenient.
Chris:when I stated that Rome has never overturned a negative decision made by a local ordinary, I was speaking generally not specifically about Medjugorje. Rome leaves the initial inquiry in the hands of the bishop of the diocese in which the alleged apparitions have occurred, and, like I said the negative verdict of a local bishop has never yet been overturned.
And, I agree, popes generally don’t install bishops based on the opinions of private revelation. But I’m sure the pope takes into account the individual circumstances in each diocese when selecting a suitable candidate as bishop and therefore the Medjugorje phenomena must have been a factor in this case.
Christopher, you may not be building hotels or running tour buses in your diocese, but it goes on in many other dioceses. I was at the shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa (sp?) in Doylestown, PA… many tourbuses, and they built their own hotel. Last year I was in Lourdes…lots of tour buses, many hotels. Same thing at beautiful shrines and churches throughout Europe and the U.S. I don’t think the fact that tour buses come to a parish and hotels are built to house them shows a negative sign. And, of course, just as there are many good and gracious people in Medjugorje there are also hustlers and con artists and those who would take advantage of the pilgrims. So, what else is new? When I was in Lourdes I was warned to watch out for the pickpockets.
If there were no pilgrims, you probably would be saying it was a sure sign that Medjugorje was false…otherwise where are the fruits? Now that there are positive fruits you say, that doesn’t mean anything… Good fruit can come from a bad tree. Methinks you just don’t want this phenomena to receive the stamp of approval.
Well you and Satan just got rid of a whole bunch of saints, based on objective medical examination of miracles.
Did any of these “objective medical examination of miracles” involve quack-science as at Medjugorje, or known, accepted, and verified standards of the medical community? Do you know the difference between a “miracle” and a “supernatural event”? To date, there have been no documented, supernatural miracles at Medjugorje. None. Zippo. Zilch. A “garden variety” miracle without supernatural characteristics is as much a proof of the work of Satan as it could be of God. Just because someone can point their Polaroid at the sun and get a reflection of the aperture and call it a “doorway to heaven” doesn’t make it a supernatural miracle. The authentic “fingerprint” of Mary involves supernatural phenomena, not cheap tricks of light and sound.
Good fruit can come from a bad tree.
Not according to the Bible:
Matthew 7
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
Can good things come about in spite of evil? Yes. Most definitely. I sin every single day and God still loves me. It’s all I can hope for.
I was at the shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa (sp?) in Doylestown, PA
The title “shrine” implies that it is approved by the bishop, in which case, AWESOME – bring on the pilgrims to Our Lady of Czestochowa! Those who promote Medjugorje have the audacity to overstep the Bishop by calling it a “shrine” in their literature, promotional advertising, etc. It can’t be considered a shrine without his approval.
lourdes:
And, MaryC, thank you for your clarification, but I still think you are underestimating the vast majority of those who have had a positive experience in Medjugorje. If anything, the experience has deepened my trust in the Church hierarchy and that has been my experience with othersas well.
I don’t think any of us who are skeptical of Medjugorje are doubting that there are many many conversions going on there. The thing is, there’s nothing any more special about Medjugorje than, say, Yankee Stadium when it comes to the operative nature of grace. It’s a very short trip between “Medjugorje, the apparition site,” and “Medjugorje, the holy land”. Your conversion and the conversions of your family came about because you were seeking God. He promised He would open the door to all who knocked. My own conversion came about, not because of Medjugorje, but in spite of it. The Blessed Mother responded to MY call, not the other way around, and I can never EVER repay the gift of her tender mercy towards my wretched being, except by following her Son and “doing whatever He tells [me]”.
At any rate, please pray for me. We all have the same goal of being with the Father in heaven, so we shouldn’t bicker as much as we do…
Christopher,
You throw around accusations without substantiation. Who exactly has the “audacity” of calling Medjugorje a shrine. I don’t think it’s any of the parish priests there. Perhaps some tour group used that term. Are you sure you can’t use the term “shrine” without the bishop’s approval?? I’ve used the term shrine for many places of worship. Sorry, I guess I need to be reprimanded for inexact use of religious terminology.
Also, support your claim that only “junk science” was used to investigate Medjugorje? I sense there is an underlying reason for your hostility that you are not stating. Otherwise, why are you so scathing in your attack? The messages don’t lead anyone away from the faith. They repeat the call to prayer, conversion, fasting, scripture and holy Mass. What is so wrong about that? The allegations you make are hearsay that have nothing to do with these simple messages. They are based on gossip and innuendo. Go to the official website of the parish. You won’t find anything odd there.
By the way, I wasn’t the one saying good fruit can come from a bad tree. It seems that all of the detractors on this thread are making that claim. I see quite the opposite, the myriad of conversions coming from Medjugorje seem to indicate a good tree.
There were studies by French, Italian and Yugoslavian doctors. You can form your own conclusion about whether or not they were “junk” science, whatever that means. If you check the facts, you will see that there are several dossiers of Medical studies. One of them by Doctors Frigerio and Mattalia have been opened and published. Others were presented to the bishops commission and are confidential. I don’t know how you deem the quality of these studies to be “junk” if you haven’t read them.
And, honestly, there haven’t been many officially approved healings at Lourdes. Believe me, there are more important healings than physical ones.
Christopher, I don’t think that anything anyone can say is going to convince you about Medjugorje. Your mind appears to be made up and even if the commission arrives at a positive judgment, you will probably not believe. That is your right. But, please, if you’re going to throw accusations and judgments around, support them with facts, not emotions.
Christopher,
Our comments seem to be crossing each other. Thank you for your comment and I will certainly pray for you. Please do the same for me.
I have to disagree, however, with your statement that there is nothing different between Medjugorje and Yankee Stadium (especially since I’m a Mets fan). There are profound graces that come from perpetual adoration, that come from places of worship.
Our Lord, for some reason, has deemed certain places to be holy sites that are different from other places. I am not saying that Medjugorje has had a definitive proclamation of being such a place, but there are differences between those places and secular venues. Saying that someone can be converted at Yankee Stadium is missing the point a little. Someone, I suppose, could be converted in a porn theater. However, there have been places throughout the life of the Church that have been the sites of strange and wonderful happenings. It’s not to say that you have to go there to convert, live a holy life, receive graces, etc., but for whatever reason there is something special about these places and the Lord has chosen to break through the veil separating our world and the world beyond. Many of the holiest people I know have never ever had such an experience. All of the holy people I know do not seek it. But, for whatever reason, it does happen and I’m one of those sinful stubborn people who needed an extra knock on the head. I thank God for His extra help.
Hey Jimmy – can we save these comment threads for analysis in another year or two?
We see in this thread, evidence of what Msgr Henri Brincard pointed out:
Source
The question I have, that no one seems to have answered, is whether or not the seers have OBEYED the bishop’s last request to cease speaking publicly?
You see, I had no feelings one way or another about Medj until this past year, when in Rome some of my fellow students went up there on pilgrimage. All of them stood by it, but when they described the apparititions to me I was just concerned. It just didn’t sound right, and neither did the extreme emphasis that all of them, and the other Medj devotees that I found in Rome, placed on that place and the people there.
I still don’t have strong feelings one way or ther other about it, I do know that of course there have been many conversions and good fruits. But of course, fruits do not the truth make. I will certainly leave any judgment on the site to the Church and not to the existence of these wonderful fruits. Likewise, while I may grant that the teachings coming from Medj are fully in line with Church teaching (I’ll take your word on it, I haven’t read them all, and the fact that the Church herself hasn’t stamped them as being OK is what this whole discussion is about anyway!), the same case is true – the message does not mean that the messanger is of God. The best con artists sit and wait for years if necessary to build up confidence in the people they are going to scam – and Satan is the King of all con artists. Not saying he’s behind this, but I am saying that if your entire case rests on the “fruits” and “message”, you’re not going to get very far.
Which brings me to my point. I am a strong devotee of the Divine Mercy devotion and St. Faustina. The Divine Mercy was ordered to cease by the local and Roman authority – and this directive was obeyed immediately! St. Faustina herself writes in her journal (which was to be suppressed for many years itself!) that under the care of various spiritual directors, it happened that sometimes things that Jesus wanted to be done were NOT done because of what the spiritual director told her to do under obedience – and she relates that Jesus was PLEASED with this, because by her obedience to them she was obeying Christ first – Jesus KNOWS that private revelation is something that we can be confused by, and so He accepts that there is a necessary step in discernment that is in obedience to His earthly representatives, in the person of the bishops and priests in authority over us in certain matters. It is actually through the Divine Mercy disciples’ faithful obedience to remain quiet publicly about St. Faustina’s message that proved, in the end, that the events surrounding her life and witness could be approved by the Church as an authentic path to holiness.
Of course, in saying this, I am also saying that since St. Faustina’s diary is private revelation you should not listen solely to it either. However, the points that are in it stand, and have been part of the life of the Church since the beginning – obedience to proper authority is the lynchpin of the organizational aspect of the Church militant. Without this sense of obedience, you end up Protestant.
All that being said – if the seers and responsible persons at Medj are DISOBEYING this directive from their ordinary, instead of proving their faith and communion with the Church by humble obedience, then the only response I can give is – I don’t believe them, and for the love of God and Mary I pray that they stop now on their own, or that the Church definitively gives direction to the faithful on this matter – and if Mother Church gives a positive directive on the issue, then fine, I will gladly accept it as so. But, if there is a negative directive, will Chris K, lourdes, and so many other Medj devotees accept that? Or just keep going for an “appeal”, waiting in not-so-joyful hope for the coming of the savior of the Medj phenomenon?
Roamin Roman,
My answer to your question of whether I will accept a negative direct is “of course.” I also agree that the “seers” should be obedient to the bishop. But, I would also say let’s wait and see what comes of the new commission and keep an open mind. And I would say to Diane K that the “aggressiveness” on this thread seems to be coming from those who are skeptical rather than those who are favorable. In any event, let’s wait and see and hopefully we can all rejoice in the gift of our faith no matter what the outcome will be.
I am a Medjugorje skeptic, but I echo the question asked earlier in this thread: why hasn’t the Church lowered the boom on this sooner, when it acted so quickly in other cases like Bayside?
The ongoing disobedience to the local Bishop can been seen as a bad fruit.
I am a Medjugorje skeptic, but I echo the question asked earlier in this thread: why hasn’t the Church lowered the boom on this sooner, when it acted so quickly in other cases like Bayside?
1. Because JPII was a devotee, believed it was a center of spirituality, encouraged his underlings to visit, visited with some of the visionaries, and through his authority put the kabash on the local bishop’s negative judgment.
2. I didn’t know that the Church was “lowering the boom”. Projection?
chris K,
“Because JPII was a devotee, believed it was a center of spirituality, encouraged his underlings to visit, visited with some of the visionaries, and through his authority put the kabash on the local bishop’s negative judgment.”
Can you please present the documentation your claims.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
A.M. asks:
At Bayside, the priests supported their bishop when he essentially said, “Not!” The “seers” did not have any priestly support in order to promote their efforts.
At Medjugorje, the Franciscans who initially showed skepticism themselves according to tapes made of the early days, eventually involved themselves too deeply only a month or so after this began. Rather than distancing themselves from it, so as not to give it credibility before the Bishop could approve or disapprove of a cult fullowing, the Franciscans began promotion (details can be found in the Davies book which is here in free, downloadable form), and they can be found in the new Donal Anthony Foley book, Understanding Medjugorje, which focuses heavily on the first few hours, days and weeks of the apparitions (beginning June 1981).
Like a crime scene, this is the most important time to investigate, not once the trail gets cold and other things can sidetrack judgment of events. Pro-Medjugorje books focus largely from 1983 and onward, omitting critical information that was available to authors who believe the apparitions are false.
The Vatican does not make judgments. Rather, it defers to the local Ordinary. However, due to the international status Medjugorje had, it really needs to be dealt with by a commission. There have been several. In 1991 the Yugoslav bishops commission elected to give it a status that says they cannot affirm that there is anything supernatural about the visions. The ruling was negative, but left open the door. They have now waited 15 years and have plenty of evidence to put this in its proper place now.
It is important to note again, that no books should have been published without the permission of the bishop who has jurisdiction – in this case Peric, and Zanic before him. Or, it must come from a higher authority. Foley, Davies, and before them, Fr. Ivo Sivric/Louis Belanger (Hidden Side of Medjugorje 1989), got permission from the respective bishops to print and distribute their books. Louis Belanger has sent me copies of the faxed, written permission with signatures.
I would love to see such evidence that the Bishop of Mostar granted permission for the pro-Medjugorje books to be published. And, the magazines, the websites, and anything else that promotes the appartions.
What happened with Medjugorje that it has gone on this long, is one big promotional campaign to make it seem authentic. If enough people are interested, surely the Vatican will see it and affirm it. But, this is not how it works. As the French Bishops point out, “events” must be judged before the “fruits” by the local Bishop. Only after he is certain nothing can harm the Church will he grant any kind of following or promotion. Canon Law 823-1 is cited by Foley as the reason such permission is usually sought for written materials. When it is followed, it prevents a large cult following from happening BEFORE the ordinary gives it his blessing, and protects the faithful from fraud.
But God gives people a free will, and so does the Church. They will not put a gun to someone’s head to say “stop”. But, as the disobedience mounts, it becomes evidence. If the Blessed Mother were truly showing in Medjugorje, then the “seers” and followers would be graced in such a way as to humbly submit their will to that of the lawful ecclesiastical authority – the Bishop. His authority was not respected once he put is fist down and said that he had seen enough. The Franciscans (seers associates) continued to aid them in developing the cult following.
It is a sign of the supernatural when such graces are visible in alleged seers, associates, and followers. When it is absent, and when there is obstinancy, it is evidence of the opposite, and even of diabolical influence. The Father of Lies has proven time and again, he will tolerate some holy things if he feels he can gain in some other way. For example, if a condemnation comes forth, a certain number of people will remain steadfast, placing the visionaries ahead of the Church. Necedeh is a very good example of this, as that false-apparition gave evidence of diabolical influence, yet had many of the same “fruits” you see at Medjugorje.
In the case of Medjugorje, the Bishop has been crying foul from very early. Initially he was open, but then he gave a list of 20 reasons why he could not believe it was authentic.
Bishop Zanic’s 20 reasons to disbelieve in Medjugorje
Why did the 1991 Zadar Commission act on this alone? Only God knows. Perhaps to give it more time for more evidence, and truly, that evidence has blossomed against it, with the self-promotion of the “seers” and their promotion by their associates (the Franciscans). Self-abnegation is a sign of supernatural influence, not self-promotion.
I believe the war had much to do with not messing with it for many years after. And, I think the Bishops thought it was going to go away. But it didn’t.
Now, the Bosnia-Herzegovina Bishops get to finish the job.
The above paragraph should read:
Why did[n’t] the 1991 Zadar Commission act on this alone? Only God knows.
MaryC,
“Can anyone explain to me how to create a live link.”
HTML Examples
Scroll down to this section HTML Link Examples and click How to create hyperlinks.
Hope this helps.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“This highlights the danger of a spiritual life that revolves around private revelations.Here is an article that enumerates some of the problematic facts surrounding Medjugorje.
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/MedjugorjiLies.html”
My spiritual life revolves around prayer, the Sacraments, the Word of God and the Church, the mystical Body of Christ. I am open to the possibility that God is using His mother to send a prophetic message to the world at Medjugorje as He did at Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe (among others). It appears you have a lot of emotional investment in denying the possibility that the Mother of God is appearing there to encourage the world to pearc, faith, prayer, conversion and fasting.
What about the psychology of those at the site you sourced who are struggling merely to accept the Novus Ordo? It appears to be quite a struggle to keep this crowd from Sedevacantism … Not really the best place to go to form your opinion on anything IMO.
Mark,
Many of us who desire to discuss negative fruits, along with the good ones, were one time promoters or supporters.
A common misconception among supporters is that anyone that is against Medjgorje hasn’t been there, or was never a supporter themself. People assume we have not “experienced” Medjugorje, when in fact we have.
I lived there for 2.5 years – from November of 1980 (months before it all began) to February of 1983 (around the time Fr. Jozo was released).
I was in the Franciscan convent affiliated with Medjugorje. Our sisters were assigned to that parish, which was 20 minutes away by bus from the provincial house where I resided. I walked, by foot, the full distance from the outskirts of Mostar, to Medjugorje along with my peers. Many people made pilgrimages by foot. It was spiritually moving.
However, I had also made pilgrimages on foot, leaving at 9:00 PM and arriving at 6:00am in Siroki Brijeg – a common destination in August for Assumption. It too was spiritually moving, but there were no ongoing “visions” taking place there. There was Mass, confession, devotion and it was a beautiful experience.
While those who are against are accused of not having been read any supportive books, not having every been there, or being anti-Marian, anti-Eucharistic, liberal, and any number of other things, the truth is quite the opposite.
I had read early Laurentin and Rupcic books and bought it hook, line and sinker. I’ve already stated that I didn’t visit, I lived nearby and personally made and cut hosts for 14,000 people in the early 80’s. I witnessed the good fruits of followers back then, but the Sacraments alone can explain this. After coming back to the US due to illness and reintegrating into secular life, I gradually became indifferent to my Catholic faith, while still going to Mass each Sunday. I lost any sense of Marian and Eucharistic devotion.
When Pope John Paul II died I was awakened and thrust into a significant inner conversion with the rise of Benedict, whom I did not know from Adam because I never kept up on what was going on in the Church or in Medjugorje. This re-awakening took me to my present parish, Assumption Grotto in Detroit, where I rapidly developed Eucharistic and Marian devotion, yet the pastor does not permit promotion of any unapproved apparitions: No prayer groups, flyers, books, magazines – nothing. But, it is a very Marian and Eucharistic parish – one that is devout and rich in many of the things I enjoyed about Medjugorje, but absent the “visions”. However, the parish does promote approved apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima.
I discovered this parish on May 15, 2005. On August 15, 2005, I consecrated myself to Jesus through Mary by the St. Louis de Montfort method (approved), after a 33-day preparation written by him. Pope John Paul II was consecrated himself in this manner.
I joined a local secular Carmelite community which is one of the things that led me to this parish on Pentecost. Having been reawakened, my original interest in the works of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila reignited and I was blessed to find Grotto, where the diocesan priest is a third order Carmelite himself. I am currently in formation for this order (approved).
Last year, I began nearly daily Mass attendance by getting up earlier and going to a local parish which has a 6:00am Mass. I pray Lauds, Vespers, and Compline from the Liturgy of the Hours daily. I engage in 30 minutes of mental prayer daily, pray a Rosary and most days try to get in a Divine Mercy Chaplet and a few other small devotions, such as the Angelus, and the Fatima Angel’s Prayer.
During this time I developed an aversion to my TV God and no longer watch anything, but a few religious programs on EWTN, such as Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Fr. Benedict Groeschel. I no longer listen to radio or newspaper, other than religious programming and writings. I merely glance at a headline here and there on Yahoo when I log into my email.
I’ve been going to confession 2-4 times monthly, often to work on virtue issues. This too brings its graces, along with a regular prayer life. I participate in adoration at a convent chapel on the grounds of my parish run by a religious order which resides there. I engage in processions and participate in the choir.
I credit all of these good fruits to the sacraments, and to Eucharistic and Marian devotion, all of which are fostered heavily by the priests at my parish. My love for the faith resulted in my photo-rich blog which captures life at Assumption Grotto (click through April, May, and June in particular and just scroll). You will see a very traditional appearing Mass, but it is the Novus Ordo in Latin, and is in compliance with the GIRM, including the ad orientem posture of the priest as he faces the high wall altar during the Eucharistic Prayer.
On Sundays, it is not uncommon for people to show up for the 9:30 Mass which runs to about 11:00 and to still be hanging out at 2 or 3 in the afternoon. The incensing, Gregorian Chant, Sacred Polyphony and beautifully sung/chanted Mass makes it longer, but people don’t care. We then socialize in the parish hall and on the large grounds where there is an outdoor grotto. With the very few exceptions, we have hot dogs, hamburgers, sausages, icecream and donuts every Sunday after the 9:30 and Noon Masses. Following the noon english Mass, there is a procession to the outdoor Grotto with the Blessed Sacrament where Benediction takes place (in the winter we do it indoors). People just hang out and wait for this. Pictures are on my blog.
We are blessed with many Sunday afternoon seminars provided by one of the priests who enthusiastically engage with us on a regular basis in this manner.
I tell you all of this because these are things commonly found at Medjugorje. There is simply no reason why parishes shouldn’t be making these things widely accessible to people right here in the US. It is not my time in Medjugorje which caused my conversion. Rather, it was having found a simple parish which aided me in developing proper worship attitude, frequent use of the Sacraments, a healthy devotion to Our Lady and the Eucharist, which did this for me.
It also goes to show that I, like many who can no longer support Medjugorje, are not anti-Marian liberals who know nothing about the place.
While I have read books supportive of Medjugorje – each of which caused me to develop an interior contempt for the Bishop of Mostar, I would ask if you have read any books critical of it, just to see if there is any merit, in your mind, to what they are saying. All of those books I have listed have been approved by the Bishop of Mostar, who has jurisdiction. As I stated above, all should submit their works to the bishop which has jurisdiction before publishing. Did Laurentin or Rupcic get this approval from Zanic or Peric? Or, any of the other supporters? Canon 823-1 exists for a reason. If supportive authors did not use Bishop Zanic to get their approval, to whom did they go for it?
Unity must subsist in Truth because Jesus is Truth.
I meant to comment on my links to Unity publishing.
When I am seeking something objective like the words of a dated speech by a paritcular speaker, I look for that speech on google. For some reason, I am unable to find many words straight from the pen of the Bishops there in Medjugorje on the websites of many of the supporters. Rather, I find commentary downplaying or attacking those things, without the actual words. This is odd behavior for those claiming to be guided by the Mother of God, who was the model of obedience, humility and truthfulness. If I do find it on a website, it often comes with unnecessary commentary which downplays or explains away each of the points made by the bishop. So, if you can find me a copy of Bishop Zanics twenty reasons why he could not believe Our Lady is appearing in Medjugorje on another site, I would appreciate having the link. Just the original letter, please.
Also, my apologies to Our Lord, for having capitalized the “G” in god when I spoke of my TV god above. I was a tv junkie, always having on the television, radio or some other form of distraction. I didn’t have time for prayer, but I sure had 2 hours each evening for primetime programming before my inner conversion last year. That was the point of the statement.
Mark said,
I’m having a hard time finding anything related to your accusation about Unity. Can you please provide for me, a link to the specific content which you feel proves that Unity is having a hard time accepting the Novus Ordo, or is leaning towards Sedevacantism?
Keep in mind, there are many Catholics like myself who enjoy a more reserved, traditional form of the Novus Ordo, as opposed to the dynamic, contemporary version of the same. I think you will find that Pope Benedict enjoys this kind of Mass, as well. This hardly makes people like me, or those at Unity, leaning towards sedevacantism, or anti-Novus Ordo. I can attend a Tridentine just 10 minutes away from my parish, but I choose the Novus Ordo celebrated in a traditional fashion.
So, where in Unity Publishing;’s site do you find these things?
Diane,
I appreciate that Mr. Salbato is working hard to keep disenchanted traditionalists from taking the Sedevacantist plunge (“I’m staying … stay with me and fight” in http://www.unitypublishing.com/liturgy/OldLatinMass.htm). According to the site, the man lives at Fatima and has quite a bit invested in Fatima. I can understand, then (sort of), that a crowd which needs to hold its collective nose to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo is also struggling with Marian prophecy which is “post-Fatima”. However, I think it’s really sad when vitriol and bitter attacks like “Medjugorje lies” and “Deadly Apparition” and “Medjugorge pedophiles” are utilized to muddy the waters.
If Our Lady felt that the world situation in 1917 warranted her prophetic presence, it is not at least feasible that at this time, with the US holding the ability to destroy the earth 10,000 times over, that her voice is needed again? Does the world not need to hear the call to “peace, faith, prayer, conversion and fasting”?
As Pope John Paul II said to a group of twelve Italian bishops seeking pastoral advice on people making pilgrimages to Medjugorje. “LET THE PEOPLE GO TO MEDJUGORJE IF THEY CONVERT, PRAY, CONFESS, DO PENANCE AND FAST.”
Mark,
Can you cite your JP II quote?
Thank you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Ice,
Take a look at: http://www.medjugorje.org/pope.htm. You may also want to confer: http://www.udayton.edu/mary/resources/medjbib.html
I too would like to see a source, and date, cited for when Pope John Paul supposedly said this. I am especially interested in the year for this comment.
One thing I would like to note is that supporters continue to make claims in this thread and elsewhere, often without citing their source or providing a link which does cite it. In this case, Mark, I have saved you some work and can cite from where your information likely comes…
In his online, downloadable book, which I’ve provided a link to further up, Davies says: “The 29 July 1990 issue of Mary’s People, a National Catholic Register supplement on apparitions, quoted the Pope as saying: “Let the people go to Medjugorje if they convert, pray, confess, do penance.” An enquiry regarding the same alleged comment had been made to the Vatican in 1988, and the reply received from the then apostolic pro-nuncio, Archbishop Pio Laghi, read:
“The statement you cite as a quotation from the Holy Father has never been published or officially verified. Although there have been made observations about Medjugorje attributed to the Holy Father or other officials of the Holy See, none of these have been acknowledged as authentic.”
Furthermore, on page 198 of Understanding Medjugorje by Foley (2006), he says:
*****************************************
The following statement from John Paul II, as reported in the 18 September 1996 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, would appear to be a criticism of the spirituality which has developed out of alleged visions like Medjugorje, and represented his more recent thinking on the subject.
*******************************************
Then there is the the famous letter by Cardinal Ratzinger written in July of 1998, now Pope Benedict XVI. This is a man who seen Pope John Paul II on a regular basis. Here it is in full.
*****************************************
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
I-00120 CITT DEL Vaticano
22 Juli 1998
Herrn …………
00069 Trevignano Romano (RM)
Dear Mr. …
First of all, I have to apologize for answering your kind letter from 27th May only today. The burden (i.e. work load) of the last few weeks has been so heavy that I had to postpone my private correspondence again and again so that only now, as my vacation is about to begin, I can at last try to answer the more important letters.
I thank you very much for sending me the memorandum by Claus Peter Clausen, whom in fact I know as the author of the Schwarze Briefe (Black Letters). I can only say that the statements attributed to the Holy Father and me are freely invented.
With my best wishes for your manifold activities.
Josef Ratzinger
**********************************************
I’ve provided names, dates and sources for each of my claims.
For there to be any serious discussion, it is important to cite sources and provide links where they exist.
Innocencio
Thanks for the link. Hope I can follow instructions.
Diane,
You have repeatedly cited two strongly anti-medjugorje sources: Donal Anthony Foley: “Understanding Medjugorje…” The other is the book written by Michael Davies, “Medjugorje – After Twenty-One Years”. If you chose to accept their view then fine.
As you well know, there is plenty of hefty analysis on the pro-medjugorje side: Fr. Rene Laurentin, Fr. Michael O’Carroll, Hans Urs von
Balthasar and Cardinal Christoph Schonborn.
I have chosen to examine the messages, the visionaries, and the phenomenon themselves and I find them extremely credible, edifying and compelling. They are not necessary, in that, the Gospels and the deposit of faith give us everything we need. However, prophecy is part of the life of the Church and should not be dismissed out-of-hand. After all, isn’t the point of this entire thread the fact the Church has chosen to take a fresh look at the claims.
Sorry, this is my last post. I don’t have time to argue this further. It’s not really that important.
Italics off
oops
Weighing in on Marian apparitions is like weighing in on vegetarianism in many ways: best to go fishing instead. However..
“Does the world not need to hear the call to “peace, faith, prayer, conversion and fasting?”
Yes, and it has consistently heard that from Moses on down, from the three major religions; it has been heard most of all, of course, from Christianity, most especially from the Catholic Church– most pressingly in Lent, but also in every Mass, yes?
The Medjugorje event, to be found valid or not, has already done what it was meant to– to say to souls again: “Come back to Him with all your heart.” The world has indeed heard it. It is time to put it away and wait. As Diane K. has put it so well, what we do to stay close to Him, as we have been taught by the Church and all His saints, is most important. If we must go to a shrine, go to Lourdes where help for trasnporting the sick is always welcomed.
An apparition can neither send us to heaven nor hell, and I fear that the separations over Medjugorje could only have brought another tear to Mary’s sweet eye.
Trying to fix the italics test
Wow. test
Looks like the demon of italics has taken possesion of this web site. Or mayby an italics terrorist posted a buch of italics command thingies. Just in case, one last test
Maybe this will work.
It worked! It was the “em” tag, not the “i” tag.
Loud applause! Thank you, Edward!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
While I have read books supportive of Medjugorje – each of which caused me to develop an interior contempt for the Bishop of Mostar,
Again, Diane, I wonder why you had some “interior contempt” for the Bishop.?
I mean, people can see certain bad judgments, or acknowledge a centuries long history that endeared the peasantry to the Franciscans which the bishop tried to dissolve with an overnight ultimatum, but “contempt”?
Did Laurentin or Rupcic get this approval from Zanic or Peric?
Are you kidding, Diane? They didn’t need it!
And with all due respect, Diane, (happy you found Assumption Grotto fills your qualifications), but it doesn’t appear that you have really found the “peace” you claim. You appear far too aggitated and rather obsessed with proving a negative. Perhaps you just get rather emotional on whatever you discover anew for the moment … what new “light” pops on. But, you’ve never visited the site itself? You’ve never gotten to know well any of the “seers” or their wonderful Catholic families? You don’t know in any familiar way the wonderful villagers who sacrifice each day for “strangers” (now come to be like family)? You don’t know well the great Franciscan priests who sacrificed their lives each day during the Balkan wars, crossing enemy lines to minister to all ethnic groups and who continue their overtime service and sacrifice for the thousands of pilgrims? And, apparently you’ve never experienced the little “kisses” of our Mother given as gifts of encouragement for so many? You’ve never talked to those who have medically documented supernatural healings from Medj. like Char Vance or so many others that the parish keeps documented? Wow!! You just choose to rely on those worn out and embittered sources (talk about people with contempt!)? From my own reading and researching those folks, Mark has a much clearer idea of the psychology at Unity than you do, unfortunately for you. Yes, the fellow had some run ins with former colleagues and was prevented from achieving a more permanent residency in Fatima!! As one famous person once said … “why can’t we all just get along”? I suppose some people just have a penchant for being argumentative and disagreeable!
And, lastly,….”self promotion” by the visionaries? Never heard any of them promoting themselves. Rather they ecshew any such attention to themselves … only our Lady’s program. They are friendly and exhibit great patience with the constant inquiries and demands by the now pilgrims in the millions. And they serve them, clean after them, live in the limited area of the homes with all the extra rooms going for pilgrims. IOW, generous people because of their love for the Gospa. Otherwise it would be superhuman patience!
Second lastly! And you do know that the bishops who acted as presidents of the conference and commission stated the overall positive leaning of the bishops towards Medj. They stated that it was only due to wishing not to embarrass the local ordinary that they went for the nuanced, neutral selection for status, allowing things to continue and waiting for some future re-opening of the examination. They’ve asked for some time that a commission with international experts be the one to handle the matter.
Now, if you knew any of the real time, on the ground, principles connected to the actual “shrine” and area, you’d have other sources and might get another “light” on the matter, without any need for “contempt”.
Mark says:
Mark,
Kindly go back and read the post to which you refer. In it, you will find that while I cited Foley and Davies, you missed one very big thing: The quotes coming from the Davies and Foley books are on record with other sources (i.e., L’Osservatore Romano) and they come from notable people:
1) Pope John Paul
2) Apostolic Nuncio Pio Laghi (formerly)
3) Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.
This is common amongs supporters. Detract the authors of any books which take a hard look at real data, and ignore whom they are quoting and from where the data comes.
I hope people reading this blog will see through the campaign to vigorously prevent any objective information getting out.
I would ask people to consider seeing for themselves what is being criticized here. Download the Davies book and read it, and borrow or buy the Foley book and read it.
Davies carefully lays out in detail just how Fr. Laurentin omitted critical information from his books. Foley also demonstrates this and all had access to the same information. As I’ve stated earlier, when you see the same tape recorded transcript side by side – Laurentin’s sanitized version, versus that of Davies, which is uncut, it makes you wonder what else Laurentin is hiding from his readers. Certainly, Hans Urs Von Balthasaar, who was taking Fr. Laurentin at his word, might have thought otherwise in those early days, had he seen the two samples side by side.
From a letter to Fr. Rene Laurentin from Bishop Peric:
3) With your controversial books on the Medjugorje “apparitions” you have sown, not only in this country but also in the Catholic world, plenty of discord, ambiguity and explicit untruths which will have to be eradicated with time. You are both competent and morally obliged to do this. We want to be at the service of the truth which can liberate us from many inauthenticities regarding Medjugorje, of which you have become a known herald.
4) With your stories on the “apparitions” of Medjugorje, which are truly regrettable you have helped me come to the conviction and to the constat de non supernaturalitate of the so called “apparitions” of Medjugorje. What motives you may have in the entire affair are for you to resolve before God.
5) From now on I cannot remain silent regarding any of your works containing the nonsenses of Medjugorje, which is destroying Catholic unity, ecclesial peace and the pastoral care of this local Church.
6) Besides making these deplorable things public, I also regularly inform the competent Dicasteries of the Holy See, which as columna et firmamentum veritatis must be informed on the matters.
The entire letter can be found by going to this html site for the Davies book. Use the “Edit-Find” pull-down and paste this text in:
Protocol Number: 265/98
You may need to do that twice as it will probably find it in the content table.
Similarly, scroll up a few pages to where a communique regarding the visit was recorded and published by the Catholic Information Agency in Mostar.
Chris K said:
Putting out quotes from competent sources, such as Pio Laghi, Pope John Paul II, and the former Cardinal Ratzinger, among others is hardly a sign of being agitated or negative. It’s called being objective. Subjectivity goes on feelings. Objectivity goes on data, oblivious to “feelings”. I have found your posts rather highly charged and emotional, and I’ll leave it to readers to judge.
Providing unpleasant facts is not being negative. It’s perceived as such, but is not the case at all.
Chris further says….(and I cut it short as it was just too voluminuous to add it all)”
I lived 20 minutes away from Medjugorje between November of 1980 to February of 1983. I was in the Franciscan convent affiliated with the parish of St. James. Sisters from my convent were responsible for many things there. I had gone several times. As a Novice, I personally cut hosts for some 14,000 people to be used over just a few days during daily weeknight masses. I had to return home due to physical illness, and was deeply saddened at not being able to follow through as a Franciscan, especially with what seemed like a legitimate apparition at the time. I had gone from initial skeptic to about 75% certain something supernatural was going on just based on how many people were coming, how the kids in the village converted, long confession lines, teens singing marian songs as they processed throughout the area, and praying rosaries. I have pictures that I took of the “seers”, up close and personal. I have a large rock from Krizevac where I crawled into a hole to dig one out. I admired Fr. Jozo deeply, and shortly before he was imprisoned, he had discovered my affection for Coca-Cola and promised to get me a case. I still recall the day of his trial, with MiG fighters flying low overhead to intimidate the people, and other scare tactics used by the communists.
