The informative web site Petrus (www.papanews.it), directed by Gianluca Barile, is looking ahead at the work of the investigating Commission on the phenomena of Medjugorje.
To summarize: Official meetings of the new commission will begin after the summer, with the six visionaries summoned to Rome for interviews. Petrus expects that they will be asked to disclose the ten “secrets” which they have refused to give up in previous investigations. The article also reports a suggested compromise idea floated in Rome: that CDF could reject the claims of an apparition, but grant approval to the messages (thousands of them?) as “interior locutions”. Is it just a last-ditch attempt to salvage the phenomenon?
Related link:
- How the visionaries dealt with past investigations:
“Questionable games surrounding the ‘Great Sign'” (Diocese of Mostar)
My translation of the article follows.
Trickery, interior locutions, or apparitions? The ‘seers’ of Medjugorje will have to report to the Ruini Commission and submit the ten secrets received (?) from the ‘Gospa’
VATICAN CITY – Vicka Ivanković, Mirijana Dragičević, Marija Pavlović, Ivan Dragičević, Ivanka Ivanković and Jakov Čolo, the famous pseudo-seers of Medjugorje, will have to report to the Vatican, probably right after the summer, to respond to questions from the Commission of inquiry – instituted by Benedict XVI, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini – assigned to shed light on the alleged Marian apparitions that they have reportedly witnessed uninterruptedly since June 24, 1981. At the same time, the six will be called on to submit to that body, created at the Pope’s will, the ten secrets which the Madonna is said to have entrusted to them.
Official meetings have not started yet, but the tendency among the members of the Commission is to meet and ‘interrogate’ the protagonists of that bruited event in person. The Commission, which took office last March and is eagerly at work to shed light on the supernatural events that call millions of pilgrims from all over the world to the little town of Bosnia-Herzegovina, has already been informed by the Bishop of Mostar on the disobedience of the pseudo-seers to local ecclesiastical authority. Casting shadows on the apparitions, notoriously, are the theological inconsistency of the messages, their contradictions, and the infinite number of the apparitions.
Besides Cardinal Ruini, participants in the Commission are the Cardinals Juliàn Herranz, Jozef Tomko, Vinko Puljic and Josip Bozanić; the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Monsignor Angelo Amato; Monsignor Tony Anatrella, psychoanalyst and specialist in social psychiatry; Monsignor Pierangelo Sequeri, Lecturer in Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy; Fr. A. David Maria Jaeger, Consultor for the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Fr. Józef Kijas Zdzislaw, Relator of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; Fr. Salvatore M. Perrella, Lecturer in Mariology at the Pontifical “Marianum” Theological Faculty; the Rev. Achim Schütz, Lecturer in Theological Anthropology at the Pontifical Lateran University (in the role of secretary) and Monsignor Krzysztof Nykiel, official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (in the role of assistant secretary). When the Ruini Commission has completed its investigations and expressed its own opinion, it will report to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from which the final word is expected.
The establishment of the Commission represents an exception in the history of the Church, in consideration of the complexity of the phenomena that are allegedly happening at Medjugorje. It is naturally too soon yet to know or foresee what the Vatican will ratify in its regard, but in the ‘Sacri Palazzi’, many among the Cardinals and Bishops of the Curia are certain that at the end the Holy See may recognize these events ‘only’ as interior locutions of the seers and not as true and proper apparitions. In that way, the pilgrims would be able to continue to go to the little town in Bosnia-Herzegovina to venerate the ‘Gospa’ (as they call the Virgin there), knowing well, however, that our heavenly Mother is not appearing in that place.
Interior locutions, for the Catholic Church, are messages, from the Trinity or from the Madonna, that seers receive without having apparitions but only hearing a voice. Marian apparitions, in contrast, are events in which the Virgin Mary appears in supernatural form to one or more persons, speaking words or limiting herself to gestures of blessing. Often such apparitions take their name from the city in which they have occurred, or the name given to Mary on the occasion of the apparition, or from the clothing or headdress described.
The phenomenon is a recurring one in the history of Christianity, since the fourth century, but has notably intensified in the course of the 20th century. The first apparition reported dates back to 352, when, according to legend, the Virgin appeared at the same time to a noble patrician couple and to Pope Liberius asking for the construction of a church. According to tradition, the church was in fact built on the site where, a century later, the Basilica of Saint Mary Major was erected, in Rome. Even today the anniversary of the event is celebrated on August 5, the feast of Our Lady of the Snow.
The doctrine of the Catholic Church teaches that the era of public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle and after the New Testament was completed; as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger recalled in the 1990s, specifically in regard to the Medjugorje apparitions, ‘Revelation is already completed in Christ’. Therefore the Catholic Church considers Marian apparitions as a support to the life and the hope of the faithful, but only approves a devotion after a process of investigation (including technical and scientific investigation) in which a favorable opinion is finally expressed (and one cannot assume that this always happens), with the declaration that the phenomenon is indeed paranormal. In the course of history, the Church has often maintained a skeptical attitude in the face of asserted apparitions, very often finding herself faced with pseudo-seers afflicted with mental illnesses, or faced with swindlers harming the faithful.
