Posted on 07/07/2006 6:57:38 AM PDT by NYer
For example, his statements concerning non constat supernaturalitis and constat non supernaturalitis are at best partly right, and his statements that the Bishop of Mostar's ability to rule on authenticity was removed by Rome is false. The paper - probably written a while ago - is incomplete. And it is incomplete in an obvious attempt to explain away all the negative judgments of the Church concerning Medjugorje which undoubtedly occurred in "future articles (or whatever)" mentioned at the end.
Significantly, however, the Church has done nothing to dissuade Catholics from going to Medugorje. It simply insists that its name not be used in an official capacity and requests that they be cared for pastorally.
Regarding the issue between the local bishop and the Franciscans, there is indeed a serious issue there. I don't see that this impinges on the validity of the apparition, one way or the other. On the one hand one could say that Satan loves to stir up trouble around sites of authentic apparitions as he has done in the past. On the other hand, one could say that that this shows that the Franciscans have a motive for some hanky panky and are simply orchestrating a fraud.
It should be noted that the Holy See - contrary to what some have tried to deduce - has always supported the conclusions of the local Bishops and reference their statements as the official position of the Church.
It has never contradicted the local bishops publicly. That's as far as it goes.
The Holy See is not investigating Medjugorje currently, nor is the local Bishop of Mostar, because they see no need to investigate further. What is the official position of the Church? Simple. There is and has been nothing supernatural happening at Medjugorje concerning apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
No. There is no official position of the Churcch and will not be until the apparitions cease. A more accurate statement would be "local investigative commissions find that there is no definitive evidence of any supernatural happenings". Again, this is not a statement of disapproval.
Bottom line: the Holy See is adopting a "wait and see" attitude to apparitions still in progress. Until the apparitions cease and they can be examined in toto, don't expect anything from the Holy See. It will never issue a thumbs up to apparitions still in progress for who knows what tomorrow's message might bring? A statement of outright heresy, possibly and any approval would look ridiculous and totally premature.
This not a settled issue and will not be until the Holy See issues a statement of approval or condemnation.
The local bishops can say what they want. So what? We have a bishop here in the US (Lynch, St. Petersburg) who says that it is not proper for Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament to take place in his diocese. Has the Holy See corrected him? Likewise, don't take its silence on Medugorje matters as approval of what the investigative commissions there have done or said.
It is; I recall it did incorporate the Medjugorje visions as part of its plot. The book itself is nonremarkable, mentioning them in connection with revising the Church.
Just curious, why is Medjugorje so controversial? What do the visions proclaim?
Are the visions on a level with seeing the Virgin on a tortilla and the like?
Just asking.
I've always thought them fairly credible -- I think the big issue that made many start to find them lacking credibility is that Mary allegedly said, in an apparition, that all religions were equally valid. I haven't been able to find any first-hand confirmation that the apparition actually included that message but I have to admit that I haven't looked all that hard, and I also would be suspect of any translation without knowing the typical use of the word in their native tongue.
Also there is an issue with fighting between the bishops and the Franciscans; most here believe the Franciscans are to blame, but I'm not so quick as I believe the original bishop, when the apparitions allegedly started, was a bit of a communist collaborator so I assume his opinions on the apparitions are suspect and he had a reason to not desire this to be true.
SO I guess I'm basically shrugging my shoulders at you...sorry not to have any better information.
Since the Second Vatican Council there has been a grave crisis of authority within the Catholic Church. The ordinary faithful have not received the firm and unequivocal teaching and guidance from their ecclesiastical superiors to which they had become accustomed. Cardinal Ratzinger has noted the extent to which individual bishops have abdicated their authority to national episcopal conferences which, only too often, have been manipulated into propagating the opinions of so-called theological experts of dubious orthodoxy. Parish priests frequently abdicated their authority to parish councils, and Rome itself has sometimes appeared to speak with an uncertain voice. But certainty is what the faithful seek, and when they do not receive it from the Magisterium they will seek it elsewhere. Some have sought certainty in the charismatic movement which, if examined objectively, renders the Magisterium unnecessary, for what need is there of a teaching authority when each individual Christian can communicate directly with the Holy Ghost?
