I am afraid that you did not read my post carefully.
1. The purported apparition in Necedah, Wisconsin was condemned, NOT approved, and it didn’t take ten years. Steps were taken against it after two years, and outright condemnation after six. The one in Nicaragua was approved almost immediately.
2. I stated in the part that you quoted that one can believe in a message, provided that it does not contradict church teaching; but no, propagation is a different matter.
3. The Vatican’s review of Medjugorje does not pre-empt the bishop of Mostar’s authority in this matter. Bishop Zanic, known for his orthodoxy, had condemned the purported apparitions (the problems with Med. is well documented by both E.Michael Jones and Michael Davies) and the promoters of it were disobediently promoting it even after this. Multiple commissions at both the local level, and at the Vatican also ruled that there was nothing supernatural taking place there.)
4. Historically, true apparitions did NOT have such promotion. Juan Diego went to the priests and bishops. The Fatima children were not telling people to come. Also, the ones that have been approved historically are the ones that don’t go on forever (meaning the investigation cannot be closed). Fatima took place over a few months, Nicaragua was a total of five.
5. “The Holy Father will have much to suffer.” (Fatima) Maybe part of his suffering will come from falsehoods condemning his even before his ascension to the papacy.
Promoting these sorts of anonymous, unapproved purported messages because you believe in them invites rebuttals from those who do not. I had not heard of it before tonight, but it reminds me a lot more of the phonies peddled in Necedah and Bayside than the beautiful truths and careful warnings given at Fatima and Lourdes.
Catholics may even have a duty to point out the problems with such things when aired in a public forum such as FR.
I take no pleasure in this, but I have seen the wrong kind of interest in apparitions, especially the unapproved ones, cause real problems.
I don’t doubt that you have a deep devotion to Out Lord and His Mother. I would urge you to read up on the approved apparitions like Akita and “Our Lady of Nicaragua”, and let the approvals come when they come, if they come.
Dr Sivana you are acting as a source of misinformation(as is Richard Salbato of UnityPublishing and many others who prefer to be sloppy with their language).
Medjugorje has not been ‘Condemned’ as you might be fond of saying. A condemnation would align with finding #2 below, Medjugorje has been given #3 by the Bishop of Medjugorje which is a rather tenative finding, open to further proof in either direction.
Types of Decisions.
The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
1. Constat de supernaturalitate. An apparition judged supernatural (formerly called worthy of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good fruits among the faithful.
The issue of supernaturality is one that deserves to be explored more fully. According to the common teaching of the Church, most extraordinary phenomena in the mystical order (visions, apparitions, locutions, ecstasies, mystical knowledge etc.) are caused by angels acting on God’s behalf. Whether the burning bush which Moses saw, the ecstatic flights of St. Joseph Cupertino, the stigmata of St. Francis or the revelations of St. Catherine, the general rule in the spiritual order is that God does not do immediately and directly what can be done mediately through a lower order nature, in this case the good angels. The presence of such phenomenon is not, therefore, unequivocal evidence of supernaturality. Each of the approved apparitions have had such clear signs, from the instantaneous and inexplicable cures at Lourdes to the natural prodigy of October 13th 1917 in Fátima, but also the other marks of authenticity mentioned above.
2. Constat de non supernaturalitate. The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.
3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.
Hi, your numbered list,
I don’t know everything and neither do you. That’s the point of prophecy. God is explicit, to help people in a certain period of time.
1. I am sorry, I was thinking of another apparition, not Necedah. This one has the bishop’s recent approval, it is Our Lady of Good Help in Champion, Wisconsin (once Robinsonville). I don’t know a thing about Necdah only that it is condemned. I should find out the time period between the first apparition and the approval of Our Lady of Good Help.
2. Please explain further “propagation” being a different matter?
3. The Vatican took over Medjugorje, it isn’t decided yet no
matter your opinion. They are investigating it right now. I was negative about Medjugorje but I have changed after reading of some of the miracles.
4. Medjugorje is commercial but you still have to look at the conversions, confessions, return to the faith and the miracles there. People did not have the almost instant info on an apparition or the means to go to a place of apparition like they do today. I am going back to does a “yet to be approved” message from Heaven go against the Church? A person can discern this with prayer, Jesus tells you to Dr Sivana.
5. Are you talking about the next Holy Father? If he turns
out to be a holy man, Maria of Divine Mercy’s messages will
be false.
I didn’t promote any condemned apparitions. You brought them up. FR is a discussion forum where people talk about events, with a Religion section. The faith should be talked about, prophecy included.
We disagree, you don’t care for yet to be approved private revelation and I do. Akita happened a long time ago, Heaven hasn’t been silent since then.