From the Italian web site Petrus (my translation):
Rumors from the "Sacri Palazzi": the Pontiff calls Cardinal Schönborn into line: "More prudence about Medjugorje". The cardinal traveled there December 31.
VATICAN CITY - The Pope did not welcome the end-of-year visit to Medjugorje by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and his former student at university. According to word filtering out from the "Sacri Palazzi" (there has been no official statement on the subject), Benedict XVI has personally communicated with the Austrian cardinal, receiving him in audience a few days after the arguments sparked by the journey of the prominent prelate to the small village in Bosnia-Herzegovina in which six alleged seers have claimed to see the Madonna since the 1980s. The Bishop of Mostar (the diocese in which Medjugorje is located), Monsignor Ratko Peric -- steadily convinced, like his predecessor, that the Virgin is absolutely not appearing in the village -- lamented in an official note that he had not been warned by Schönborn in advance of his arrival. The Archbishop of Vienna, for his part, after having prayed and said Mass at Medjugorje on December 31, also expressed his favorable judgment on what is said to have happened there, and had one of the six alleged seers who claim to see and speak with the "Gospa" accompany him. Then, as the Holy See has not yet expressed itself on the apparitions and many Cardinals and Bishops have shown their skepticism on the authenticity of the apparitions, Benedict XVI has therefore asked Schönborn for more prudence in statements relative to Medjugorje (the destination, this year, of millions of pilgrims), so that his presence there, as a member of the College of Cardinals, not be exploited by anyone to "authenticate" phenomena which the Holy See intends to monitor and analyze, besides the ordinary way, with an ad hoc Commission to whose guidance Cardinal Camillo Ruini will reportedly be called. The most recent Prince of the Church to express his own perplexity on the Medjugorje apparitions (in an interview in these pages) was the Cardinal José Saraiva Martins.
OUCH!
Prudence from the Pope, rather than the harsh polemics from both sides of this debate. Note that this article clearly indicates the Vatican is directly involved and the final word is still pending - another thing that both supporters and detractors of these apparitions would be wise to remember before they sound off.
All bishops, cardinals and priests should refrain from commenting on Medjugorje. This situation with Cardinal Schonborn is already being heavily exploited by the pro-Medjugorje crowd.
...and by the anti-Medj crowd as well.
What else would you expect the Holy Father say? There is so much "fluff and stuff" out there with such strong opinions that a "division" is becoming more noticeable. I myself have been there 17 times since 2002 and I have seen so many conversions and have heard many beautiful confessions. It really doesn't matter what is the latest rumor or speculation. Time will tell and oh yeah, isn't God in control anyway?
My mother was there in the 90's and she said it was an incredible experience. Many people have seen what some refer to as the "mircle of the sun".
Also in the early 90's one of the visionaries came to Alabama to a place called Caritas. The way the story goes is that in an apparition to her (I believe it was Mirjana), the Virgin Mary told her that her brother needed help and that if she went, so too, the Virgin Mary would be there with her. Many Catholics heard about it and went. My good friend was one of them, he went with his mother and father. He told me what he experienced - many wonderful things. They too amongest a large crowd, also experienced the sun "dancing". An amazing event that was caught on video. What was described back during the days of the Fatima apperitions of the sun, seem to be very similar to what has happened in Medjugorje and not so infrequently either. My friend also took many photos and when the crowd was signaled that the apparition was happening (by a light being turned on in the house that the visionary was staying at) he took a picture in which you can see in a mysteriously illuminated way, the Virgin Mary. He did not see this when he took the picture,it was only upon having the role of film developed (at a reputable chain pharmacy).
May God bless you all.
Under canon law, isn't it given to the local ordinary to pass initial judgement on apparitions, and isn't his opinion presumed correct until proven otherwise? I'm told that it is.
And since both of the local ordinaries have emphatically and repeatedly judged that there are no apparitions, doesn't that mean the the faithful (including Bishops of other dioceses) are bound to not act as if these are legitimate apparitions?
Why would it be necessary to go anywhere 17 times??? I notice that Medjugorje is addictive. People need the emotional hoopla, miracles, etc. What they don't realize is that the enemy is capable of quite a lot when it comes to "signs". And, yes, I have been to Medjugorje. I ceased believing when I studied both sides of the phenomena and realized there were many problems with this alleged apparition. Thank God my faith ran deeper than Medjugorje. If one bases his faith on questionable apparitions, what happens when the Church rules against them? I dare not think!