Other Catholics have put their faith in one of the numerous apparitions which are allegedly taking place in many countries. Once again, if heavenly guidance can be communicated directly through the sect which is witnessing the alleged apparitions, then what need is there of a Magisterium? In the years following the Council a very clear pattern of behavior has emerged among supporters of these apparitions. It is a tendency to make belief in the authenticity of a particular apparition the criterion of orthodoxy. True Catholics believe in the apparitions, and the faith of those who do not is suspect in some way. Those drawn towards these apparitions tend to be conservative in outlook, the type of Catholic who might have been expected to defend the teaching of the Magisterium. Once such Catholics become "hooked" on an apparition all their efforts tend to be devoted to defending it and propagating it. They have thus been removed effectively from the battlefield for orthodoxy. There can be no doubt that spurious apparitions are one of Satan's most effective weapons in his war against the Mystical Body. The problem is, of course, to discern authentic from spurious apparitions. I certainly do not believe that any of the alleged apparitions taking place at present with the possible exception of Akita in Japan, possess a shred of credibility.
I recollect very clearly a decade or so ago that I scandalized some very devout friends by maintaining that the alleged apparitions at Palmar de Troya in Spain were inspired by the devil. I was asked how I could make such a claim in view of the piety manifested there-----all night vigils, heroic acts of penance, the Rosary, financial sacrifices of staggering proportions. I knew one devout and highly educated English Catholic who sold everything he had and abandoned his profession to go and live there. Later, when Clemente, the self-styled seer, proclaimed himself to be Pope and "excommunicated" everyone who did not recognize him, this friend and others withdrew from Palmar in horror and admitted that they had been deceived. But the tragedy is that there are thousands who did not. Their faith had become identified with the authenticity of the Palmar sect. Satan had amputated them from the Mystical Body. How can one reconcile the devotion that I have mentioned with diabolic inspiration? The answer should be self-evident. If a seer claiming to be inspired by Heaven denied the doctrine of the Trinity or advocated free love he would hardly be likely to deceive faithful Catholics. Satan will obviously seek to introduce error and separate the faithful from the Church under a veneer of piety.
Medjugorje
Several years ago I was visited by some good friends with a booklet in Croatian about some apparitions allegedly taking place at Medjugorje in Yugoslavia. They wished my wife, who is Croatian, to translate it. When I had been given a resume of the alleged messages I advised my wife not to waste a second of her time translating them as, in my opinion, they did not possess a vestige of credibility. I am glad to say that these friends now share my opinion. Since that time the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje have attracted more attention and more enthusiasm almost daily, and millions of Catholics now flock there from throughout the world. The initial opposition of the then communist government of Yugoslavia was transformed into an attitude of enthusiastic co-operation once it became clear that pilgrimages to Medjugorje provided an extremely lucrative source of foreign currency. It is obvious that the bishops and clergy of Yugoslavia have every reason to be predisposed in favor of Medjugorje. If the visions were authentic they would be a tremendous asset to the Church in a country with so many atheists and adherents of non-Catholic religions. Not only would the income from the pilgrimages benefit their poor country, but it would provide badly needed financial help for the Church. However, as Bishop Zanic explains later, only one of the Yugoslav bishops (Archbishop Franic of Split) has expressed belief in the apparitions, and not one of the hundred diocesan clergy in Hercegovina accepts them as authentic. Only two members of the 15 man Commission which examined the events at Medjugorje, accepted the authenticity of the visions (and they were both Franciscans). The Franciscans themselves are divided on the matter, but some of the most influential among them support the position of Bishop Zanic. Those who support the authenticity of the alleged apparitions have been quite unable to suggest any credible ulterior motive to explain the rejection of their authenticity by the clergy of every rank in Yugoslavia outside the Franciscan Order.
My object in this study is simply to show that there is a case against the authenticity of the Medjugorje apparitions, a viewpoint which has been kept from most Catholics due to the vast publicity campaign in favor of authenticity conducted in the mainstream Catholic media (which derives considerable financial benefits from Medjugorje advertising). It is not without significance that the Liberal Catholic journals which have not shown the least interest in the Fatima message are enthusiastic in their support of Medjugorje. I know that it was the view of the late Hamish Fraser that Medjugorje was a means being utilized by Satan to subvert the message of Fatima. [Emphasis added, here and below.]