As I stated before, I didn’t become 100% skeptical until I regained my interest in Medjugorje with my sudden, inner conversion when John Paul II died. I went to Medjugorje forums, and a singles forum. In the Catholic singles forum, a young man just insulted Fr. Jozo so badly I got very upset. I was equally upset with what he was telling me about the “seers”. I didn’t believe him and vigorously defended them, and Medjugorje much in the same way you are now. Using information found at pro-Medjugorje websites, I aided people in dismissing the bishop, and essentially damaged his character in my efforts. In my pride to want to be right about my friends – the ones whom you say I know nothing about – I began to discover that the man at the single’s forum was correct. I wanted to prove him wrong, and ended up proving him right.
At that point, it became – Medjugorje friends, or Church. I was defending them because I had befriended them. Once I opened myself to consider what the other side was trying to say, I realized I could not compromise truth for friendship.
Soooo much is hidden. So much is prevented from getting out because people only want to buy things which support Medjugorje. Interestingly enough, I have found no one yet who can claim to have read the Davies book cover to cover, and now the Foley book, who did not go from neutral to negative, or from outright positive to negative.
It’s amazing what can happen when you get away from inuendo and into objective facts.
I think I’ve covered my bases well enough. My passion in getting the truth out comes from a desire to do reparation for trashing an innocent bishop who is working very hard to defend the Church from harm. It’s very hard to see at first, but once you begin to look with an open heart and mind, and much prayer, truth is not hard to find.
All I can say, Chris, Mark and other supporters…. if this commission should bring on a negative finding and condemn Medjugorje, I do hope to see you using all that enthusiasm spent defending and promoting Medjugorje to simply promote Marian devotion based on approved apparitions.
Many criticize Foley without having read his book, saying he is simply jealous because he is big on Fatima. I have read the book cover to cover, and this is not the case at all. The reason Fatima is used as an example in his book is because it is the biggest and most significant Marian apparition of our time. Why?
A) It is approved
B) A prophetic message came true when Pope John Paul II was shot.
C) Pope John Paul II visited on year later – which is the highest possible credibility the Church can give an apparition site. It is even more greater than the building of a basillica in recognizing the authenticity – for a pope to visit.
D) The Fatima messages, unknown to many of us who spent too much time following unapproved apparitions, are very meaningful for our times. There is work to be done in joining together for what our Blessed Mother asked for at Fatima. Foley devotes one whole chapter to developing this end of it, and he has convinced me that this is where we need to be focused, as opposed to chasing anything that is not approved.
E) Foley does not discount other approved apparitions and brings them up on many occassions in the book. In contrast to Medjugorje, when looking at actual details in comparison, there simply is no comparison bewteen those approved, and Medjugorje. Fatima was focused on more heavily for the reasons cited above, not because he is jealous, as I’ve seen claimed in so many places.
With that, I bid you,
Laku noć
Diane, it’s strange how Davies outlines ommissions by Fr. Laurentin! and yet, by some of the other “quotes” you’ve mentioned so often by Davies of B. Peric, the bishop conveniently “forgets”, to Mr. Davies, the meeting he had with two witnesses and attested to by the Vatican well regarded theologian Fr. John Chisholm of the bishop’s tirade against even those “go-to” approved sites by your other trusted debunker, Foley, Fatima and Lourdes!
It’s pretty bad when you just don’t believe in the supernatural happening at apparition sites at all, and YOU’RE the one who should be trusted to give some sort of objective study or oversight of the “shrine”??? Again, it is too bad that these are the only ones you seem to respect, rather than tested and experienced Marian experts like Fr. Laurentin, von Balthasar (you do know that name…no?), and Cardinal Schonborn (the one who oversaw the Catechism and who said that he would have to close down his seminaries without Medj. because they are mostly all Medj. vocations)!!!I guess we had better just discount those witnesses too because they happen to be positive.
And you’ve confused me. Earlier you wrote:
I had read early Laurentin and Rupcic books and bought it hook, line and sinker. I’ve already stated that I didn’t visit, I lived nearby and personally made and cut hosts for 14,000 people in the early 80’s.
So that made me think that you never ventured to the site even though you lived there. Now, an awful lot has happened since ’83 when you say you left (which means that you haven’t familiarized yourself with the now lovely Catholic families of the seers or the faithfulness of the villagers even after 25 years or so many other amazing happenings which people don’t know about unless they are personally familiar) … like the fall of Communism and the Balkan wars … which really tested the area and the Franciscans and other devotees – esp. Medj. parish itself with the unbelievable miracle of not being harmed – being protected while just meters outside its boundaries bombs were falling and killing.
And the bishop who doesn’t even believe in the supernatural possibility at apparition sites is lecturing the world renown Marian apparition expert, Fr. Laurentin?? I don’t think so!!
In contrast to Medjugorje, when looking at actual details in comparison, there simply is no comparison bewteen those approved,
That is not true … when you leave the comfort of former times and more familiar cultures like Portugal … and include the more contemporary ones. Foley doesn’t like those because they don’t involve children whom he believes the Blessed Mother only selects for her visits!!
Chris K—
If this isn’t self-promotion, I don’t know what is. Ivan and his wife, Laureen, are in the pilgrimage business, with Laureen acting as their contact person.
Their price for 9 days (August 9-17) is $1,899, which is $100 more than their host site (206 Tours) charges. High season airfare is $1,300, so they make $600 per pilgrim (they have room for 28 pilgrims, with air-conditioning and private baths—14 opportunities per year!), which works out to $235,000 per year if they completely fill up, and they come very close from what I can see. They do need to pay ground transportation, food, laundry, electricity, water, etc., but the meals are quite simple and plain according to Laureen, so they probably clear $100,000 per year in a country where the gross national income is $2,000 per capita (World Bank 2003 figures). It’s an impoverished country, and no one wants Bosnians to be poor, but no wonder Ivan can afford to drive a luxury car with extra-wide racing tires and travel back and forth between his home in Boston and his home in Medjugorje. I’ve seen promotions for the others as well. Spirit Daily runs ads for them periodically.
I can’t help but notice that their photos have recently disappeared and the Dragicevics’ pilgrimage page doesn’t seem to be linked to the 206 Tours main page anymore. Could that mean they’re not feeling so confident about making money off the apparitions now that a new commission is set to begin work in a couple of months?
The 1978 guidelines for discerning apparitions are here::
Under “Negative criteria” we see
“c) An obvious pursuit of monetary gain in relation with the fact.”
I was done with this thread, but need to clarify my comment about visiting and living there.
My initial statement should have read, “I didn’t just visit, I lived nearby”
While I’d love to discuss it more and address more of the misconceptions you illustrate, it’s really time to move on. Addressing them will only yield even more of the same.
In Our Lord and Blessed Mother!
Chris K–
Three things:
1) I’m halfway through Donal Foley’s book, and it’s not favorable to Medjugorje because he is relying on things like tape-recorded conversations with the teenagers in the early years (conversations conducted by the parish priests, not people who thought they were frauds). He does not say only children can be authentic seers.
2) You are sounding very desperate when you have to hang your entire opinion of Bishop Peric on a single conversation that is hearsay at this point. Pope Benedict XVI knows Bishop Peric better than you do, and he seems to be supporting Bishop Peric. Maybe he is better informed about Peric’s beliefs than you are.
3) Bishop Zanic, who was the Ordinary of Mostar until 1993, was a very Marian bishop, who as a priest and later as a bishop made eleven pilgrimages to various Marian shrines all over Europe: Lourdes, Fatima, Syracuse, etc. Nevertheless, he did not believe the Virgin was appearing at Medjugorje.
He does not say only children can be authentic seers.
He uses Fatima as his model comparison (which is ridiculous in itself when speaking to all of the myriad ways of messages and visions occurring in toto) and says that Mary chooses innocent little children rather than teenagers as the norm. In fact, Diane used that reference to prove some kind of strageness to Medj. because of that one factor!!
I never stated my opinion of B. Peric! I merely referred to his prejudices re: apparition sites and the possibility of the supernatural occurring there. And, BTW, it isn’t hearsay for me. I can’t help it that you can’t take the trouble yourself to verify or source anything outside of those very limited and incomplete notoriously debunking books and sites. You can easily find a way to question the witness … it’s pretty public knowledge. Strange how you accept your particular choices for debunking sources hook, line and sinker, and never challenge the gossipy half truths in them … like they’re the gospel, when they are obviously unbalanced and personally motivated. I don’t think your litmus tests are of equal value!!
Nevertheless, he did not believe the Virgin was appearing at Medjugorje.
Well, he did in the beginning. It was the best thing since sliced bread to him at one time. The children could only be authentic and he could not see how others could judge them otherwise. Then, with nothing objectively having changed, he reversed overnight … largely due in the minds of most people on the ground to the ongoing historical differences between the Franciscans of the whole region and the seculars. A real steady guide there! Someone you really need for an objective view of the site itself which got thrown into the larger mess when it should always have remained separate.!!
And, one time I had the occasion of sharing emails with Mr. Foley on a completely other subject. I had never heard of him before receiving a general advertising email on something else he was involved with which sounded Catholic – a retreat center or something. Just in passing I happened to mention Medj. – well, after that I became an unwanted victim of his obsession. He could not just share various findings and I could not get rid of him. He kept emailing after I said we should just agree to disagree. He appeared to me to just be obsessed to the point that he couldn’t even leave another alone with their own views or wait with the Church. That set some red flags for me. The emails kept coming even though I had stopped. It really became obnoxious. Now that is a bit unbalanced, no matter who is doing it.
Here is a link to a report of Bishop Ratko Peric’ Ad Limina visit to Rome in February 2006 and his statement s about Medjugorje. I will say that through my own expereinces at Medjugorje ( I went there in 1998) it drew me much closer to Jesus through his Mother. So no matter the outcome I will be eternally grateful for her intercession on my behalf.
http://www.mdaviesonmedj.com/page_Ad%20Limina.htm
ml, prove it. All is simply your imagination with no facts. These are normal folks of our time. They have families to feed, homes to maintain, yet live simple lives. The pilgrims themselves are the ones always trying to make connections with the visionaries. They arrange tours with all the expenses involved with that. When tours are not filled, there is money lost. Have you been there to see that there just isn’t work for men. The fathers have always had to leave and find work in Germany or some other better spot. If they can make a living and remain with their families then God bless them. And then there are the off seasons where there is hardly anyone coming except those from Italy or nearby countries making their own arrangements. The wars took place which practically closed the place down for quite a while. There are loads of losses and expenses – esp. when families are composed of others with other nationalities and two countries are involved in long distance living arrangements with duties required for both. Better go back to your imaginary accounting sheets that don’t seem to factor in the reality. But, don’t fear the good visionaries and their families. They won’t bite. They’re just like the good Catholic families of the area there. But then, you’d have to really get to know them … rather than just condescendingly gossip without knowing them or having them available to defend themselves. Figures! I would hate to have to make such a living with all of the unsurity involved while having to raise a family. There are loads of tour groups and agencies competing … or is that another factor of the real world you’re unfamiliar with! It ain’t cheap crossing the big pond. Our group’s fare supported 2 large plane air flights, the three hour bus trip into the remote area, the conductor of the tour, with not much left for the ladies who did all of the work and cooking in the simple home as well as maintaining the vegetable gardens, etc. I bet you wouldn’t do it for any price. And realizing the relations living outside of that particular spot, still in refugee camps and other works involved in the aftermath of those wars, they could use a lot more help! If you’d like to help, there’s His Work In Progress with their medical mission run by a great fellow who lives nearby me and you can adopt a war orphan or refugee to pay for his/her education and living expenses in a village orphanage supported by some of the visionaries! Go for it! More Christian than prejudiced gossip.
“Chris K.”,
I still would like to know if you are the “Anonymus” who wrote in Diane’s blog : “After all, it’s the true facts that matter … not the identity of the messenger of those facts.” [Homily of Bishop Ratko Peric of Medjugorje – June 15, 2006 – http://te-deum.blogspot.com/ – 7/12/2006 05:33:20 PM]. After being asked to identify himself, “Anonymus” eluded my plea for transparence and disappeared from the said blog. And yet, I had presented what I consider some “hard facts” taken from The Hidden Side of Medjugorje and well documented. Then, the name “Chris K.” appeared on Bettnet, Amy Welborn, Jimmy Akin and maybe on other blogs with other identifications. When one looks at the 21-line paragraph beginning with “The real elephant in the living room here that no one will touch is that, in an unprecedented manner, Rome has overruled the local bishop…” — “Anonymous” Te-Deum’s blog, 7/07/2006 04:43:02 PM — it is the same, word for word, as the one found on Bettnet — posted by Chris K on 07/7/06 at 04:48 PM . Unless Chris K. has plagiarized “Anonymous”, after an interval of 5 minutes, they are one person. That person is quite critical of Bishops Zanic (whom I have known) and Peric and pretends persistently, among other things, that the Zadar declaration is “neutral”.
I appreciate the coherence of an argumentation and this is why I took the time and made the effort to follow the “Chris K.” and the “Anonymus” writings and to understand “their” points of view. But I am not really used to dialog with phantoms and I would like to integrate these interventions.
So I try for the second time to shake hands with an interlocutor who would be ready to reveal his real identity.
Then we will cope with “hard facts” as he likes them. One has already noticed that English is not my mother tongue. I have to take some time to read and many efforts to write on such a complex, controversial and delicate subject charged with many emotions.
I propose first to discuss the “end of the apparitions” announced by the visionaries on June 30, 1981 and confirmed by them on July 3 1981. What are the facts, the sources, the interpretations. Let’s make as if we would like to carry out an arbitrage operation…
Hoping for a respectful and constructive dialog, I remain truly yours.
Louis Bélanger
Louis Belanger reminds me of a good college teacher. Wait…..
Oh, yeah…. he is.
I always appreciated those teachers who taught us how to recognize fact from inuendo, and how to scrutinize data carefully, and to be able to back up what we say with something concrete and verifiable.
Hence, I second the call made by Louis, to start the discussion back where it all began in the beginning. I was just looking through my copy of The Hidden Side of Medjugorje for which Louis is the editor. What I was most impressed with, not having started the book, is the credentials and background of Fr. Ivo Sivric, OFM. I am copying this from a post I made at New Advent for the benefit of readers here. I am hoping Louis can make this book more readily available soon because it is a must have if you are reading the book by Foley, Understanding Medjugorje
Here it is:
In thumbing through “The Hidden Side of Medjugorje”, I must say it is like a textbook.
Here are the qualifications of Fr. Ivo Sivric, OFM:
-Born 1917 in the locale of Medjugorje.
-Ordained in 1941 after studying theology and philosophy in Mostar (20 minutes away from Medjugorje)
-Completed post-graduate work in Zagreb, then Rome, where he received his Doctorate in Sacred Theology.
-Emigrated to the US where he spent 40 years. He taught at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA. (sidenote: Pittsburgh had a huge Croatian population, and Duquesne University was noted for the Duquesne University Tamburitzans, which was a performing dance troupe, entirely Croatian before branching out today to largely Balkan and Eastern European).
-His works include: Bishop J.G. Strossmayer – New light on Vatican I (1975), The Peasant Culture of Bosnia and Hercegovina (1982), and Temelj Krscanstva C.S. Lewisa (Christian Basics according to C.S. Lews) (1988)
-Made 8 extended trips to Medjugorje as part of research done.
When I say this book is like a text book, I mean it is 400+ pages and has 11 chapters, but chapter 11 ENDS on page 183. What follows for the remaining pages is the most astounding and valuable part: Over 200 pages of notes, and appendices with things such as complete audio transcripts.
Like Foley, the Sivric/Belanger book focuses heavily on the first few days and weeks, which is the most critical.
Note that Hans Urs Von Balthasar, who at one time spoke favorably of what was happening at Medjugorje, died in 1988 – just one year before “The Hidden Side…” was made available from a highly educated priest from that region. Foley goes on to point out that Von Balthasar accepted the position of Fr. Laurentin, and was likely oblivious to the ommissions in his work. Those ommissions are noted with the Diocese of Mostar Duvno, and in the works of Davies, Foley, and can be found in this book by Sivric/Belanger.
Hopefully, Louis will find a way to make it more accessible, as it is extremely difficult to find right now.
I said:
I am hoping Louis can make this book more readily available soon because it is a must have if you are reading the book by Foley, “Understanding Medjugorje”
To elaborate on this statement, Foley’s has many footnotes which lead us to “The Hidden Side…”. Viewing this work by Sivric/Belanger, reveals detailed notes, taken from records such as tape recordings.
In fact, supporters make much of Bishop Zanic’s turn, where in the early days he was open to the idea of authenticity, but then turned on it (with good reason), but those same supporters may not even know of how several key Franciscans, including Fr. Jozo Zovko and Tomislav Vlasic, questioned the very things Sivric, Foley and others point to today. Their sudden turn, in light of their own objections earlier, is strange to say the least. Those objections become visible in this early work seen in “The Hidden Side of Medjugorje”.
http://www.mdaviesonmedj.com/page_Ad%20Limina.htm
Kenny, rather than proving anything at all, if one reads this reference from the Davies book, with any insight, one can see that B. Peric got nothing from the pope as he would have desired. It appears that he was left with the status quo that the Church followed at that time and with a polite and indirect adviso for him to do the same! If people had referenced any of the excellent reputable authors BEFORE reading this debunking gossip that leaves out “the rest of the story” they could clearly see just how much of the complete picture is left out. Funny, how quotes are referenced and yet the entire scene of the quotes or the opposing facts or other quotes are conveniently left out. The “spin” certainly “didn’t stop” with those authors.
Obviously, now, with a new commission forming with new experts to join in the study of all facts, any personal objection of the bishop that attempts to force his opinion to try to stop the happenings won’t exactly be welcome! Otherwise … how could they be studied???!!! Those visionaries better not even mention the word Medjugorje apparitions or messages … and the Franciscans better not refer to their own dossier of recorded healings to the Church representatives or witnessed conversions of those who thank Our Lady of Medjugorje for them … or else … they’ll be in disobedience to the order of the bishop! If they do … watch out … they’ll be excommunicated by the combox objectors!
I am reading The Medjugorje Deception: Queen of Peace, Ethnic Cleansing, Ruined Lives by E. Michael Jones. It is very informative. It was published in 1998 by Fidelity Press. The author puts the everything in an historical context. He based his book on personal and first -hand interviews, and careful reading of original documents. It is very interesting. He can get long winded about history and sometimes I found his style of introducing a topic and then going off on a long side detail a bit frustrating, but it very interesting. He wrote an earlier book on Medjugorje, but he pretty much incorporated all that information into this one. He includes a bibliography.
Chris K. wrote:
“Diane, it’s strange how Davies outlines ommissions by Fr. Laurentin! and yet, by some of the other “quotes” you’ve mentioned so often by Davies of B. Peric, the bishop conveniently “forgets”, to Mr. Davies, the meeting he had with two witnesses and attested to by the Vatican well regarded theologian Fr. John Chisholm of the bishop’s tirade against even those “go-to” approved sites by your other trusted debunker, Foley, Fatima and Lourdes!”
As for Chris K’s reference to Michael Davies, apparently a letter from a Mr. Bernard Ellis was published in the UK Catholic Herald of 12 July 2002 claiming that Bishop Peric told a Fr. John Chisholm that he does not believe in the authenticity of the Lourdes and Fatima apparitions. Mr. Davies contacted Bishop Peric on this subject and the Bishop told him “on the record” by fax and e-mail that he had never made such a statement to anyone; he added that he had no memory of meeting Fr. Chisholm although Fr. Chisholm had talked to his secretary. Mr. Davies then contacted Fr. Chisholm about this matter asking for clarification and never received a reply from Fr. Chisholm.
I assume the other party Chris K. referred to was Liam Prendergast, who was described in a 1999 Children of Medjugorje online article as the Chairman of the National Medjugorje Council of Ireland. I don’t know if he is still the Chairman of this group since the organization doesn’t have a web presence other than a link on GospaIreland’s website, which doesn’t give much information other than to say that Mr. Prendergast was an early organizer of National Medjugorje Council of Ireland following a trip to Ballinasloe in October 1985 by Fr. Slavko Barbaric. The only other mentions I can find online of this name are in advertisements for pilgrimages, such as this one from the Leinster Leader: “There will be two pilgrimages to Medjugorje in 2005. The first will be from 27 May to 3 June and the second 9-16 September. Bookings may be made to Liam Prendergast at 045-431911).” I assume this is the same Liam Prendergast. I can find nothing online connecting Mr. Prendergast with the conversation in question regarding Bishop Peric’s views on Fatima and Lourdes–that is, other than rather vague posts by people who claim to have heard about it.
Just this month, in the July 3, 2006 issue of The Word (a magazine published by the Divine Word Missionaries, Maynooth, Ireland), there is an article about Medjugorje in which a Fr. John Chisholm was one of several people interviewed.
http://www.theword.ie/cms/publish/article_409.shtml
Of note, the article mentions that Fr. Chisholm (I assume it’s the same one), is an 84-year-old Irish priest living in Medjugorje. Fr. Chisholm had been a teacher at University College Dublin for many years and first heard about Medjugorje in late 1994 while listening to an Irish public radio program. He believed instantly that the Virgin Mary was appearing in Medjugorje. He was caring for his elderly mother at the time, so he had to delay his first trip to Medjugorje until after her death in 1997. He made his first trip to Medjugorje in June 1998. He moved permanently to Medjugorje in spring 2001 at age 76 and resides with the Medjugorje Franciscans, helping them translate the messages into various languages in addition to other pastoral duties.
I have to say I’m astounded that Steve Shawl of Medjugorje.org and Chris K. are putting forth information that implies Fr. Chisholm is a disinterested and objective party on the Medjugorje question. Defining Fr. Chisholm as a “Vatican well-respected theologian” as Chris K. does without mentioning the fact that he lived with the Medjugorje Franciscans and aids them in promotion the authenticity of the alleged apparitions is frankly deceptive.
Bishop Peric has denied making these statements on the record. Fr. Chisholm will not answer correspondence asking for clarification; but he will, apparently, whisper this information to people who won’t question what he says. The supposed witness to this conversation, Liam Prendergast, has said nothing on or off the record from what I can discover to corroborate Fr. Chisholm’s account of this meeting with Bishop Peric.
As noted, Fr. Chisholm made his first trip to Medjugorje in June 1998. Steve Shawl of Medjugorje.org thinks (per an email to me) that this alleged conversation might have taken place in 1998. If true, this would have to mean that Fr. Chisholm, on his first pilgrimage to Medjugorje, was granted a private audience with Bishop Zanic along with Mr. Prendergast and that the two of them confronted Bishop Zanic on his position regarding Medjugorje. That may indeed have happened, but frankly it either doesn’t seem likely to have occurred during this first pilgrimage in 1998 or else it reveals a great deal about Fr. Chisholm in that he had emphatically made up his mind about these events before he went to the Bishop’s Mostar quarters Moreover, I have to note that Fr. Chisholm made his first trip to Medjugorje at age 76 (he is currently 84). That doesn’t mean he’s senile, but his age frankly gives me pause. Elderly people generally having some degree of hearing loss, and Fr. Chisholm was additionally speaking to a man whose first language is not English. I understand Bishop Peric’s English is very good, but that doesn’t mean misunderstandings didn’t take place, especially if the meeting was confrontational and emotional.
The most charitable explanation of this alleged exchange is that Fr. Chisholm may have had a short, unofficial meeting with Bishop Peric and misunderstood something the Bishop said, perhaps to the effect that no Catholic is obliged to believe in the authenticity of any private revelation, not even Lourdes or Fatima – which is an entirely correct statement of orthodox Catholic doctrine.
Bishop Peric says he has no recollection of meeting Fr. Chisholm, which is not to say he claims it absolutely never happened, just that he doesn’t recall it. Bishop Peric does claim, on the record, that he has never personally denied the authenticity of Fatima or Lourdes to Fr. Chisholm OR ANYONE ELSE. Prior to becoming Bishop, Ratko Peric, who has a doctorate in theology himself, was a professor at the Gregorian University at Rome, so he had come into contact with many students and colleagues over the years. In his 2001 book, Throne of Wisdom, Peric references the work of his theologian colleagues at home and at the Gregorian University on the subject of Marian apparitions. The Medjugorje phenomena was happening in Peric’s home diocese, so can’t we assume that he participated in conversations regarding Marian apparitions during his tenure in Rome? Yet no one, with the exception of Fr. John Chisholm, has ever claimed that Bishop Peric denies the truth of Church-approved apparition sites.
The fact that elderly Fr. Chisholm won’t go on the record about this conversation, the fact that the supposed witness hasn’t gone on the record to back him up, and that fact that both of these men are pro-Medjugorje activists doesn’t lend credibility to the one-sided version of the Fr. Chisholm story posted on Medjugorje.org and spread about by Chris K.
Wrong again, ml. My information re: Fr. Chisholm, again a Vatican highly respected theologian, is from a witnessed exchange. I have no idea what your personal definition of “on the record” means. Fr. Chisholm is on the record. He was one of those chosen to set up meetings of dialog to try to reconcile the differences between the local bishop and the Franciscans. I’m sorry that you don’t know the good priest, but he is on the record. You can easily find the same if you’d try to get beyond the limited debunking sources. After his real time years of experience with Medj and its principles he seems to continue his favor for its truth. Your own, only prejudiced reviewers, don’t seem to get the same treatment by yourself. Hmmm. And Father won’t repeat his witness? He has. Your books of choice mention only that Peric conveniently remembers “I think he may have talked to my secretary” which Fr. Chisholm also mentions. Or, because this part was mentioned, is Fr. Chisholm cleared for that portion of his statement?? So, he’s not a complete liar in his witness??!!
Your inferences of my references as if they are true are really getting to a point of outright misinforming others on your part. Medj.org, as far as I know says nothing of the fullness of the meeting in which this occurred as I have described. I’ve never read this on their site. Wasn’t looking for it there. But it’s nice that you refer to this good site, even if it is done only disingenuously to try to back up the missing info left out by the debunkers of choice! It is too bad that Mr. Davies went to press without the statements by the witnesses … so he did not have the full story. Who in the world of authenticity would talk to the prejudices of Davies?? It’s like when the Dallas Morning News, already with their previous positions well known, wrote in error about Fr. Groeschel and when caught in the error, blamed Fr. Groeschel because he wouldn’t reply to them!! Smart Fr. Groeschel and smart Fr. Chisholm. They know whom they can trust!
Defining Fr. Chisholm as a “Vatican well-respected theologian” as Chris K. does without mentioning the fact that he lived with the Medjugorje Franciscans and aids them in promotion the authenticity of the alleged apparitions is frankly deceptive.
Wow, are you a conspiracy type. Actually I have mentioned that Fr. lives with the Franciscans in Medjugorje. He speaks several languages and translates the messages from Croatian. And he is a Vatican well respected theologian. Are you saying that he is not? Are you claiming that Fr. Chisholm has lied? You’re beginning to sound a bit like the other conspiracy type chosen above … E. Michael Jones. Sad.
Chris K–
Please tell me where I can find a published account of Fr. Chisholm’s account of the conversation he had with Bishop Peric.
ml, it would appear that you have aleady found it. I have and have shared in many comboxes. But then, I gave you the accounts from the bishops of the commission and you inferred that the bishop in the account was not truthful. Go figure. Enough pearls in the muck here. Anyway,
As for those who may wish for another more well rounded picture of one of the selected authors to follow by the debunkers, Mr. Davies, (and that following appears to be rather blindly!) (and for ml’s benefit if he/she is also unaware) here is something to chew on: (two down … and Foley’s red flags were all over the place):
From Stephen Hand’s article in TCR “The Fall of Michael Davies”:
Note, this article was originally written in 2001. Michael Davies died of prostate cancer in September 2004. He died a friend to the SSPX, the integrist papers, and hostile to the Holy Father whom he considered “a disaster” to the Church.
Do we need to speak again about that loyalty to the hierarchy? Strange how these guys are the ones bringing it up!:
From The Remnant —September, 2001:
“Michael Davies to speak at The Remnant Forum in October.
“All the way from London, England, Remnant columnist and President of the International Una Voce Federation will be featured at this important gathering in St. Paul. Call today for details: (651) 462-8323. “The Remnant Forum is coming to St. Paul in October. “Forty Years Later: The Family, the Mass, the Church and the World through Four Decades of Vatican II.” October 26, 27, and 28, 2001. “Featuring: Michael Davies, Gerry Matatics, Michael J. Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Dr. Thomas Woods, John Vennari, Dr. Marian Horvat, Atila Sinke Guimaraes, Gary Potter, Michal Semin (from Prague), John Clark.”
What a collection of would-be magisterial authorities Davies weds! TFP splinters, rigorist Feeneyites, fallen away monks, geo-centrists and who knows what, certainly theologically untrained laymen (in Catholic theology anyway; Protestant’s have always been comfortable viewing themselves as a pure “remnant” vis a vis Catholicism), all together to declare in many ways and forums the Pope a heretic, according to their private judgment.
The truth is shown by those whom one is bedding with—and Davies, as the reader can see, beds with the most irresponsible and disoriented enemies of the Holy Father. He raises money for them, helps sell their books and they return the favor.
Thus according to Atila Guimaraes, Michael Matt, Marian Horvat and John Vennari (all Mr. Davies’ business partners and mates) the Pope is to be deposed — for heresies. This absurdity is just a small sample of their constant and provocative impudence and theological cynicism. Here is a group utterly innocent of elementary Catholic dogmatics and theology—even as they speak of such things selectively and constantly— who are allies to the most virulent Protestant fundamentalist opponents of Catholicism who quote them. The implications are grave.
…Davies appears these days to write the same article over and over as in propaganda technique.
…
This ambivalence is most conspicuous when one looks to the overall and longstanding theology of Davies, Una Voce International president, who wrote recently regarding Protocol 1411, opposing the Holy Father:
“Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew from the 1988 agreement with the Holy See because he felt that the Vatican could not be relied upon to keep its promises. It would appear that there are now powerful forces in the Curia determined to prove that he was right” (See Violation of Natural Justice Below). This was because the Vatican did not agree with Davies’ interpretation of what an Indult meant by definition.
Nor would Davies listen to Bishop Bruskewitz who declared the views of his Remnant mates unorthodox; Bruskewitz even excommunicated the SSPX along with neo-modernists in his diocese. Would that he would listen to the Pontifical Commission, Ecclesia Dei, to which he was morally oblidged as a promoter of the Indult (at times).
Clearly this is because Davies remains heavily indebted to and rooted in Lefebvre’s errors of disposition, suspicion, and fact. Indeed, Davies’ entire theological outlook (as we will see in part below) is thoroughly colored by his long and lasting debt to his mentor. More recently he has taken to bed with the Mattities, speaking at their conferences with the signers of schismatic screeds against the Pope, with Feeneyites also
Good company to keep or to use for references of truth??
So, when Michael Davies has transcripts in his book on Medjugorje that were given to him by the diocesan bishop, I am suppose to ignore those full length transcripts because of the affiliations of Mr. Davies?
Do you know that non-believers, athiests, and people of all kinds of religions can be called upon to participate in some way in the discernment of spirits? For example, a buddhist medical doctor may be asked to examine a “seers”. An atheist scientist, may be asked to perform various tests on a “seer”.
Does their status invalidate their findings?
Michael Davies affiliations, whatever they were, have no bearing on the material in his book, which originated from various sources such as the diocese of Mostar-Duvno, the Holy See, the Religious Order involved, and other works, such as those done by Fr. Ivo Sivric, OFM, whose credentials are astounding. They are listed in my post made on July 29, at around 10:00.
It’s not the opinion of Michael Davies I’m interested in, but the wealth of data available in his book.
Chris K-
Do a detail-free letter to the editor from an unknown person, a refusal to comment on said letter from Fr. John Chisholm himself, and a regurgitation of this un-sourced story on a pro-Medjugorje website whose webmaster doesn’t even know when this meeting occurred meet your definition of a “published account”?
Chris K. wrote: “I gave you the accounts from the bishops of the commission and you inferred that the bishop in the account was not truthful. Go figure. Enough pearls in the muck here.”
As I answered on that Open Book thread, there were 20 bishops who voted on the Zagreb Declaration, but you gave comments from two of them (Kuharic and Franic, both of whom were public promoters of Vassula Ryden).
As I pointed out to you, in 1990 Cardinal Kuharic said the commission had a positive opinion of Medjugorje events, but that doesn’t mean he believed the apparition claims were true, since in 1993 he said, “We Bishops of the Commission have accepted Medjugorje as a place of prayer and pilgrimage. This means that we have nothing against it if someone venerates the Mother of God in a manner also in agreement with the teaching and belief of the Church. Therefore, we are leaving that to further study. The Church does not hurry.” (Glas Koncila, August, 1993). Lots of people think Medjugorje is a sham but nevertheless recognize that by virtue of the sacraments and prayer there it’s a hothouse of ordinary and sanctifying grace. You can be glad that people are returning to the sacraments in Medjugorje without believing the truth of the apparition claims.
He other bishop you cited, Archbishop Franic, is a promoter of Vassula Ryden, enthusiastic Charismatic, vocal supporter of Medjugorje, and public critic of Bishop Zanic, set himself up again Bishop Zanic by agreeing to join the board of Children of Medjugorje, a public, pro-Medjugorje group. Archbishop Zanic claimed that the other 19 bishops only voted for “Non constat de supernaturalitate” because they didn’t want to upset Bishop Zanic. My very justified question was: then why did the other 19 bishops vote for “Non constat de supernaturalitate” instead of abstaining as Archbishop Franic did? The fact that Franic was the only one who abstained makes me doubt his public statement that the other bishops felt the same way he did.
In a letter to Mrs. Marija Davies on 20 January 1988 (the Croatian wife of Michael Davies who had translated some letters for Bishop Zanic), Bishop Zanic wrote the following:
“Archbishop Franic has caused me dreadful problems, although the mere fact that he thinks something does not mean that it must be true. One of the first questions asked by the sectaries of Medjugorje is: “How is it that Archbishop Franic believes?” I, for my part, say to them, that there are thirty-five bishops in Yugoslavia, and that he is the only one who believes, so that argument is worthless. For them, however, it is enough that one Archbishop believes.”
You might want to read the following article on Michael Davies. Even if you don’t want to read it, you should read the letter of condolence from Cardinal Ratzinger that I pulled out of the article. http://www.latin-mass-society.org/2005/michaeldavies.html. I’m sure you won’t find it objectionable if I take Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment of Michael Davies over Stephen Hand’s. Michael Davies was a frequent visitor to the Vatican’s Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, of Divine Worship, and the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and Cardinal Ratzinger knew him well enough to send a letter of praise that was read at Michael Davies’ funeral Mass:
Letters to Mr Julian Chadwick
Chairman, The Latin Mass Society
I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(Translated from the original German)
9 November 2004
Do you think Cardinal Ratzinger is good company to keep or to use for a references to the truth, Chris K.?
On the matter of objectivity, I will only add that the Medical Bureau of Lourdes welcomes doctors of other faiths or none at all to participate in the review of possible cures. Why? Because when an atheist reviews the medical file of someone with a serious, advanced illness who underwent an instant and complete return to good health after a visit to Lourdes, and when there is no medical or natural explanation for it, the credibility of the Medical Bureau of Lourdes is enhanced.
It’s been said many times that when the miracle occurred on October 17, 1917 in Fatima, reporters from anti-Catholic publications ultimately gave what came to be seen as the strongest evidence that the miracle had occurred precisely because they were there to prove the children liars. Instead they wrote long and detailed articles about what had occurred–both the miracle of the sun and the fact that everyone was bone-dry when it was over even though they had been standing in pouring rain for hours before it occurred.
The occasion of a man’s death and funeral is all you can offer?