CDF issued guidelines on the discernment of alleged mystical phenomena, including apparitions in 1978:
By default, the local ordinary has sole responsibility. For cases where the influence of the event extends more broadly, the national bishops' conference can become involved as well, though this does not remove the case from the local ordinary. It is ultimately possible for CDF to become involved too.
CDF has been showing support for Bishop Peric, by referring other bishops to his directives, and even urging bishops to re-publish those directives. The bishops of Tuscany did that in 2007 at the request of CDF secretary Abp. Amato.
The authoritative statement in force now is the 1991 declaration by the Yugoslav bishops at Zadar, which (written in Croatian) amounts to a non constat de supernaturalitate: "it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations". Although optimistic Medjugorje supporters portray that as a non-committal statement, it is normally taken as a negative judgment. For example, the judgment in the Bayside case was a non constat: ("No credibility can be given to the so-called 'apparitions'"). The more negative constat de non supernaturalitate, would only logically be issued if proof of fraud, error, or delusion were found.
My comment is: In fide unitas, in dubiis libertas in omnibus caritas (In faith unity, in doubts liberty, in all charity).
Nobody may prohibit to the card. Schoenborn to go to Medjugorje and here to celebrate the Holy Mass, because it's no definition about Medjugorje, so "in doubts liberty".
Therefore I don't believe that "Benedict XVI has asked Schönborn for more prudence in statements relative to Medjugorje".
It's possible to have the counterproof that the Pope has not said nothing about this thing. Otherwise the Pope contradicts himself.
In fact, You may ask to the Father Livio Fanzaga the recording of the words of Benedict XVI, that exorted Radio Maria to continue in the diffusion of the spirituality of Medjugorje.
Contra factum non valet argumentum, against the fact no question.
Father Livio Fanzaga is the director of Radio Maria - Como - Italy.
Yours faithfully
Dario Bazec
Trieste- Italy
Dario, didn't you see the links above? The Yugoslav bishops said "it cannot be affirmed" that Medjugorje is real -- but the Cardinal affirms it! This is contrary to the authoritative statement of the Yugoslav bishops, who surely know the case better than he does.
As for the recording you mention, I'd love to hear it! Please find a link to it, hm?
That Cardinal José Saraiva Martins has given his negative opinion on Medjugorje is now old news. After that, we heard from Cardinal Ersilio Tonini,
Archbishop George Hamilton Pearce, and Bishop Seamus Hegarty, all of whom had very positive things to say about the site of alleged apparitions. Recording only Cardinal Martins' negative opinion and leaving out these more recent positive reviews leaves the impression that the writer is slightly biased.
Richard, Cardinal Schönborn merely gave his personal opinion, something that he is entitled to hold. He is not attempting to trump the authorities, as your comment implies. If you read his remarks, you'll note that he also deferred to the decision of authenticity to the Bishops conference and the CDF.
By the way, the source for the above story is "rumors from the Sacri Palazzi." If anyone bothered to check "Petrus" (the website of the association "Tu es Petrus" and the source for the "rumors"), they would have discovered that the honorary president of the association is none other than Jose Cardinal Saraiva Martins, hardly an unbiased source given his recent comments. Clearly this article is the opposite of fine journalism. [Kevin Knight at New Advent should not have linked to it.]
I find it amusing (and revealing) that anti-Medj. folks are quick to jump on stories like this (i.e. stories based on "rumors" and written without a shred of evidence) and use them to underscore their disbelief in the authenticity of Medjugorje but these same critics are just as quick to discard allegations that Pope John Paul II was a firm believer in Medjugorje, even when the people who affirm this were themselves the very witnesses who heard the Pope state his support.
Pshaw, Seaman. Three comments in the space of 25 minutes: you must be sputtering!
Cardinal Schönborn has said he wants to "integrate Medjugorje into normal pastoral practice":
http://www.radiovaticana.org/TED/articolo.asp?c=346794
If that's not an endorsement, if that's not an attempt to anticipate approval, nothing is.