Before providing documentation to prove the falsity of the alleged apparitions I will give just two examples of the degree of credibility which should be given to the self-styled "seers" of Medjugorje. The "seers" and their Franciscan manipulators have consistently maintained that during their "ecstasies" they are immobile and without communication with the outside world. A French journalist wished to test this claim, and while one "seer", Vicka, purported to be in ecstasy, he made a stabbing movement towards her eyes with his fingers. Vicka gave a start and threw her head backwards. Fortunately, the entire incident was filmed. The girl left the room and returned a few minutes later with one of her charismatic mentors, an expelled Franciscan. She claimed that at the moment the journalist made the movement she was witnessing an apparition of the Virgin Mary with the Child Jesus in her arms, and the Child slipped. "I made a movement to stop Him from falling. That's all."
There could hardly be a more evident case of outright lying. It is inconceivable that during an apparition of Our Lady with the Child Jesus, the Child could possibly slip. If, per impossible, this did happen, it is stretching coincidence beyond the bounds of credibility to be asked to believe that it happened at the precise moment the journalist made the movement towards Vicka's eyes, and, finally, if she had been speaking the truth she would have moved forwards towards the apparition and not backwards!
The second incident is documented in the 1990 statement by Mgr. Zanic which is printed in full in Sections 5-7. It concerns a Franciscan priest, Father Ivica Vego, who was dispensed from his vows and expelled from the Franciscan Order by a direct command of Pope John Paul II as a result of his immoral conduct, which involved the seduction of a nun, Sister Leopolda. When she became pregnant they both left the religious life and began to live together near Medjugorje where their child was born. They now have two children. But prior to this he refused to accept his expulsion and continued to celebrate Mass, administer the Sacraments, and pass the time with his mistress. Why mention such a distasteful event? The reason is that the "seers" claimed that Our Lady appeared to them on thirteen occasions stating that Father Vego was innocent, that he was as entitled to celebrate Mass as any other priest, and that the bishop was harsh! Any reader with a true sense of being a Catholic, a sensus catholicus, will need to read no further to realize the full extent of the mendacity of the self-styled "seers", a mendacity which cannot be excused simply on the grounds that they have been manipulated by their Franciscan mentors. What credibility can be given to those who claim that the Mother of God told them repeatedly that an immoral priest, expelled from his order on the instructions of the Holy Father himself, is innocent. and that the Bishop who had taken the only course open to him, was the guilty party! And how does a so-called reputable theologian, such as Father Rene Laurentin. who has made a fortune from books on Medjugorje react when confronted with such facts? Mgr. Zanic gives us the answer. He begged the Bishop not to publish details of the incident. Mgr. Zanic tells us that this has been Laurentin's consistent position, to hide the truth and defend falsehood. Despite the fact that the truth about Ivica Vego can no longer be denied, his prayer book is still sold in Medjugorje and beyond in hundreds of thousands of copies!
One might add, almost as an afterthought, that if Our Lady had truly appeared at Medjugorje on about 26,000 occasions by the end of 1993, a claim which in itself defies credibility, she did not bother to warn the Croatian people of the coming onslaught, which they would have to undergo from fanatically anti-Catholic Serbia.
Documentation
1. MEDJUGORJE: The Other Side of the Coin, Geoffrey Lawman, p. 7
2. 1987 Communiqué of the Yugoslav Bishops Concerning the Facts of Medjugorje, p. 15
3. Declaration of the Bishop of Mostar Concerning Medjugorje
Medjugorje, 15 July 1987, p. 17
4. An Extract From the Letter of the Bishop of Mostar to Mariya Davies Thanking Her for Her Translation, p. 21
5. Visions in Alabama, Excerptedfrom "Letter from London", The Remnant, 31 March 1989, p. 22
6. Marija Pavlovic Contradicts Herself, p. 24
7. The Truth About Medjugorje-----A Statement by Mgr. Zanic Published in 1990, p. 27
8. Irish Bishops' Conference Statement of 13 June 1990, p. 49
9. "Bishops 'leaked' Ruling on Yugoslav Shrine, p. 49
10. "Rome Studies New Medjugorje Report", p. 51
11. The Medjugorje Industry , p. 51
12. A New Bishop of Mostar , p. 58
13. Further Information , p. 60
Loose lips sink ships. Wow, this applied to uninformed individuals who have read Michael Davies and immediately believed it. It is being propogated like wildfire all over the net, costing millions of souls.