So, the Cardinal had met him a few times with regard to his connections and work … did you expect him to state some kind of pointed references to the man’s differences with the Church at the time of his death? That respect for the human person appears to show more respect for Davies than the latter had shown for the hierarchy.
Do you think Cardinal Ratzinger is good company to keep or to use for a references to the truth,
Obviously, ml, you don’t trust the good Cardinal yourself in the question at hand, so perhaps, in your mind, he really isn’t respected enough to be all that good company. You prefer to somehow accept the former local bishops’ opposing opinions over what the Church authority through C. Ratzinger ordered to be respected. And it was through the influence of C. Franic over C. Zanic’s that received that attention to forming an objective commission. The facts are as they are. Your favored negative bishops did not and do not rule over the question no matter how much you quote their opinions of the matter or their opinions of others who may disagree with them. That’s too bad.
As I answered on that Open Book thread, there were 20 bishops who voted on the Zagreb Declaration, but you gave comments from two of them (Kuharic and Franic, both of whom were public promoters of Vassula Ryden).
How convenient that you always leave out the fact that the two bishops quoted were the heads of the commission and conference themselves with the authority to speak to the mood of the bishops. Since you insist that the bishops must not REALLY have been positive, then all they had to do was agree with the negative desires of the local bishop and all would be over. The reasons for the nuanced decision I also gave you which you also conveniently left out of your incomplete reference to my nice replies to your requests. All you come up with are speculations and imaginings rather than just accept what actually happened. And, BTW, something else you appear to not be quite up to snuff on is the latest notification by then C. Ratzinger to Vassula Ryden – that the public is to know that she answered the questions of concern to the CDF and that there was a clarification to the former notification, except for those not as knowledgable or sophisticated in the Faith. She was instructed to place that clarification in her publications for the future and that any priests inquiring should be told about the clarification. People then could obviously read the writings with the caution to those not fully informed in the Faith.
Now, you guys are running in circles of repetition with nothing new to offer. Diane turns about face and says that it just doesn’t matter what one of her favorite debunkers believes on the whole or who he associates with. Strange how those debunkers don’t get the same treatment by you as is given to the balanced side!
Now, the repeating of the same quotes, and the admonishment to you for misstating what others have provided and your dismissal of what the presiding bishops over the conference and commission have summed up gets no one to the truth. And since it is just that stubborn refusal to reference anything but those with obvious problems of conspiracy theories and gossip that gets us nowhere, I shall retire from this chamber of noise, but first …
A comment I thought I had already made re: the other blindly followed debunker, E. Michael Jones, seems not to have gotten posted.
Anyway, Marcella, have you read anything else by Mr. Jones? Talk about conspiracy theorists! Here is a letter written by John Reilly the former editor at Jones’ “Culture Wars” magazine as to why he had to separate himself from the magazine:
http://www.johnreilly.info/olem.htm
a portion re: those conspiracy theories … often referring to the Jews:
Provocative though the magazine continues to be, I really don’t want to be involved with what is increasingly becoming a journal of psycho-sexual conspiracy theory.
The problems are apparent in your review in the May issue of Daniel Pipes’ book, “Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.” For one thing, I am at a loss to understand what you mean by a “conspiracy.” You cite the litigation thirty years ago to remove prayer from public schools as the product of a conspiracy “confected by Jewish organizations.” There follows a quote from the Catholic bishops’ attorney, William Ball, in which he lists the numerous Jewish organizations that supported the other side.
In the February issue of Culture Wars, E. Michael Jones states that the real followers of Moses are the people who accept Christ.
Who then are the people who claim to be the Jews? Jones answers:
“Revelations 3:9 answers the question by [saying] those ‘who call themselves Jewsbut are liars’ [are] the ‘synagogue of Satan.’ In other words, the group that was called by God to prepare the way for the Messiah rejected the Messiah and in doing that, became over the course of the ensuing centuries a group that defined itself as anti-Christian…. ”
Jones concludes: “The Jews who reject Christ now prepare the way for the coming of the anti-Christ…. what comes of this group is the opposite of salvation, namely the work of Satan…”
From “Fringe Watcher”:
It is interesting to note that Mr. Reilly was former Reviews Editor of E. Michael Jones’ Culture Wars (see his “Open Letter” for the reasons why he departed). As many people are aware, Dr. Jones has a long track record of relying on extremist sources and Holocaust revisionists as part of his exaggerated conspiracy fixation on the Jews. In 2004 the Catholic League noted, with reference to Jones’ unnecessarily hostile commentary about Jewish convert Roy Schoeman:
“What begins as a review of Roy Schoeman’s book, Salvation Is From the Jews, ends up as an anti-Semitic rant playing fast and loose with Catholic theology. It should be unequivocally condemned…. The Catholic League condemns Jones’s anti-Semitism and repudiates his efforts to justify it in the name of Catholic theology. One thing is clear: there are many choice terms one can use to describe Jones’s view of salvation history; “Catholic” is not one of them (Catalyst, July-August 2004).
Again, great company …. those who love to find conspiracies everywhere.
Nite, nite! ml and Diane can prolong their mutual admiration society of negative packing bishops and their debunking sources. This has gotten rather obsessive in itself!! The rest of us will wait and see, respecting that which has gone forth so far under the Church’s guidance.
Chris K—
“Obviously, ml, you don’t trust the good Cardinal yourself in the question at hand, so perhaps, in your mind, he really isn’t respected enough to be all that good company.”
What is your problem, Chris K.?. You posted this about Michael Davies based on Stephen Hand’s web post: “Good company to keep or to use for references of truth?? My response about Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal note praising Michael Davies and the comment, “Do you think Cardinal Ratzinger is good company to keep or to use for a references to the truth, Chris K.?” was a response to that and a challenge to YOU.
“So, the Cardinal had met him a few times with regard to his connections and work … did you expect him to state some kind of pointed references to the man’s differences with the Church at the time of his death?”
Cardinal Ratzinger did not need to write ANYTHING about Michael Davies to send to The Latin Mass Society, but he CHOSE to, and he chose to praise the man for his work. Stephen Hand never contacted Michael Davies for that article you quoted from, and I might remind you that Pope Benedict XVI has met with members of the SSPX in hopes of reconciling with them. If Pope Benedict XVI can maintain friendly terms with the SSPX, then there is no reason why Michael Davies has to be condemned for the same.
And I certainly do trust Pope Benedict XVI. The first thing he had Cardinal Levado do as new CDF prefect was shut down Fr. Gino Burresi, the false mystic who was nevertheless responsible for drawing an extraordinary number of vocations to his order and who had backing from Vatican officials. Surely there weren’t too many people in the Catholic world who would have cared at this point about Fr. Burresi, but Pope Benedict XVI wanted something done about this false mystic in spite of the scandal. Cardinal Ratizinger always said he accepted the 1991 Zagreb Declaration, which declared to the world after 10 years of daily apparitions, there was no evidence of supernaturalism at Medjugorje (“non constat de supernaturalitate”). And I believe Pope Benedict XVI requested the upcoming commission and is sending the list of theologians to choose from because he wants to be sure they follow the 1978 guidelines to the letter (e.g., no consideration of fruits unless the events are judged to be sound and in keeping with the 1978 guidelines).
There are four bishops in Bosnia-Herzegovina who will form this new commission and vote on its findings: Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo, Bishop Pero Sudar of Sarajevo, Bishop Franjo Komarica of Banja Luka, and Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno. Cardinal Puljic was a priest in 1985 and was a member of the first four-person commission set up by Bishop Zanic. Fr. Puljic was one of the commission members who caught Ivan in the lie regarding the great sign. We all know Bishop Peric’s position. I know nothing about the other two, but Fr. Rene Laurentin’s comment after the much-cited letter of Cardinal Bertone’s to Bishop Aubrey do not appear favorable to Medjugorje:
“This letter states specifically that from now on the decision has been returned to the episcopal conference of Bosnia. Now this conference consists of only four bishops who are in total solidarity with the diocesan bishop, with a more or less predominant concern to leave in his hands the liberty of judging events in his diocese.” Chrétiens Magazine, September 1998
So why would Pope Benedict XVI want a commission called now (because all evidence suggests that the CDF did request it)? It isn’t going to be approved, and the CDF could frankly clarify what is and is not allowed regarding promotion of Medjugorje without the need for a full-scale commission. The more I think of it, I think that once Bishop Peric told the “seers” to stop publicizing the messages and they refused (justifying themselves by saying they would only stop if ordered by the Holy See), then the Holy See decided to show them how the Church decides these matters.
“Since you insist that the bishops must not REALLY have been positive, then all they had to do was agree with the negative desires of the local bishop and all would be over.”
No, that isn’t what I said. Archbishop Franic abstained from voting and publicly claimed that the other 18 bishops (except for Zanic) would have rendered a positive judgment on Medjugorje in 1990 except that they didn’t want to upset Bishop Zanic. That only leaves two possibilies: A) that Franic was right and that those 18 bishops lied when they voted that there was no evidence of supernaturalism, “non constat de supernaturalitatem” (to avoid lying they should have abstained from voting) or B) Archbishop Franic was not correct and those 18 bishops voted as they believed, and what they believed was that even after 10 years of apparitions totaling in the 1000’s, hundreds of claims of miraculous cures, hundreds of claims of unusual physical phenomena, etc., there was no evidence of supernaturalism at Medjugorje (“non constat de supernaturalitate”).
Chris K.–you’re always accusing people of relying on speculation and imagination, but when someone like Louis Belanger challenges you on a point of fact (like the “seers’” claim that the Virgin would only appear for three more days), you simply ignore it. The reason we cite Michael Davies, Donal Foley, and Fr. Sivic is that they rely on documented evidence like tape-recorded conversations (copies of which are in chancery in Mostar). These facts are not in dispute even though Medjugorje fanatics try to ignore them.
Test Test
italicstest
Could this do?
Yeehaw.
Thanks. I didn’t want my post italicized.
Lots of typos in my post, but you all know it’s Cardinal Levada, not Cardinal Levado.
ml said:
So why would Pope Benedict XVI want a commission called now (because all evidence suggests that the CDF did request it)? It isn’t going to be approved, and the CDF could frankly clarify what is and is not allowed regarding promotion of Medjugorje without the need for a full-scale commission. The more I think of it, I think that once Bishop Peric told the “seers” to stop publicizing the messages and they refused (justifying themselves by saying they would only stop if ordered by the Holy See), then the Holy See decided to show them how the Church decides these matters.
It’s agreed that it cannot be approved while it is still “ongoing”. But, a condemnation is certainly possible (can’t recall if it was Bayside or Necedeh which was condemned one year before the “visions” ceased).
Furthermore, the obstinancy of the “seers” and their associates, is simply further evidence. When the 1978 Criteria on Discernment for Apparitions talks about “fruits”, it is referring to the actions of the “seers” and associates, not the faithful who come innocently in search of God and benefit from the Sacraments and prayer.
Fr. Jordan Aumann, OP speaking on discernment of spirits in his book, “Spiritual Theology” says that docility (obedience) is a positive fruit, whereas obstinancy or stubborness, is a sign that Satan is involved.
Fr. Aumann:
4. Docility. Souls that are moved by the spirit of God accept cheerfully the advice and counsel of their directors or others who have authority over them. This spirit of obedience, docility, and submission is one of the clearest signs that a particular inspiration or movement is from God. This is especially true in the case of the educated, who have a greater tendency to be attached to their own opinions.
Now keep in mind, we are talking about the fruits of alleged visionaries, seers, locutionists, etc. Fr. Aumann, who is not talking about Medjugorje specifically, but discernment of spirits, goes on to say:
Signs of the Diabolical Spirit. We have already enumerated the signs of the divine spirit, but since the devil may disguise himself as a good spirit and even cause what appears to be authentic mystical phenomena, it is helpful to mention briefly the various signs of the diabolical spirit.
1. Spirit of falsity. The devil is the father of lies, but he cleverly conceals his deceit by half-truths and pseudo-mystical phenomena.
2. Morbid curiosity. This is characteristic of those who eagerly seek out the esoteric aspects of mystical phenomena or have a fascination for the occult or preternatural.
3. Confusion, anxiety, and deep depression.
4. Obstinacy. One of the surest signs of a diabolical spirit.
5. Constant indiscretion and a restless spirit. Those who constantly go to extremes, as in penitential exercises or apostolic activity; or neglect their primary obligations to do some personally chosen work.
6. Spirit of pride and vanity. Very anxious to publicize their gifts of grace and mystical experiences.
7. False humility. This is the disguise for their pride and self-love.
8. Despair, lack of confidence, and discouragement. A chronic characteristic that alternates with presumption, vain security, and un-‘ founded optimism.
9. Disobedience and hardness of heart.
10. Impatience in suffering and stubborn resentment.
11. Uncontrolled passions and strong inclination to sensuality, usually under the guise of mystical union.
12. Hypocrisy, simulation, and duplicity.
13. Excessive attachment to sensible consolations, particularly in their practice of prayer.
14. Lack of deep devotion to Jesus and Mary.
15. Scrupulous adherence to the letter of the law and fanatical zeal in promoting a cause. This characteristic readily opens the door to diabolical influence in reformers and demagogues.
source
Aumann is cited by Foley in several places within his book when discussing actions and writings of the “seers” and associates of Medjugorje.
When we look at the fruits seen in those visiting Medjugorje, by and large, only a fool would say that the conversions and heavy use of sacraments is bad. Those things are not the true fruits of the spirits being discerned at Medjugorje. It is the fruits of the individual “seers” and their associates, which the Church judges.
Pope Benedict has been on the band wagon to stamp out relativism, proportionalism, consequentialism, and many other “ism’s”. Has there not been some of all three of these elements seen in how some, who don’t believe Medjugorje is authentic, continue to support it because of the fruits seen in those who visit?
They may say, “I don’t believe it is real, but let the people continue to come and be converted”.
This is dangerous ground, and I believe Pope Benedict is making a move to finally put an end to it. It is simply not compatible with our Christian faith to allow something to continue, if it is believed to be inauthentic.
In the end, all of this debating will mean nothing. What will matter is what comes out of this commission. I will anxiously await word on who is being sent from the Vatican to sit in on it. My gut feeling too, is that this person will be there to ensure the 1978 criteria is applied meticulously. Bishops Zanic and Peric have been doing this all along and I believe they will be vindicated when this is over.
I can only hope that those who served to downplay the bishops, to speak negatively of them, will reflect with an open heart, their actions and talk about it in confession. Such things are subtle form of poison. I spoke with the same level of fervor against the Bishops of Mostar as Chris K, and came to regret it terribly when I began to read all of the documentation coming out of the diocese, and other official records.
Supporters will have people believe that the Bishops, and anyone writing against Medjugorje, are conspiracy theorists. In reality, it is those who blame the bishop and speak adversely about him, spreading calumny and detraction, who are engaging in such behavior.
Good morning friends and foes!
Stephen Hand never contacted Michael Davies for that article you quoted from, and I might remind you that Pope Benedict XVI has met with members of the SSPX in hopes of reconciling with them. If Pope Benedict XVI can maintain friendly terms with the SSPX, then there is no reason why Michael Davies has to be condemned for the same.
He didn’t have to. All he had to do was to refer to the writings and stated positions which are repeated over and over and quite available to anyone doing objective research. Stephen Hand is greatly more familiar with all of the writings, all of the positions, all of the public leanings of the man and those he backs. That certainly was spelled out and quite obvious. No offense, but you are either greatly naive or just trying to spin stuff. The Holy Father always attempts reconciliation with any group … but you attempt to link him with the group in some close association of agreement while all he hopes for is some movement on their part towards reconciliation. Of course he won’t close the doors, but much more is expected than what you are implying. Davies, rather, supports their current position and rationale. If the pope did there would be no need for reconciliation now, would there. The pope does not agree with their separated stance…and it is a falsehood to try to place Davies and the pope on some equal footing with regard to this group.
when someone like Louis Belanger challenges you on a point of fact (like the “seers’” claim that the Virgin would only appear for three more days), you simply ignore it.
No, I haven’t. I have spoken to just this kind of bunk/spin before. Sorry if you personally missed it. Again, please refrain from your misplaced personal accusations … but it does come with the turf you are walking on. Ho hum … in the very beginning the history was dealing with very “ignorant” children, cut off from the world, a history of persecution with no knowledge of apparitions ANYWHERE. When they themselves did not understand what was happening with them or with any knowledged of this happening before to anyone, the pilgrims began telling them about Lourdes, Fatima, La Sallette, etc. They told them the probable length of time based on those others only lasting some limited length of time. So the children simply accepted that it would be the same for them in their own experience. They were never told such in any messages … never given a time line. They only took to themselves what they had been told by others they assumed to have more experience with such than they. To imply they gave such information from their apparitions which then would prove them false is to willingly mislead people and to, once again, infer something wrong against the children. They were and are simply normal children raised in the particular circumstances of persecution against their faith which resulted in being cut off from the world of knowledge that you were given. A little charity would show much more from the debunking side rather than to promote falsehoods and incomplete history.
And, sorry, Diane, but the facts of conspiracy theories and suspicion come not from those writing for Medj. but simply from those giving their researched opinions (within their own expertise) about the writings and philosophies re: those who have influence over others in the faith on topics that are causing division in the Church. One has to distinguish, when one points to certain sources who are jumping the gun re: Church decisions about Medj, just what they also have jumped the gun on or disagreed with in other guidance from the magisterium. If they are seen to be setting their own rationales or opinions above the hierarchy in other areas of the faith, one should be suspect of them in other areas as well. Prudence!
Ah, no, Chris K.
Louis Belanger, a Canadian researcher who helped Fr. Sivic, OFM, gather the tape recorded evidence from the early days of Medjugorje and write The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, posted this already:
“According to the Yugoslavian visionaries’ tape recorded declarations, the Gospa (the Croatian word meaning Mary) announced, on June 30, 1981, that she would appear to them three more times. On July 3, ten days after the beginning of the happenings, the visionaries all confirmed, before five adults, three of whom were priests, that their meetings with the Gospa were once and for all over.”
Daria Klanac, a pro-Medjugorje writer, wrote a book about using transcripts from the tapes used by Fr. Sivic and Mr. Belanger. Daria included the following taped conversation that took place on June 30, 1981 at 6:30 PM after Mirjana, Marija, Vicka, Ivanka, and Jakov experienced an apparition at Cerno (Ivan wasn’t there).
After some preliminaries, Fr. Zovko asked Mirjana if she had said anything to the Gospa. She responded that she had, asking her “how many days she is going to remain with us. Exactly how many days she will remain with us. She said, ‘Three days.’ . . . that means until Friday.”
Mirjana continued: “Then we asked her if she would be annoyed to see us going to the church rather than to the hill. However, she seemed indecisive when we asked this question, as if she did not like it. Nevertheless, she said that she wouldn’t be annoyed.”
Mica Ivankovic and Ljubica Vasilj-Gluvic, two social workers who were with the “seers” when they had the vision this conversation pertains to, were called in to be interviewed as well. They reported hearing the questions put to the Gospa and heard Mirjana, Vicka, Ivanka, Marija, and Jakov say together, “Three times.”
“Fr. Zovko: “Well! This interests me. Three more times. So, when do these visions finish?
Mica: “They said: ‘Immediately.’ Later, they said: ‘It finishes on Friday.’
Fr. Zovko: ‘But where is it going to finish on Friday.’
Jakov: ‘In the church.’
Mirjana: “If Gospa doesn’t tell us, perhaps for the last day, she wishes that it may be on the hill!” (“Aux Sources de Medjugorje,” page 184)
Medjugorje Franciscan Frs Rupcic and Nuic who enthusiastically promote the authenticity of Medjugorje tried to argue that the “three days” should not be understood chronologically, but theologically; in other words, that the reference to three days should be seen as merely symbolic. But this is ridiculous given the specificity of the transcripts—that Friday, three days hence, would be the date of the last apparition.
Fr. Laurentin, in his 1998 book “Medjugorje Testament,” argues that Vicka may have felt threatened by the police, so she only meant that the apparitions would only continue for three days on the hill (Podbrdo) before moving them into the parish church. (page 228)
Vicka herself claimed to Fr. Bubalo that she didn’t remember saying anything about three more days but thought they may have said it to get Fr. Zovko off their backs!
There is no doubt that Mirjana read a book about Lourdes the day after the first “apparition” because she said so in an interview on June 27, 1981. On the same day, interviews with Marija, Jakov, Vicka, and Ivanka clearly demonstrated that they were all familiar with the story of Lourdes.
However, that doesn’t explain their claim that on June 30 at Cerno they asked the Gospa how long she would be appearing and the reply was that she would only be appearing for three more days.
Who is doing the spinning, Chris K.?
And they weren’t naive children, Chris. They claimed they had gone out to listen to rock music and smoke cigarettes that they had pilfered from their fathers.
ml, there is much more conversation and exchange available over the years and especially during the very first days than what little you or your selective source would care to offer. Permit me to perhaps widen your perspective beyond the limitation contained in predisposed negative sources. Again, what the children understood was much more subjective in the beginning due to so many influences around them and their own expectations due to ignorance. They often asked the Gospa if she would come again, each time they would have an apparition in the beginning. She would reply to some specific time for the next apparition within a very few days time. Since nothing was offered to them beyond that only next visit, they could only refer to that date and to nothing more into the future beyond that. They subjectively had no clue beyond those few days until the next apparition time given because they were simply not given more information. At one time the Gospa replied … “are you tired of me already” when they asked each time if she would be coming again? So it only shows that the children assumed certain things due to their inexperience with such and their own feelings of unworthiness for being chosen to take on such public scrutiny. And, actually, they were true in repeating only what they knew at the moment of being specifically asked. They also often asked if they would be able to faithfully carry out what they would be asked, realizing their own weaknesses.
And I think it’s so funny that oooooh, oooooh, young teens went off to take a smoke in secret away from others. Pretty normal kids. Another site in the same neutral waiting position had the kids stealing apples when the angel came on the first apparition. In Kibeho, approved, one teen was a pagan (supposedly doing other things outside of the True faith) who had to be taught from the ground up about Jesus by Jesus. Even though that’s approved I suppose it would fall outside of your own personally desired “apparition proprieties”!! In other approved seers by local bishops are messages with apparitions that happened and continue to happen to persons (adults even!) who had fallen away from the Faith, been divorced, etc. due to sufferings or lacks in their own family situations. Some were living horribly sinful lives! Sheesh! Saul wasn’t exactly on his way to pray when he had his intervention. I’d much rather have an imperfect soul with whom I can identify to show the great Mercy and love of the Father for ALL of His children. Most of this toing and froing is incomplete evidence and a lot of hearsay. If the same experience occurred to any of us … there would be plenty error coming from our own subjective interpretations when cornered by suspecting authorities and not being told more than what to expect in the next few days. Fr. Jozo was very hard on the children in the beginning, questioning them in a manner of skepticism and disbelief .. no matter what they said. Through his own experience of a miraculous intervention, he completely changed and then defended the children when the Communists were literally chasing them. The social worker you mention dishonestly tried to abduct the children, keeping them away from their normal places for apparition. Similar to what happened at Fatima. Many laughed cruelly at the misunderstanding of Bernadette. How could anyone NOT know the identity of God’s own Mother when she appears to them? Or what they considered could not be asked of her by God’s mother … which at first she too had misunderstood, even while the apparition itself was occurring, and had to be further instructed. I would hate to see how people you cite would lay into Francisco because he didn’t experience the fullness of the apparitions and was told that he had to say many rosaries for his own sake. People would deem it impossible that our Lady would come to a sinful little boy … why she only picks the best! To that she herself spoke to the children of Medj.’s question – why us? … “I don’t always choose the best”!!! Smatterings of differently interpreted exclamations in the confusing beginnings and filtered through different personalities – who, throughout the history of these many messages, are given separate messages, many meaningful only for personal guidance with ongoing teachings – speaks nothing of “evil” intentions or deliberate lying by children! Rather, the continuing patience under such constant belittling and accusing barbs tossed rather selectively speaks more to the overall continuing sacrifice and obedience of the seers and their families. Thus, why the examination of them over all the many years of scrutiny has found NO FRAUD!! I’ll trust those who have followed the whole of the experience – much more consistently involved than those who have nothing more to repeat over and over (the “go to” few points of the debunkers – people could recite them verbatim by now!) than a few incomplete smatterings of subjective impressions or accusations of “evil” because teens snuck a smoke. Try the comparison with a seer who abused his wife and was violent in public behavior! Uh oh! Guess his approval should be disregarded! These little pinpricks you rely on speak more to priggishness on the part of the accuser than any overall developed insight through constant and long term observation of personalities, behavior, and growth in the spiritual life which has been observed in these, now young adults with children.
ml, if you followed along with my remarks as they were made … the naivete I referred to in my points was to the lack of any real understanding of other apparition sites…what to expect, therefore, themselves. Again …. rock music influences within a secular surrounding culture …. oooooh!
Now then, some of the info from objective studies and observations by long term Medjugorje watchers:
Recent scientific examinations of the seers, including brainwave scans during the apparitions, have been sent to the Vatican, according to Henrija Joyeuxa, a professor of the Medical University in Montpellier, France, who first studied them twenty years ago. The tests were conducted last year.
“We recorded a large number of ‘apparitions,'” the scientist told a Croatian newspaper. “We carefully analyzed them and we were looking for any signs of fraud while recording those phenomena hundreds of times. Our team made all the strict psychological tests and we completely agree that all of them are physically, mentally, individually, and socially healthy. We could even say more healthy than the average health rate in France.”
Reported the newspaper: “The conclusion is so clear: what is happening in Medjugorje is serious and should be taken seriously. Those are the official results of the medical experiment started on the 25th of June of 2005 in Medjugorje on Marija Pavlovic-Lunetti and Ivan Dragicevic. Those results just confirmed that what is happening with visionaries in the moment of apparition of Virgin Mary is real.” The scientists themselves said they saw no signs of manipulation and were deeply impressed by the effect that Medjugorje had on pilgrims.
But there is no way of proving what they are seeing. “Again it’s proved that the apparitions are neither a dream, hallucination, nor hysteria,” said the scientists. “There are no signs of delusion and therefore their brains are fully functional, although, it could not be said whom they are seeing or with whom they are communicating during the apparition.”
What can be said, concluded the team, is that something highly unusual is in progress and incredibly has been in progress for now a quarter of a century, with millions of pilgrims reporting permanent changes in their lives and none of the six seers diverging in their stories.
Another fascinating read from the scientific studies:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v15n2a7.php
I also found this interesting statement from a reviewer of Foley’s book – and a rather positive review at that:
Curiously, this primary evidence (tapes/ transcripts) has been ignored by almost all the authorities who have written on Medjugorje,
hmmm …. wonder why!
“At one time the Gospa replied … “are you tired of me already?”
All the more evidence that this is a fraud or demonic or both.
The theologians appointed by Pope Benedict XVI aren’t going to give a hoot about delta waves. They are going to go over the evidence and decide, for instance, whether the Virgin Mary would defend two priests who had been stripped of faculties with the approval of the Pope.
In 1981, Fr. Ivica Vego and Fr. Ivan Prusina, Franciscan priests in Mostar who were causing a great deal of trouble for Bishop Zanic regarding the implementation of Romanis pontificibus, were stripped of their faculties, expelled from the Franciscan order, and suspended “a divinis” with the authorization of Pope John Paul II.
Father Grafenauer, a Slovenian Jesuit priest, interviewed Vicka and Marija, questioning them about Frs. Vego and Prusina among other things. Grafenauer left copies of the cassette tapes in the parish of Medjugorje, with the bishop of Mostar, and also with the bishops’ conference in Zagreb.
A sample from his conversation with Vicka:
Graf: The bishop has the duty to judge whether or not this is Our Lady.
Vicka: He can judge as he wants, but I know it’s Our Lady.
Graf: The Church says of those who are confident in themselves, that this itself is a sign that Our Lady is not in question here.
Vicka: Let those who are doubtful remain doubtful, I’m not.
Graf: This is not a good thing . . . you once told the bishop that he should pay more attention to Our Lady than to the Pope.
Vicka: Yes I did.
Graf: This means that the bishop should listen to you more than to the Pope.
Vicka: No, not me.
Graf: But the bishop doesn’t know what the phenomenon is and perhaps it is not Our Lady.
Vicka: Yes it is Our Lady.
Graf: You told the bishop that he is to blame and that those two [Vego and Prusina] are innocent and that they can perform their priestly duties.
Vicka: Yes I did.
Graf: Can they hear confessions? Did Our Lady mention this?
Vicka: Yes.
Graf: If Our Lady said this and the Pope says that they cannot . . .
Vicka: The Pope can say what he wants. I’m telling it as it is!
Graf: See, this is how one can come to the conclusion that this is not Our Lady . . .when the Pope says no, they cannot celebrate Mass, and they cannot hear confessions, and then on the other hand, Our Lady says they can do both. This cannot be!
Vicka: I know what is right (What Our Lady said).
Graf: This cannot be true. I would put my hand into fire to testify that this is not Our Lady speaking. When a person has a greater gift there also exists a greater danger that the devil could be at work upon this person.
************************************************
A sample of the conversation with Marija:
Graf: Did Our Lady say that the bishop is to blame?
Marija: Yes.
Graf: Did she say that Vego and Prusina were not to blame?
Marija: Yes.
Graf: When Our Lady says that the bishop is to blame this immediately appears suspicious and we could conclude that . . . this is not Our Lady speaking. The seers are apparently . . . spreading word around that the bishop is to blame.
Marija: Our Lady told us this.
Graf: This is causing revolt in Herzegovina and these are not good fruits. People will be angry with the bishop and will defame his reputation. How can Our Lady do such things? The Church knows . . . well that Our Lady is good and that she would never do such things.
Marija: Our Lady told us this.
Thanks ml, for taking the time to put the actual transcript out for all to see.
Satan himself can create a sort of ecstasy – enough to trick brainwaves. Such physical tests would make up only part of an extended examination of events and fruits. In no way would phsyical or pyschological testing be looked upon in isolation. Neither would the positive things seen in those who convert.
It all has to be looked at together, most especially the fruits coming from the seers. In that set of transcripts between Vicka and Marija, anyone with basic catechetical knowledge would understand that:
A) Our Lady would have known about the ‘a divinis’ suspensions, and subsequent disobedience – potentially before it even happened.
B) Our Lady cannot contradict a pope on such a matter. It amounts to the Blessed Mother against the papacy. Since Mary cannot turn against the Church, the only conclusion is precisely what Fr. Graf stated. It is not the Blessed Mother speaking.
But, since they are experiencing something based on brainwave data, then we have to wonder just whom they are seeing. Only the Father of Lies would prompt a “seer” to say that the Blessed Mother contradicted the Holy Father.
ooooh oooooh! We’ve gone from conspiracies … (now even the professionals of the scientific field are involved and ml knows more science than the experts too). wow!… to Satan’s running things for 25 years, failing each year with more and more conversions and, eek, confessions, returns to fastings (you know … those particular exercises that Jesus emphasized as the only ones that work in the toughest cases for casting the old boy out!) twice a week on bread and water consistently each week now for years, more creations of Eucharistic adoration in parishes by the pilgrims whose faith has been spiritually revived (you know he’s jumping for joy at those statistics!), and, oh, those incredible vocations … not just those reported by the Cardinal of Vienna who reported that without the Medj. vocations he would have practically nil, but the fantastic conversions with vocations like Don Calloway which are only calling more youth to the Lord. Good fruit such as this unprecedented bushel full cannot scripturally come from a bad tree, and you guys have it rotten from the core in your rantings. I’d be a bit concerned if I were you of tempting the Holy Spirit here … and giving Satan credit. Very dangerous ground you are walking. Very dangerous indeed.
No one is giving Satan credit for conversions among pilgrims who visit or read about Medjugorje. As I have written over and over, people who participate in prayer and sacraments while at Medjugorje receive ordinary and sanctifying graces. None of the good that has come of pilgrimages to Medjugorje authenticates the apparition claims. For reasons I don’t understand, you can’t seem to comprehend that even though Church history is full of examples of people converting as a result of contact in some way with a pious fraud.
Bayside had numerous conversions, strange physical phenomena, and miracles attributed to it, but Veronica Lueken was a fraud. Someone wrote within the last month in one of the comboxes that a priest acquaintance credits Bayside for his vocation.
Fr. Gino Burresi was personally responsible for an extraordinary number of vocations to his order and he had millions of followers worldwide, but he was a fraud. Sandro Magister wrote this after news of the sanctions again Burresi were published last year:
“Fr. Burresi, who is now 73 years old, was until 1992 a member of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, an order founded in 1816 by Italian priest Bruno Lanteri. A man with a great devotion to the revelations of Fatima, Burresi became a priest at a relatively advanced age, in 1983, but even before this he had gained great fame as a mystic and spiritual director, as well as for the stigmata and visions.
In a small way, his popularity resembled that of Fr. Pio of Pietrelcina. And not really in too small a way: hundreds of persons from Italy and beyond came to him every day seeking comfort, including high-ranking prelates, politicians, and ambassadors. From the faraway Philippines, then-president Corazon Aquino sent one of her messengers to have a rosary blessed by this man in the odor of sanctity.
His headquarters were in the countryside below Tivoli, just outside of Rome, in the area of San Vittorino, where there stands today a Marian shrine in the form of a cone made of glass and cement. It was built with the contributions from devotees. “Brother Gino,” as everyone called him, initially received his visitors in a small structure made of wood and sheetmetal, but the congregation of the Oblates replaced this with an international seminary. Because Fr. Burresi was also a great magnet for vocations to the religious life.”
God writes straight with crooked lines and is always able to bring good out of evil. The “good tree” in Medjugorje is the Church in the form of sacraments and prayers, not the “seers” and that is where your argument goes to pieces.
The Virgin Mary is not appearing to Ivan, Vicka, Ivanka, Mirjana, Marija, or Jakov, but she is right there near the Blessed Sacrament just as she is wherever the Blessed Sacrament is throughout the world.
You haven’t addressed the problems of Medjugorje (like the example in the transcripts I just posted indicating the Gospa was telling two priests to disobey a lawful and justified order of the Pope).
Don’t you have a good story to explain it?
That is precious ML. Thousands of people have experienced extraordinary graces at Medjugorje including conversions, healings, and vocations. There are 25 years worth of messages and homilies expounding the core messages of God’s presence with His people, Mary’s maternal love, peace, faith, prayer, conversion and fasting. And yet, you say, behind it all is the Devil.
Our Lord gave us a couple principles of discernment didn’t he? “By their fruit you shall know them” and “A house divided cannot stand”.
The fact that you refuse to look at the events themselves and the core messages and instead focus on picayune points from some obscure “tape recorded message” or gossip about the visionaries speaks volumes about your mindset. If you are predisposed to disbelief then fine. But why assert a diabolical origin when the preponderance of evidence is otherwise? Why not let the commission just do it’s work?
Mark—
I am letting the commission do its work. My arguments on websites that the Medjugorje apparition claims are fraudulent are no more out of line than arguments that the apparition claims are true.
When Vicka and Mirjana claimed that the Gospa wanted two suspended priests to defy an order signed by the Pope, it isn’t a picayune point. It IS the event. And the fruit of that tree (the false “seers” and Franciscans promoting them) is disobedience, which is bad fruit from a bad tree.
The good fruits of Medjugorje are coming from the
sacraments and pious activities they participate in. Those are good fruits from a good tree (the sacraments and prayer life of the Catholic Church).
If you bothered to read my post, you would see that the conversions attributed to Medjugorje do not authenticate the apparition claims any more than the conversions and vocations attributed to Fr. Gino Burresi authenticated his apparition claims. He was a false mystic.