Petrus is actually well-regarded and often cited by knowledgeable commentators. Of course, I am not in a position to add anything to verify the report, but convey it as it appeared.
Perhaps I'll sputter once more, Mr. Chonak. It may well be that "Petrus" is, as you hold, "well-regarded" (though I have never heard of it), but this does not help out your case of clear bias. You yourself are well known for being an anti-Medj. writer--do you deny it? Your source for this "story" are other well known anti-Medj. folks (Cardinal Martins is the president and also listed as a collaborator is Monsignor Andrea Gemma, perhaps the best known Medjugorje detractors). Clearly, since you hold the site in high regard and take the trouble to translate their stories, you must have known that the organization is very anti-Medj. (or do you deny this?).
This non-story has now become clear: The web site, which holds Cardinal Martins as its president and Monsignor Gemma as a collaborator, issued a "story" on their web site citing "rumors" as the source. It seems clear that the article was intended to prop up Cardinal Martins' recent claims about Medj. You translate it, it gets picked up by New Advent and many folks read it. Congratulations. One wonders whether you too are in fact a member of the organization. Are you?
I was given newsletters from Medjugorje in the 1980s when I read what Our Lady was purported to have said which were contrary to the teachings of the Church I never bothered with it again. Also, just recently the former Chief Exorcist of the Vatican said what is happening at Medjugorje (and he has visited) is diabolical and is money-making exploitation of pilgrims. If anyone would know the work of the devil he would. I also saw a video on YouTube where one of the "seers" was supposed to be in ecstasy when two fingers were suddenly thrust towards her eyes - the video shows her move backwards and a closeup of her eyes show they close - proving she wasn't in ectasy - there is a long history to Medjugorje showing that it was disobedient Franciscans, in particular the priest defrocked for running off with a nun and getting her pregnant - totally different from any other Church approved visions of Our Lady such as Fatima and Lourdes. People need to wake up.
I used to support Medjugorje in the early years: I read the first books by Laurentin and Kraljevic, and thought it was great news; and I was thrilled to be "in" on the latest news of what God was doing. But after a while the research came out from Michael Jones and from Fr. Ivo Sivric, OFM, who was born in Medjugorje, and the transcripts of early tape-recorded interviews came out, and I realized that the story was not plausible.
So I built the first website with critical documents at http://chonak.tripod.com/documents/ -- it's still out there -- and the hate mail began to flow in, and I became known as a notorious anti-Medjugorje person. But really I'm just trying to break the bad news to people, as it was broken to me, and people who are fair-minded enough to read the details usually recognize that there are problems.
Bp. Peric has issued several detailed articles about the history of the case in the past year, and they're available on this blog under the "Apparitions" category. Some are in English on his diocesan website too, http://cbismo.com, under "Medugorski fenomen", though the list there is not very organized.
As for this "Petrus" association, I have to laugh at Seaman's question, with its ring of McCarthy-style accusation: are you or have you ever been a member of the "Tu es Petrus" association? :-) Ha! I deny any knowledge of it, but I'll look into it: sounds appealing!
I have to thank 'mgseamanjr' for picking up the 'Tu es Petrus' connection with these recent (and older) anti-Medjugorje leaks to the press.
But I do also thank Mr Chonak for not 'editing out' his postings even though he sees nothing particularly 'sinister' in the connections.
When I first read the report of Cardinal Martins criticism of Cardinal Schonborn, my immediate thought was, "ah, so they have 'wheeled out' someone already have they?". Mr Chonak may be amused at the thought of any kind of concerted attacks on Medjugorje but I have no doubt such cooperation is occuring.
I am sorry that Mr Chonak came to disbelieve in the apparitions. I think a visit to Medjugorje itself could change his views again if he is truly wanting to come close to Jesus.
I can't help but notice the expressions of contempt in the words of some of the supporters: one says that a Cardinal has been "wheeled out"; another calls his words "old news", as if the passage of three or four days were to invalidate the Cardinal's observations. I am used to hearing such dismissive sneers from political hacks on TV, but when they show up in the language of pious Marian-minded Catholics, it's not a good sign.
I hear the area around Medjugorje is pretty, and I may in fact see the place some day. My surmise is that someday there will be a Vatican statement with directives to make it clear that the foreign clergy should stop going there on would-be pilgrimages. If people just went there on vacation, I'm sure it would be quite nice.