Michael Davies got most things completely wrong. All main detractors have simply jumped onto the Bishop of Mostar bandwagon. I'm not here to condemn members of the clergy, but how many people know the full story of Pavao Zanic and Ratko Peric? I'm telling you that every detractor from Michael Davies to Rick Salbato to Phil Kronzer etc etc has simply rehashed the same old Pavao Zanic and Ratko Peric stories. I am warning you guys not to be deceived by detractors. There is a deliberate campaign of deception and IT IS NOT COMING FROM MEDJUGORJE PROMOTERS.
The Wanderer publication admitted to printing complete fabrications about the Franciscans in Medjugorje, including plenty of vicious rumour. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Read here: http://www.marian-times.com/articles/medjugorje/medjugorje-franciscans.cfm.
By the way, there is a new commission to be commenced on Medjugorje, instigated by the Vatican. Read more below:
http://www.marian-times.com/articles/medjugorje/new-commission.cfm.
More information on Medjugorje and many articles answerint the same tired objections are given at http://www.marian-times.com/medjugorje.cfm .
The Jean Louis incident (finger poke to the eye of Vicka) has been refuted and I bet very few people know it. Take a read of this.
http://www.marian-times.com/articles/medjugorje/unity-publishing2.cfm#jeanlouis
On the subject of so-called Fransiscan "disobedience", I invite you all to read "The Truth of the Herzegovina Affair" http://www.medjugorje.hr/eviktor.html.
Most of the disobedience (on BOTH sides I might add. The Bishops don't come off squeaky clean) happened LONG BEFORE the apparitions began at Medjugorje. Don't be fooled. Detractors try and connect dots to the apparitions themselves and discredit the apparitions because of it. There was rampant upheaval when Mary appeared. And this reminds me of the state of the world ANY time God has had to intervene.
People, we have to look closely at people like Michael Jones (yes, may he rest in peace). Look at this extract.
"Several years ago I was visited by some good friends with a booklet in Croatian about some apparitions allegedly taking place at Medjugorje in Yugoslavia. They wished my wife, who is Croatian, to translate it. When I had been given a resume of the alleged messages I advised my wife not to waste a second of her time translating them as, in my opinion, they did not possess a vestige of credibility. I am glad to say that these friends now share my opinion."
He takes pride in having robbed his friends of hope. Worse, we can tell that he does not really care for their welfare, simply that "they now share MY opinion". He cares that people are listening to HIM.
What kind of man can conclude so many things in so ill-informed a manner and have the courage of his convictions to ignore the vatican's "wait-and-see" policy and step out on such a crusade. Maybe it was just bad timing for him because now most of his objections are quashed.
But damage is clearly evident. Atheists and unbelievers now have every excuse to steer away from religion because of the confusion and crap surrounding Medjugorje. Catholics are fighting catholics. This all sounds like Satan's wishlist. And I'm sorry to say, but certain people are being used as instruments for this cause of destroying Medjugorje.
Not Michael Jones, Michael Davies, sorry.
The Bishop of Mostar had his chance and in fact the Vatican sustained objections against his initial findings. As most people know, the matter was handed over to the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference. The result was the Zadar Declaration which stated effectively "We just don't have enough outright proof yet, so we can't certify these events as supernatural". It is said that this declaration was a conciliatory gesture towards the Bishop of Mostar as head of the province, when really the Conference wanted to approve the apparitions. The way has always been left open for further investigations. And the latest news from the Vatican is that indeed there will be a new commission formed very soon.
Here is a link with some further explanation:
http://www.marian-times.com/articles/medjugorje/medjugorje-disinformation.cfm
To pinpoint the exact reason why your "Mary" is not THE Virgin Mary is because your "Mary" denies the Catholic dogma "outside the Church, there is no salvation".
I have done my best to read both sides of the issue from both detractors and promotors.
Your assessment of Sabato and especially of Kronzer is, in my opinion, correct.
If detractors are seeking the truth...they will not try to smear reputations for the sake of "debunking"
There are many misrepresentations in the work of Kronzer/Sabato.
The whole affair is much more complicated than either side would like to think, and that is why it is good to have this new investigation (and the previous one) in the hands of the Bosnian bishops.
I apologize for not seeing your earlier correction.
I will have to respectfully disagree with this statement. There are no official documents from the Holy See whatsoever to suggest that they have "sustained objections against his [Bishop Zanic's] initial findings". There is and has been, however, plenty of unofficial speculations from many quarters suggesting this as fact so that people could continue to uncritically accept the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje as valid.