Mark Says:
Our Lord gave us a couple principles of discernment didn’t he? “By their fruit you shall know them” and “A house divided cannot stand”.
Even I had a misunderstanding of which fruits are judged, until recently. However, it has been made clear by people like Fr. Jordon Auman, and even within the document containing the Criteria for Discernment of Apparitions, that the fruits to be judged are not those seen in the innocent people who come with an open heart to the thought that the Mother of God is appearing in Medjugorje. Rather, the fruits that are judged, are those of the “seers” and associates.
Is it prudent for the bishops or the commission to dismiss something negative because of all of the nice things happening in Medjugorje, likely on account of graces related to prayer, adoration, fasting, Marian devotion, and the Sacraments?
Only a fool would say: Judge only the nice and positive things, and leave anything negative out of the picture.
However, this is a common mindset today – that we can make like an ostrich and pretend that such conflicts never occurred through the mouths and actions of those claiming to see the Blessed Mother. History shows us that it is very difficult to discern what comes from God, and what is of human or even diabolical origin. This is because the Father of Lies has proven that he is willing to tolerate a certain level of holiness in order to accomplish his goal.
We see this not only in Fr. Buressi, but in Magdalena of the Cross, who brought many to the faith and had many ecclesiastics fooled. She later confessed to having sold her soul to the devil for all of those phenomena she was engaged in. She had to be exorcised at great pain, and the Church was scandalized. Yet, there were large numbers of conversions, a large cult following, which included prominent church members.
There are members of the Church who are willing to allow Medjugorje to continue, even though they admit they don’t believe that Mary is appearing there due to all of these conflicts. With due respect, I believe this is an error. Truth should never be compromised, not even for what is a good cause.
Pope Benedict moves exclusively on Truth and I don’t see him permitting this kind of thing to continue because there are good things happening on it.
There is much disunity in the Church today over Medjugorje. It is visible just within this thread, and many other forums. Unity must subsist in truth and when there is no truth, there can be no unity. Hence, I believe the disunity is the result of falsehoods at the very base of the entire Medjugorje phenomena.
I would like to add that if I were claiming to be seeing the Mother of God, I would hope and pray that my pastor, then my bishop/cardinal would throw everything in my path to test the spirits I claim to be seeing. Anyone making such claims had better prepare themselves for such intense scrutiny. The pastors and the bishops must protect the Church from scandal and there is no way to test the spirits without testing via ecclesiastical fire! This means, don’t expect the pastor or the bishop to be entirely friendly until the last test has been performed, for the last time.
Diane K. – Amen to that!! It’s one reason I don’t pray for signs and don’t envy people who have experienced apparitions at all. I’d scrutinize myself crazy.
Not that I’ve never had things that I learned later could have been signs. I know they happen and could happen even to me, someone who’s not looking for them and kinda doesn’t want them. I smelled roses a couple times but only stumbled upon the possibility of that as a sign while I was googling for hallucinating smelling roses. I’d previously heard nothing of this common sign and thought something was wrong with my nose/brain and assumed it was a medical thing. I was running around at work asking who got flowers and looking like an idjit saying how strong it smelled and you could just see the question marks floating over people’s heads so I quickly dropped the subject. And the butterfly that came into my house and landed on Jesus’s feet on a crucifix as I was praying the rosary was kinda neat. Could have been a coincidence, but even if it was, it was the gift of a pretty moment I could appreciate. Not something to scrutinize, like an apparition would be. I don’t think God will send signs that you’re too dumb to figure out, and if He wants to say something, He’ll be as clear as you need Him to be.
I think God knows that I can’t handle anything more than little things like this. Didn’t Jean d’Arc get confused over whether she was seeing God or the devil? How’d you like to be in that position!! Yes, I would be running in fear directly to my priest and asking God to please quit whatever is happening, and that’s would just be the starting point. That’s just me.
Then there are people looking for signs and reading all kinds of things into them at anything that remotely resembles what they’re looking for. Seeing roses in the newspaper, for example. How much time goes by before you eventually see a rose or picture of one somewhere? Not much time.
I’d want my faith built to a point where I didn’t have the need to go looking like that for signs that are a real stretch, but not be unappreciative when a sign is real. I’d really really rather not have to deal with it.
As I read over the many comments here, I must say that they are pretty repetitive and some pretty misleading. I think all has been said and each remains in either a patient or aggitated state. And so it will probably continue!
There is much disunity in the Church today over Medjugorje.
Dear complainer, You misunderstand your Church for there isn’t disunity in the Church over Medjugorje. There is unity whenever people follow the guidance given by the Church. And…you place a much higher value to private revelation, in reading your many comments, than does the Church. It appears that you yourself are much more aggitated over what is not necessary for your faith than the simple devotees.
I would like to add that if I were claiming to be seeing the Mother of God, I would hope and pray that my pastor, then my bishop/cardinal would throw everything in my path to test the spirits I claim to be seeing. Anyone making such claims had better prepare themselves for such intense scrutiny.
Dear complainer, then your wishes seem to be fulfilled with the subject place of this thread. There has not been as much scrutiny or study of any previous apparition and its subjects in the history of the Church! The scrutiny by pastors, priests and bishops has tested this particular group of “seers” beyond any others that went before. You must be grateful for that from your comment for that fulfills your standards. The other examples you give for comparison to the subject “seers” here cannot stand for those very reasons … there was never the study, objective testings, nor the scrutiny given in those cases as has been for the subjects of this thread.
And Ms. Karen, unfortunately for your personal desires, apparition sites are and have been a part of the tradition of the Church so much so that now there are official feast days based upon the heritage of graces of such, particularly certain ones meant for the whole world. And they went through very rocky and divisive beginnings. If they didn’t, one should doubt them. That goes with the territory whenever the Mother comes … so comes her opposition. The elitist architects of some unreachable faith form a far worse Church … one built only on what one sees and hears on the level of the particular degree of faith of the surrounding culture… or only on the belief that there is nothing more to be further explained by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages as Christ spoke to re: that Spirit’s ongoing instruction. And today the surrounding culture is pretty sad. You forget too about the gifts of warnings and prophecies for protection that come with apparitions – Fatima, LaSalette, Kibeho, Akita, Amsterdam. Unfortunately, due to doubters at the time, the desired remedies asked by the Mother went unanswered (as for WWII) and the children suffered.
May our Father God keep us all in unity according to His holy will and not ours.
SongSung – Nothing in my post suggests that apparitions do not actually happen. The point I wanted to affirm is the point that Diane K made, which is this:
Be careful not to read into it things which aren’t there. There is a very good reason why we scrutinize claims of apparitions and this doesn’t mean that people like Diane K and me don’t think there are real ones or that legitimate apparitions have difficult beginnings. How you got out of this that I don’t desire that apparitions ever happen just because I don’t want this personal cross, confuses me. I’m just saying that if I ever had one, I would feel morally obligated to tell a priest to rule out other things–including evil supernatural entities. I would not be one of those people who accept anything seemingly supernatural that makes them feel warm and fuzzy as being the genuine thing sent from Heaven. I argue not against apparitions, but against letting one’s self be a gullible target of possible evil. I see the general strong desire some people have for supernatural signs and accepting anything remotely resembling one as something sent from Heaven, to be a real problem.
I am not a believer in the “apparitions,” but I would welcome the new commission proving me wrong. If it was only a question of private pilgrimages and personal conversions, I could live with the status quo. But invariably those conversions become testimonials to authenticity and spill over into all kinds of areas of ordinary Catholic life asking a response from me. One of the “seers” visited my parish church and reportedly the Mother of God appeared to him while he was here. If true, my parish church has been extraordinarily graced. If not, and this is a hoax, or worse, an evil spirit, sacrilege in the sanctuary of the house of God where I worship has occurred. Either way an astounding reality, for good or for evil, took place which merited naught but a blind eye from any ecclesial authority. I was not in attendance, but I heard about it from a good friend who was in the packed church that night. She is a devotee and credits “Our Lady of Medjugorje” for the consolation she has received in the midst of heavy trials. I am loath to insert my doubts and objections into her experience and have only minimally made known my support of the local bishop’s position—a wearying tightrope of truth to walk in itself. After hearing her description of the “apparition” in our church, another friend in the conversation responded, “Oh, I would love to have been in the same place where the Blessed Mother was appearing!” Who among us Catholics would not? So, am I stubborn of heart or is my friend credulous? This year Wayne Weible was the featured speaker at a fundraiser for a Catholic school in my area. Should I lend support to a school which enlists “Our Lady of Medjugorje” as a benefactress? I have heard theological inquiry in casual conversation among my Catholic friends answered by something from the messages of these “apparitions.” “Our Lady in Medjuorgje says…” citing these messages as their authority. How should I respond to that? Truth be told, I know from experience the intensity of fervor attached to these “apparitions” and often I hold my peace to keep the peace. Is that the right thing for me to do? Is that what Jesus would have me do? In my former parish a woman was given an opportunity to speak on an apostolate to which she felt called to devote her life to bring priests to Medjugorje. Is that a legitimate apostolate in light of the jurisdictional rights of the bishops there and their negative judgment of the “apparitions?” My son was given a holy card of “Our Lady of Medjugorje” by his religious education teacher on the occasion of his first Holy Communion. How do I explain to him who she is when I doubt it’s Our Lady appearing there? Should I keep it as a memento of this most solemn occasion in his life or burn it? Priests I know who are supporters seem gullible to me, lacking prudence, and I don’t trust their judgment. Those who have gone there as spiritual directors of pilgrimages seem compromised and co-opted by the devotees who paid their expenses, and though they seem otherwise devout, I hesitate asking spiritual counsel from them. Perhaps it is possible to go there in that capacity without lending credence to authenticity, but I don’t know any priest who has succeeded in doing so. Most disheartening to me is the lack of response from our shepherds. I cannot imagine that as individual bishops they would condone the disrespect towards themselves they tolerate with indifference toward the bishop there. My dark guess is that the love which is the root of all evil is the cataract over their blind eyes. Devotees fill pews. As I said, I hope the new commission proves me wrong.
Mary,
What a thoughtful post. It is always awkward to be “put upon” by the credulous people among us. I doubt the commission will prove you wrong. There are terribly wrong things about Medjugorje, and that will be the conclusion…
Mary, I just want to echo what Tominellay has already said, but would like to add one to your list.
I was listening to Patrick Madrid on Open Line (EWTN Radio through Sirius Satellite) yesterday. A man called in and wanted to know the best way to convince protestants using various apparitions. Patrick Madrid quickly and charitably pointed out that Protestants have far more fundamental problems with the Catholic faith, than the issue of Mary. For example, they don’t believe in the Real Presence. That is far more important and fundamental. You work your way up from there. The man persisted a little in suggesting that if only they knew about Mary and places like Fatima, Lourdes, AND he said, Medjugorje….
Patrick carefully explained the facts surrounding apparitions and he used the word “caution” and stated outright that approved apparitions are worthy of our belief. But, those which have not been approved, should be approached cautiously. He went on to say that someone could be investing a lot of time and energy on an apparition which has not been approved, and then what do they do if there is a negative judgment against it? He pointed out all of the time that was put into the unapproved apparition, versus spending that time on those which have been approved.
I just received something from Mark Waterinckx that was rather interesting. It is an article on Spirit Daily written by Michael Brown – a promoter of Medjugorje. In his article, he boldy makes this statement:
That is preceded further up by this:
Notice that Michael Brown says that the former Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement “indicates uncertainty”. This is hardly the way that I take it. Rather, it is clear to me that the Cardinal was talking pure science. In other words, how do you measure, quantify, qualify – by scientific means what happened on October 13 at Fatima? I am assuming he means the miracle of the sun. From a scientific standpoint, did the sun actually move from its position and get closer? Or, did the earth move? How can the miracle of the sun be explained in terms of physics & mathematics? The answer is that we cannot explain it, and this is what he was talking about. He was not voicing uncertainty from what I am reading, especially when the Cardinal says “purely scientific point of view”.
Why would he even bring this up in an article in which he discusses the new commission and in a section of the article that deals with how the various bishops and the pope might lean?
Using such a statement to try to surmise Pope Benedict’s personal position on Medjugorje, based on something said in a book, clearly misunderstood or distorted, leaves me to wonder about the motive.
Much has been made of Bishop Peric’s so-called interview with Fr. Chisholm, and the latter’s charge that the Bishop put his fist down in proclamation that he did not believe in Fatima or Lourdes, something Bishop Peric denies.
How many people are now going to be suspicious about Pope Benedict as a result of this article by Michael Brown?
If I misunderstood what he was trying to do with that statement in this article, someone please explain it to me.
Source article reference
.
Mary–
Your post was heartbreaking. I have a strong feeling that one of the purposes of this new commission is to crack down hard on the kind of abuses you mention. There is no cultus of Our Lady of X until the proper authority has publicly stated that the cultus is allowed. And the proper authority is still the local bishop in conjunction with the B-H bishops conference ideally after approval by the CDF.
Diane K–
I read that on Spirit Daily and was amazed that he would make that statement. I read Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment about the Miracle of the Sun exactly as you did—I was just looking up some information on Fatima, and the newspaper reporters who were at the Cova checked with meteorologists (and other scientists who would know) to see if the sun had behaved abnormally that day. It had not, so that it was Ratzinger was referring to, not his own doubts that the miracle had taken place. Brown also surmises that the purpose of the new commission may be to remove additional authority from the B-H bishops although how he can draw that conclusion is beyond me.
I’m not surprised, however, coming from Michael Brown. He recently attempted a summary of the Franciscan-diocesan history in the area, and incredibly, left Romanis Pontificibus out of the timeline and said nothing about the Gospa defending Vego and Prusina after they had been suspended.
He writes books that cater to the Medjugorje crowd, so he stands to lose a lot by a negative judgment. And he is very much a believer that good fruits alone determine the authenticity of an apparition claim. He’s never to my knowledge discussed the 1978 CDF guidelines. My guess is because he knows Medjugorje wouldn’t get through them.
Something tells me his sales are about to go down. Some people have HUGE financial investments in Medjugorje.
It makes you wonder what the credibility will be of certain websites, authors, and the like, IF the whole thing is declared inauthentic.
I too was appalled by the forcefulness of negativity in which Brown talks of Bishop Peric. Msgr Henri Brincard, Bishop of Puy-en-Velay, very carefully lays out the reason why,
To see his explanation, read the section under the heading: “The Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith” within his address to the French Bishops.
There is so much distortion in that article by Michael Brown that I had to remove myself from the computer temporarily to get some very deep boots.
The fruits of such an article are rather frightening.
Sanctus! Sanctus! Sanctus! Dominus Deus sabaoth. Pleni sunt caeli et in terra, Hosana in excelsis! Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini. Hosana in excelsis!
I too was appalled by the forcefulness of negativity in which Brown talks of Bishop Peric. Msgr Henri Brincard, Bishop of Puy-en-Velay, very carefully lays out the reason why,
“It is therefore not correct to state that Bishop Zanic was relieved of the dossier”
Diane,
That is a deception and you know it. The ordinary of Mostar has not been in charge of this question since 1986. Cardinal Ratzinger relieved Mgr. Zanic of the dossier and put the matter in the hands of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference. It would now pertain to the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina to decide.
The Ordinary’s negative judgement “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, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Pr. No 154/81-06419, May 26, 1998).
Cf. http://www.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq27.html
Mark,
What YOU are saying is a deception. Cardinal Ratzinger did NOT relieve Bishop Zanic of the dossier, and there is no documentary evidence that he did. What IS true, is that the examination at the diocesan level was completed in 1986, and a ‘non constat’ judgement was made and was transmitted to the CDF. As a result of the 1978 Norms, the case graduated to the level of the National Bishops’ Conference, because the scope of the alleged apparitions exceeded the boundaries of the diocese. A new commission was announced in 1987, and the January letter announcing the Bishops’ Conference Commission praised the work of Bishop Zanic and his diocesan commission. Therefore, what Bp. Brincard said is correct…Now, the passage in the Bertone letter that you omit, says that “What Bishop Peric said in his letter…declaring, ‘My conviction and my position is not only ‘non constat…’… but likewise ‘constat de non…'”, is what should be considered the personal conviction of Bp. Peric. This means only that Bp. Peric did not change the formula. That is not the same thing as saying that “the Ordinary’s negative judgement should be considered his personal conviction…”. Bertone does not imply that Bp. Peric can now be disregarded. ‘Non constat’ and ‘constat de non’ are both negative judgements; ‘constat de non’ has not been officially applied to Medjugorje at the Bishops’ Conference level…which, in my opinion, is the reason for having a new commission…
Take it up with the The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute located at the University of Dayton which states: “The ordinary of Mostar has not been in charge of this question since 1986. Cardinal Ratzinger relieved Mgr. Zanic of the dossier and put the matter in the hands of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference. It would now pertain to the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina to decide.”
Here’s another reference from the wikipedia article on Medjugorje: “The judgment of the Bishop of Mostar against the Apparitions was discounted by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and a new commission was established.”
BBC’s Mary Craig described it like this: “Three weeks later, in May (1986), Cardinal Ratzinger dissolved Bishop Zanic’s commission, and ordered the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference to set up a new one. He gave no reasons for this action, unprecedented in the history of the Vatican, which has always left such investigations to the local bishop. In October, Cardinal Kuharic of Zagreb and Archbishop Franic of Split sent a joint letter to all the bishops, asking for nominees from each diocese.”
The fact that the Bosnian bishops’ conference is now forming a commission to investigate the alleged Marian apparitions (apparently at the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)at Medjugorje means the matter is out of the Bishop’s hands.
Mark,
“The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute located at the University of Dayton, wikipedia and BBC Mary Craig” versus the local Ordinary’s opinion. You don’t see anything wrong with that picture?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mark,
Everyone acknowledges that it is now a matter for the Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia-Hercegovina. That is a consequence of following the norms…
However, it is propaganda that colors this as a disenfranchisement of Bishops Zanic and Peric by Rome, and concludes therefore that Medjugorje has some kind of approval or an immune status.
Here are a few documents to clear things up a little, compliments of Louis Belanger and Fr. Ivo Sivric in, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, 1989.
July 6, 1986 National Catholic Register:
Vatican City—Because of widespread international interest, local Church authorities investigating the validity of reported Marian apparitions in Medjugorje, Yugoslavia, have been offered assistance by Vatican agencies, said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
«We have offered assistance and asked the local Bishop to stay in touch with the Congregation and the Secretariate of State,» he said. He said primary responsibility rests with the local Bishop and denied reports that the Vatican would take over the investigation. The Cardinal said the congregation discourages «official Church pilgrimages» to Medjugorje «because [the validity of the apparitions] is still an open question.» – Footnote 149 in The Hidden Side
That lat part is a direct quote from the former Cardinal Ratzinger.
Also, we have this:
On January 18, 1987, a press release dated January 9, signed by Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, president of the Yugoslavian Conference of Bishops and by Bishop Zanic of Mostar, made the front page of Glas Koncila281 with the announcement of the formation of a new Commission of inquiry on Medjugorje. Here is the text:
In accordance with the canonical regulations which treat the matters of discernment of alleged apparitions and private revelations, the Diocesan Commission formed for that purpose by the Bishop of Mostar, the local Ordinary, investigated the events of Medjugorje.
During the inquiry these events under investigation have appeared to go much beyond the limits of the diocese. Therefore, on the basis of the said regulations, it became fitting to continue the work at the level of the Bishops’ Conference, and thus to form a new Commission for that purpose.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been informed about it. It has expressed its recognition of the Diocesan Commission’s work done under the responsibility of the local Ordinary, and it urged that that work be continued at the level of the National Conference of Bishops.
Thus the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia will form a Commission to continue the investigation of Medjugorje’s events. While waiting for the results of the Commission’s work and the Church’s verdict, let the Pastors and the faithful honor the practice of the usual prudence in such circumstances. For that reason, it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje’s events. Marian devotion, legitimate and recommended by the Church, must be in accordance with the directives of the Magisterium, and especially the apostolic encyclical Marialis Cultus February 2, 1974 (cf. AAS, 66, 1974, p. 113-168).
Zagreb, January 9, 1987
+ Franjo Card. Kuharic
President of the B.C.Y.
+ Pavao Zanic
Bishop of Mostar
Does anyone see anything coming from the pen of Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Kuharic that would indicate Bishop Zanic was relieved? Or, was relieved due to his “negative opinion” as has been alleged?
Does Cardinal Ratzinger come across as the kind of person who would say one thing in writing, then say another behind the back of Bishop Zanic?
People are going to great lengths to discredit an apostolic successor in the eyes of the people of God – all in the name of a Queen of Peace.
Is this kind of grace the Mother of God – a model of humility and obedience sows?
I think not.
Diane,
I am not an expert on Medjugorje and I have not made it my life’s work to encourage or discourage the alleged apparitions as you apparently have. I guess since your pastor is a columnist for the “Wanderer”, you have bought into this jaundiced view of the Church and the world and I suppose you gain great PROPS for energetically planting seeds of doubt and clouds of negativity around the alleged visionaries, events and messages of Medjugorje (It’s not Fatima after all). Perhaps someday you will have your own column in Wanderer cyberspace (or should I say cyber-spatis). That will be a great triumph for you.
But it bothers me that you can not even grant the simple facts of the matter, such as that the matter of the alleged apparitions has been taken over by the Bosnian Bishops conference at the request of the Congregation. You distort the point when you sermonize that “People are going to great lengths to discredit an apostolic successor in the eyes of the people of God”. No one is doing that.
Allow me to quote Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone from the CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH in full:
“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.”
I don’t know too much about Medgourge or the history or ecclesiatical issues.
I was there but not on pilgrimage, I was in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. I liked the area.
I did pass through Medgourge. But not on piligrimage Spent some time with Spanish S4 on the Croatian side, and US on Serb area in Bosnia
nothing dramatic but cannot discuss
Some of the commercialism turned me off, (Dollar, Mark, Kuna) BUT for almost 2 decades now that I have heard about this, I have seen many many dedicated people Irish, Filipinos all sorts of people who go to mass more, who pray more, who go to confession more, who treat their friends and family better, I never saw nor heard a first hand sun or golden rosary miracle or twirling crosses, there are a lot of con artists, and the power of the mind, hypochondria and the opposite of a cure, mass hysteria
BUT I also believe it is at least possible that something like this could happen AND it probably did happen at places like Mexico (Guadalupe), Lourdes, Fatima.
There are a lot of Hispanics who see the Blessed Mother in tortillas (I am part Mexican and have had relatives who reported what could be private revelations and the younger and more educated and secular dismissed them)people see the Blessed Mother everywhere, sometimes seems ridiculous
Not to condemn popular or spontaneous piety or the possibility of miracles
BUT on a personal and behavioural level, I have seen nothing but positive changes in people.
NOW, I am vaguely aware of allegations of New Age teachings and heretical supposed statements and lies by the supposed seers etc. I do not know the details
BUT I am compelled by the young girl who came back with her Aunt who was a little bit of a trouble teen and became very devout
OR an older gentleman I know personally who had some marital problems, an adulterer when younger, and really was a lot better to his wife
Lots of people who were very devoted to Pope John Paul the II, praying the Rosary, believing in the real presence ALL GOOD THINGS
I never met a heretic from there
I never met anyone falling away from the Church
Medgourge certainly has changed a lot of hearts and brought people closer to God
1. Mark is not completely right and not completely wrong. Generally speaking, when someone is relieved of a dossier, the administrator invites her/him to leave and someone else will take care of that dossier “without his/her help and presence”. In our case, Cardinal Ratzinger proposed Bishop Zanic to let the YBC “come in” and be the new coordinator of that dossier, Bishop Zanic remaining in place. In that sense, Bishop Zanic has never been “dismissed” and was still an important member of that commission, respected by his peers, until his retirement, in 1993. But I would accept Mark’s opinion if he would put it this way : one can say that Bishop Zanic has been relieved as sole administrator and coordinator of the dossier within the scope of the commission.
That is a nuance that may escape our attention.
Consequently, when you read attentively the documents on pages 139 and 140 of The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, that you have read in a preceding post, thanks to Diane, you may conclude the following:
A. Vatican has offered help to the local Ordinary (primary responsibility rests with the local bishop) July 1986 – note 279, source 149 (National Catholic Register, 1986-07-06)
B. That help has been accepted and has given way to the announcement of the formation of a new Commission of inquiry on Medjugorje. That announcement has been signed by both Cardinal Kuharic and Bishop Zanic. The CDF has expressed recognition of the Diocesan Commission’s work done under the responsibility of the local Ordinary, and it urged that that work be continued at the level of the National Conference of Bishops.
Communiqué, Glas Koncila, 1987-01-18 [The Yugoslavian Conference of Bishops Has Formed A New Commission of Investigation on the Events of Medjugorje].
Nowhere is to be found that Bishop Zanic has been dismissed, or “relieved of the dossier” as he continued to work on it, not alone, but with his peers. Moreover, it is not justified to pretend that the local bishop has been discredited by the legitimate Magisterium. Please give a reliable source that would contradict that.
C. The local bishop has not been relieved of the dossier within the scope of the administration of his diocese. To the contrary, if one reads attentively the Zadar declaration (1991) “However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who come to Medjugorje, prompted both by motives of belief and various other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the diocesan bishop and with him of the other bishops also, so that in Medjugorje and in everything connected with it a healthy devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary may be promoted in accordance with the teaching of the Church.”
2. One seems to forget the important fact that is behind the so-called bishop’s judgement : the judgement of the second enlarged commission. One person may err. But fifteen ? Let’s spend some time on that fact.
I have at hand the first complete communiqué of the enlarged commission dated 1984-03-24 handed to me personally by Bishop Pavao Zanic during my second visit to the bishopric of Mostar, in January 1985. Parts of it have been published in L’Osservatore Romano, May 12, 1984. As far as I know, the entirety of it has not yet been published and I am sure that it will interest the participants to the present blog.
A COMMUNIQUE FROM THE COMMISSION EXAMINING THE MEDJUGORJE APPARITIONS
A meeting of the expanded commission examining the events in the parish of Medjugorje; which was named by bishop Pavao Zanic, was held on the 23rd and 24th of March in the Chancery of the diocese of Mostar. The diocesan bishop took part in the work of the commission on the first day.
Within the framework of their task the members visited Medjugorje on the 23rd of March for the duration of evening mass and prayers.
The reason why more meetings of the commission have not occured so far, was because the local bishop was looking for some new elements in the events occurring to six children who claim that Our Lady has been appearing to them for three years, such as: a termination of the apparitions or some new content in the apparitions. Also, the Holy See suggested to the diocesan bishop that he not hurry with the inquiry and resolution, because experience has shown that in similar cases elsewhere time helped foster prudent judgement.
The events in the parish of Medjugorje have made a strong impact in our local Church and abroad. Hence, the Ordinary expanded the present four-member commission by naming new members from every Catholic school of theology in Yugoslavia, who are specialists in various branches of theology. He also named representatives of the medical sciences.
On this two day meeting, the members of the commission brought forth their views on the flow of events in the parish of Medjugorje up to date. They confirmed the main points for further inquiry, and they took on their personal obligations which each member must accomplish before the next meeting.
The commission was confronted with the problem of written and reproduced material in the country and abroad which does not write critically enough about the events in Medjugorje. Particular attention was given to presumed miraculous healings of which the Ordinary in Mostar has not received any medical documentation. In this context the book: Gospina ukazanja u Medjugorju {Our Lady’s apparitions in Medjugorje) was specially mentioned. The commission will thoroughly examine these questions for the duration of its work and therefore asks that nothing be written concerning these events in religious papers until a proper judgement has been passed, or in the case of something being written, that it be written critically and cautiously.
Though we all enjoy our large religious manifestations, the commission does not approve of priests and lay people organizing pilgrimages to Medjugorje. The commission also disaproves of the public appearances of the witnesses before the Church as passed judgement on the authenticity of the apparitions. The commission would like to point out to priests and the laity the examplary solution of the diocese of Zagreb’s Chancery, no. 63/84 of the 14th of January 1984 in which our Kardinal Franjo Kuharic forbids the public appearence of the witnesses in all the churches of the archdiocese of Zagreb until a judgement has been passed by the Church regarding these events.
The commission has requested in writing that all parish personnel and witnesses in Medjugorje not give out any statements for the press regarding the content of the apparitions and presumed miraculous healings.
The commission is aware that young Christians who are having such experiences need the spiritual direction of their priests, but at the same time the commission expects the parish personnel in Medjugorje not to make any differences between the witnesses and the rest of the parishioners during liturgies and public devotions.
With the hope that we are all striving for the common well being of the Church and the world, the commission asks the Catholic faithful to invoke God’s help for their work, for the witnesses, and for the parish leaders in Medjugorje.
Members of the Commission
Msgr. Pavao Zanic, diocesan bishop, Commission president;
Dr. Ante Brajko, Vicar general, canon lawyer in the name of the diocese of Mostar;
Mr. Petar Krasic, OFM, provincial vicar in the name of the Hercegovina Franciscan province;
Dr. Srecko Badurina, OFM, professor of moral theology in Rijeka;
Dr. Rudolf Brajcic, SJ, professor of dogmatical theology at the Jesuit school of theology in Zagreb;
Mr. Nikola Bulat, professor of dogmatical theology in Split;
Dr. Nikola Dogan, professor of fundamental theology in Djakovo;
Dr. Ivan Dugandzic, OFM, specialist in biblical studies and master of novices at Humac;
Dr. Josip Kribl, professor of philosophy at the Catholic theological faculty in Zagreb;
Dr. Ljubo Lucic, OFM, professor of fundamental theology at the Franciscan school of theology in Sarajevo;
Dr. France Orazem, professor of spiritual theology in Ljubljana;
Dr. Zelimir Puljic,professor of psychology in Sarajevo;
Dr Sime Samac, OFM, professor of catechetics in Makarska;
Dr. Mato Zovkic, professor of ecclesiology and New Testament studies in Sarajevo;
One psychologist-psychiatrist, a university professor from Zagreb;
A group of physicians.
Due to legitimate reasons J. Kribl and Lj.Lucic were not able to take part in this session, and representatives of the medical sciences were not summoned to this working session.
Mostar, March 24th, 1984.
THE COMMISSION FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE EVENTS IN THE PARISH OF MEDJUGORJE
No d’archive à l’évêché de Mostar : 328/84
************************************
As far as one has been able to observe, the wishes of the commission have not since been fulfilled by the “witnesses” (visionaries) and the parish personnel, the Franciscans ! But it is not the point I want to make here.
On May 15, 1986, Bishop Pavao Zanic transmits to the Congregation the negative finding of the commission. There are 11 votes against the recognition of the supernatural character of the events (non constat), 2 votes for (constat), one supernaturalitater in nucleo (at the origins of the events) and 1 abstention. If one presumes that Bishop Zanic voted non constat, there are still 10 members, who have voted negatively. The negative judgement comes from the commission, including Bishop Zanic. So, if there are recriminations against that negative judgement, shouldn’t they be addressed to the commission and its members and not to the sole bishop ?
On April 10, 1991, the “Zadar declaration” formulated the non constat, with 19 members out of twenty. If there are recriminations against that negative judgement, shouldn’t they be addressed to the commission and its 19 members who voted non constat, and not to the sole bishop of Mostar, Ratko Peric ?
3. A note on the non constat. I have heard and read strange things about the non constat :
– add non constat to good fruits = neutral judgement transformed by a magic blender;
– non constat is not negative.
In my dictionary, non constat means “one does not note, notice, see, certify.”
4. To Mark :
– “The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute located at the University of Dayton which states: “The ordinary of Mostar has not been in charge of this question since 1986.” False. See point 1. The ordinary of Mostar is indeed in charge of this question in his diocese, since 1981 !
– “Cardinal Ratzinger relieved Mgr. Zanic of the dossier and put the matter in the hands of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference. False. See point 1. It would now pertain to the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina to decide, including Bishop Peric.”
– Here’s another reference from the wikipedia article on Medjugorje: “The judgment of the Bishop of Mostar against the Apparitions was discounted by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and a new commission was established.” False. The judgement of the second commission against the supernatural character of these events was acknowledged and not discounted by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and a new commission was established under his influence. The judgement of the third commission was acknowledged and not discounted by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and a fourth commission will be established by the B&HBC with the acceptation of the CDF.
– BBC’s Mary Craig described it like this: “Three weeks later, in May (1986), Cardinal Ratzinger dissolved Bishop Zanic’s commission, and ordered the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference to set up a new one. False. The second commission dissolved itself at the conclusion of its work ending with the negative vote of the majority of its members.
– He gave no reasons for this action, unprecedented in the history of the Vatican, which has always left such investigations to the local bishop. False. Cardinal Ratzinger (the CDF) gave reasons for this action expressed in the January 1987 communiqué : “During the inquiry these events under investigation have appeared to go much beyond the limits of the diocese. Therefore, on the basis of the said regulations, it became fitting to continue the work at the level of the Bishops’ Conference, and thus to form a new Commission for that purpose.” (Communiqué, Glas Koncila, 1987-01-18 [The Yugoslavian Conference of Bishops Has Formed A New Commission of Investigation on the Events of Medjugorje].) The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, p. 140.
Mark, I think it’s enough for now. I just arrived to the point where I would have to work on the awful “Rome or Mostar ?” from Michael Brown that you quote concerning Mary Craig’s “meticulously detailed history of the controversy” (http://www.spiritdaily.org/Quickhive%20articles/medjcontroversy.htm) Well I don’t have the same impression : she has quoted me in her book putting in my mouth words that I have never said, that were reported by Gitta Sereny in the Sunday Times. Ms. Craig should have checked with me. Reader’s Digest did better and the blunder has not been repeated. This article is full of copy/paste indigestible allegations, anecdotes and impressions where there is no respect for rigor and checking the facts. I am really sorry for my open irritation, but I don’t feel respected when I have to bring corrections to almost every line of that botched literature. It is late at night and I feel I have done a good part of my homework. Meanwhile, try to find authors who make the effort to give their primary sources. I will be more than happy to dialog with you in all serenity.
Louis
Mark says:
Please go back and read my post, and the letters that I included in it. There is absolutely no dispute that the Vatican got involved, and that a commission would be making a decision, as opposed to a single bishop – the local Ordinary. We do not dispute this.
What we do dispute, is the reason behind the commission. Some authors have misled people into thinking that Bishop Zanic, and Bishop Peric were “relieved” of the dossier.
But the author who writes above me, provides many documented facts to explain how so many people have misunderstood this issue.
I pray that you will take the time to carefully read through all of the work that Louis has done to clarify that Bishop Zanic was not in anyway “relieved due to his negative opinion” as is often read on many of the pro-medjugorje websites.
As far as making it my life’s work, I have only been at this for the past year.
As for bringing my pastor into the picture – it was a really cheap shot at a good man, whom you know nothing about. And, to set the fact straight – he did not write an article for The Wanderer, rather that paper extracted something he wrote in his bulletin to his parishioners. Someone from the parish who reads that newspaper had submitted it.
I hope we can stick to the topic.
Louis – thank you very kindly for the documents. Yes – you have, in fact, done your homework.
Forgot the quotes above. The first paragraph ends Mark’s quoted comment.
Mark,
In case you would be tempted to resort towards me or other participants to ad hominem insinuations such as the one seen in your last post addressed to Diane, I beg you in advance not to use this strategy that would greatly weaken the credibility of your argumentation.
Salutations cordiales.