But, David, how could a visit to Medjugorje change my judgment? Nothing I would experience there in 2010 would constitute evidence of the validity of events that allegedly happened in 1981.
This point is central: nothing that you pilgrims experienced in 1985 or 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or 2005, dear brothers and sisters that you are, constitutes evidence about events that allegedly happened to other people in 1981.
Now I do not scoff at your conversion experience or your devout wish to honor Our Lady by making a pilgrimage, and I don't scoff at the real work of evangelization that some of the preachers at Medjugorje have done. Those things happened, and they are quite separate from the claims about the seers.
Here's how I see it: people make mistakes in life, but God often uses them for good, to draw people to Himself. There are all kinds of mistakes: someone may fall in with a bad friend, or have a foolish romantic relationship; someone may enter into an invalid marriage, someone may be deceived about a claimed mystical experience; someone may be confused about religion and be outside the Church for a while. And we can all think of cases we know where a person can hear the Gospel, and accept it, and have a personal conversion, even while they're in the middle of such a mistaken situation. So it's not an anomaly to see conversions: God is so generous, that he reaches out to us and calls us and helps us, even when we happen to be wrong about something.
David - are you saying "only"
Note that - "only" if he goes to Medjugorje, defies the local ordinary's directive (legitimate successor to the apostles) and pledges his allegiance to an unapproved apparition can he come close to Jesus? Wha.....???? I am I totally misreading this?
How about the local Adoration Chapel?
How about Mass?
Oh, I don't think he meant it that way, bill.t .
Richard, thank you for correcting Bill's misconceptions although I can't, for the life of me, work out how he read my posting in that way.
Thank you also for responding in a gentle way. It is certainly the case that disagreements on Medjugorje do seem to provoke uncharitable thoughts and words on both sides, although I would say not equally!!
I realised from an earlier posting from you that events which happened in the early days of Medjugorje were what had set your mind against the authenticity of Medjugorje. I have no idea what those events were but I would urge you not to forget that in the early days these children were young and bewildered and being hounded on all sides by the Communist authorities. It reminds me of the man who has made a big thing of showing an early video of Vicka, flinching during an apparition, and allowing this to totally reverse his previous belief in Medjugorje. I would be quite interested in knowing what your particular 'red lines' are but I realise there is probably not space available on this discussion area to talk about them.
Jesus tells us "by their fruits you shall know them". Anti-Medjugorje people now tell us that this test is not a very good one! Excuse me, but I prefer to believe Jesus. The good fruits of Medjugorje are truly overwhelming and no amount of criticism on the internet and the media can change that.
There are two points of focus in the Medjugorje case.
On one hand, there is the claim that Our Lady appeared to six particular people in 1981 and since.
On the other hand, there are conversion experiences that visitors to the place have had, starting in the mid-1980s and since.
The supporters focus on the conversion experiences; the skeptics focus on the credibility of the central people: the seers and the friars involved.
It seems obvious to me, and I hope it is to others, that the sincerity of a pilgrim's conversion in, say, 1990, does not prove the validity or invalidity of the seers' alleged apparitions in 1981. These are two separate events that happened in the same place, but to different people, and happened years apart.
Medjugorje has become a kind of Catholic Disneyland, with those who turn up looking not for MIckey Mouse but Our Lady.
How in the world do you pass this article off as "journalism"?! The title of the article is "Pope Benedict to Schonborn: Be careful about Medjugorje" and yet, the very first line in the article states, "Rumors from the "Sacri Palazzi..." Rumors?! You present a quote in the headline of the article, purporting to be the Holy Father's gentle rebuke to a high ranking Cardinal, with absolutely nothing to back it up? Shame on you! You have no idea what Pope Benedict XVI said to to Cardinal Schonborn in their private meeting. Not to mention the fact that the letter from Cardinal Schonborn published on Bishop Peric's website is obviously, but a small extract. What was not published I wonder, and why?
And folks turn up at Vatican city looking for the Pope. More importantly don't most of us desire similar spiritual enrichment, whether prompted by a pilgramage to St.Peters Basilica or Medjugorje??