The result was the Zadar Declaration which stated effectively "We just don't have enough outright proof yet, so we can't certify these events as supernatural".
Incorrect. The statement reads as "non constat de supernaturalitate", one of three possible conclusions for this type of investigation. While a statement such as this always leaves the possibility for further investigation, it doesn't assume it or demand it.
The only realistic possibility it leaves open regarding the actual claims of supernatural phenomena that I can see - and I'm taking into account everything that had been discovered in the investigation up to that point - would be one of the possibility of demonic preternatural activity. I say this in all seriousness.
However, Bishop Ratko, the current Shepherd of this See, has stated he considers "constat de non supernaturalitate" to be the case (which would essentially remove the possibility of preternatural demonic activity). The Holy See has been very careful - in official statements coming out of Rome - to repeat his opinion to all inquiries they get concerning the alleged phenomena occurring at Medjugorje. This in addition to pointing people to the Zadar statement as the Church's official position (up to this point). It is the Holy See's way of saying PAY ATTENTION! in official Church document etiquette.
It is said that this declaration was a conciliatory gesture towards the Bishop of Mostar as head of the province, when really the Conference wanted to approve the apparitions.
"It is said..."
By whom?
At what time?
Where???
Again, I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I consider it to be no more than the wishful thinking of many people, most, who no doubt, have good hearts if not cloudy minds. Among many of the products of the Medjugorje phenomena is the Medjugorje media. Speculative statements like this get printed somewhere by someone trying to subjectively defend and keep alive their belief in the alleged happenings at Medjugorje and these statements magically become "fact" regurgitated and repeated on down the grapevine.
There is no indication that this could possibly be true. The Bishops voted unanimously 19-0 (with one abstention of a retired archbishop, who "it is said" seemed favorable to Medjugorje) to approve that document. And this after about four years of careful study including all the data that Bishop Zanic had accrued from his two previous commissions
Bear in mind that the statement had a twofold purpose only one of which considered the alleged supernatural phenomenon of the Gospa appearing to the six individuals. The other purpose was to set directives for proper liturgical and spiritual handling of all the people going to Medjugorje which affected the whole region.
In any event, chalk it up to the Holy Spirit. Regardless of intentions of this or that Bishop, this or that Pope, whether for good or ill, the official pronouncements of the Church are what the Holy Spirit protects and are what is to lead us.
And the latest news from the Vatican is that indeed there will be a new commission formed very soon.
This indeed seems to be the case. A commission of the local Bishops conference of the former Yugoslavia, with Bishop Ratko as the Bishop of the See in question. I don't know very much about it, but would seriously doubt that it will "overturn" the statement of Zadar. Indeed, I should think that the new commission is probably being formed with a view aimed more at better serving the people who go to Medjugorje.
I understand that you must be a strong believer in the alleged supernatural events of Medjugorje and don't hold that against you. I would first off recommend you always to Christ in His Church and to accept His verdicts through Her on this issue. Our Catholic Faith is not dependent on any apparition - real or imagined - and in the end, it is this Faith that we must grow in.
I wish for you not to be disappointed if this new commission does not produce results that you might hope for. I cannot foresee it contradicting the Zadar statement, but rather expect that it will strongly reinforce it. That is my honest opinion from everything I know about Medjugorje.
I simply do not want to see people lose their Faith, or create their own faith, over the whole Medjugorje event, particularly if yet another negative judgment from the Church is forthcoming (as I fully expect because I see that is where the truth will lead). If it turns out that I am wrong, then I am wrong. All things considered, no big deal.
All references in my previous post to "Bishop Ratko" are incorrect insofar as he is Bishop Ratko Peric. (I am very tired).
"I wish for you not to be disappointed if this new commission does not produce results that you might hope for. I cannot foresee it contradicting the Zadar statement, but rather expect that it will strongly reinforce it. That is my honest opinion from everything I know about Medjugorje."
I agree this new investigation will very unlikely contradict the Zadar statement.
If my memory serves me correctly, committee members have already agreed that any POSSIBLE approval would NOT occur until all alleged apparitions have ceased, and time is allowed to judge the truthfulness of any alleged prophecies.
This is how the Church has always handled "approved" apparitions. Time is a great tool for discernment.
So that leaves 2 possibilities for this new investigation....a condemnation, or a continuation of the Zadar statement.
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.