Louis Bélanger
Diane has made a point on this and other blogs to note her experience as a religious in Mostar her subsequent drifting and ultimate epiphany at the latin infused Assumption Grotto. She has even had the temerity to criticize one of the visionaries for not persevering at the very convent which she left!
As she presents herself as an authority with personal experience of Medjugorje, I don’t think it’s unfair to point out that her current experience of Catholicism, an ad orientem Grotto with altar rails staffed by clergy who write for the Wanderer, is hardly mainstream. If you’re going to use SSPX and Traditionalist websites to justify your smears of the visionaries than you must accept the inevitable question about what your general view of “normal” Church life is.
Dear complainers,
I have only now revisited to find more of the same seemingly unending repeats of the same articles, words – spun this or that. Mr. Belanger must have copied whole pages from his book to restate the same reservations about what others deeply involved with personal interviews and observations have reported on. He leaves no room for more than the minute amount of written words when so often those words, knowing they will be exposed to the public, are meant to not cause scandal or embarrassment for anyone involved. The most available sites with any objectivity for accurate information – not what one would hope for, but really how things stand – he can only reply to as “false”. Ahhh, so sad. Certain of the “faithful” wish to remain in denial of what the Church has stepped in to accomplish. But, alas, all of the denials and pleas for others to join in with merely the personal hopes or interpretations change nothing for the present. It stands as it stands for those of us only reading what the Church herself has ordered. The poor local bishop still remains without the usual authoriity recognized by the Church. One may form that into
Does anyone see anything coming from the pen of Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Kuharic that would indicate Bishop Zanic was relieved?
but the outcome proves something wholly different.
Before I prayed that all would just accept the Father’s will for the moment as it stands … and refrain from imposing their own will on the matter. So much personal effort has been spent too early in the play. That will make it hard to be patient and humble. Again, sad.
I am also still wondering why people are so adamant about something one way or the other, that is, beyond the current status, that they become so alarmed when others measure events differently and more in line with the way things stand for the present. They try to make 2 out of only 3 possible choices about apparition sites seem as though they have equal consequences. That is either willingly distorting the mind of the Church and the emphasis given each choice, or it is just ignorance, in which case the person should become more familiar with Church history before one writes books or gives such adamant opinions. Persons also equate opinion with authority. That too is a distortion. People, we have to be completely honest and humble when we speak about what could be treasures given for very grave times.
And people can speak effectively only with a greater knowledge of the history of apparitions. There have been other spots in the world that were also of a scope greater than the local area and yet the local bishop retained his authority to decide. There have also been cases where one local bishop decided in a condemning kind of way only to have that overturned later by another local bishop. So much then, in the area of private revelation is left to the openness of the believer, and if desired by heaven, to a long term judgment based on ever growing knowledge and intent and discovery. The human element and limitations is so involved in private revelation that only great love of the Father and His mercy can help us to understand what may be needed for different times and places. We should then pray for greater discernment for all involved; greater wisdom from the Spirit in that discernment so that graces intended may not be blocked by stubbornness or pride.
Let us all then spend more time in prayer for this matter. And let us pray for the humility to admit that we do not know the minds of all involved. Only the Holy Spirit does and without His assistance we really don’t know much for certain at this point. If so many here feel free to offer their points of view then they should not disallow the same freedom for others.
Forget for a moment who the supposed “seers” were or what “miracles” are alleged to have taken place.
First and foremost, look at the messages being attributed to Our Lady. They range from orthodox to heterodox to outright blasphemy. If they were authentic, they would be only orthodox. Any seer who claims that the BVM appeared to them and says that Muslims and Christians are the same, there is no real difference between Islam and Christianity, and that all religions are good is not a seer, but a liar.
This should be enough proof for anyone.
Augustine, I believe the quote you are referring to is:
“Members of all faiths are equal before God. God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, all religions are not the same because all people have not complied with the commandments of God. They reject and disparage them.”
That is different from your generalization. There is the teaching of Vat II that would seem to go along with this:
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”
On earth it is often the religions that have denied certain Truths but in heaven all children (members) are looked upon equally. So all are considered children of God with equal hopes for attaining the full truth. And God rules over all.
One mustn’t judge hastily or with fear. I doubt if JPII would have reached out to all religions and asked Jews to just be good Jews if it is the Church’s belief that God does not look equally in love over all children, knowing the situation of each individual person. A Muslim could in his/her personal living be a better person within his/her knowledge of good and evil than a Christian who knows the same but rejects the good for the evil.
May we be more open to all considerations.
May the peace and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you now, and when the Commission has completed its work.
I would invite all concerned, regardless of their belief on the matter, to spend some time in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament asking the Spirit of Light and Truth to guide the new Commission. I also will be praying that the same spirit guide all of the faithful to accept, with profound and deep humility, their findings and judgments, whatever they may be.
With love in Christ and his Blessed Mother!
Diane
Medjugorje brought me, and my entire family, into the Church.
Medjugorje changed me from a bitter, cynical, heavy-drinking, deplorably sinful non-believer into a young man who believes in God, and trusts in God, more than anything that this troubled world has to offer.
Medjugorje brought my wife, Lisa, into the Church — she was a non-believer from a family of atheists — but I brought her to Medjugorje when she was 23 and I was 24 (I had already been a believer for 4 years).
Her conversion was almost immediate. One night she and I were present at Apparition Hill when Our Lady appeared to the seer Ivan. Lisa and I got separated in the darkness and among the throngs of praying people.
Lisa ended up standing very close to where Ivan was kneeling. Not really believing any of it, Lisa did not bow her head in prayer when the apparition was soon to begin.
Instead, a wavering “star” caught her eye. It moved above Apparition Hill in a smooth motion, descending to the top of the hill until Lisa lost sight of it through the thick trees.
Moments later, however, Lisa saw the light again… she describes it as a blueish ball of light… she watched it move through the trees, over the heads of people, and as it approached Ivan it flashed brightly three times… on the third flash, Ivan went into ecstacy and Lisa saw the light no more.
The experience moved her so profoundly that she hurried to Confession during the pilgrimage, then upon returning home was Baptized, received her First Communion and Confirmation.
We had a beautiful Catholic wedding with a full Mass, and now we are expecting our first child in October. Our marriage and growing family is a true fruit of Medjugorje, because without Medjugorje I never would have been interested in getting married, starting a family and going to Church.
I could tell you so many true stories of how miraculous Medjugorje truly is. I am confident that the new commission will rule positively on the apparitions.
Medjugorje is a bit of Heaven on earth and I speak for a lot of people when I say that, had it not been for Our Lady’s continuing apparitions there, we never would have come to know the love of God.
I have now devoted my life to spreading Our Lady’s messages through documentary videos — my little thank-you to Mary for changing my life so dramatically and pulling me out of the darkness I had lived in.
Just thought I’d share. God bless you all.
Thanks for the beautiful post Sean. Please post a link when you get your materials ready. I hope the devotees of Fatima will forgive me for borrowing this quote:
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, none is possible.”
Actually the quote is from the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas Aquinas): “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” As I recall it was used in “Song of Bernadette” about Lourdes.
Mark and Sean–
Do you realize that private pilgrimages are only allowed if they “are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church?”
Wouldn’t that suggest to both of you that spreading devotion to Medjugorje before the Church gives its permission is not allowed per the CDF?
Congregation Pro Doctrina Fidei
Citta del Vaticano
Palazzo del S. Uffizio
26 May 1998
Pr. No 154/81-05922
{snip}
“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.”
(snip)
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone
Secretary
ML, it seems to me you are really grasping for ways to condemn the apparitions before the Church has even ruled.
Have patience. Medjugorje is bringing millions of people back to God. Please don’t seek to hinder that.
The Church has very plainly stated that it will not rule on the matter until after the apparitions have ceased, but until that time Catholics are free to visit Medjugorje.
I’m spreading information about Medjugorje, not devotion. Anyone is free to be devoted to it, or not; that is the beauty of free will.
Don’t be hasty. The Church certainly has not been hasty in its decision. Medjugorje is real. There is so much false information being spread about it, I’m sure that without going there it must be hard to find the truth.
I have seen the truth, and felt the truth, and I am positive that Our Lady is appearing in Medjugorje.
But before you condemn Medjugorje, do you really see anything that goes against the Faith in the Medjugorje messages? On the contrary, when everything else in the world is leading people away from God, Medjugorje has brought more people into the Church than any event in modern times.
Those who live the messages find a true sense of divine peace that many on the outside find hard to comprehend… and even get jealous of.
I just wish that everyone could see the things that I’ve seen, and experienced what I’ve experienced, in regards to Medjugorje.
I was a skeptic just like you — but for different reasons — and my heart was so hard that I don’t think anything but the intercession of the Blessed Mother could have broken it open. But she did — and she let the Holy Spirit fill it with the kind of love that only God can provide — and I am forever grateful.
Not to be dramatic, but I would give my life for Medjugorje if it came down to it, just as I would give my life for the Church– which I have only come to know and love through Our Lady.
Please have patience. If someone would have told me to stay away from Medjugorje before I went there and converted, God forbid, I might have listened. And then where would I be? Probably drunk, lonely, still seeking happiness in things of this world, whereas now my life feels complete and is on the most beautiful course of family life in the Church.
Beautiful sean. May God, through His mother’s intercession continue to bless you. You are truly answering the graces given you and your family. Praise Jesus! In a world growing angrier and colder each moment, one must be there to understand that atmosphere of love, like being in a little chunk of heaven on earth. People like never before need this great grace of mercy from the Father. It only shows that He will not leave us orphans when we look for the help to get us through these hard times of so many heartaches in the families and in the Church. It’s a gift to be cherished, not dismissed. And the whole world has been taken up with the gift because we are all our sweet Mother’s “little children”. MIR to all.
Sean,
And if the new commission gives a verdict of Constat de non supernaturalitate will you accept that?
Or would you still give your life for it if it came down to it?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
There’s no way that Medjugorje will be declared “Constat de non supernaturalitate.”
Medjugorje is supernatural, unless you would assert that millions (not just hundreds, not just thousands, but MILLIONS) of people — including priests, theologians, Bishops and other members of the clergy — are either hallucinating or lying when they report things like miracles, healings, conversions, solar miracles, and other phenomena that are associated with the apparitions.
Furthermore, the medical tests done many times on all of the visionaries — which include lie detectors — all reveal the seers to be telling the truth, and to be experiencing something beyond human capacity. Keep in mind that it was only a year ago that the Vatican asked for more tests to be done on them, which were completed on the 24th anniversary and sent directly to the Vatican. All of these medical tests show the seers to be telling the truth and to be mentally and physically sound, not to mention the extraordinary things that happen to their bodies — especially in their brains — when the apparition is taking place.
There is absolutely no possible way that the commission could rule “Constat de non supernaturalitate” when they take into account the enormous amount of proof that shows the supernatural nature of the visions.
Sean,
It seems you are now the one grasping for ways to approve the “apparitions” before the Church has even ruled.
If the commission gives a verdict of Constat de non supernaturalitate is your loyalty to the Church or the “apparition”?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
You are trying to draw out a statement of disobedience to the Church from me. I repeat what I said above, that the Church cannot possibly deliver such a decree.
For me personally, Medjugorje is “approved.” I do not speak for the Church and I’m not sure how or why you have tried to draw that conclusion.
Medjugorje led me to the Church.
Before Our Lady interceded in my life, I had no interest in religion.
At first, I was shocked to see that Medjugorje was real, because I really did not know such things could occur.
I went there as a skeptic but my signs of validation were very powerful and tangible.
My heart underwent a major transformation, and I was drawn from a very dark and sinful life into the embrace of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
At first, just after my conversion, my focus was on Mary, but then I began to read the messages.
I learned about the importance of the Mass through the Medjugorje messages.
I learned about the importance of Confession through the Medjugorje messages.
I learned about the importance of prayer — not just any prayer, but prayer from the heart — through the Medjugorje messages.
I learned about the enormous graces that can come from reading the Bible or just being present in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
And so, I followed my desire to receive my First Communion and, after a lengthy and tear-filled Confession in Medjugorje, I did so at the age of 21.
Our Lady, through Medjugorje, brought me to her Son, Jesus.
Medjugorje validated the Roman Catholic Church for me. In fact, it validated the very existence of God for me.
My heart is with Mary and her divine Son. I find them both in Medjugorje and in the Church.
I will not make any distinction between the two nor prematurely declare my “loyalty” to one or the other because nothing has happened yet that would force such a thing. In my heart I know it never will.
Not your will, Lord, but mine.
Sean, if you are devoted to Mary, then you must have meditated on her “fiat” in the first decade of the Joyful mysteries. It is the opposite: Your will, Lord, not mine.
When Cardinals go into conclave, it is up to the faithful to pray that they choose the man whom God wills. Then it is up to the faithful to place total trust in the Holy Spirit that this will come. Many people I know treated their prayer for a new pope like they would a political candidate – praying for a particular person to be made pope. This is not trust, it is attempting to impose one’s will on God, rather than simply accepting God’s choice.
In such a case, you can almost hear them pray beforehand: “Your will, Lord, as long as it is aligned with mine”.
After the election, it could be heard in many places, “He is not my Pope”, and the like. This is the same attitude the bad angels had when they were put to the test and declared, “non serviam” – I will not serve. It is rooted in the sin of pride because we think we know better than God. In the case of a conclave responsible for electing a Pope, we Catholics trust God to work through the men in those chambers.
The same can be said of commissions, such as this one coming up on Medjugorje. Our prayer should not be, “Your will, Lord, not mine”
Hence, we should be praying for the difficult task and burden which falls on the shoulders of those who will make up the Commission. We pray that God give them the graces and strength to discern the Truth, and to convey that Truth to the people, and for the people to accept that Truth in the same humility as Mother Mary did in her fiat.
Diane, please, the man speaks so openly, refreshingly about wonderful graces received at a time in his life when he could have been lost. Can’t you even praise the great God for such love of His mother? Sean is the most perfect example of exactly what the Church teaches in scripture – “I was blind and now I see”. He’s speaking honestly while you join those others in that scripture who won’t agree to the miracle out of fear. So sad. Sean proclaims the very honor that the Father wishes to be proclaimed for His daughter – Mediatrix of graces which then lead, through her intercession, to her Son. That is exactly what happened in Sean’s case. Do you go around all of the time second guessing God if you receive wonderful conversion graces from Him? I hope not. Why would anyone want to be in the company of or listen to such self proclaimed importance of “keep your faith, regardless of the outcome”. Sean can only speak to the now. You too, Diane, should try to live in the present moment with all of its risks of love. Sean does not go beyond while you do, seemingly in fear for your soul or something. All of these fearful admonitions to Sean go against our beloved Holy Father’s challenge to “be not afraid”. Using private revelation as some test of another’s loyalty to the Church is frankly ignorant. You, as well as Inocencio don’t seem to understand the weight given to PR by the Church. One is not doomed whether one trusts in such either before or after a Church’s guiding pronouncement … for that is all it is. Perhaps Sean should admonish you as well then to not become so hardened in your own heart that you will be unable to accept for yourself what may be intended for your own growth in faith and humility. For you appear to be “borrowing trouble” which only shows a worried spirit which never is of God. Faith isn’t meant to be relied upon only AFTER all of the lines are smoothed out and there is no more challenge. That is why we’ve had a pope who told us to go ahead with our faith and that the graces received because of that trust will still work regardless of what may later be developed. For the present, though, that has as yet to develop!
We should praise God for Sean, a wonderful example of the prodigal returning to the Father. Esp. today on a feast of God the Father. We should not enter that dangerous territory of testing the Spirit. Sean gives the serious reasons for his trust as well, the testing of this place by the Church for decades now. He recognizes the usefulness of such testing which you don’t seem as yet to accept as part of the Church’s examination. The Church is well aware of the thousands of “Seans” that occur under her watch of pilgrims being allowed to privately experience Medjugorje. The Church therefore has not denied such experiences as they happen in such personal, private ways. If the Church were as doubtful as you, she would forbid such possibilities. Since she has not, then she would have a lot to answer for after all of these years of permission. So, Diane, fear not in your great “concern” for Sean. He appears to be in great company. The graces will remain no matter what. God is not otherwise in His ability to be trusted. As you kneel before the Blessed Sacrament, as you advise, it might be good to meditate on St. Faustina’s diary, noting that this is the time of Mercy and to spread this outlook of great signs of Mercy during this time.
Sean has recognized that he is a dear child of Mary and gives her praise for that. She never lets go of her children! Trust then; not “worry”.
P.S. Do you worry to the same degree about Mother Angelica, Diane? She loves Medj. and spoke often about what is “happening” there! And she spoke with great approval of Mike Brown’s book, “Sent to Earth”, during her interview with him on her program. Too bad that such seasoned and tested persons of the Church for these times can’t measure up to your standard of perfection or caution. You had better admonish them as well!
Anyway, I trust God will help us all in our various stages of spiritual development. Only He can judge.
I actually stopped watching Mother Angelica the first time she endorsed Medjugorje. To me, to believe in Medjugorje does great damage to one’s credibility. I try as much as I can to wall myself off from Medjugorje and all other poison fruits of the Charismatic (Neo-Montanist) heresy.
Mouseanon–
I think you ought to read this because I don’t think Mother Angelica would appreciate what you’re saying about her:
Mother Angelica: No Medjugorje support
By SARA FOSS
BIRMINGHAM POST-HERALD
http://www.postherald.com/caritas.shtml
In his book “The Medjugorje Deception,” author E. Michael Jones describes Mother Angelica, the nun who founded the Irondale-based Eternal Word Television Network, as the major promoter of Medjugorje in the United States.
But a spokesman for EWTN said Mother Angelica has never supported the visions of the Virgin Mary first reported in Medjugorje, a small village in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in 1981.
“That’s not true, that’s absolutely not true,” said Scott Hults, director of communications for the international Catholic television station.
Although Medjugorje has reportedly attracted 20 million to 25 million religious pilgrims since six youths first reported seeing the Virgin Mary on a rocky hilltop, the apparitions have never been endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the largest U.S.-based organizations supporting Medjugorje is Caritas of Birmingham, located in Sterrett. Hults said Mother Angelica has never had anyone from Caritas or any of Medjugorje’s other supporters appear as guests on her show.
A 1991 statement issued by the Yugoslavia Bishops’ Conference, a group that has since disbanded, allows church leaders to provide Medjugorje’s many visitors with pastoral care.
Although EWTN has broadcast a couple of series on Medjugorje, the purpose of those shows has always been to report objectively on the phenomenon and provide information, Hults said.
“(Medjugorje’s) a big issue,” Hults said. “A lot of people have gone over there and been converted.”
But, “There’s never been an endorsement from Mother Angelica, ever.”
EWTN has done two series on Medjugorje, both in 1990, Hults said.
A spokeswoman for Mother Angelica said Medjugorje is not a topic Mother Angelica would agree to be interviewed about.
As Medjugorje’s popularity has grown, a number of U.S.-based groups that promote Medjugorje have formed with the goal of educating people about the apparitions.
The premise of Jones’ book is that the visionaries and priests of Medjugorje are profiting from the pilgrims who journey to the town. Many of the U.S.-based groups, he writes, are also using Medjugorje to make money.
Jones believes the visionaries first said they were seeing the apparitions as a joke and the priests went along with them.
Mother Angelica has endorsed Medjugorje by having guests on her show, “Mother Angelica Live,” who support and publicize the apparitions, Jones writes in his book.
Medjugorje supporters from the United States also have appeared on “Mother Angelica Live” Jones said.
By allowing people who support Medjugorje to appear on her show, Mother Angelica sends the message that she, too, supports Medjugorje, Jones wrote. By doing this, Mother Angelica undermines the church stance on Medjugorje, he said.
“She’s got a tremendous following among a certain kind of Catholic,” Jones said recently from his office in South Bend, Ind.
Mother Angelica distanced herself from Medjugorje when Marija Pavlovic Lunetti, one of the visionaries, visited Caritas of Birmingham in 1988, Jones said. At times, he said, Mother Angelica has been very public in her support of Medjugorje.
“She sort of goes back and forth on Medjugorje,” he said. “People complain, and then she backs down.”
Hults said Mother Angelica’s position on Medjugorje is the same as that of the Roman Catholic Church.
The EWTN Web site features a page with information about Medjugorje, which explains the history of the apparitions and contains the church statements released on Medjugorje to date, including a 1991 declaration that said there was no evidence anything supernatural was happening in Medjugorje.
Part of the EWTN document on Medjugorje states, “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’s in the document is how Mother Angelica feels about Medjugorje,” Hults said.
EWTN will support Medjugorje only if the Vatican does, he said.
“Mother Angelica very strictly follows the teaching of the Vatican,” he said.
End of article.
Augustine–
I know what you mean. In 2000 I was watching Mother Angelica Live when she said flat out that “Our Lady of Medjugorje wants us to go to confession once a month.” I wrote a letter to her asking how she could be promoting an unapproved and highly controversial event like Medjugorje and never got a response back (they had always managed to cash my checks, however.)
Life on the Rock also had a guest that I watched around that time (Joan someone) who was blatantly promoting Medjugorje.
So I was shocked to read the flat denial by the EWTN spokesman in 2001 regarding Mother Angelica’s support of Medjugorje. I don’t know whether EWTN still promotes it because I pretty much stopped watching around that time and I defintely stopped sending EWTN money.
Diane wrote: “Your conversion is not a fruit of the “seers”, it is a fruit of the Sacraments and the grace of Mary who has drawn you to them through Medjugorje.”
Actually, Diane, you do not know how my conversion came about. I really only explained my wife’s conversion. In actuality, it is just as much a fruit of the seers as it is of the grace of Our Lady.
I have been able to stay with and interview the visionaries Ivan, Jakov and Mirjana on many occassions. I have been present at many apparitions and filmed a lot of them. I have been very fortunate to see that the seers are prayerful, humble, devout people who are trying to live a family life while also giving their time to the many pilgrims who seek answers. They go to daily Mass, they pray the 3 decades of the rosary daily — and they have nothing to prove. They frown upon people who act overzealous or reactionary. They urge the Sacraments above anything. They have been called to a very important mission in life.
There are so many lies being spread about Medjugorje. I urge you to go there, see for yourself, before you help to hinder Our Lady’s plan to restore the Church. Until you have gone there and met with the people involved, I will not debate Medjugorje with you. I’m sorry but you already have a bias against it which is based on the unfortunate tabloidism that is put out by a few jaded people.
And ML, I’m sorry but I got a chuckle out of your last post, because you posted that article about Mother Angelica as if trying to prove that she does not endorse Medjugorje, AND THEN you post how you yourself saw her endorse it on her show. That shows exactly how far and wide you will reach to find fault with the apparitions.
I urge you to look at the medical records, look at the many priests and Bishops who go there and believe, look at the seminaries filling up with young men who found their priestly callings in Medjugorje, look at the millions who are now living lives of prayer and penance in the Church — Medjugorje is saving the world and is renewing that which you profess to love so much: the Catholic Church. Please don’t block that without finding out for yourself by going to Medjugorje.
Think about it, you are probably saying “Why would I go there if I don’t believe?”… Well, if you go there and still don’t believe, at least you will have some valid credentials to argue against it. Until then, your argument is uneducated and based on rumors that you’ve heard or read and are now just re-hashing.
But I would wager everything to say that if you actually went to Medjugorje and met with some of the priests and seers, then you would come back with a very different outlook on Medjugorje.
Want to know how my conversion went? Well, I’ll post it here but please don’t bother nit-picking it for things to argue about because I don’t wish to discuss it anymore until your basis for argument is educated, ie. by actually going to Medjugorje and meeting with those who you bash.
So, once upon a time…
My return to God began in the year 2000. I was still basking in the so-called “College Experience,” drinking excessively and taking absolutely everything for granted. Most of my Sundays were spent nursing hangovers. And to me, Easter was nothing more than a time for spring break and beach parties. All in all, my spiritual life was in ruins.
School itself was good to me. After receiving a writing scholarship to attend The University of Tampa, I proceeded to win an array of creative writing, screenwriting and filmmaking awards. In those days, however, most of my creative output was filled with cynicism, pessimism and a veiled denial of Christian thinking.
Although a baptized Roman Catholic, I had not set foot in a church for over a decade. In fact, I despised the idea of giving up part of a weekend for something I was unsure about. Yes, I believed in God, but years before a certain group of Christians had driven me away from Christianity. When I say Christians, I mean Fundamentalist Christians.
There was a group of them in high school who shared lockers near mine. I used to hear them talking about how other religions were purely evil, how Christ would never accept a non-Christian person. They cursed people like Ahmed, the gentle Muslim boy from Saudi Arabia. And they cursed little Jacob, who proudly displayed his Judaism every day on the back of his skull. And they cursed everyone who did not share their beliefs. Their prejudiced words, which I mistakenly took as representative of all Christians, sadly turned me away from the entire religion-at least for a while.
Although I could not fathom the events that lay ahead, my jaded view of Christianity was about to change when my mother called me one summer with a strange proposal. I’ll never forget her words:
“Will you come with me to Bosnia?” she asked.
“Sure,” I said jokingly. “Let me pack my bags.”
I was surprised to find that she was serious. There was a trip going to Medjugorje in only a week and there were a few open spots. Only six months before, she had gone to Medjugorje on a pilgrimage. Her journey back to religion is itself fascinating.
My mother’s Medjugorje calling began one day in Florida during a shopping trip for antiques. She purchased several books written in German, about the Third Reich and Nazi Germany. You see, at the time my mom-twice divorced-was immersed in the New Age movement. After a series of dreams and past-life regressions, she held the notion that she was reincarnated from the soul of a dead German man. Most of all, the books looked attractively old and would make good additions to her antique bookshelf.
The very night she brought the books home, things started to happen. The first instance occurred while she was in her bedroom reading. She heard what sounded like the garbled voice of a child emanating from the living room, followed by the sound of her dog, a female lab, growling and barking. My mom rushed out of her room to find the dog in the middle of the living room, her back bristling in fear, cowering and growling at nothing.
That night, my mother lay asleep in her bed. She woke to the sound of her bedroom door creaking. No windows were open and the dogs were in their pens. She finally went back to sleep, but time after time she would wake to the sound of the door creaking, and each time the door was cocked at a different angle.
The next day my mother was standing in the kitchen washing dishes. From the sink, one can look out across the living room and see through the front window. She peered up at the window just in time to see a grayish haze hovering there, which promptly dissipated. In its wake there was a shrill scratching sound, like a nail on a chalkboard. There is still a strange scratch on that window today.
I was in Alaska that summer working as a fishing guide, and I remember calling my mother almost every day to find out what ghostly event might have occurred the night before. I remember the fear in her voice as she explained how the haunting seemed to be growing in power.
“Last night was the worst,” she told me. “I was standing in the kitchen with a friend. Suddenly there was a loud ‘pop’ from the trashcan, and both of us watched in disbelief as the lid of the trashcan shot straight up into the air and, as it came down, hung itself on the trashcan’s corner.”
During this whole ordeal, my mother suffered from horrible nightmares where she dreamed that demonic beings were always chasing her. She continued to see strange images throughout the house that would disappear or meld into shadow. And her television set kept turning on by itself, always tuned to a cartoon channel even though she never watched cartoons.
Needless to say, she was terrified. At the advice of her parents, she finally called a local Catholic priest named Father Rick. He walked through the house dispersing blessings and Holy Water. My mother told him about the events that had transpired.
“Has anyone died in this house?” Father Rick asked.
“No,” my mother replied. “It’s a brand new house and I’m the first person to live here.”
“Has anyone died recently in your family?”
“No, not for many years.”
“Have you recently brought anything into the house?”
My mom turned to the bookshelf and pointed. “I just bought those old books.”
Father Rick approached the books cautiously and sprinkled them with Holy Water. “I don’t even want to touch these,” he said. “The books are the problem. Get them out of here immediately.”
That afternoon my mother gathered the books and dropped them off at a local antique consignment shop. The very next morning, she received a message on her answering machine from the shop. The shopkeeper wanted her to pick up the books; for some reason, he adamantly did not want them there either. Well, she never picked them up and that was the last we heard of those German books. It was also the last my mother ever heard from her restless specter.
But one thing remained: my mother’s new fascination with Catholicism. After all, she had seen the power if Christ in her own home. Father Rick invited her to visit Medjugorje on a pilgrimage group. Her first experience there absolutely changed her life, and now much of her life is devoted to Mary.
So now, my mother was inviting me to Medjugorje on her second pilgrimage. As a journalistic-minded person with a penchant for travel, I promptly agreed. Before I knew it, I was soaring high above the Atlantic with a group of people I had never met before. As luck would have it, my seat was right beside Father Rick. We talked for the entire flight.
From the time the 727 approached the airport in Split, I felt as if I were locked in a daydream. There was something surreal about the whole thing; here I was, an American college kid, in what modern media had labeled “The Powder Keg of the World”.
Many times I had heard the strange story about what was supposedly happening in Medjugorje; in 1981, a group of six children claimed to have been visited by the Virgin Mary. To this day, they say, she continues to appear to them, giving messages and secrets, some of which are said to be very troubling for the future of the world. As a writer and rational-minded person, I was extremely skeptical of the story. I knew it would take nothing less than hard evidence to convince me that the happenings in Medjugorje were valid.
On my first afternoon in Medjugorje, I attended the English-speaking Mass in St. James Church with the rest of the group. As I sat there and listened to the priest, I tried to recall when I had last been to church, but I could not remember. I had to watch what the other people were doing and try to mirror their ways, trying vainly not to look like an alien among them. My unease was heightened when it was time for the Eucharist and I had to remain at the pew while everyone else moved solemnly to receive Christ. While growing up, I had never even come close to receiving my First Communion.
Later, I sat alone on a bench in the churchyard and stared up at Cross Mountain as the sun sank low on the horizon, setting the hills ablaze. Had I made a mistake by coming here? It didn’t seem as though I fit in with the crowd. Having been raised by an unreligious father, I had virtually no concept of religious faith. Although I believed in God, I was hard-set against organized religion, mainly because I did not understand it. My place of worship had always been the wilderness; as a fishing guide and outdoorsman, immersing myself in nature is how I learned the value of patience and contemplation, not in a church pew being addressed by a priest.
And so, I decided to experience Medjugorje the way I knew best. I grabbed my trusty backpack and headed for the outskirts. I left a note at the lodge telling my mother not to worry, that I had gone to climb Cross Mountain alone and would be back by sunrise.
I walked through the narrow Medjugorje streets as children and old women stared at me from open windows. It felt good to be alone in such a foreign world, surrounded by the trappings of an exotic culture. A few chickens followed me until I got to the base of the mountain. Staring up at the far-off peak, I removed my shoes and put them in my backpack. I had heard that climbing the mountain barefoot was a good way to be relinquished of the burdens of one’s sins, and I was up for a challenge anyway.
The worn path was a painful combination of sharp, gray rocks and briar-laced vines. At times it was so steep that I had to use both my hands and feet to ascend, all the while going at a laggard pace. At different intervals along the climb I stopped to pray at the large, bronze Stations of the Cross. I prayed that I might be granted some sort of sign that the Medjugorje phenomenon was real, and at the same time I rested my bloodied feet.
The sun had nearly set and the mountain was bathed in pinkish light. I trudged along a straightway in the trail. Up ahead I could see the third Station of the Cross. As I had been doing for nearly the entire climb, I glanced down to watch my step, and then looked up again to be sure I was walking in the right direction. It was then that I saw a figure turning the corner just fifteen feet away, coming towards me. He was dressed in a white priest’s robe, as if at the altar during Mass, and he had an enormous rosary around his neck.
I glanced quickly again at my feet, making sure not to step in any precarious places. In this brief series of seconds, I thought to myself: What the heck is this priest doing on a mountain dressed like that? I looked up again for the strange man, but he was gone. An overwhelming feeling of awe and wonder rushed through me as I ran to the spot where he had been standing just seconds before. I looked in the nearby briars to see if he was playing some sick joke on me, but I was alone. Beaming with happiness, I dropped to my knees and prayed a quick “Thanks, God”. I didn’t know what else to say.
The rest of my climb was under the darkness of night, and the stars overhead were amazing. Walking barefoot wasn’t difficult anymore; it was as if my feet could find the smoothest stones to step on, even though I was walking in darkness. And I could not stop thinking about the phantom priest.
After nearly two hours of climbing, I finally rounded the last steep bend. Towering over me was the huge cement cross. It stood so magnificently with the cosmos as a backdrop. The very second I stepped on the pathway leading to the cross, a meteorite dashed across the sky, fizzling out behind the crucifix. I made my way to the altar and sat down on the cool cement, peering down at the lights of Medjugorje far below. I shivered against the cold wind that whipped across the peak. I noticed that my feet, which had been throbbing and bleeding during my ascent, were now comfortable and void of even slight lacerations.
I took out the rosary that my mother had given me, along with a little pamphlet that explained how to use it. I had promised myself that I would learn how to pray the rosary, and so I used my flashlight to read, all the while clenching each tiny bead and reciting the prayers. I prayed for my family and for my friends and even those who had wronged me in the past. Although I didn’t know it at the time, Mary was working on my heart.
During the next week in Medjugorje, I stayed mostly with the group, trying to spend time with my mother whom I hadn’t actually lived with since I was three years old. Also, Father Rick and I stayed up well into the night on many occasions, talking person to person about religion.
On one of these nights, we were sitting on the lodge’s porch, watching the crucifix on Cross Mountain glow red. On certain evenings, Father Rick told me, especially on Christian holidays, the huge cement cross would glow quite vividly. I still can think of no explanation as to how it could have been glowing; there was no electricity on the mountain, and candlelight would not be able to illuminate it so brightly.
Nevertheless, on this particular night, I was able to express to Father Rick my hesitations about Catholicism, pointing out that my main qualm with it was the fact that it seemed to look down upon the other major religions of the world.
A very open-minded priest, who had once been a soldier in Vietnam and later a business man, Father Rick explained to me that he believes one should be faithful to whatever religion one is born into. He also allotted to me the fact that he had once considered quitting the priesthood. But Medjugorje changed his mind, and in fact, it made him cherish his work.
“It might change your mind, too,” he said, pulling out a collection of Mary’s messages from Medjugorje.
Father Rick showed me one particular passage, in which a Catholic priest was confused as to why Mary, through one of the visionaries, had miraculously healed a child of the Orthodox faith. In Bosnia, the tension between Catholics and Orthodox Christians was extremely volatile at the time. Talking to one of the visionaries, this was Mary’s response:
“Tell this priest, tell everyone, that it is you who are divided on earth. The Muslims and the Orthodox, for the same reason as Catholics, are equal before my Son and me. You are all my children. Certainly, all religions are not equal, but all men are equal before God, as St. Paul says. It does not suffice to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved, but it is necessary to respect the commandments of God in following one’s conscience.
Those who are not Catholics, are no less creatures made in the image of God, and destined to rejoin someday the House of the Father. Salvation is available to everyone, without exception. Only those who refuse God deliberately are condemned. To him who has been given little, little will be asked for. To whoever has been given much, very much will be required. It is God alone, in His infinite justice, who determines the degree of responsibility and pronounces judgment.”
The message hit me hard. This did not sound like the traditional message of television evangelists and preachers of my youth that without Jesus as your savior, you are destined to burn in hell. This one Marian message was a beautiful relief for me.
Towards the end of our pilgrimage we took a bus to Mostar, a city devastated by the civil war. It seemed that most buildings were either destroyed or pockmarked with mortar holes. What were once city parks now served as graveyards. No wonder Mary was appearing here, I thought to myself. The region itself was an example of the need to observe her messages.