Case closed. Richard Chonak and Catholic Light and Petrus have perpetrated a fraud. It is amazing how many of you bought into a ridiculous article which even admited was based on "rumors." Any apologies? I didn't think so.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Austrian Church official rejects rumour against Cardinal Schönborn
The Catholic news service, Kath.net, reports that a senior Austrian church official has quashed the rumour put out by an Italian website linking Cardinal Schönborn’s meeting with the Holy Father last Friday morning to a faxed letter he later sent on the same day to the bishop of Mostar, Ratko Peric, that referred to his recent visit to Medjugorje.
The Church spokesperson rejected the rumour as baseless and also pointed out that the Mostar bishop did not consult with the cardinal before publishing [part of] his fax on the Mostar Diocese official website.
The Kath.net report also states that the cardinal’s meeting with the Holy Father had been fixed for some time and that only two people were at the meeting, the cardinal and the Pope. No one else was present.
It adds that the Pope has not responded positively or negatively to Medjugorje but has no problem with cardinals and bishops visiting there – and in fact met today with the new Belgian Archbishop of Mechlen-Brussels, André-Mutien Léonard, who has visited Medjugorje several times and is known for his strong support of new spiritual communities and movements within the Church such as the Community of the Beatitudes.
Somebody needs to be a man and stop whining.
After the Cardinal's noisy, public, uninvited, unwelcome, and audacious intrusion, to complain about publishing his letter is -- to use a biblical expression -- to strain out gnats while swallowing camels.
If the Petrus piece is criticized for its vaguely sourced "rumor", why should we give any credence to an anonymous official in Vienna? That's not logical.
I actually have some sympathy with Richard's dismissal of the comments of the official in Vienna. I don't think we need unnamed officials when the good Cardinal is being open and forthright in his comments.
The quote below from another interview by the Cardinal is a case in point:
CARDINAL’S TV RESPONSE TO BISHOP’S CRITICISM
In a recent interview with the Austrian TV station ORF2, Cardinal Shönborn spoke about Medjugorje and the reaction to his visit by Msgr Ratko Peric, the Ordinary of the Mostar Diocese.
“The Church is entitled to the last judgment but one thing is for sure: People are experiencing there the help, closeness, and protection of the Mother of God in a special way. And certainly they would not make pilgrimages there for 28 years if there wasn’t anything there. This doesn’t already mean that I am anticipating the decision of the Church but I’m saying distinctly there are fruits there. Good fruits or you could also say there can be no smoke without a fire and in Medjugorje there obviously is a fire.”
Regarding the public criticism by Bishop Ratko Peric:
“Of course we can be of different opinion regarding things that have not been ultimately decided yet, and I respect him (the bishop) as fellow brother. I am united with him in prayer and I also believe that we can both confidently await the decision of the Church and can entrust ourselves to this decision with confidence, without polemics.”
Regarding the bishop’s criticism that the cardinal had not announced himself:
“Of course I could have tried to pay him a visit in Mostar. It is not absolutely necessary and before me there have been many bishops in Medjugorje. We know that he has a somewhat different opinion here. I want to avoid polemics. For me it is not about being proved correct against him, but I certainly have not violated the right that is also the right of a bishop and cardinal.”
• The programme Orientierung in which cardinal Schöenborn gave his interview was transmitted on ORF2, Sunday, January 10, 2010.
Of course his TV appearance on January 10 does not tell us anything about his meeting with the Holy Father on January 15. I hope, for the sake of ecclesial peace, that the Cardinal won't make more such public attempts to justify himself. Really, I'd like to see his letter wrap up this unfortunate episode.
Unfortunately, the Cardinal's letter remains unpublished apart from the little bits of it that Bishop Peric felt we should see.
I do not have a position to defend on Medugorje. But after reading this discussion and getting a "feel" for the tone of it, I have a perspective for those of you who have a position to defend.
It is my understanding that Catholics (including bishops, priests and even the Pope) have a right to believe what they want to believe about apparitions that have not been finally judged.
It seems that approaching the discussion from that perspective would be more respectful and peaceful than trying to discount one another. Much of what has been written seems to flow from two simple thoughts...
"I'm right and you are wrong!" and "I really can't stand that you do not believe what I believe."
The fact is, that the Church has not decided, and all Catholics are free to believe what they want to believe. Why not be more accepting of those who believe differently?
