>>Real cheerleaders or images of cheerleaders that appeared to you?
>>>Pardon me, Sir. I was under the impression that personal attacks were not allowed here
Posted on 07/27/2009 7:24:15 AM PDT by DTA
Is it considered offensive? Or just inaccurate?
I have no dog in this fight but I’m curious. Is the case against the authenticity of these sightings circumstantial or did investigators go there and look and not see her?
“Real cheerleaders or
images of cheerleaders
that appeared to you?”
Pardon me, Sir. I was under the impression that personal attacks were not allowed here.
“NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.”
I will pray to the Blessed Virgin for your soul which is in peril. After a billion years of torture you will have a different song to sing, won’t you? And that will be just the beginning.
Why can’t Bible believing conservatives like you see beyond the physical?
Welcome to FReerepublic!
It looks like Fr. Vlasic is being removed from the cure of souls for his 'spiritual marriage' with a self-described German mystic. He hasn't had anything to do with the Medjugorje visionaries for about 20 years.
But one thing still baffles me. How could the Daily Mail get this story so wrong?
Dear Servant of the Cross,
Please accept my apologies for talking so much here. It’s just that I get so upset when people think they can... I just can’t say it... make fun of Mary.
I am new here. I love Mary. I swear on my Mother’s grave, I love Mary.
Could you men try not to hurt my feelings. I am a conservative and I am on your side. There is no reason for you to try and hurt my feelings even though I am ugly. You can’t see me. Why do you care?
Oh, I wish there was a young man who loved me. Of course I do. Perhaps I’ll take a job teaching in High School. I have two Bachelor’s Degrees in History and Social Sciences.
Please don’t be mean to me. I am new.
“Father Vlasic was named as the ‘creator’ of the phenomenon by Pavao Zanic...”
Perhaps he was pickled at the time.
Check out the comments after the original article. What a parade of ignorance.
All of the major apparitions of Mary (like those at Lourdes, Fatima, Lasallette, and Tepeyac/Mexico City) have been to lay people, not priests and certainly not popes. Anyone who knew even the tiniest smidgeon of the history, (as I said to Kathy of San Mateo), would know that.
Secondly, if the Church were fraudulent, it would not invite scientific investigation of its most famous relics, e.g. the shroud of Turin, the tilma of Guadalupe, the “Ubi est Petrus” remains at Rome, etc.
In 1947, the Vatican established the International Medical Commission to investigate claims of miraculous cures. Since its foundation, the Commission has examined 1300 files and presented 29 to the church, which recognised only 19 as miracles.
The Church is not credulous; one could say the Church is “professionally skeptical” of claims, because throughout the ages it has had to investigate tons of them, only to find that so many (98%) were dubious or unproveable.
I applaud the respect for reason I find in Catholicism.
Oh hell, FIRMbss,
I was just putting you on and you turned out to be a decent guy.
You know, I have a lot of relatives who are conservatives. They can’t defend their arguments. It’s a big Fail when they find push comes to shove, but you know what? They are decent people just like you.
I guess this is my end here, but I wanted to say how much I admire you. And, damn it, that High School joke of mine was funny.
Best wishes to you and yours, Sir.
Long may you run.
Wes
I think I'll hold off judgment until I read it in a more "Catholic" news source than the Daily Mail, first of all.
Secondly, I think I'd hold off judgment until after I consider the personal issues that Vladic had. It appears, all editorializing aside, that this is the reason for the laicization.
Third, I'd keep in mind the Madjugorje is not officially sanctioned by the Vatican...to this day...and is actively opposed by the local bishop. While that is not a guarantee of truth (after all, look at the reaction to Padre Pio during much of his life), it should still give all of us pause to use some serious discernment when considering what comes out from that location.
I scrolled up and down, looking for it.
Then I realized: Oh. It’s not there.
Thankyou, Mark. I’m grateful for the response, which makes an eminent amount of sense. As usual.
I hate to butt in... but I thought the Pope had “no authority” to intervene on anything!... That was why (implied) he (and his court in Rome) were not able to intervene on they children’s abuses here in the U.S.
Perfect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.