The bus continued to Siroki Brijeg, to the church where Father Jozo Zovko presided. Father Jozo, a Franciscan priest, had been at Medjugorje in the beginning of the apparitions. He was imprisoned by the then-communist Yugoslav government and still bares the scars of his torture.
Inside the church, we listened to Father Jozo speak through an interpreter about his experiences with Our Lady. He was the most peaceful-looking man I had ever seen. After he was done, he asked the priests in the audience to approach the altar. Father Rick went up with several others and knelt as Father Jozo prayed over them. I was unsure of what was happening. Some of the priests began to cry. Father Jozo then asked the entire audience to line up side by side along the inside walls of the church.
Soon the priests began to pray over each of the pilgrims that were lined up. I was standing alongside my mother, and when I asked her what was happening, she shushed me. I watched one of the priests praying over a man, and suddenly the man fell backwards with his eyes closed, into the waiting arms of two volunteer catchers. On the other side of the church, I watched as a woman collapsed as well.
What in the world is happening? I thought to myself. I had seen things like this happen on late-night evangelical shows, but I had always laughed at what I thought was very poor acting. Surely these people were faking, or possibly they were overwhelmed with emotion. But as I watched, I could see more and more people, some of them from my group, falling down in sleep-like states.
Soon Father Rick made his way to where my mother and I were standing. As he prayed over her, I just stared at the ground and listened. I caught something like “the blood of Christ washes over you,” and something else about the Holy Spirit, and then I watched in disbelief as my mother’s feet slowly angled toward the ceiling. She was out cold.
Father Rick came to stand in front of me. I could sense the two “catchers” behind me as well. The very second he put his hands over my forehead, it felt as if electrical current was surging through my veins. My knees grew weak and soon I could no longer feel my arms. My heart throbbed madly and the most pleasant warmth overtook me. But I fought it. I fought it with everything I had. I absolutely did not want to fall down, so I battled to regain my senses, and it worked.
Father Rick moved to the young woman to my left and began to pray over her. I was still reeling from what had just happened, and a strange buzzing was going through my body, but at least I was not on the ground like the others. But then, catching me off guard, Father Rick suddenly put his other hand over my head again, and a strange, ecstatic feeling surged through me. My limbs went instantly numb. I closed my eyes and forgot my surroundings, and peace swept over me like warm water. I soon realized that I was no longer standing. In fact, the catchers were lowering me to the ground. I clenched onto some inner strength and regained my mind, and I stood up before my body even touched the floor.
Still, I was so shaken that I had to sit down on the nearest bench. My mother still lay on the floor, smiling placidly as if asleep.
I left Medjugorje so filled with peace that I was determined to help spread the message. After graduating college in May, 2001, I decided that making a video was by far the most effective way for me to do so. I went to work preparing for this adventure, which was not easy since I was broke.
I needed over $3,500 to buy the right video equipment. But as Our Lady has promised us, “one can stop wars and avert the laws of nature through prayer and fasting.” My grandmother, Mary, felt compelled to help me purchase what I needed and before I knew it, I was on my way to Medjugorje again.
I was traveling again with my mother, Father Rick and many new faces. My uncle, Jimmy, was coming along as well. Several years before, Jimmy lost his fiancé, Kathy, in a strange accident. They were living on a sailboat in Hobe Sound, Florida. It was the night before the Fourth of July and both had been drinking. My uncle went to sleep on the boat while Kathy decided to go see some friends on another boat. Somewhere along the way, she fell off the dock and drowned.
Jimmy blamed himself for not walking her down the dock. His life from that night on was filled with depression and he tried his best to stay away from people. It was the same for the first part of the Medjugorje pilgrimage; he kept his distance from the group and was scarcely seen by anyone.
I, on the other hand, was determined to stay with the group in order to film everything. During my very first day in Medjugorje, just following the 20th Anniversary of the Apparitions, I caught wind of a miracle that was still occurring: the enormous bronze statue of the Risen Christ, situated between the village cemetery and St. James Church, was exuding a strange liquid.
Needless to say, that was the first place I went. After ambling through the crowd, I watched in amazement as water, or something resembling water, dripped from the statue’s knee. Onlookers took turns wiping the water with handkerchiefs, rosaries and wooden crosses. The water dripped non-stop for nearly a week, and I was there to record it all.
I also visited Father Slavko’s gravesite, which had not been there the year before as he had still been alive. I was pleased to see people praying at the grave. We all noticed a beautiful scent in the area, and Father Rick identified it as the “Odor of Sanctity,” like what Padre Pio had. At first, we thought the smell was coming from the hundreds of flowers on Father Slavko’s gravesite, however, we later discovered that the flowers were plastic.
Through it all, I watched my Uncle Jimmy’s reactions to Medjugorje. He seemed to be infatuated with the Croatian culture and spent much of his time making friends with the locals. He frequented the pizza restaurants and took long walks through the village by himself. But already, I could see a shard of light in his eyes that had not been there before. Like everyone else on the pilgrimage, I continually prayed for Jimmy.
Our group was fortunate enough to be staying at Jakov’s small guesthouse. The youngest of the visionaries, Jakov was merely ten-years-old at the start of the apparitions. His shyness is evident, but beneath it all one can detect a wisdom and self-knowledge far beyond his years. Jakov agreed to let me interview him and his comments were exactly what I wanted for my video.
I asked him about the subject that first made me a Medjugorje believer, and his answers confirmed what I had hoped: Our Lady, through Medjugorje, is reaching out to the entire world, to all races and religions, pleading for “all humanity” to live in the light of God.
“Our Lady is calling everyone to conversion, not just Catholics,” Jakov told me. “Our Lady always comes as a mother. She is a mother to all.”
Being just a few days after the 20th Anniversary, most of the seers were in Medjugorje at the time. I was invited to a private apparition with the seer Marija at her home. We also visited Vicka to listen to her talk, and at one point she stirred interest by saying: “In a special way, Our Lady asks us to pray for one of her intentions which is about to be realized.” And the most beautiful thing I experienced in Medjugorje was a nighttime apparition at the “Blue Cross,” an area at the base of Apparition Hill, with the seer Ivan.
Father Rick and I arrived early to find a good vantage for filming. We were there alone except for a plainly-dressed woman perched on a rock outcropping. As I set up my camera equipment, she spoke to me in a soft, melodic voice: “Up here would be best.”
I looked at her questioningly, and she proceeded to tell me that my current area was actually reserved for Ivan’s prayer group. The rock ledge where she sat offered the best view. Soon, out of nowhere, she began telling us the most intriguing stories about Medjugorje.
I learned that her name was Sr. Mary Smith. Originally from Ireland, Mary had been in Medjugorje for the previous ten years with a religious order. I began filming the conversation and she proceeded to tell us that she witnessed Father Slavko’s passing.
It turns out that after Father Slavko had been declared dead on the top of Cross Mountain, his body suddenly rose up. His eyes opened and he looked at his secretary Rita, and then his body slumped back again.
“It was as if the soul was being drawn from the body,” recalled Mary.
That night, I sat beside Mary on the rock outcropping and watched Ivan’s apparition from what turned out to be the best vantage possible. The stars were vivid that night, and I will never forget the feeling of calm that engulfed the crowd when Our Lady appeared to Ivan. Being only a few yards from the Blue Cross where Gospa was appearing, I almost immediately smelled the most captivating scent of roses.
Soon, I could tell that everyone smelled the same thing. The silence was replaced by a soft cacophony of sniffles as people tried to breathe in the beautiful fragrance. And as the apparition ended, the scent dissipated, but the memory of that night–a true gift from God–will remain with me forever.
Other gifts were to follow. My Uncle Jimmy was a recipient of one such miracle. As I mentioned before, he had been going off alone much of the time, exactly like I had done during my first pilgrimage. One night he asked me what I thought he should do the next day.
“Go climb Cross Mountain alone,” I told him, not allotting anything about my life-changing experience with the disappearing priest there. “The top has a great view.”
And so, Jimmy woke early the next morning and headed for the mountain. I followed the group that day and attended Mass at St. James. I had totally forgotten about Jimmy as I ate lunch with some other pilgrims, but I suddenly saw him walk briskly past the restaurant. Catching up to him, I could see that he was visibly shaken, as if he had just seen a ghost.
“How was the climb?” I asked, but he gave me no answer.
“Where are you going?” I asked, louder this time.
“To develop my pictures,” he said, and I saw that he was clenching a disposable camera tightly in one hand. “And then I’m getting the heck out of this place.”
I finally stepped in front of him and he stopped. There were tears in his eyes. We sat down on a bench and, for the first time since I’ve known my uncle, he opened up to me.
He began to tell me how he had begun to climb Cross Mountain shortly after sunrise. He took his time going up, stopping often to admire how beautiful the town below looked bathed in morning sunlight. When he got to the cross on top, he saw no one else around.
“It was so peaceful,” he recalled to me. “I just stood there looking down at Medjugorje.”
When he turned back around to look at the cross, there was a woman standing there. Immediately, chills ran down his spine. From behind, the woman looked almost identical to his deceased fiancé, Kathy. She was wearing the same wide-brim hat that Kathy had always worn in the sun.
“I slowly walked up behind her and to the side to have a better look,” recalled Jimmy.
As he came closer, the woman just stared up at the large cement cross. Jimmy was soon in a position to see her more closely, and he could hardly fathom the sight. This woman wore the same unique sunglasses as Kathy used to. Her face and hair-in fact, everything about her-matched the appearance of Kathy.
“It was her,” Jimmy told me bluntly. “There was no doubt in my mind that I was seeing Kathy.”
Terrified, Jimmy bolted away and hurried down the mountain trail. His heart thumped wildly and he sweated profusely. Fear had taken hold. He was about a quarter of the way down the mountain when, to his horror, he sensed a presence behind. He quickened his pace.
“I looked to my side and there she was,” Jimmy told me. “She didn’t look at me, she just stared straight ahead and passed me by.”
But, according to Jimmy, there was no feasible way she could have passed him. He was already practically running down the trail and she was barely walking, yet she moved past him quickly and with ease. When the woman had gotten a little further, Jimmy mustered his strength and raised the disposable camera he had brought with him. He snapped two photos and that was the last he saw of the mysterious woman. When the film was later developed, one photo contained a whitish blur where you can make out the figure of a woman with a wide-brim hat. The other photo shows nothing.
Although Jimmy wanted to leave Medjugorje immediately, we talked him into staying. I finally gathered some courage and told him sheepishly: “I have something to admit to you, Jimmy. I didn’t tell you to climb the mountain because it has a good view. I told you because I wanted something like this to happen to you up there.”
As we continued to talk about his experience, he looked down at my watch and his eyes grew large. He shook his head in disbelief. I followed his gaze to the date on my watch and chills swept through my body. It was July 3rd, the anniversary of Kathy’s death.
Now back home in Florida, Jimmy has since stopped blaming himself for Kathy’s death, and he has come back to the Church. I feel that Kathy appeared to him so he would realize she is alive in Heaven, and that she doesn’t want him to feel responsible for her passing. Or, perhaps she needs his prayers. Jimmy now spends a good amount of time with family and friends; he is no longer a recluse. He continues to share the messages of Medjugorje with anyone who will listen.
By the end of the pilgrimage, I had more than enough material to produce my documentary video. Since then, I have been to Medjugorje six times and have produced four documentary videos:
+ Medjugorje in the New Millennium
+ The Fruits of Mary
+ Miracles of Medjugorje
+ Medjugorje – The 25th Anniversary
You can see some online video clips of Medjugorje at http://www.medjugorjevideo.com.
Chuckle all you want, Sean, but I posted the EWTN contradiction to demonstrate what a mess Medjugorje has been for the Church. EWTN, as the article noted, can’t make up its mind about Medjugorje and sometimes promotes it and then turns around and tells a blatant lie by denying that it promotes it. This is not a good fruit of Medjugorje, and it’s a perfect example of the trouble that comes from promoting Medjugorje as authentic before permission has been given by the Church officials who have the authority to give it: the BiH bishops conference and the CDF.
Are you aware of how many people in the history of the Church could give identical testimonies to your own through apparition sites or seers who were later demonstrated to be frauds?
Sean, dude, have you seen Rule 3? I know sometimes it seems like there’s so much to say, and it’s tough worrying about Rule 3, but I had to scroll with my wheel mouse 29 times to get past your long post.
Dear SongSung,
Let me put my “order of the day” straight. I headed, in 1989, the Prologue of The Hidden Side… with the following quotation taken from Ephesians, 4, 25 : «From now on, no more lying: that each one speak the truth to his neighbour; aren’t we members of one another ?»
After presenting some of the documented contradictions, ambiguities, misleading conduct, lies, and falsifications of documents in the case of Medjugorje, with 54 notes and references, I ended the same prologue with the conviction that one has to make the criterion of transparence the order of the day. In that respect, I quoted an important authority in the discernment of apparitions: «For those who are involved in apparitions, …non-transparence will take the forms of curiosity, partisan even deceitful propaganda, overstatement or exploitation of the situation for commercial, political or vested interest ends. But from those who have the mission of bringing about discernment, transparence will demand above all objectivity, patience, prudence…, serious inquiries and objectively undertaken investigations, disinterestedness…» (Father Bernard Billet, OSB, et al. in Vraies et fausses apparitions dans l’Eglise [True and False Apparitions in the Church], Paris/Montréal: Lethielleux/Bellarmin, 1973, p. 46-47.)
The stakes are high: one can’t sacrifice the truth of an event to the short term of alleged good fruit. If one of the meanings of the apparitions is to remind the entire community that the most humble ought to be respected, let us totally assume so, in the adequate representation of reality. The «Messages of the Council» urge us to do so: «To think is first of all a duty; woe betide him who willingly closes his eyes to the light! To think is also a responsibility: woe betide those who would obscure the spirit by a thousand artifices which debilitate it, engorge it with pride, deceive it, deform it! Is not the basic principal for men of science, above all: to strive for right thinking?». «Message aux hommes de la pensée et de la science [Message of the Council to men of thought and science]» in Vatican II – Les seize documents conciliaires [Sixteen Documents of Vatican II], Montréal: Fides, 1967, p. 647.
Aren’t we members of one another ? As a researcher, I have the duty of “right thinking” and as a member of the community, of sharing my research with others. In respect, understanding and compassion, especially for those who don’t have the opportunity to meet the persons involved and to have access to documents and archives. And in rigour and firmness, especially with those who don’t respect these values when they inform. Canon Law, article 212 encourages that : “Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church. They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.”
I have been greatly inspired by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (1675-1758). He held the office of Promotor Fidei — paradoxically called “advocatus diaboli” — for more than 20 years, before rising to the papacy in 1740. As Archbishop of Bologna, he created a chair of surgery and a museum of anatomy and confided two chairs to women. Montesquieux rightly called him «The Pope of Scholars». Benedict XIV created academic chairs in physics and chemistry, as well as academies of archaeology and anatomy and strongly encouraged freedom of research and opinion. He thought and testified that science is not a threat to faith, but rather a means of catharsis that helps to get rid of artifices. His treaty — a rare monumental work in many tomes — is entitled De servorum Dei beatificatione et Beatorum canonizatione (Bologna, 1734-1738, 4 volumes, published as he was Cardinal of Bologna). This treaty has been integrated in the first edition of his complete works in 12 volumes (1747-1748) as he was Pope Benedict XIV. While I was working on Medjugorje, I have had the chance, with a special permission of my university’s librarian, to keep at home for 2 years the fourth edition in 18 volumes of his writings published in Prato between 1839 and 1846 and to study Benedict XIV’s observations and reflections on ecstasy, apparitions and other miracles that became the rules still applied today for the discernment of miracles. «The criteria established by the Councils […] and by Benedict XIV for apparitions are truly praiseworthy; they stimulated the courage to broach these questions, inculcated a need for rigor and openness, and instituted methods for formulating information and judgement, notably that of calling on specialists and comparing their pro and con opinions.» (René Laurentin in Dom Bernard BILLET, OSB, op. cit., p. 192.)
I have also had the honor and the chance to work on The Hidden Side of Medjugorje more than four years with a very righteous man, Father Ivo Sivric, a Franciscan born in Medjugorje in 1917. After completing his studies in philosophy and theology in Mostar, he was ordained in 1941, and then went on to complete his postgraduate studies in Zagreb and Rome where he received his doctorate in Sacred Theology in 1947. Father Sivric emigrated to the United States, taught at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, and has also written several works, including Bishop J. G. Strossmayer – New Light on Vatican I (1975), The Peasant Culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1982), both published by the Franciscan Herald Press in Chicago, and Temelji krscanstva C.S. Lewisa [The Christian Basics According to C.S. Lewis] (1988), published by Teoloska Biblioteka in Sarajevo. After becoming a U.S. citizen, Father Sivric made eight extended trips to Medjugorje. He served as director of Croatian Franciscan Publications and he worked as a parochial vicar of a parish serving the Roman Catholic Croatians in St. Louis, Missouri. Father Ivo Sivric passed away October 28, 2002, at age 85. «Sivric’s first advantage over other investigators who have looked into Medjugorje is that he knows the psychology of his own people intimately… This is what Sivric has done remarkably. From his exile in St. Louis, he has performed a service for the church in his native village and the whole church. He has not written a polemical or a passionate book. He is concerned with the truth, using the simple principle: One should not resort to a supernatural explanation where a natural explanation will do.» Peter HEBBLETHWAITE, National Catholic Reporter, Kansas City, Missouri, June 3, 1988.
Dear SongSung, I guess you will appreciate these “new words”. I write them for the first time on this blog, as an answer to your complaining of “unending repeats”. Let us clarify for a moment the “problem of repeats”. As you “revisit” JimmyAkin’s blog, you are coming amidst a place of conversation and argumentation which may have changed since you left it, days ago. As far as I know, I have not “copied the same pages” of the book on the present blog. Your complaint of drivel would be justified if I did. I must admit, however, that I am not immune to drivel (65 years of age); it’s the fate that is in store for me and maybe for a few of us. Please sound the alarm, and not the charge, when it comes… In coherence with what you wrote, you should also blame Mark for the “repeats” he transcribed coming from other blogs to feed his argumentation or discussion with me. In all respect for my interlocutor, I try to present, here and now, another perception of the information he submits to me. If possible, I offer the pertinent and factual documentation to support my own interpretation, even if it is time consuming.
— BTW, the first blog to which I participated in my whole life, is Diane’s blog, a month ago. You can imagine that my experience is very limited. English is not my mother tongue and I must consult the dictionary very often for the right word. The references that I make the effort to provide are the means to show that I want to inform, not persuade, my interlocutor who has the freedom of appreciating my perception by verifying the validity of the documentation and my perception of it. In that respect, I don’t present myself as an authority, as I let the facts that I have painstakingly reconstructed speak for themselves. Maybe your intervention, dear SongSung, will help me to change my strategy and place on my site in construction the documents and reflections I refer to. I will then spare time and energy, and part of the terrible noise I have observed on Christian blogs. Here are some of them, not very edifying : [the local bishop blabbing about personal conversations… obsessive Medj. debunkers… obsessive conspiratorial types… Mr. Foley is another obsessed debunker… You appear far too aggitated and rather obsessed with proving a negative… You just choose to rely on those worn out and embittered sources… I suppose some people just have a penchant for being argumentative and disagreeable!.. those very limited and incomplete notoriously debunking books and sites… You’re beginning to sound a bit like the other conspiracy type chosen above… Enough pearls in the muck here… Now, you guys are running in circles of repetition with nothing new to offer… And since it is just that stubborn refusal to reference anything but those with obvious problems of conspiracy theories and gossip that gets us nowhere, I shall retire from this chamber of noise… Nite, nite! ml and Diane can prolong their mutual admiration society of negative packing bishops and their debunking sources. This has gotten rather obsessive in itself!!… A little charity would show much more from the debunking side rather than to promote falsehoods and incomplete history… It was the known dishonesty of packing those former commissions with both unqualified and prejudiced members (the second was called to correct that mistake in the first and just did the same) and Have fun debunking. Enough pearls lost in the muck on this thread!]
I, myself, am not immune to that kind of language and I may have “reached the limit” when I wrote to Mark that the “awful” Rome or Mostar ? from Michael Brown “is full of copy/paste indigestible allegations, anecdotes and impressions where there is no respect for rigor and checking the facts” without documenting it right away. This I will surely do in serenity in my own site. And I will also try to answer your critique : “The most available sites with any objectivity for accurate information – not what one would hope for, but really how things stand – he can only reply to as “false”. Ahhh, so sad.” for which I thank you, because I had not visited that site. I would be very grateful to you if you could give me the references of what you think are the most available sites for accurate information and how things stand. A correction, here. I don’t reply to a site as false. I reply to allegations in providing valid documentation that shows that they are false.
A last word on the ethics of anonymity and “pseudoity” in the blogs. Please be indulgent, but I was so amazed and shocked to discover that the practice of anonymity and pseudos is so common in the Christian blogs. It is for me a real problem of transparence and integrity. When one has the courage to identify himself/herself, he/she bears the responsibility for beliefs and values shared with other interlocutors. The human relationship between two identified persons who electronically “shake hands” has thus the chance to be more responsible, deep and respectful, and weakens the risk to hurt the interlocutor. When you don’t identify yourself, the “rapport” is not at the same level and the identified interlocutor may feel more vulnerable with unfortunate consequences. Moreover, the “unidentified writing subject” can write anything, anywhere, without assuming any personal responsibility, with the risk of abuse of language and ad hominem insinuations and attacks that are not allowed in scientific communications and that should be, at least, in the context of Christian blogs, considered as dreadful. Maybe I am too sensible a dinosaur, but I feel I had to share that ethical concern with you.
Why ? Because it is my conviction that, concerning Medjugorje, we will need, in the next months, and years, an immense amount of intelligence, courage, respect and compassion if we feel that we are members of one another. The signs of these virtues will be manifest in our communications, and the world will witness and judge if we are faithful to these Christian aspirations.
God Bless !
Louis
I think you ought to read this because I don’t think Mother Angelica would appreciate what you’re saying about her
ml, what in the world did you say that differed from what I claimed? Mother spoke often, spontaneously, referring to “Our Lady of Medjugorje say this or that” quoting with great love of our Lady. She’s not one to speak without belief. She shows her belief in Garabandal as well, with her dear friend, Joey Lomangino, America’s great promoter. Mother has arranged for her crew to leave and film the “great miracle” there when the time is announced. She is not some official spokesperson for the Church and would acknowledge such. Boy, people sure do get riled up about PR when a favored Catholic personality speaks freely about them. She herself is a mystic. I think she knows something of that world and has antennae. God bless her. All of the various statements written here or there do not speak for the good sister herself like her witnessed programs with herself doing the talking. So, no, ml, Mother would probably appreciate the truth when talking about her rather than hearsay or trying to fence sit in her regard. And, if I’m not mistaken, I believe Mother has visited. Even the folks at Medj. speak to caution re: what can come out of Caritas’ overstatements and overenthusiasm. They make certain that everyone knows Caritas does not speak for them. And yet they appreciate the love of the people there. There’s that balance. Poor EWTN gets its donations yanked over PR. Really not necessary and pretty silly.
Sean,
I also ask you to read DA RULZ
Especially #3. “Also because of the format restrictions, everyone must be concise. Don’t go on at length about things. Pasting large amounts of text into the combox also counts as going on at length. Going on at length constitutes rudeness.”
You said:
“I urge you to look at the medical records, look at the many priests and Bishops who go there and believe”
And I urge you to look at the Church documents, the local Ordinary’s opinion and the Commission’s reports.
Has anyone with the proper authority declared that anything supernatural (besides the Sacraments, of course) is occuring at Medjugorje? Not the the bishops, not the commissions and not the Vatican. If I am incorrect name the official declaration so I can read it.
Praise the Lord for your conversion because it came from Him not Medjugorje.
So, once upon a time…
Isn’t that how a fairy tale starts?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I really don’t find any “good fruits” coming out of the bitterness I’ve encountered on this blog so I must say goodbye.
More than anything, the Church is the Church because of its people. I hope you guys take that into consideration and try to represent the Church in a positive light when you interact with people in the world.
Some of you guys really should think about changing your tone because you surely don’t sound like the type of Catholics I have met through Medjugorje; instead, you seem very cynical and angry.
I’m not sure where that comes from… if you purport to be far more knowledgeable about the faith than those of us who have come to know God through Medjugorje, I would think you would speak (or write) with more patience and objectivity than what you’ve shown me in the very short time since I made my first post (yesterday).
For instance, calling my conversion story a fairy tale. Do you know how immature and un-Christian that makes you sound?… I’m not saying you are those things, and I hope that your words are not indicative of the way you deal with the world and represent your faith.
What good is faith in Christ if we do not emulate Him and LIVE His teachings? Where is the love?
I hope and pray that everyone here finds peace in their hearts, peace in their families, and peace in the world.
Bye.
Sean,
Your post is so uniquely personal, moving, and well-crafted that I think it was well worth “bending the rules” a bit. Anyone heard of epikia? And, I think it is highly amusing that the Medjugorje cynics, who wish to advance spin the work of the commission, are resorting to whining about “Rule 3”.
As Pope John Paul said “LET THE PEOPLE GO TO MEDJUGORJE IF THEY CONVERT, PRAY, CONFESS, DO PENANCE AND FAST.” The Commission will sort out the rest.
Peace!
Shame on you Inocencio!
Sean, bravo! I can see your gifts for writing, in capturing your wondersome events in words. My experience too has been with many, many such lovely conversion experiences coming from Medj. pilgrims such as Sean. And what a wonderful group for trustingly sharing love between brothers and sisters, children of Mary. That rather throwaway name above, “Joan something”, who appeared some times on Life on the Rock, was Joan Ulicny. Joan of “A Greater Vision: Back from Abortion”! Haven’t read the story of this courageous young woman? Because she mentions Medj. you are no longer interested in her testimony? Joan was in our pilgrimage group. First time I’d met her. A rising young woman executive with the hard eyed approach that nothing would interfere with her climb to the top. Not even a pregnancy which then ended in an abortion. Then her accident which left her paralyzed and blind. She has struggled to where she became only partially paralyzed and now legally blind. This, after some time, resulted too in her turnabout in humility, telling her story as Sean. I saw her struggle to climb a different mountain – cross mountain. Now she speaks openly about her own “blindness” and conversion, continuing, as is anyone’s in this world. Another thanksgiving praise to God.
And, Sean, what a marvellous telling of your own trip “up the mountain”. I’ve heard of others, such as Char Vance who produces for Archbishop Hannan’s FOCUS videos, and a young man with his cousin during my own pilgrimage, with varied sitings of “visitors in white” with some special connection for them during their pilgrimage. You and I must have been there around the same time – just after the 20th anniversary. I too have a “kiss from Mary” story. It happened upon my return. It is a shame that others here can’t even stop long enough to appreciate your openness and wonderful efforts to give that truer side of personal experience. They have to immediately weigh in against you rather than to have even the least bit of charitable exchange or response. Out of fear, perhaps? I don’t know. So many seem to be on pity parties or persecution complex journeys with closed hearts to the experiences of others. You speak to great hope. They speak to fear. They speak to being referred to as repeaters of the same old well worn “debunking” stories or being admonished that there is more to complete those well worn stories, obviously now considered and filed away by the church during this quarter of a century. That is why I too have to chuckle about “short term fruits” used quite a bit by those who just don’t accept scripture speaking to good and lasting fruits coming only from good trees. I mean, good grief, it’s been a quarter of a century with ever deepening spiritual growth in those initial rather startling conversions. That’s only good to know. Anyway, as you’ve seen for yourself, those critics with their challengers are certainly not “lone rangers” in comboxes on this subject. I would say they far outnumber the few honest believers who don’t whine about the fair give and take. And those critics certainly can give as well as they complain about taking! That’s for sure. People with good personal experiences merely answer charges according to their own personal knowledge of the principles involved and their rebuttals – not from some ivory tower position, of incomplete immersion. I often wonder what makes them trust the ones they’ve selected themselves beyond “hearsay” as they use selectively towards those with opposing clarifications. Hey, if you write an entire book on the subject, promoting yourself and its title quite often, you’re not supposed to be challenged by people with long term actual experience … up close and personal? And those people putting their real happenings out there for belief or ridicule! And those of us with such personal experiences on the ground don’t select only those bloggers who would anoint our own results from those experiences. We can take it!! Probably due in thanksgiving to those wonderful graces given and received. And we can take what comes even though those so “concerned” about our faith have their “fearful” doubts about us. May God bless you for your sharing in the valley of the critics. I, for one, am abundantly happy for your own healing and for your mother’s (an example of the great numbers in our times who have gotten caught by the evil one using the widespread new age temptations) and your uncle’s. We DO live exciting lives in these exciting times when our hearts are not closed to the possibility of God still acting in our lives through His most obedient Daughter!
So Mother Angelica believes in Garabandal, condemned by no less than seven local ordinaries, besides Medjugorje.
Bearing in mind her public outburst against Cardinal Mahoney, it would seem that the good Mother has scant respect for the episcopal office.
In Mother’s defense, that we would be hard pressed to find a recording after 1991 in which she personally mentions Medjugorje. But, I will stand corrected if someone gives me an original air date. I was watching one of her Mother Angelica Live programs in which she mentioned Medjugorje, but I believe it was prior to the end of the last Commission.
As I mentioned above several times, no one is forbidden to hope that it is true, just as no one is forbidden to believe that it is not true, even though many of us wish otherwise. I wish I could believe. I wish there had been no disobedience on the part of the seers (a violation of the 1978 Criteria). I wish there were no documented lies, and no diary entries in which the Blessed Mother speaks adversely about the Bishop (a violation of the 1978 Criteria). I wish the “seers” were not making money off of the events (a violation of the 1978 Criteria). I wish the “seers” didn’t say the Blessed Mother would come only “3 more days – until Friday”, when she allegedly continues for 25 more years. To think the Blessed Mother could change her mind in some way is unfathomable. I wish the associates of the “seers” – several Franciscans had not fallen from grace, and the priesthood, and had been suspended ‘a divinis’, or removed from their order by Rome. I wish the Blessed Mother had not allegedly defended one of the priests suspended ‘a divinis’ by Pope John Paul II. I wish the “seers” had not gone all around the world having visions in so many dioceses.
All of these things, and more, lead me to disbelieve it is the Mother of God appearing in Medjugorje.
But, as I’ve stated time and again, often overlooked and distorted, I truly believe the grace of God, and the Blessed Mother are using Medjugorje to their advantage, even though she is not appearing there. People like Sean are proof of that – thanks be to God. But will he remain with the Catholic faith if the unthinkable happens, and the Commission condemns this as inauthentic?
By early next year, I believe we will have our answer.
At the end of this commission, I pray that there will be an awful lot of catechesis coming from those Bishops, especially in the area of lessons learned.
I certainly do not want to sound disparaging of anyone’s conversion brought about through Medjugorje. I have heard many such testimonials, and the zeal which many bring to their new-found faith is admirable; indeed, even enviable. But the testimonials do not convince me of authenticity. As Sean’s post detailed, there is a spiritual reality around us capable of producing a variety of phenomena for dark purposes. St Ignatius declares in his rules for the discernment of spirits, “It is a mark of the evil spirit to assume the appearance of an angel of light. He begins by suggesting thoughts that are suited to a devout soul, and ends by suggesting his own.” That is why proper discernment of spirits is critical. It is not unreasonable to question the authenticity of messages attributed to the Mother of God the substance of which undermine the local governing authority of the Church. These are part of the record of the early messages(1981-82), and while some supporters push them to the periphery, clearly the local bishop did not. It seemed to me after I read them that we, the faithful, and particularly the clergy, owed him, as representative of the Church responsible for the initial investigation, the benefit of the doubt in those early days. He certainly did not receive that. That early lack of prudence toward what was a reasonable hesitation argues very powerfully to me against authenticity. In addition, quite apart from the local bishop’s judgment, the substance and tone of those messages struck me as profoundly unlike the Blessed Mother, and I immediately found myself compelled logically into agreement with the local bishop’s assessment. My experience of the Mejugorje phenomenon is subjectively as valid as any supporters’, and from my perspective Medjugorje has sown doubt, division and confusion in the Church.
Sean,
I pretty much stopped reading as soon as I got to the word “New Age.” That alone says enough. I firmly believe that what is happening at Medjugorje is no different than what happens at a seance or at a charismatic/Pentecostal gathering. It is not a huge leap for someone who believes in New Age weird occultism to believe in apparitions and prophecies. After all, if you already believe that you can communicate with the dead, why can’t one of those “dead” be the BVM? (Although, the dogma of the Assumption asserts that she is not dead. Whether you believe that she died first and was resurrected or that she was assumed into heaven without dying is not defined in the dogma, but even a dead and resurrected Mary is not “dead” anymore. That’s why the quotation marks. I don’t want to lead anyone astray by implying that she is “a dead person.”)
I think some people tend to forget that where there is the Eucharist, there is Christ. Any Eucharistic gathering of Christians can result in conversion. Conversions are more likely caused by Christ’s presence in the Eucharist than through the pseudo-Gospa. You have a multitude of people celebrating the Eucharist and reciting rosary prayers, so why would anyone doubt that miracles and conversions occur? But why would you necessarily attribute these to this false apparition? Many of the conversions are probably false–people who fall prey to the emotionalism and the supposed “wonders” they are witnessing, but I’m sure that genuine conversions are also happening. However, these are likely due to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the prayers to him and his Holy Mother.
“I try as much as I can to wall myself off from Medjugorje and all other poison fruits of the Charismatic (Neo-Montanist) heresy.”
Augustine,
I see that you are an all-opportunities cynic and an ill-informed one at that. The charismatic dimension of the Church was reaffirmed by the Council Fathers in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Paragraph 12):
“It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the People, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. Cor. 12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts he makes them fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church, as it is written, “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit” (1 Cor. 12:7). Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused, they are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation since they are fitting and useful for the needs of the Church.”
Of the Charismatic Renewal, Pope John Paul II himself said, “I am convinced that this movement is a very important component of the entire renewal of the Church.” In fact, his Papal Household Preacher since 1981, preaches Baptism in the Spirit as a means willed by God to revitalize Christian life.
Pehaps it is the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, however, which best address the cynic:
“At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms – which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit – is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.”
It is not unreasonable to question the authenticity of messages attributed to the Mother of God the substance of which undermine the local governing authority of the Church.
Mary, no one has taken away your right to question anything. It’s PRIVATE REVELATION! It’s open to study. Everybody got that now?? You guys have reams of written space with questions and doubts. We are all sharing our personal discoveries. But when you start suggesting, in the case of Sean’s experience, it’s the devil casting out the devil … well, I think we all know what Jesus had to say about that idea! If that were the case in all these years, we would have seen those negative powers falling a long time ago in the case of Medj. because that kingdom would have been divided upon itself.