I don't even know why an article would be published based 100% on rumors. There has been no official statement published about the meeting between the Cardinal and Pope and as far as I know it was a private audience. So how does anyone know what the Pope said to him?
There is a big difference in the situation of somebody who believes in Medjugorje and somebody who does not. Those who are convinced that Medjugorje is a fraud of satan must(!) fight against it, meanwhile can those who believe that it is a gift of God peacefully resigne it to him. And as we can statistically state "God works" and the fruits of Medjugorje are augmenting from day to day.
Richard, "ubi maior minor cessat", where it's the higher, no place for the minor.
If Benedict XVI exorted Radio Maria to continue in the diffusion of the spirituality of Medjugorje, there is no more place for the bishop of Mostar (and not for the bishop of ex-Iugoslavia).
If I'm not wrong, all the question of Medjugorje is been taken over to the Holy See for the judgement, judgement, that will be given out, when the Holy See will think it opportune.
Now every person is allowed to go to Medjugorje, too a Cardinal, because simply that is not forbidden, it is allowed.
Dario Bazec
Dario, you'll have to show me the quote in which the Pope urges Radio Maria specifically to promote Medjugorje.
It's not in this message:
http://www.radiomaria.it/documenti/dwnl.php?id=254
Of course, I'm sure that Radio Maria has many good programs that never mention Medjugorje and are quite deserving of papal encouragement.
---
I would like the Holy See to intervene officially and take responsibility for evaluating Medjugorje, but it has never happened.
The doctrinal statement in effect now is from 1991, by the bishops of former Yugoslavia: "non constat".
The pastoral guidelines in force are by the Yugoslav bishops and also by the local bishop. When bishops ask CDF for guidance, CDF refers them to Bp. Peric's directives. For example, the bishops of Tuscany re-published a statement by Bp. Peric in 2007, when CDF asked them to do so.
I personaly have resieved many wounderfull graces as a direct result of our ladys apparitions and the whole wounderfull medjugorje experience, our lady has helped me forward in my faith and her messages have given me a greater understanding of Gods endless love for each one of us his children, our lady of medjugorge messages have allways been messages of, allways putting our full trust in God to never lose hope, to regularely pray and fast, we are reminded to say the rosary, and encouraged to live our faith every moment of our life. All these are weapons to defeat saton, and certainly do not promote him, our lady is titled, Queen of peace, and from the beginning of the apparitions in 1981, our lady stressed the need for peace, our lady also stated the impending dangers in that country and the need to continuously pray for lasting peace foretelling of the conflict that sadly, took place in that country. our lady of medjugorje is continually leading us her children to her son, our lord and savior Jesus Christ, regularely reminding us of Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the euchorist, stating if it is a choise for any of us her children between events to do with our lady and receiving Jesus christ her son in the euchorist in holy mass, we are to allways put Jesus first, our lady also stated when pilgrims commented to the visionarys how priverlaged they were to recieve these graces,our lady of medjugorje said through the visionarys that our lady is allways closest to every soul who received her son our lord and savior Jesus christ in the euchorist, more closer than any visionary could experience, in an apparition, because the sacred heart of Jesus and the immaculate heart of mary are perfectly united in there love for each other. I could say so much about all the wounderfull experiences that one experiences there,the constant feeling of peace and holyness from the moment one arrives there,wounderfull,powerfull benedictions, experiences, of a supernatural nature involving the sun,such as seeing the host clearly in the centre of the sun without hurting the eyes, the word peace in there own language that appeared within the clouds over St James church for all to see in the early days of the apperitions. In my honest oppinion i firmy believe the real danger is not weather or not our lady of medjugorje is truly appearing in medjugorje which i truly believe she is but that so many souls who clearly have never been there are crediting the devil with abbilitys that only God has,supernatural graces involving the sun ,similar to Fatima, only God is omnipotent and omnicient.The devil can only do what God permits him to do . These apperitions have been taking place for 29 years this month the longest period in history,as far as i know, and there is no sign as yet of there compleation,what with all the wounderfull conversions that have taken place during that time,peoples lives have been changed for the better I will end know just by saying. I am a dedicated catholic, i have given you all my testimony just as it is, i have absolutely no reason to lie or exagerate, i believe i am a perfectly rational human being,my experiences were not hallusinations vivid dreams or anything else other than what i have said they were, of corse everybody has equal right to believe or disbelieve in these said apperitions,and i sincerely promise i will fully abide by whatever desition the vatican may make. All i ask to those who dont believe the apperitions of our lady of medjugorje are true,please as a brother in faith i ask you dont attack and condemn, clearly judjment has not been made and therefore if they were declared true,as i sincerely believe they will be,those who attacked would have been declaring evil,what is holy, a sin against the holy spirit,it is better to hold your thoughts...YOURS IN CHRIST...FRED.