And, well, what can we really say, the local bishop’s assessment has sorta taken a back seat compared to what is usually the case for a local bishop. And there are historical reasons for that. The excuse that it became beyond the local or national scope doesn’t hold water when it was merely handed over to the bishops’ conference…and sat there for years as it grew to an even greater worldwide scope. It basically went from the local to the international in a hurry. It was beyond the national a long time before any international commission was ordered to be established, even with the requests by the bishops themselves! So that reason for the Vatican to move hadn’t come to pass until now. Let’s face it folks. The bishop headed enthusiastically to Rome with his basically negative assessment and returned with hat in hand and denied such. Three weeks later his authority was denied in the unprecedented move of handing it to the bishops’ conference. He was reduced to playing a partial role in authority over the apparition question. And there are scores of other apparition sites that are way beyond the local scope but remained under the local bishop’s sole authority. So, I think that portion of your history has to be rewritten according to the reality of the day. If you don’t want to keep up with the Church on this matter and remain back in the past somewhere, then you’re offering an incomplete assessment of the whole matter yourself. Even the humble bishops from Uganda had a personal meeting with the bishop to ask him to be a true shepherd to all of his people. And that it was up to him to reach out in humility to his Franciscan brothers to work for reconciliation…that that was any bishop’s responsibility instead of causing the lack of peace by his own attitude…that Medjugorje was a place of peace for the world and that he also should make that peace and offer it first because he was the father in chief of all there and he should set the tone. And, Mary, that initial investigation that you promote as being something worthy of obedience was not urged to be put aside by the children or the priests, but by the other bishops, seeing that there had been no justifiable investigation and that it was negative from the start, leaving out any possibility for objective study. IOW, it was quite evident to all what was going on! When he complied with another loaded commission (one bishop mentioning that it appeared that admission to that one seemed to be open only to those who would first declare negative stance!). And so, you had better lecture the bishops as well as the CDF who agreed with that assessment.
And Mary C., sorry, but Garabandal has not been condemned as you say. It is rather in the same current state as Medj. Ought not to speak so rashly about Mother, a good daughter of the Church … Obviously. Although Cardinal Mahoney tried to rip the control of EWTN from her, even going to Rome to do such, Rome did not comply with his wishes. Although she apologized to the Cardinal himself, as the poor man commanded, she did not take back her opinion of the substance of his letter to his people which she diagnosed as having doctrinal error. It was therefore more personal on the part of the Cardinal than Mother. And…just after the public ruckus, Pope JPII sent her a personal gift of a huge beautiful monstrance from his visit to Poland to demonstrate his backing of her! You really should know more of the complete story before disparaging the good Mother’s respectfulness. Thank God we have a true daughter of the Church to give the authentic teachings of the Church when certain bishops abuse their proper teaching authority by presenting confusing statements.
But why would you necessarily attribute these to this false apparition?
Oh, so we see. You step out in front of the Church and therefore in front of Christ?
But, as I’ve stated time and again, often overlooked and distorted, I truly believe the grace of God, and the Blessed Mother are using Medjugorje to their advantage, even though she is not appearing there. People like Sean are proof of that – thanks be to God.
Now that’s a new one for the books of this discussion!! Funny, but Mary doesn’t seem to be appearing in my neighborhood nor has anyone declared positively such for other spots of her “non appearance” where many believe she is, but God and the Blessed Mother don’t seem to be “using” these other “non-appearances” to such advantage!! That is a good one! Hey, what’s the use then of any Church study or approved sites if God can just use any old place for all those numerous conversions?! What do prophecy or signs for specific purposes and times matter then? The Church should just overlook them with that reasoning. No need! You give much too much credit to the devil’s ability to manipulate God! God’s normal rules just don’t apply to Medjugorje. They have to be altered! What you’re saying for all practical purposes is that the devil can run all over the world causing lasting conversions and growing spiritual maturity (crazy in itself) but God will anoint them because He’s following the devil’s lead and His only plan is to clean up the devil’s “messes”. Right! I’d rather choose the scripture about the kingdom divided cannot stand. The devil’s main goal is to cause “death”, not life. In Sean’s case he has failed in that goal plain and simple.
I repeat.
Has anyone with the proper authority declared that anything supernatural (besides the Sacraments, of course) is occuring at Medjugorje?
Not the the local Ordinaries, not the commissions and not the Vatican. In fact isn’t the tally 4-0 (2 local Ordinaries and 2 commissions) nothing Supernatural is occuring?
If I am incorrect name the official declaration so I can read it.
Until then praise God for your conversions.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Chris k:
Does a local bishop’s desicion count for nothing these days? Seven bishops of Santander have given their verdict that nothing supernatural occurred at Garabandal.
Wasn’t JPII supposed to be the last pope, according to the ‘seers’ of Garabandal? Enough said.
Mary C., No, not quite “enough said”. Nice try, but unfortunately you are speaking, again, outside of the mind of the Church with respect to Medjugorje. Now if you just don’t want to be obedient to the hierarchy and its ranking re: apparition sites, then that’s up to you and your own conscience. But, then, you ought not be judging others about their obedience when the Church has moved on this in a rather unusual manner. Those affiliated with the ongoing events of the apparition should obey what has come out of the magisterium. Since the study is open for further investigation, it is going against this action by the Church to try to stifle events in any way. How then could a full investigation take place if ongoing messages and their response be silenced, esp. by one who no longer has the lone authoritative say over these events?
Also Mary C., you had better, again, study just what was interpreted from Garabandal. Not last pope, but last pope of an era or time spoken to by the Garabandal messages, before events begin to usher in a new era that ushering including the prophesied events for Garabandal. Pope JPII himself spoke to preparing for the New Era of Peace and was the most connected to such events through his own very personal devotion to Mary … esp. Fatima. The Third secret itself had to do with the passing century, passing era and his part in that. He spoke to a continuation into a new era but with preparation of Christians even for martyrdom. P. Pio himself instructed the now Garabandal U.S. promoter, Joey Lomangino, to visit there when Joey wished obedient instruction about that. Joey, as you may know, has no eyes from an accident. P. Pio healed his sense of smell, allowing for the scent of roses to almost inundate Joey as a sign. Joey has been promised new eyes at the event of the miracle. Mother Angelica is a close friend to Joey and has had him and his lovely wife on her program several times, outlining the messages and his telling of his ongoing friendships with the seers, esp. the primary one. Garabandal repeats similar prophecies for warning and miracle as St. Faustina and other approved apparition sites. It still is unfinished so it too is waiting for further events.
Inocenio, don’t be alarmed by the choice of the “wait and see” selection of the three available for apparition sites. That is the usual for unfinished happenings. The bishop of the commission himself has stated that there will be no final decision before events have finished. Out of something like 300 apparitions studied there have been only 8 fully approved. Most remain in the middle ground, awaiting the possibility of further study or have no decision. An even smaller number have been condemned. That is the other choice. But those 2 bishops who held the positions of head of the conference and head of the commission stated that most of the bishops were favorable to the happenings and that they chose the middle position more out of not wishing to humiliate the local bishop for the moment. Unless we consider all of the surrounding human circumstances we fail to be honest about the workings around this interesting site. Apparition sites are never black and white as you seem to have the understanding. Pope JPII when “merely” a bishop (Cardinal?) had to really fight other bishops to have Faustina’s diary reconsidered … and now she’s a saint with the Divine Mercy Sunday a declared feast of the Church! You never know!!
chris K,
So my understanding is correct that the competent authority has decided four times non constat de supernaturalitate.
The personal opinion that matters the most is the one we should accept, the bishop(s) of Mostar.
Can you point to any claimed apparition being approved by overturning the decision of the local Ordinary?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The personal opinion that matters the most is the one we should accept, the bishop(s) of Mostar.
Well, then, Inocencio, you go right ahead and accept that opinion as the final authority. Of course you will be out of step with the Church but in reading the comments from those who apparently don’t like the current situation, you may have some company in that following! That’s for you to sort out. Obviously there are also “cafeteria apparition watchers”!
You’d have to take it up with the bishops as to whether there has even been a fully stated last decision. It has been interpreted as the “wait and see” choice of the three allowed since it was a nuanced one allowing for further investigation at any time. Apparently that time has arrived. Since the other decisions were not stabilized by the Church and were quickly informed by newer commissions, all we can say now is what is presently accepted re: private pilgrimages. Probably in the future there will be various outside experts appointed for the bishops’ conference to point to whenever anyone asks about any finality. That will ameliorate the division among the bishops themselves with the local bishop. He then too will have to admit to the ongoing Vatican supervision. Perhaps that will eliminate his own personal interjections of opinion, but who knows. At least people will have the CDF reference point to go to if the question of authority again arises.
“Lord, let’s ‘wait and see’ if I am worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof…”
–Centurion, to Jesus
chris K,
“Of course you will be out of step with the Church..”
Because I accept the 4-0 decisions? Talk about out of step.
As for private pilgrimages I could make one to my any parish because the Lord is appearing there but I cannot claim that He is giving messages to me for the world. Medjugorje has the same status as any other parish in the world. Since no pilgrimage can claim the “apparition” is authentic and cannot be an offical one sponsored by a diocese.
I ask my question again:
“Can you point to any claimed apparition being approved by overturning the decision of the local Ordinary?”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Chris K:
The charismatic dimension of the Church was reaffirmed by the Council Fathers in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Paragraph 12)
Nobody is disputing whether or not the Holy Spirit blesses God’s People with charismata. The entire Church is held together by the charismata given by the Holy Spirit. What is at dispute is whether or not the particular claims of charismatics are valid. I don’t dispute that people receive even extraordinary gifts, such as tongues, by the Spirit. I dispute that people should make themselves into complete idiots falling down on the floor, babbling in unintelligible nonsense, laughing uncontrollably, barking like dogs, performing fake healings, giving false prophecies, having lay people perform duties assigned to clerics, inventing new quasi-sacraments like “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” making no distinction between the Church and heretics, etc. And then to not only attribute all of this, blasphemously, to the Holy Spirit, but to urge the faithful to actively seek these strange gifts, claim that they are common, that they authenticate their abberrant views, and to trust their subjective feelings over tradition, leading to many liturgical abuses as well as to relativism and indifferentism.
Chris K:
Of the Charismatic Renewal, Pope John Paul II himself said, “I am convinced that this movement is a very important component of the entire renewal of the Church.” In fact, his Papal Household Preacher since 1981, preaches Baptism in the Spirit as a means willed by God to revitalize Christian life.
Firstly, I am not compelled to believe anything that Holy Father offers as an opinion and not as dogma. Let’s not forget that bishops and even patriarchs have not only fallen for heresy in times past, but often they were the ones in whom the heresies originated. Being a bishop, or even a respected theologian does not save one from heresy. See Arius, Nestorius, Donatus, Origen, Tertullian, and many more for examples. His Papal household preacher’s opinion means absolutely zero to me. My family produced two of the most scandal-ridden popes in history–John XIII and Sylvester III–so believe me when I say that the people the Pope surrounds himself with are not always the best people to seek guidance from.
Chris K quoting then-Cardinal Ratzinger:
“At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms – which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit – is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.”
And my response is simply “Who cares?” See what I wrote above about bishops and heresy. Tell me what Holy Father says now about the movement. Let him make a dogmatic statement one way or the other. Opinions change, and I know that the Pope does not take his position lightly. But quite frankly, even this statement does not necessarily speak to the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal.” It is very vague and only seems to imply the CCR at best. This is similar to many statements made by JPII where charismatics take a statement that was meant to be merely complimentary, or even contained cautions against excesses, as a Papal endorsement! The context of the quote is a foreword to a book written by the Papal delegate to CCR. It should not be seen as a blanket endorsement of CCR.
Chris K:
I focus on the early documentation of the “apparitions” because those messages and circumstances are the reason the local bishop turned around in his original support of the “seers.” Until I stumbled upon them, the only reason the Medjuogorje supporters I knew gave for his about face was “fear of the communists.” When I read the content of the actual messages as recorded in the diary of one of the “seers,” his reasoning seemed completely legitimate; in fact, a necessary conclusion I would have drawn myself if faced with that evidence against it. Supporters marginalize and dismiss these troublesome early messages and the rank disobedience of the priests involved, but they seem fairly damning to me, at least enough to inspire caution. But caution seems continually thrown to the wind by supporters and particularly by priests such as Father Rick in Sean’s testimony. It is entirely plausible to me that a spirit whose characteristic mark toward people seeking the truth is disguise as an angel of light—this is St. Ignatius, remember, not me—would lead souls to embrace religious piety if the final end is successful; that is, a house divided against itself, as you quoted. The postings on this blog give ample evidence to that occurring and my own experience with this “apparition” does likewise. Sean’s considerable talents will be used to promote these messages. His support of these “apparitions” will not remain private. His stated intention is to spread the messages. When he or another promoter shows up at my parish, as has already happen numerous times as I mentioned in my original post above, I will forced to take my stand against him. I have no heart for this. I have good friends and know many more good people who are involved with this “apparition.” One of the “seers” claimed to have had an “apparition” of the Mother of God in my parish church. That is a very bold claim. It is either true or false. Do I violate my conscience in order to keep the peace or am I obligated in faith to voice my concern? I should not be forced into such a difficult position within my community of faith. Our shepherds are asleep.
“Of course you will be out of step with the Church..”
Because I accept the 4-0 decisions? Talk about out of step.
I don’t know what your point is here, Inocencio. You stated that the only thing to follow re: Medj. is the local bishop’s opinion. To that, if you accept merely the local bishop’s opinion over the current guidance of the Church – wait and see rather than condemnation – you are not speaking with the current mind of the Church. You seem to be saying that you accept what the Church has guided AND the bishop’s opinion which is that in his mind it should be ruled condemned. Really, you can’t do both.
Your other point about the Church overturning a local bishop (with the authority to rule we must add, not lessened by the CDF) I am not aware. I know that usually the Church works in collaboration with a local bishop when asked or when there may be questions. I know that there have been instances where one bishop rules that a case is closed never to be restudied only to have a future bishop reopen the matter and then declare something supernatural. So, I, again, don’t see your point. The Church does have the authority to do what it did in this case. Hopefully you are not saying otherwise.
It is entirely plausible to me that a spirit whose characteristic mark toward people seeking the truth is disguise as an angel of light—this is St. Ignatius, remember, not me—would lead souls to embrace religious piety if the final end is successful; that is, a house divided against itself, as you quoted.
That is always a possibility. But you leave out some pretty important factors here when it comes to Medj. That is that this apparition site has been studied in greater depth and with more objective scientific studies – 3 now – than any other in history and nothing has demonstrated to be fraudulent. Also, none of the messages have been against faith or morals … and nothing in the seers’ behavior has been judged as abnormal or against the faith. Now these studies by world renowned experts in Marian apparitions, mysticism, psychology, brain function, etc. have been going on for a quarter of a century. If you can’t trust these many great orthodox bishops, cardinal, priests, theologians, recognised professionals of the various fields of study … and don’t forget our beloved former pope … who are not exactly new kids on the block when it comes to such things, then you might as well never go near any private revelation … and of course you are free to do so.
And, Augustine, I believe it is Mark to whom you should have addressed your replies for all of those many quotes you listed as mine re: the charismatic movement. I can’t take the credit for those remarks.
What about people promoting Mej. here in the States?
“Firstly, I am not compelled to believe anything that Holy Father offers as an opinion and not as dogma. Let’s not forget that bishops and even patriarchs have not only fallen for heresy in times past, but often they were the ones in whom the heresies originated.”
So, you
Augustine,
Are you saying the late Holy Father took a heretical position on the matter of the charismatic dimension of the Church? You’ve already made blanket statements about the “charsimatic/montanist” heresy. Do you have any distinctions you want to make or have you pretty much excluded anything of the mission of the Third Person of the Trinity?
Maybe the CCF should set up a commission to investigate any claim of inspiration with which you are uncomfortable. I understand from your blog that your parish youth choir is quite controversial and upsetting to you. That should really be investigated.
Anything else bothering you?
There is nothing new under the sun. This is just a new manifestation of an old heresy. Look at the parallels between the charismatic movement and Montanism. No less a believer than Tertullian(!) fell into this heresy.
The Montanists stressed prophecy and speaking in tongues. (If these were indeed normative, then the Church would not have opposed them on this.) They also pretended to speak for the Holy Spirit and held that their “prophecies” were authoritative, even if they contradicted Doctrine of the Church. Later Montanists eventually left Trinitarian belief and became Sabellians (exactly like what has happened among Pentecostals–the UPC, so called “Oneness Pentecostals,” are Sabellian). Also, they had prophetesses. Pentecostals were the first Christians to ordain women, long before even the liberal Protestants. Pentacostalism is just a repeat of Montanism, and it has infected the Body of Christ. It must be removed like the cancer that it is before it is allowed to spread and do irreparable damage. St. Irenaeus of Lyon returned home from Rome to find that this heresy had taken root there and left his diocese in shambles. This was the immediate impetus for him to write “Adversus Haereses.”
Medjugorje and Garabandal are nothing more than the new Prisca and Maximilla.
If Sts. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, or Jerome were here on earth today, I have no doubt that they would identify the charismatic movement with Montanism. I feel much more secure standing along side those saints than placing my faith in a devilish movement that has its origins in another heresy, Protestantism, and has already destroyed many a Protestant church and now finds itself as a malignant tumor inside Christ’s own Body.
Just as in any time when heresy infects the Church, we are called to stand against it firmly and to mince no words in our condemnation of it. Even if it puts us against bishops and patriarchs as it did in times past.
The state of the Church today is directly attributable to the charismatics–the complete contortion of the Mass, profane liturgical music, liturgical dance, inclusive language, the focus on apocalyptic revelations and apparitions, the call for female clergy, “eucharistic ministers,” ecumenism that flirts with indifferentism, “theme” Masses, extreme subjectivism, seeking of miraculous events, conversion by “feeling” instead of catechism, the complete lack of regard for tradition because “the Spirit is doing something new now”–all of these are poison fruits of the charismatic heresy. For everyone that laments what has become of the Church, you only have the charismatics to blame! It’s not Vatican II, it’s not the liberals… rather these things all came in through the back door thanks to the charismatics!
We should be as fired up in our defense of the Orthodox Faith as St. Nicholas of Myra was when he punched Arius in the nose at the Council of Nicaea. Not that we should go around clocking charismatics in the face, but we should be that zealous to defend the Faith from heresy!
You left out the Greeters. I have a feeling they are Montanists too…
chris k,
“wait and see rather than condemnation”
Is only your opinion. The local Ordinary has been clear and the commissions have not changed his opinion that nothing supernatural is occuring. So yes I can clearly state 4-0 nothing supernatural is occuring and you can believe whatever you choose.
So, I, again, don’t see your point.
My point is that even approved apparitions (Fatima, Lourdes, etc.) received their approval from the local Ordinary. Medjugorje has clearly not received that approval. Approved apparitions are confirmed by the Vatican only after the local Ordinary has given a positive decision and not over his negative decision. That is why I asked you if you knew of a case because I have never read of that occuring.
If I am wrong in my understanding please produce any document from the CDF that overturns the local Ordinary’s decision.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio, you are either being disingenuous in your statements or you just haven’t digested all of the material that has been produced on the bishop’s “opinion”. You should know by now that the local bishop in his opinion goes beyond what the Vatican has accepted as the “wait and see” decision. Otherwise there would have been no need to not accept that opinion as the final ruling. That opinion that somehow you still feel is the last and final judgment:
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.
We all know by now, hopefully, that that clarification was given by the CDF to clarify just how things stood re: that “just his opinion” declaration by the local bishop. That opinion is the condemning judgment that closes an apparition to any further examination (at least while that bishop is in authority). So, again to treat that opinion as the same as the neutral one, nuanced one given and followed for the last 15 years is, with all that has been written about it, some deliberate attempt on your part to rewrite or say something other than what the facts say. So, no, in this case the local bishop’s “opinion” is not what is asked of the faithful and therefore not what should be followed. Again, of course there is nothing more that can be repeated to you again if you are simply determined to obfuscate what is.
If I am wrong in my understanding please produce any document from the CDF that overturns the local Ordinary’s decision.
The Zadar declaration of the commission which is the nuanced one.
chris k,
Again, of course there is nothing more that can be repeated to you again if you are simply determined to obfuscate what is.
Ok, chris k, show us how genuine you are in your statements.
Is it the mind of the Church that you can promote Medjugorje as authentic?
If the answer is no, then think with the mind of the Church and don’t.
If the answer is yes produce any document from the competent authority that proves your answer.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Well, Chris K, I will take your word for it on the results of the scientific studies you mention but apparently, coupled with the content of the many messages and the events there over so many years, they did not carry sufficient weight to convince those investigating Medjugorje of supernaturalism. As for John Paul II’s support, he was at least a model of circumspection and restraint with respect to the promotion of the site, if in fact, he did actually believe in the authenticity of the “apparitions.” I have never read a direct statement from him indicating his support. I have seen quotes attributed to him from private conversation, but in his own prolific writing, his interviews and even his autobiographical work I don’t think any mention is made of Medjugorje. If those convinced of the authenticity of the “apparitions” were to emulate his manner of support, I could easily live with that. He respected the wishes of the bishops of the area and did not travel there himself though doubtless, if he was believer, he would have liked to and he certainly had the opportunity. He published nothing lending support to his personal beliefs about it, if in fact, they were as you say. He must have realized the scandal it would give to ecclesial communion and order in the Church. Would that all priests realized that! He seemed particularly devoted to Our Lady of Fatima. One of the most endearing photographs of him for me depicts him with her at her statue, his right hand tenderly at her arm, his body bent forward slightly as if listening intently to something she is telling him. As for all those credentialed experts who have promoted Medjugorje—you are correct—I am disinclined to trust overmuch in their expertise. Their claims have so far not convinced those involved in any of the official investigations of supernaturalism.
Is it the mind of the Church that you can promote Medjugorje as authentic?
And who is doing that? People may be giving their personal beliefs or experiences from their private visits. They may be showing pictures of the area or be relating the history of events, including the various phenomena or conversions (Fr. Laurentin is one of them). So what? The Vatican is well aware of all of these personal reports – in fact, the ongoing study has to include all of these factors and reports. Otherwise there would be no related “miracles”, documented by medical science as being related to Medj. pilgrimages to study. There would be no ability to look at the worldwide effects or fruits, or documented phenomena, etc.
And Mary, I think you know that any pope cannot officially give his personal judgment or beliefs on an apparition site while it is still under investigation or still open for further investigation at any time. He could not include them in his public writings during his pontificate while things are still being investigated. But this pope did give his personal feelings in private to many…with some now documented in writing.
As for John Paul II’s support, he was at least a model of circumspection and restraint with respect to the promotion of the site, if in fact, he did actually believe in the authenticity of the “apparitions.”
Not really. Many, many statements have been attributed to JPII by many priests, pilgrims, bishops and cardinals who were either admonished to visit there or were inquired about after pilgrimages. Various bishops have been quoted with JPII mentioning Medj. as a spiritual center for prayer, is a continuation of Fatima, is saving the Church in the West, etc.
examples for what they’re worth to you, many now in writing:
In the Korean Catholic weekly “Catholic News” from the 11th November 1990 an interview with Mons. Angelo Kim Nam Soo President of BK Korea was published. He had been at a luncheon audience with Pope John Paul II together with six other bishops on Oct 15th that year. Mons. Kim recalls that, “words of praise were addressed to the Pope regarding the change brought about in Eastern Europe. The Pope replied with a smile that he hadn’t done much, rather, it was a work of providence from above, and it was carried out in accordance with the promise of Our Lady of Fatima. The Pope continued that the account of Our Lady of Fatima is private revelation and said that it differed fundamentally from public revelation. He also used the example of Our Lady’s apparitions in Medjugorje, and commented on how wonderful it is that despite some Bishops opposition, many people visit there, are converted and favored with God’s grace. He then smiled”
Mons. Maurillo Kreiger, former bishop of Florianopolis (Brazil), visited Medjugorje four times. His first visit was in 1986. He writes as follows: “In 1988, I was with eight other bishops and thirty three priests on spiritual retreat in the Vatican. The Holy Father knew that many of us were going to Medjugorje afterwards. After a private mass with the Pope, before leaving Rome, he said, without having been asked anything, “PRAY FOR ME IN MEDJUGORJE”. On another occasion, I told the Pope “I am going to Medjugorje for the fourth time”. He concentrated his thoughts and said, “MEDJUGORJE, MEDJUGORJE, IT’S THE SPIRITUAL HEART OF THE WORLD”. On the same day I spoke with other Brazilian bishops and the Pope at lunch time and I asked him: “Your holiness, can I tell the visionaries that you send your blessing?” He answered: “YES YES”, and embraced me.
“MEDJUGORJE IS A GREAT CENTRE OF SPIRITUALITY!” – The Holy Father’s comment during a February 1990 conversation, as reported by Bishop Murilo Krieger, Auxiliary Bishop of Florianopolis, Brazil, made prior to His Grace’s fourth Medjugorje pilgrimage. The Holy Father assented to Bishop Krieger’s request and gave his papal blessing to the visionaries (National Catholic Register, April 29,1990)
“IF I WASN’T THE POPE, I’D BE IN MEDJUGORJE ALREADY!” – Reported April 21, 1989 by Bishop Paul Hnilica, SJ, Auxiliary Bishop of Rome, after having been admonished by the Holy Father for not stopping in Medjugorje on his return trip to Rome from a meeting in Moscow on behalf of the Pope.
During his visit to the area itself his entourage visited the site. He was not invited by the local bishop. A pope does not get officially involved otherwise while a site is still under discussion. He would have loved to visit Russia too but was not officially invited there either by the Orthodox. Other than that there are those documented personal letters from the pope to one of his Polish collaborators and friend, and his wife. The letters are quoted. He not only demonstrates his belief but his deep affection for Medj. The wife began a Medj. movement in Poland during the time of the Solidarity Movement which gave this group hope to carry on. These letters are now facts which were written about in an issue of Newsweek in 2005. The Croatian President himself spoke about JPII’s stated desire to him to visit Medj.
Those letters have been authenticated and published in Poland in Oct. 2005:
The actual letters may be included in an upcoming book by Marek, a well-known Polish journalist who first met John Paul II when the future pontiff was a priest in 1958 and served as John Paul II’s poetry editor, collaborating with him on the final issue of the meditations, Roman Triptych. Skwarnicki’s career largely was spent working on the editorial board as an editor and reporter for the weekly Tygodnik Powszechny and a monthly called Znak, published in Krakow.
The nationwide weekly and monthly were founded by Krakow Cardinal Sapieha, who was predecessor of the future Pope, Karol Wojtyla. The Pope published all of his poems and some articles in the publications. Marek is also a member of the Pontifical Council of Laity and was present on twenty of the Pope’s trips, covering them as a journalist and esteemed author.
Born in 1930, Skwarnicki took part as a boy in the Warsaw Uprising and was arrested by Gestapo, who sent him to a concentration camp called Mauthausen. His wife Sofia was one of the first pilgrim leaders to Medjugorje, largely responsible for sparking interest in Medjugorje in Eastern Europe.
“My wife received information about the apparition in October of 1983”, and succeeded in getting two books about Medjugorje published at the same time that she developed an involvement with the trade union, Solidarity — which was crucial in the downfall of Communism. “News from Medjugorje gave the suppressed Catholic society hope,” recalls Marek, whose wife started the first bulletin on the apparitions in Poland — no doubt contributing to the Pope’s interest in the site of apparitions, which he prevented from being rejected by a hostile local bishop later in the 1980s.
The Pope mentioned Medjugorje in another letter on February 25, 1994, making reference to the war in former Yugoslavia. “Zofia writes about the Balkans,” said the Pope. “Now we can better understand Medjugorje. We can better understand this mother’s ‘insistence’ today, when we have the magnitude of such danger before our eyes. Equal is the answer of special prayer, prayer for the people of the whole world. It gives us a hope that here goodness will win, that peace is possible. That was the main idea of the prayer day, January 23.”
First letter (translation from Polish):
Dear Mr. and Mrs. !
(…) And may everything go well on the way to Medjugorje-Rome.
With heartfelt blessings.
Vatican, March 30th,
Jan Pavel II
Second letter:
Dear Mr. Marek !
(…) And now we everyday return to Medjugorje in prayer.
Jan Pavel II
Vatican, May 28, 1992
Third letter:
On a Christmas card, handwritten
(…) I thank Mrs. Zofia for everything concerning Medjugorje. I, too, go there everyday as a pilgrim in my prayers: I unite in prayer with all those who pray there or receive a calling for prayer from there. Today we have understood this calling better. I rejoice that our time is not lacking people of prayer and apostles (…)
Jan Pavel II, Dec 8, 1992
Forth letter: Vatican, Feb. 25th, 1994
Dear Mr. and Mrs. (Skwarnicki)
I thank you very much for both letters. Mrs. Zofia is writing me about the Balkans. I guess Medjugorje is better understood these days. That sort of “urging” of the Mother is better understood today when we see with our very eyes the enormousness of the danger. At the same time, the response in the way of a special prayer – and that coming from the people of the whole world – fills us with hope that there, too, the good will prevail. Peace is possible – such was the motto of the day of prayer of January 23rd, prepared by a special session in the Vatican in which Mr. T. Mazowiecki also participated.
Perhaps it is thanks to this as well that Europe is coming back to its senses. People in Poland get back to their senses, too, as follows from your writing. Maybe it will become easier for them to come to terms with the Pope who has not preached “the victory of Democracy” but reminded them of the Decalogue. (…)
With blessings,
Jan Pavel II
chris k,
“And who is doing that?”
If you concede that you are not promoting Medjugorje as authentic I accept that.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Quousque tandem abutere, AnonymusChrisK, patientia nostra ?
AnonymusChrisK (ACK),
28 days, two interventions on Diane’s blog [http://te-deum.blogspot.com/ – July 12 and 13] and a few on this blog have passed and I do not have yet your response to my challenge. Yet you answered indirectly [July 31] in a post to ML by qualifying one fact that I brought as “bunk/spin” and… by avoiding again a serious discussion on that fact.
Some interventions from you verge on lack of respect, scorn and denigration. [the local bishop blabbing about personal conversations… obsessive Medj. debunkers… obsessive conspiratorial types… Mr. Foley is another obsessed debunker… You appear far too aggitated and rather obsessed with proving a negative… You just choose to rely on those worn out and embittered sources… I suppose some people just have a penchant for being argumentative and disagreeable!.. those very limited and incomplete notoriously debunking books and sites… You’re beginning to sound a bit like the other conspiracy type chosen above… Enough pearls in the muck here… Now, you guys are running in circles of repetition with nothing new to offer… And since it is just that stubborn refusal to reference anything but those with obvious problems of conspiracy theories and gossip that gets us nowhere, I shall retire from this chamber of noise… Nite, nite! ml and Diane can prolong their mutual admiration society of negative packing bishops and their debunking sources. This has gotten rather obsessive in itself!!… A little charity would show much more from the debunking side rather than to promote falsehoods and incomplete history… It was the known dishonesty of packing those former commissions with both unqualified and prejudiced members (the second was called to correct that mistake in the first and just did the same) and Have fun debunking. Enough pearls lost in the muck on this thread! — in response to ml, AmyWelborn’s blog, 2006-07-27]
You, ACK, despise your interlocutor when you insinuate a doubt about his intellectual integrity : “Hey, if you write an entire book on the subject, promoting yourself and its title quite often, you’re not supposed to be challenged by people with long term actual experience … up close and personal?” First, the “personal experience” of anyone pilgrim does not concern my challenge, here. Have you read anywhere that I had no respect for it or that I even discussed it ? Second, regarding the “promotion” of myself : I tried, as many did on this blog, to express something significant about the background of my intentions and motivations, at least to say that I don’t hide away in an ivory tower, as a researcher and critique on Medjugorje, and not as a debunker as you qualify me to denigrate my role. Third, regarding the “promotion” of the book : again, you don’t seem to appreciate the excerpts of the book I use to back up my argumentation. Again, you denigrate my gesture by considering it a “promotion”. It would be a promotion if I would say : “Buy the book and you will find the argument and the source of the argument I don’t want to write down, here.” Instead, I quote the argument and the complete source in such a way that people don’t have to buy the book to understand my point. Is it not respect for the interlocutor to inform correctly and give the tools to permit her/him to decide freely by herself/himself what she/he should think about the subject ?
I have observed that you, ACK, in this blog and in others, as “Anonymus” or as “Chris K”, use the detestable tactics of denigrating your interlocutor by choosing ad hominem labels or descriptions that attack the person to diminish his/her credibility or the one of the legitimate authority he/she is quoting [debunker, obsessive conspiratorial, negative packing bishops, unqualified and prejudiced members (of the commission)…] instead of coping with an argument you dislike or you don’t want or are not able to confront. These well known tactics in the world of magic try to distract the attention of the observer to something else unimportant, to present as true what is really a trick… of persuasion. You persist in your last post by accepting unconditionally the words coming from outsiders, a bishop from Korea and another from Brazil, while rejecting the ad limina report of Bishop Peric, the legitimate authority, as “blabbing about personal conversations” with the Pope. If I understand you correctly, I have to choose between incoherence in your argumentation — what are truthful and credible words from two bishops, outsiders, is simple blabbing from the one in charge of the diocese concerned with the events — or mean tactics to denigrate the legitimate authority.
We must take seriously the challenge to cope with the facts. This is what the members of the commissions have done since the beginning of the events of Medjugorje and this is what they will do for what seems to be the last round. To pretend that these members are a bunch of dishonestly chosen incompetent, unqualified and prejudiced persons does not at all confer seriousness and credibility to the accusers.
Much is at stake at the present hour : the legitimate Magisterium and it’s credibility on one side, the defamers with their discourse and agenda on the other side. Guess who will have lost the most after the verdict will be announced ! It would be wise to prepare oneself for that painful moment of truth.
God Bless !
Louis
MIR
MIR!
MIR!!
#200
MIR!!! Yea GOSPA!!!
Even ’til today:
http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=2&subclassID=56&articleID=2224&class=Comment&subclass=Opinion
Interesting observation: “This year, (25th anniversary of apparitions), the Vatican’s official travel agency for pilgrimages, Opera Romana Pelligrini, organized about 14 pilgrimages to Medjugorje by bus and 24 by plane!”
I think it is highly unlikely that B16 will back Ratko Peric. It should be common knowledge by now (but unfortunately isn’t) that the Bishop of Mostar is in the outer circle as regards Medjugorje and he is crusading from a dark corner. I have seen some detraction websites posting billboard headlines such as “Church condemns Medjugorje” followed up by Ratko Peric interviews and speeches. People are fooled, not unnderstanding the situation with the Bishops of Mostar. We have to wonder how a Bishop can rant and rave for his own cause instead of silently allowing the Vatican process to unfold.
It is also common knowledge that the Vatican dismissed Zanic’s findings and handed the matter over to the Yugoslav Bishops conference which, as a face saving gesture to Zanic, gave the now-famous Zadar Declaration which amounts to “Something is going on which we believe is supernatural, but unfortunately we cannot PROVE it just yet”.
My sources tell me that the Yugoslav Bishops Conference approached Zanic with their intention to approve the apparitions, but that he screamed and cried so much that they gave up this intention and hence the wishy-washy Zadar Declaration. The conference also tried to drag the investigation out over a long period, hoping the apparitions would cease. But they just kept on going. They had no choice but to declare something.
Yes, I do personally believe that B16 is a closet Medjugorje fanatic. And it’s not just a gut feeling. There is plenty of documentart evidence for this. His discussion with Cardinal Schoenborn are well documented, in which he expressed to B16 (then Card. Ratz) his concerns that if Medjugorje was closed then he would have to close his seminary at Vienna because the vast majority of seminarians in his Vienna cathedral because most of them received their calling through Medjugorje. To this, Card. Ratz replied “Closing Medjugorje is never a issue”. There are also trustworthy reports of discussions with Ratz. and JPII by various Bishops who expressed their concerns about Medjugorje not being approved because they either wanted to travel there or they wanted to undertake projects relating to Medjugorje. Ratz and JPII have both been reported to comment along the lines of “Don’t worry about Medjugorje, just look after the fruits”. JPII and Ratz, both LOVE LOVE LOVE the effect of Medjugorje on the Catholic Church in terms of the numbers of new vocations that it is generating.
My website discusses much more on these issues. If you have time, please visit http://www.marian-times.com.
Thank you
I also see several people showing URL’s from the likes of Unity Publishing. This entity is more dangerous than any false apparition because they are relying on rumour, inneundo and outright lies and are, to use a couple of rude words (sorry Lord), “pushing shit uphill”. I have written extensive refutations, most of them not even my own but which have been long-known, but little published because there is a cult of the “maverick crime-buster reporter” happening at the moment, with people getting their kicks trying to uncover mystery and intrigue. This is never a good thing.
Unity Publishing have outdated information on their site and I have told them about it time and time again, but they have outrightly refused to update it.
Regardless, back to my previous point, everything Unity Publishing objects to, I have refuted on my website http://www.marian-times.com.
Wow, reading some of the other posts just bears out how far misled people have become on Medjugorje, in what appears to be solely through the efforts of certain quarters of the media, i.e. the debunkers. It all started with Pavao Zanic unfortunately and then carried on by E Michael Jones who seemed to bathe in the warmth of the approval of Zanic and Peric, and then carried on by Unity Publishing etc, etc. It’s a big bunch of hoogama-hogwash.
Let me respond to ml….
[quoting ml]
They are going to go over the evidence and decide, for instance, whether the Virgin Mary would defend two priests who had been stripped of faculties with the approval of the Pope.
[unquote]
You apparently know so little about the events transpiring between the secular bishops and the Franciscans in the Herzegovina region since the 1800’s. They have been at each others throats for centuries. There is an article called “The Truth about the Herzegovinian Affair”. People should be required to read this before making ANY comments about secular bishops or Franciscans because it is VERY NASTY AND COMPLICATED!
[quoting ml]
In 1981, Fr. Ivica Vego and Fr. Ivan Prusina, Franciscan priests in Mostar who were causing a great deal of trouble for Bishop Zanic regarding the implementation of Romanis pontificibus, were stripped of their faculties, expelled from the Franciscan order, and suspended “a divinis” with the authorization of Pope John Paul II.
[/unquote]
You have evidently been reading Unity Publishing or one of his sources. You have been conned by slanted, out-of-context one-sided reporting which characterises these websites. Prusina and Vego were victims of the Bishop of Mostar and his unpopularity. The local parishioners didn’t want to be taken over by the seculars, especially in the manner in which the Bishop or Mostar wanted to take over. It was akin to a military operation. He wanted the Franciscans not only to hand over all their parishes (and through some slight of hand managed to con the vatican into ordering the handover), but he wanted them as far gone as possible, even refusing to allow some to temporarily take refuge in his parish. The local parishioners loved the Franciscans and didn’t want to receive the sacraments from the seculars. Prusina and Vego agreed to administer the sacraments to them in private, which they agreed to. Of course, once the Bishop of Mostar heard about this, all hell broke loose.
People, please get the facts. Please don’t be swayed by detractors. They are VERY CUNNING in how they will take things out of context. I have already commented on how unity publishing took a comment of Our Lady’s regarding the equality of religions to make it into something sacreligious. I don’t have time to go into it all here. If you have time, please read my articles on http://www.marian-times.com. It is as clear as day and you will quickly see how people have been fooled.
Many people find it hard to believe that the media would deliberately smear Medjugorje without good cause. Ha! The Wanderer has admitted that they told outright lies and kept an untruthful story alive for a long time with respect to Father Jozo Zovko. THE DEVIL IS SURELY AT WORK. PLEASE BE CAREFUL.
Read in : http://www.marian-times.com/articles/medjugorje/new-commission.cfm
” Apologies:
I realise that it is not my place to pass any type of judgement or even say anything against a member of the clergy. If I have offended God or borne any false witness against the Bishops of Mostar, I hearby apologise and humbly ask God’s forgiveness.
Paul Baylis, Marian-Times. “
And?????
The argument on this thread seems to be that Medjugorje could be a deception by Satan; it seems that most skeptics of the apparitions are at least acknowledging the fact that something supernatural is taking place, based on the profound medical tests done on the visionaries which show this.
Check out what Rome’s chief excorcist — Father Gabriel Amorth — had to say about Medjugorje when he went there in 2002. If anyone can identify Satan, it would be Fr. Amorth. (you have probably seen some of his books, like “An Excorcist Tells His Story” published by Ignatius Press).
Here is a link to an interview with him:
http://www.medjugorje.org/framorth1.htm
In short, Fr. Amorth makes the following comments in the interview:
– “Medjugorje is a fortress against Satan. Satan hates Medjugorje because it is a place of conversion, of prayer, of transformation of life.”
– “Medjugorje is really a place where one learns to pray, but also to sacrifice oneself, where people are converted and change their lives. The influence of Medjugorje is worldwide. It is enough to think about how many prayer groups came about thanks to the inspiration of Medjugorje. I also lead a prayer group, which was founded in 1984. This group is already 18 years old. We live one afternoon as it is lived in Medjugorje. There are always 700 or 750 people. We always meditate on Our Lady’s message of the 25th of the month and I always read this message in relation to a sentence from the Gospel, because Our Lady does not say anything new. She invites us to do what Jesus thought us to do. Groups like mine exist all over the world.”
– “First in Fatima and now here in Medjugorje, Our Lady speaks often about prayer and fasting. I think that this is very important, because contemporary men are following the spirit of consumerism.”
– “I always understood Medjugorje as a continuation of Fatima. According to Our Lady’s words in Fatima, if we had prayed and fasted, there would not have been World War II. We have not listened to her and therefore there was a war. Also here in Medjugorje, Our Lady often calls to prayer for peace. In her apparitions, Our Lady always presents herself under another name to show the goal of her apparitions. At Lourdes, she presented herself as the Immaculate Conception, in Fatima as the Queen of the Holy Rosary. Here in Medjugorje, Our Lady presented herself as the Queen of Peace. We all remember the words “Mir, mir, mir” (peace, peace, peace) that were written in the sky at the very beginning of the apparitions. We see clearly that humanity is running the risk of war, and Our Lady insists on prayer and on Christian life to attain peace.”
– “The “testament” of Mary, her last words written in the Gospel, are “Do whatever he tells you”. Here in Medjugorje, Our Lady insists again that the laws of the Gospel are respected. The Eucharist is at the centre of all Medjugorje groups, because Our Lady always leads to Jesus. This is her main concern: to make us live the words of Jesus. This is what I wish to everyone.”
So, who can be believed on the subject of Medjugorje if not the Vatican’s chief excorcist, who has been there many times himself?
DECLARATION OF CROATIAN CARDINAL DR. FRANJO KUHARIC ON MEDJUGORJE
“We bishops, after a three-year-long commission study accept Medjugorje as a holy place, as a shrine. This means that we have nothing against it if someone venerates the Mother of God in a manner also in agreement with the teaching and belief of the Church. . .Therefore, we are leaving that to further study. The Church does not hurry.”
THE WORDS OF FRANTISEK TOMASEK, CARDINAL OF PRAGUE
“I think that we here are indebted to the events of Medjugorje for this huge new springtime of our faith, that God has given us through Mary. Prayer and fasting, faith and conversion,and then the invitation to peace, this can only come from God. I have many people who have been on pilgrimmage to Medjugorje. They are full of hope, and willingness to testify and bear witness to their faith. I know many prayer groups who have shown me how they pray and fast, and this began in Medjugorje. The people are hungry and thirsty for the Word of God. And whenever people in whatever way set up obstacles, God always finds a way to seek out and gather His children together. I am deeply thankful to God for Medjugorje. And I think that it fits in very well to the seventieth anniversary of Our Lady’s apparitions in Fatima, in this Marian year. Putting it simply, I hear very much, but I am always desirous of hearing more about Medjugorje. Oh how I would love to go on pilgrimmage to Medjugorje, and drink of this new water. Many of my faithful would love to do likewise…”
First reading 1 Corinthians 1:26 – 31 ©
Take yourselves for instance, brothers, at the time when you were called: how many of you were wise in the ordinary sense of the word, how many were influential people, or came from noble families? No, it was to shame the wise that God chose what is foolish by human reckoning, and to shame what is strong that he chose what is weak by human reckoning; those whom the world thinks common and contemptible are the ones that God has chosen – those who are nothing at all to show up those who are everything.
1 Corinthians 4:2-5
Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
I thought you all might like to read this excellent commentary from Fr. Tomislav Pervan, who is quite clearly a deeply intellectual man.
Fr Tomislav Pervan speaks on Medjugorje
In Remembrance of the 25th Anniversary
of the Events in Medjugorje
by Dr. Tomislav Pervan, OFM
For the past twenty-five years, Medjugorje has been an actuality on the world scene. Today, it has its zealous advocates; however, it also has its fierce opponents. Opposing front lines in the battle are not likely to sue for peace any time soon. Advocates are tireless in their visits to Medjugorje all the while believing the authentic voice of Heaven is the starting point, namely, the appearance of the Gospa—Our Lady. Meanwhile, the opponents are fierce in their opposition and seek out elements of contention surrounding the entire set of events.
In the meantime, the ever-increasing daily flow of pilgrims to this place does not allow us to be indifferent. Facts and numbers speak for themselves. The number of pilgrims is ever increasing. They come from all corners of the earth, are of all colours of skin, and from all nations and nationalities. While other places of pilgrimage mark a decrease in pilgrims and pilgrimages despite being advertised widely, the number of pilgrims and faithful of all languages and locales constantly increases. As a phenomenon, Medjugorje does not have an active propaganda machine: individuals spread its fame by word-of-mouth, witness, and personal experience.
On the one hand, the priests who work in Medjugorje feel they are over-burdened in their daily work and that they are stretched to their physical limits. They are faced with innumerable calls for personal counseling, endless confessions, and constant evangelization. On the other hand, they are also faced with the suspicion that they are teetering at the edge of heterodoxy. The constant criticism is hurled at them that they are fostering something that is contrary to the Church, namely, the non-existent apparitions and the like. We, on the other hand, cannot fail to speak, fail to give witness about that which we have heard or seen, or that which we experience daily by way of our senses. (Cf. Acts 4:20) Hence, we invite all to come and see. So many bishops and priests had their doubts; however, after many hours of hearing confessions, they changed their minds and the doubts vanished.
The voice of conscience forces upon us the obligation to be of assistance to those who are in misery and who come here. We wish to be in harmony with the Church to the very end, and not to sin against the Church’s teachings or practice. Meanwhile, the accusations and reproaches hurt. Quite frequently, questions are raised that ask: What need did we have of all of this? Were we not able to be as every other parish, that is, carry out the well-entrenched pastoral patterns within the usual norms of the Church and Gospels? Who was it that cooked this stew, such that, to this very day, the river of pilgrims has not dried up, but, to the contrary, continues to grow greater and more dynamic?
For this reason, and as a friend and participant of these events from their beginnings in 1981, I give consideration to what must be done to change the present situations to escape the entrenched position of persistent denial, constant disputation, or, in fact, indifference and silence on the part of the Church’s media all of this while the flow of thousands of pilgrims to this place continues. It is obvious that all the denials, disputations, and silence find no acceptance on the part of the faithful. Meanwhile, Church circles continue to be deaf, and the prohibition against this activity on the part the faithful persists on the part of the media.
It is the inner voice of conscience and the experience of faith that motivate the faithful. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit Himself is the initiator of all these events. I am further convinced that, after twenty-five years have passed, the principle of the locus theologicus (the theological position), according to the notion of the sensus fidelium (understanding on the part of the faithful) and the consensus fidelium (unanimity of the faithful), applies as offered for acceptance by the documents of Vatican II and post-Vatican II, and by statements of Popes following the Council. Things we read about in the Acts of the Apostles are happening here. I am convinced that the Church is being gathered in this place from the four winds and every corner of the earth into the one Kingdom as what took place in Jerusalem at Pentecost. In this place, we find mirrored the universal—“Catholic” Church in miniature.
It is in this sense that I believe the instruction of the Congregation for the Faith entitled, The Criteria for Judging and Differentiating Revelations and Apparitions, dated the 27th of February, 1978, and signed by the then Prefect, Cardinal Franjo Seper, should serve as the vade mecum (that is, the constant companion, the manual) when considering, passing judgment upon, and making decisions about Medjugorje and the Medjugorje phenomenon. The text has lost nothing of its immediacy and value to this very day. It can be fully applied to the events of Medjugorje with all its implications. It can examine the events of Medjugorje from the positive or negative side with all the arguments presented pro and con.
The Congregation for the Faith in its instructions reduces to three levels, or degrees, the norms that relate to reactions to alleged apparitions.
The seers must be examined to determine if, perhaps, it is a question of self-styled visions. Then, all the messages must be gathered and examined and viewed from the point of view of the degree of education of the seers. The mental and physical state of the seers must be examined thoroughly, as well as their moral integrity. All that is explainable from the purely human point of view must be taken into consideration; however, by the same token, all that cannot be explained in purely human terms and with the aid of the most contemporary psychological or physical sciences, and which, in the end, has no cause within human power, must also be taken into consideration.
Following the first phase, if the matter has not died on its own, has not come to a halt or fallen into oblivion, the principle ad experimentum (for the purpose of experiment) comes into play. At the same time, of course, it must be emphasized that the employment of this principle in no way suggests or recognizes the authenticity of the alleged apparitions. It simply channels events to proper and healthy Church routine: practices regarding prayer, devotions, the sacraments, constant spiritual growth and holiness.
When an appropriate period of the ad experimentum phase has elapsed, and in the light of experiences, especially after a close examination of the spiritual fruits occasioned by the alleged apparitions, and of the devotional practices surrounding them, a competent judgment of the events must be given if circumstances demand it.
As regards the first point, everything can be reduced to a simple conclusion: To the present day, in the entire history of the Church, no Marian apparitions were so intensively and extensively investigated (from 1984-2005) on the part of numerous and independent qualified, international experts in the fields of medicine and psychology, or whose investigations and their results were found to correspond to and compliment each other. All of the experts concluded that the subjects investigated were found to be spiritually, psychologically, and physically healthy individuals. They were found not to be hallucinating, subject to confabulation, (auto) suggestion, hysteria, hypnotic or other loss of consciousness, deceit, suggestion or exterior inducement of any sort. Hence, it is irresponsible to publicly proclaim them to be liars or inventors of false visions and messages.
Many experts from the fields of medicine, psychology, and parapsychology have occupied themselves with the Medjugorje seers. They failed to uncover any sort of pathological deviation from the norm in their lives. The scientific experts are capable of reaching the full limit of their tests. However, once they have arrived at that limit, their ability to explain ceases. They are able to discern what does or does not pertain to medicine and pathology and what must be excluded from a medico-psychological perspective. The experts have done so and have left behind a record of their findings. Because of that, and because of intellectual honesty, we, who have regard for the truth, must take their investigations and judgments as to the phenomena of Medjugorje into serious account.
The convergent proofs in favour of the authenticity of the Medjugorje phenomenon are perceptible when one takes into consideration the theological, sociological and scientific experiments carried out upon the seers by French, Italian, and Austrian teams of experts from 1984 through 2005. According to the theologian and Mariologist, R. Laurentin, who has published works of capital value (17 books) on Lourdes, and has thoroughly investigated the apparitions in Medjugorje, the latter give evidence of being more powerful as regards the proof of their authenticity than those in Lourdes, to which the Church gave its formal approval.
According to the teaching of St. Ignatius on discernment of spirits, the causes of those or similar manifestations can be determined to be purely human, divine, or demonic. Effects must always be judged by their cause. In all that took place in Medjugorje, one must ask what the cause was, or where the causal beginnings had their roots. If we take into consideration the first days of the events that took place in Bijakovici in June and July of 1981, the experts who thoroughly examined the seers concluded that the seers had some sort of fundamental and key experience, some initial encounter that put them into the center of something that they could not begin to imagine or foresee, something against their will or inclinations, something they were scarcely able to predict.
Science as such can neither confirm nor deny whether the Gospa is, or is not, appearing, (just as it would not have been able to utilize scientific instruments to register the resurrection of Christ were they to have been present alongside the Roman guards at the tomb of Jesus). All that science can say after twenty-five years is that the seers are physically and psychologically healthy, and that the seers had a deep-seated and far-reaching experience which continues to affect them to this very day, one that it is impossible to deduce from their biographies. All of that is, for the visionaries, a holy treasure. For that reason one must exclude a purely human cause, and, by the same token, one that is demonic, inasmuch as the Devil is unable to yield good fruit that is constant and so long lasting.
Since twenty-five years have elapsed, a review sine ira et studio (without rancor and [with] diligent attention) would be expedient, both in the local Church and the Church at large, as to the fruits which have been given and continue to be given through Mary’s apparitions beyond all ideological suppositions and prejudices. When observed from the purely statistical point of view as a whole, close to some fifty thousand priest have passed through Medjugorje, hundreds of bishops, cardinals, and millions upon millions of the faithful. The Una Sancta et Catholica (the One Holy and Catholic [Church]) in miniature comes to pass here every day. Were there something to be found heretical, schismatic, or contrary to Church teaching, the Church would be obliged to undertake measures against such abuse. That has not resulted up to the present. Therefore, a fifteen-year ad experimentum period since the Zadar Pronouncement in 1991 is a sufficient amount of time so as to allow to conclude that no straying from official Church teaching and practice is taking place in Medjugorje. The Liturgy and devotions celebrated there are fully Christological, Marian, Eucharistic, sacramental, and in full harmony with Church regulations.
It cannot be asserted that the particular fruits of Medjugorje are those of intensive prayer and administration of the sacraments. To do so would be to create a circulus vitiosus (vicious circle): there are other places in the world where prayer and the sacraments are a fixed practice; however, what is lacking there are the efficacious effects that we note as attributable to Medjugorje. It is clear that prayer and the sacraments bear copious fruits for the entire Church throughout the world; however, from where and why do so many people come precisely to Medjugorje? Why do they come to this remote place where they have a concrete experience of God and grace, are converted, learn to pray, and subsequently carry the fruits of Medjugorje to their homes, give witness to what they have experienced, and become missionaries? It simply is not possible to separate the assertions of the seers regarding the apparitions from the fruits of the apparitions which we see in the Church.
The consensus fidei et fidelium can be seen by the fact that all levels of God’s people, all classes in society and the Church, all peoples, and all races are represented in Medjugorje, and by the fact that Church life is sustained by all of this in the form of witness, divine worship, sincere service, charity, (martyria, liturgia, et diakonia), and, by the fact that all grow in holiness. Medjugorje is a world-wide phenomenon. Its fruits can be seen in all parts of the world. In essence, Medjugorje is a laymen’s movement, a movement of faithful laymen, laden with spirituality, devotion, and sincerity toward the Lord and our Lady. The seers themselves are ordinary lay people and, as such, are able more readily to touch the hearts of plain folks who easily identify with them.
Medjugorje is a peace and pilgrimage movement inasmuch as people come here for the sake of inner peace. It is also a renewal movement within the Church—Ecclesia semper reformanda (the Church ever to be renewed), as well as a humanitarian movement, inasmuch as it has accomplished tremendous charitable and Samaritan works throughout the world (a point made by the present Pope in his encyclical on the God of Love). Lumen Gentium (The Vatican II Document: Light of the Nations) clearly states: “Be they most illustrious, be they simple and more widespread, Charisms are useful and are especially suited to the needs of the Church and must be received with gratitude and consolidation.” (LG 12:2) Meanwhile, Apostolicam Actuositatem (Apostolic Activity) states even more explicitly: “The receipt of Charisms, even those that are humble, give rise to the right and duty for each of the faithful to make use of them in the Church and in the world and for the good of mankind and the growth of the Church in the freedom of the Holy Ghost.” (AA 3:3).
After the past quarter of a century, it can be asserted that Medjugorje is about a prophetic Charism—a prophetic revelation that calls for repentance. These Charisms are able to be found in all similar phenomena within the Church. Prophetic revelations and apparitions are about an imperative under the impetus of the Holy Spirit as to how one is to behave here and now, and what it is that the People of God must do in a specific situation. Accordingly, the Church must not relate to such phenomena indifferently. She is duty-bound to investigate such an imperative with openness and, congruently, to act if she recognizes the Will of God in the said phenomenon. It is obvious that the Ecclesia orans (the praying Church) has recognized God’s Will and Mary’s presence in this instance, of which our dearly departed Pope spoke in his homily in Zadar (!) three years prior, on the feast of Mary, the Mother of the Church (Pentecost Monday, 2003). On that occasion, the Pope specifically mentioned the above cited sensus fidei fidelium (the understanding of faith of the faithful).
If, as is the case with ordinary beatifications and canonizations, the process begins with the local Church, and, after an appropriate interval of time, investigation, and conclusions based on the materials offered in favor of beatification or canonization, the matter is transferred to Rome, I think that would be appropriate in this case. After all has been investigated at the local level, the entire case of the Medjugorje phenomenon should be transferred to the appropriate Roman dicastery, especially in light of the fact that it has outgrown the local Church’s boundaries and has become widespread so as to encompass the entire Church. The countless prayer groups throughout the entire world have come into existence because of the events in Medjugorje. They carry the mark of authenticity and veracity. The entire phenomenon is caught-up in the very being of the Church and, as such, carries more weight than does a beatification of one of God’s chosen ones. If, as is the case for beatification, the People of God are asked their approval, why shouldn’t we do so in this case as well, especially in light of Mary’s efficacious presence in specific places (John Paul II, in Zadar!), and in light of the personal experiences and miracles that individuals experienced precisely here in Medjugorje?
Throughout the entire history of Salvation, God has established communication with his creatures through apparitions. This form of communication is especially suitable for man’s physico-spiritual structure: it immerses man’s senses, especially his sight and hearing. The Medjugorje phenomenon can be explained in this manner or that manner; however, intellectual honesty demands that the entire affair engage us in light of revelation, mysticism, supernatural experiences and so many other similar experiences in other cases, and, for that matter, in other faiths.
If God has truly spoken throughout history, why should we be exempted from such a manner of communication wherein the Holy Ghost makes use of apparitions for the sake of the many needs of the contemporary world? The greater the misery in the world, so much the greater is the need for God’s voice and communication. Hence, we might well conclude as did Paul: Do not extinguish the spirit. Do not disdain prophetic communications. Investigate all and hold on to what is good! (1 Thess. 5:19-21).
Medjugorje, July 13, 2006
Fr Tomislav Pervan OFM
Former Pastor of Medjugorje (1982-1988) Former Provincial of the Franciscans (OFM) in Hercegovina (1994-2001)
GlobalCatholic,
Could you please give us the link to this excellent summation by Fr. Pervan. Thanks and God bless.
http://www.crownofstars.blogspot.com
This is the link to Fr. Tomislav’s article.
http://www.medjugorje-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1292
I learned about it at the above link.
Thanks Global. I’ve always like that site but hadn’t checked back there recently.
A bit more on that commission:
http://cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46307
New Church commission to study Medjugorje
Sep. 06 (CWNews.com) – Church leaders in Bosnia-Herzegovina plan to assemble a commission to study the effects of pilgrimages to Medjugorje.
Msgr. Mato Zovkic, the vicar general of the Sarajevo archdiocese, confirmed the plans for a study commission during a September 5 conversation with the I Media news service in Rome. He said that the bishops’ plans had been discussed this summer with Archbishop Alessandro D’Errico, the apostolic nuncio in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
A 1972 Vatican document sets out the procedures to be followed in investigating the authenticity of extraordinary claims, such as the reported appearances of the Virgin Mary at Medjurorje. The document calls for examination of three questions. First, Church officials are called to assess the phenomena themselves, and the people who report them, looking for evidence of authenticity. Next they are to study any message that is associated with the extraordinary reports, to ascertain whether that message conforms to orthodox Church teaching.
Msgr. Zovkic said that Church leaders are now tackling the third question raised by the document, appraising the pastoral implications of the phenomena, by studying the “fruits” of the reported apparitions. He explained that the study commission will attempt to answer several related question: What are the experiences of pilgrims who visit Medjugorje? What motivates some people to make repeated visits there? What effect does their pilgrimage have upon the way they live after they return home? These questions contribute to the overall appraisal of the reported apparitions.
In 1991, a commission set up by the bishops of what was then Yugoslavia reached the conclusion that there was no clear evidence of extraordinary events at Medjugorje, saying that the study “could not confirm the supernatural character” of the alleged Marian apparitions. The commission recommended a follow-up study to determine whether or not the pilgrimages to Medjugorje were promoting a firm adherence to the norms of Church teaching and liturgical discipline.
However, the plans for that second study were disrupted by the outbreak of civil war in Yugoslavia. After years of bloodshed the country disintegrated and the newly independent state of Bosnia-Herzegovina emerged. Now that peace has been restored, and pilgrimages to Medjugorje continue, the Holy See encouraged the formation of a pastoral commission to continue the study, Msgr. Zovkic reported. The commission is to be established under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, Bishop Ratko Peric, in conjunction with the nation’s episcopal conference.
The steady influx of pilgrims to Medjugorje is “a phenomenon that must be taken seriously,” Msgr. Zovkic said. The faithful who come to Medjugorje to receive the sacraments deserve proper pastoral attention from the local priests and bishops, and the many reports from pilgrims who experienced a spiritual renewal there should be taken into account, he said.
The composition of the new investigating commission has not yet been settled, Msgr. Zovkic reported. He predicted that it might take several months to choose the members of the panel, including experts in liturgy, Mariology, and theology. In all likelihood, he said, the commission would include members from the different regions of the former Yugoslavia as well as others appointed by the Holy See. In July, Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo said that the bishops of Bosnia-Herzegovina were waiting for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to recommend theologians for the panel. That Congregation has not offered any public comment on the planned inquiry, although sources there acknowledge that a new study is underway.
The Church is not likely to make any final conclusion on the authenticity of the reported Marian apparitions at Medjugorje, Msgr. Zovkic said, until the “seers” report that those apparitions have ended. To date the seers have continued to say that the Virgin Mary appears to them daily, 25 years after the first such reports.
Millions of pilgrims have traveled to Medjugorje, a village in western Herzegovina, since the first reports of apparitions on June 24, 1981. Two commissions established by Church authorities– one at the diocesan level in 1982, and another by the Yugoslavian bishops’ conference– have cast doubts on the authenticity of the reported apparitions. Nevertheless, Msgr. Zovkic emphasizes, the Church wishes to preserve whatever spiritual fruits the pilgrimages have brought forth.
To me, this article seems to present promising news. I wanted to outline why I believe this…
It says that the new commission will “study the effects of pilgrimages to Medjugorje.”
It goes on to state that there are three main points that are investigated with claims like Medjugorje:
1) Evidence of authenticity
2) Messages conforming to Church teaching
3) Evidence of good fruits
The article seems to state that the Church is satisfied that Medjugorje meets the first two requirements, but that “Church leaders are now tackling the third question raised by the document, appraising the pastoral implications of the phenomena, by studying the “fruits” of the reported apparitions.”
This is good news, because the fruits of Medjugorje are global!
The article reports that several questions related to the fruits will be asked:
1) What are the experiences of pilgrims who visit Medjugorje?
2) What motivates some people to make repeated visits there?
3) What effect does their pilgrimage have upon the way they live after they return home?
Well, tell that commission to look right here at the Medjugorje Forum to find answers to these questions. In fact, perhaps we should discuss these questions and answer them for ourselves.
Reading further, the article states “the Holy See encouraged the formation of a pastoral commission to continue the study, Msgr. Zovkic reported.”
This is more excellent news, because it means that the Pope — not the Bishop of Mostar — asked for this new commission to be formed.
It does say that the jurisdiction of the commission will be under Bishop Ratko, but that is to be expected. The main point is that the Holy Father is the one who asked for this to happen.
This paragraph stood out as quite positive:
The steady influx of pilgrims to Medjugorje is “a phenomenon that must be taken seriously,” Msgr. Zovkic said. The faithful who come to Medjugorje to receive the sacraments deserve proper pastoral attention from the local priests and bishops, and the many reports from pilgrims who experienced a spiritual renewal there should be taken into account, he said.
The articles reports that the commission would likely “include members from the different regions of the former Yugoslavia as well as others appointed by the Holy See.”
And some more good news… it is widely speculated that “The Church is not likely to make any final conclusion on the authenticity of the reported Marian apparitions at Medjugorje, Msgr. Zovkic said, until the “seers” report that those apparitions have ended.”
As one Bishop who believed in the apparitions said, “The Church does not hurry.” We should be thankful for that.
The article ends with an excellent point: “…the Church wishes to preserve whatever spiritual fruits the pilgrimages have brought forth.”
God bless!
How close to those pyrimids is medjugorje and where is the missing grandmother? Id stay as far away from that place as I could,. Ill stay right at my Catholic church or go to a trappist monastery
Quote by anonymous: “The argument on this thread seems to be that Medjugorje could be a deception by Satan; it seems that most skeptics of the apparitions are at least acknowledging the fact that something supernatural is taking place, based on the profound medical tests done on the visionaries which show this.”
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Something is happening at Medjugprje and the only thing detractors genuinely have to cling to is that that Medjugorje is satanic. But, this patently cannot be so. A glimpse of the sort of message Satan can’t help himself delivering was showcased in a much-documented event, where one of the visionaries was met my Satan instead of the BVM (The BVM allowed him to stay a short while before pushing him aside saying to the visionary “I did this so you could see that satan is very real”). While Satan had his moment with the visionary, he said to her “Renounce all this and I will make you happy in love and in life”. This is Satan’s standard message over and over. He tried it on with Jesus in the desert. He can’t help himself. He is all about the glamour of the world and the glamour of evil. Yes, he can be tricky, but I’m sure there is a limit allowed by God as to how tricky Satan can be, bearing in mind how simple most believers are.
Id stay as far away from that place as I could,. Ill stay right at my Catholic church or go to a trappist monastery
Trouble is, Josephine, Trappist monks visit as yet unapproved apparition sites too! Have done so in KY and GA and were involved in investigations of Little Audrey Santo who was taken to Medjugorje. And I’d be certain that there are some Medj. devotees in your own parish. So your hopes for complete isolation from such a worldwide popular site appear to be pretty dim! And I doubt if your absence will even be noticed by the now millions of pilgrims (including bishops, priests and cardinals – the best, btw) enjoying the many good fruits. They’re too busy passing them on to notice! But I’m sure OLOM is missing you.
Peace to my Brothers and Sisters in Chirst JesusI must tell you about myself as I only boastin Jesus Christ and our Most Blessed Trinity OUR BLESSED VIRGIN MARY has her mantle upon me at all times I am a hermit a contemplative, I pray The Rosaray, the Divine Mercy and what I call my Praise Beads which Jesus gave me I had a string of pearls I was going to get rid of and he said count them there was 150 pearls on it. I started to say a praise to on each of them and he gently kissed me on the forehead. Ihave a picture of OUR BLESSED THEOTOKOS OUR LADY of Valldimir as you can see I cant spell good so please excuse that.ON JUne the 2nd or 5th The seers Said Our Lady seemed to be concerned about something. Bingo thats when Jesus said I could pray to his true mother for all souls connected with that place i started 3 days before that apparation. THere has been noyhing but wars ect. Since this whole thing happened, What does Islam mean Peace ,surrender submit, Medjugorie Peace surrender to me submit to me and the profets from the fasle phrofets. Is staggering abomb maybe to the Vatican to the u.s. any where and I know some of you are saying Our Blessed Father might be a false Pope and If He is agaist Med. You will surley say it. Everyone of us should Pray for him. I chose THE SOWWERFUL HEART of MARY, Jesus wants to know way do you keep making her cry. GOD BLESS tjosephine PS. Ive been to a Trappist Monastery in GA. This is where Our Lord Jesus Christ started to show me so much, I was allowed to spend all of Holy Week there and Most of Divine Mercy this last april PAX
I am sorry to say that Diane K, you are a seriously sucked in by the anti-medjugorje hype. E Michael Jones should be called “Sideshow Bob” because he’s trawled the deep blue ocean for possible connections from Medjugorje to everything from Nazism to Muslim ethnic cleansing. You will notice that he and other like him spend very little time on what matters – i.e. whether the apparitions being experienced by the visionaries are genuine. In his writings, you will find hardly ANYTHING on the several scientific investigation performed by competent teams. He is the King of out-of-context reporting. He is, in fact, more a fiction novellist than a serious investigator. How many people have read his book “Ghosts of Surmanci” where he goes to great lengths to portray the visions as the result of repressed mass guilt. It’s quite laughable. He will try to lead his readers all over the countryside away from the bare facts – 1) Scientific teams cannot prove hoax, 2) It is less likely to be demonic than truly of God.
EWTN Answers, FAQ
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/medjugorje.htm
UDayton’s Mary Page, FAQ
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//questions/faq/faq27.html
The focus of Medjugorje seems to be on Medjugorje and not being a faithful Catholic. It’s a sideshow. Pay attention to the Church and think with Her. Don’t believe in something that might be a sham for crying our loud. Divine revelation ended with death of Saint John on Patmos. Orivate revelation cannot be given nearly the same weight and it is NOT ESSENTIAL FOR OUR ETERNAL SALVATION. The Blessed Virgin Mary would obey whatever Holy Mother Church says. We should do the same.
The focus of Medjugorje seems to be on Medjugorje and not being a faithful Catholic. It’s a sideshow. Pay attention to the Church and think with Her. Don’t believe in something that might be a sham for crying our loud. Divine revelation ended with death of Saint John on Patmos. Orivate revelation cannot be given nearly the same weight and it is NOT ESSENTIAL FOR OUR ETERNAL SALVATION. The Blessed Virgin Mary would obey whatever Holy Mother Church says. We should do the same.
Many knowledges I have found here I would come back http://straponcrush3.isuisse.com/
If you haven’t gone to Medjugorje then you haven’t a clue about what is really going on there. Case in point, Confession, Adoration of the Eucharist and Holy Mass are the high points of any pilgrimage there. That’s what the Blessed Mother is asking of us.
Sam Carpenter,
Many people who have been there don’t seem to have a clue about what is really going on there. Case in point.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I wouldn’t base any conclusions on what Bishop Peric said. He’s been known to twist things. I’m still tending to believe some of the more positive quotes from B16, such as “Closing Medjugorje is never an option” as quoted by Cardinal Shoenborn. Also, it is well known that JPII supported Medjugorje. And B16 is pushing through his sainthood case. So, I’m tending to think B16 wouldn’t want to deliver a slap in the face to someone he’s about to beatify.
Pope Urban Vlll defines the position regarding private revelations: “In cases like this (apparitions), it is better to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all the blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true.”
As for any so-called “disobedience” of visionaries, the best way to describe the position of the visionaries is possibly by quoting the apostles after they had also experienced the calling of the Holy Spirit and went out into the temple to preach. “It is impossible for us to refrain from speaking of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).
Zanic and Peric? Well, from my understanding, they were communist-ratified Bishops as must be the case in communist countries. I also understand that Bishop Zanic changed his tune, from support to condemnation, coincidentally after being called in by the communist secret police and ordered to stop the pilgrimages. Conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But, for some reason, I just don’t trust the bishops of Mostar. But then, I have read the “HISTORY OF THE HERZEGOVINIAN AFFAIR”, which doesn’t paint a rosy picture of secular bishopry in this region. It makes one bleed for the Franciscans for the suffering and injustices they endured.
Very interesting article…
Pope Benedict XVI to Issue a “Vademecum” on Apparitions
Excerpt:
I know this is just an article, nothing has been confirmed but still very interesting.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J