What is wrong with everyone? Are you all blind? You all need concentrate on the bigger picture, i.e are your church leaders following the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ as per the Gospels and Scripture.
The Roman Catholic church and its Popes clearly are not- just look at its statements on Papal authority.These merely confirm Satan's grip on the Roman Catholic church from the early pagan Roman emperors to modernity.
How else can one explain the blasphemous titles various popes have given themselves, along with papal infallibility? Not to mention the unbiblical Inquisitions which murdered thousands if not millions of christians who opposed papal authority, the Crusades, forced celibacy on priests, Sabbath day worship changed to pagan Sunday worship, the institution of Easter and Christmas, both originally from pagan festivals, the 'Hail Mary', Rosary and elevation of Mary to being perpetually virgin and never having sinned and co-redemptress with Christ!!??
And what's with 'Transubstantiation'? How did the Last Supper and its symbolism be transformed into the lie of the Roman Catholic Mass? And worship and prayer to Saints, Mary and Angels instead of our Lord Jesus? What of the other false and unbiblical doctrines such as Indulgences? or the idolatry of statues and artworks of Mary, the Saints, Angels and our Lord Jesus?
What of the vain, lengthy and repetitive prayers?
And addressing the pope as 'Holy Father' and priests as 'Father'?
Why else does Roman Catholism demand that Scripture can only be understood if explained by a Roman Catholic priest? Why did some early Roman Catholic priests object to early statements of papal authority as being antichrist? Why else did the Roman Catholic church ban the reading and sale of Bibles to the general public in the 16th century?
Start READING and prayerfully UNDERSTANDING the Bible- in particular Revelation.
If anyone can refute any of the above, please reply with the relevent passage from the New Testament and Scripture - it is only in the light of the New Testament and Scripture that we may be able to discern the meaning of the alleged miracles at Medjugorje and Fatima.
And who gave you authority to separate yourself from the community of the Catholic Church founded by Christ?
Jesus Christ told the apostles, "He who hears you hears me," and He placed teaching authority in the community of the apostles, and that body has continued with bishops (/episkopoi/ in the New Testament) chosen and ordained for that ministry for 2000 years. Some have been saints, some have been sinners, but the promise of Christ remains: that the Holy Spirit guides them in the truth. And in the official teaching of the Catholic Church, you can continue to find correct interpretation of the revelation of God that comes in the person of Jesus Christ.
We do not worship the Bible; we do not worship the Church that codified the Bible; we worship Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, who became man and died and rose to save us from our sins. The Church is His continuing presence on the earth; it is the vine that carries His life to us, through baptism, through absolution of sins, through Holy Communion, and all the means of grace that He provides for us.
You can find out more about the Catholic Faith by reading the official "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is available on-line.
In response to Richard Chonak:
You are quite mistaken,I have not separated myself from the community of the church founded by Jesus Christ.
But I am afraid you cannot have a 'pick and mix' religion. You use the Gospels and Scripture as a framework, and then deny them as and when it suits you.
'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, til all be fulfilled.St Matthew 6:17-18
'...Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.'St Matthew 6: 21-22
'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.St Matthew 23:27-28
'...Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city...St Matthew 23: 31-34
Now, hasn't the Roman Catholic church done exactly these things through history?
No one can come to the Father except though Jesus Christ. Through Jesus Christ only. A priest is NOT required as a mediator.
From Crossing The Threshold of Hope, by Pope John Paul II:
First Chapter: "The Pope": A Scandal and a Mystery (bold emphasis is mine):
Look at this extract from a pope's book:
[pg. 3] The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.
[pg. 13] The Pope is not the only one who holds this title. With regard to the Church entrusted to him, each bishop is Vicarius Christi.
In pope Benedict's first statement he claims that all popes are Viars of Christ and that he is Peter's successor.
Right, well let's see some miracles please- like raising the dead, healing the sick, instead a lot of flowery poppycock.
The Roman Catholic church can be likened to a bucket full of holes...from a distance it looks good, but on examination it is useless.
From a Servant of the Lord
I appreciate your interest in the Catholic faith, but this specific thread is not the place for a discussion on your rather general attack on the Catholic Church. Best wishes.
sarebbe interessante ascoltare i confessori che a Medugorje lavorano incessantemente e accumulano esperienza di moltissime conversioni o riavvicinamenti. Il vescovo di Mostar, Rev.mo Ratko, va a Medugorje per le cresime e le funzioni che al Pastore spettano. Ma, ha mai confessato in Medugorje? E' stato "pellegrino" in quella terra della sua Diocesi?
Si deve accettare quanto dice, perchè è il Vescovo al quale si deve ubbidienza e rispetto, ma, in tutta umiltà, vorrei chiedere se ha esperienza diretta di Medugorje.
Milioni di pellegrini, migliaia di sacerdoti e religiosi, vescovi, cardinali..... hanno "gustato" i frutti di quel fenomeno. Il Vescovo Ratko li ha "assaggiati"? E se il Vescovo di Mostar fosse stato Giovanni Paolo II?
Io penso che debba andare così, perchè con la contrarietà del vescovo, tutto a Medugorje è e sarà perfetto!
Anche il Rv.mo Vescovo Ratko è strumento di Maria.
thank you servant of God - but catholics do not worship Mary or the saints or the angels and neither do they pray to them. we simply ptay to God through them. And mr, how do you determine that some one is worshipping - since worshipping is in spirit, do you tell by the bowing or the kneeling? these may be signs of worship but not exclusive. Worship is in spirit of God who is a spirit to.
This is my first comment. Here goes.
I have read all these comments and notice a very important point missing. These so called 'commissions' are not infallible. In fact, they are mostly side-shows depicting the obvious split that has been ripping The Roman Catholic Church apart since a little before Vatican II. Secularism vs Traditionalism. If you want proof just read the books and articles by some of the clergy who were on 'Garabandal's' so-called commission. They show point for point how from day one the commission did not follow its own rules. Rather Garabandal or Medjugorge are true or not we will never get the truth as long as the Church allows the local bishop to be involved. For God's sake! When events like these are reported to have happened no one but the Vatican and professional Doctors not associated with the Vatican should investigate these matters thoroughly. Not the bishop who will most certainly be under pressure from both sides of the split in the Vatican almost immediately.
Recently I took much interest in some of the apparitions in modern time. My own opinion is from the evidence available right now in books, newspapers, videos, photos and internet; the Garabandal Apparitions have shown something supernatural involved than any other since Fatima. Question is---from something evil or something good? The Church from the get go wanted nothing to do with this because of two things--ONE:VaticanII was in its early stages when the apparitions began.TWO: They took offense to a very prophetic message stating "cardinals, Bishops, and Priests were leading souls to perdition". You take the message how you want, but if you cannot see how The Church's affairs went after the 'doomed from the beginning' VaticanII and all these other absolute demonic clergy behaviors--one can say 'how prophetic'
I believe if The Church does not take care of its interior problems and take control of itself we will see another 'schizm'
And to all the protestant Catholic-bashers: What did you guys reform? Nothing. All you have done is cheapened and watered down Christianity. Except for Anglicans(Episcopals), Lutherans, some Methodists, and the Eastern Rite Churches you guys don't know what you believe because you change your minds every two yrs and that is what sadly infected The Roman Catholic Church severely in the lead up to Vatican II to try and please you guys on certain doctrines. My Church is over 2000yrs old and for the most part still exists. Yours is maybe 200yrs old, maybe. Will it be here for that long?
Thanks for your comment, yahoo user.
One of your arguments leads to a theological point, so I'll offer it:
"we will never get the truth as long as the Church allows the local bishop to be involved."
The Church's view of "private revelations" actually affirms the authority of the local bishop. (See the 1978 CDF document "Normae Congregationis", published on this blog.)
It may be surprising, but the Holy See leaves *approvals* of private revelations to the local bishop, and only renders a judgment of its own in negative cases.