These are the principal Marian apparitions officially approved by the Catholic Church: Our Lady of the Spring (Caravaggio, Italy, 26 May 1492); Our Lady of Guadalupe (Mexico, 1531); Our Lady of Laus (France, 1664-1718); Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (apparition to St. Catherine Labouré, Paris, 1830); Our Lady of the Miracle (apparition to Alphonse Marie Ratisbonne, Rome, 1842); Our Lady of La Salette (France, 1846); Our Lady of Lourdes (France, 1858); Our Lady of Pontmain (France, 1871); Our Lady of Gietrzwald (Poland, 1877); Our Lady of Knock (Ireland, 1879); Our Lady of Sorrows of Castelpetroso (Italy, 1888); Our Lady of Fatima (Portugal, 1917); Our Lady of Beauraing (Belgium, 1932 – 1933); the Virgin of the Poor (Banneux, Belgium, 1933); Our Lady of All Nations (Amsterdam, Holland, 1945-1959); Our Lady of Akita (Japan, 1973); Mary, Virgin and Mother (Finca Betania, Venezuela, 1976); Our Lady of Kibeho (Rwanda, 1981); Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas (Argentina, 1983).
It is good to clarify that there is no dogma involved: the Church can only confirm an apparition as worthy of belief, but never requires the faithful to blindly believe in them. For the Magisterium, indeed, it is possible to be a perfectly good Catholic while accepting none of these phenomena. It is sufficient to understand that, in the case when a Marian apparition is considered authentic by church authority, which only approves a devotion, it is considered, as it were, a subordinate source of the Word of God.
On 25 February 1978 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published “Procedural norms for the discernment of alleged apparitions and revelations”, containing rules which we summarize as follows: the diocesan bishop can start a process, at his own initiative or at the request of the faithful, to investigate the facts concerning an alleged apparition; the bishop can dispense with a thorough examination if he wishes, especially if he thinks that the event is not fruitful; the national episcopal conference can intervene if the local diocesan bishop turns to it; or if the event becomes important at the national level, or at least the regional level of multiple dioceses. The Apostolic See, naturally, can also intervene at the request of the local bishop or of a group of the faithful, or at its own initiative. The investigation proceeds to evaluate the personal qualities of the persons who claim to have the apparitions (mental equilibrium, honesty, moral life, sincerity, obedience to Church authority, good will to practice the normal life of faith) and the content of the revelations themselves (for example, it is necessary to verify that the messages are not in conflict with the faith and morals of the Church, and are free of theological errors). The apparitions will be rejected in the case of doctrinal errors attributed to God, to the Virgin Mary, or to the Holy Spirit in any of the messages; in case of any attempt at financial gain in relation to the supposed events; or of gravely immoral acts committed by the ‘seer’, or of psychological disorders.
[End of article. Original text at http://www.papanews.it/news.asp?IdNews=15027]
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Chonak or his fine translation work, but this article from Petrus really is a bunch of fluff-n-stuff.
The only real new development is that the commission might be calling the “visionaries” to Rome and order the divulging of the “secrets.” About half of the article is hardly worth reading unless someone needs a review of the theology and history of private revelation.
I do find the information about interior locutions/apparitions intriguing as it is disturbing.
-Kevin J. Symonds
Petrus “expects” the commission to ask the Medjugorje seers to disclose the 10 “secrets”…
And which 10 secrets is Petrus referring to as my understanding is that not all the visionaries share the same secrets or are even aware what secrets have been given to each other?
Only three of the visionaries claim to have received 10 secrets. The remaining three have received nine.
The other difficulty facing the commission if they try to obtain the secrets in advance is expecting the visionaries not to comply with Our Lady’s instructions as to when the secrets are to be revealed.
Mirjana has publicly announced the procedure for announcing the 10 secrets given to her. But none of the other visionaries have disclosed any information as to the method of disclosing the secrets given to them.
I suspect Petrus has not grasped that the 10 secrets he refers to could in fact be many more and not all of them for public consumption, and that some may only be personal for the individual visionaries.
The “interior locutions” line is another non-starter. I can’t see the Holy See approving the messages as “interior locutions” when all the time the visionaries are adamant that they clearly see Our Lady and can even touch her.
There are two locutionists associated with the Medjugorje phenomenon, but while they claim they could audibly hear Our Lady speaking they also state they have never seen her in apparition.
Kevin’s right: there isn’t a lot of hard news here. The only really new item is this idea about locutions, and, along with pilgrim, I don’t think the supporters would find it reasonable to drop the apparition claim. For skeptics, accepting the messages as ‘locutions’ would be a mistake, a blot on the Church’s intellectual integrity.
I suppose the bottom line is that the Church bureaucracy must include a fair number of people who look for compromise as if a political deal were being made, rather than a spiritual and doctrinal discernment! What a worldly mentality!
They must not be familiar enough with the case to know that the idea is a non-starter, but this doesn’t stop them from spinning their suggestions to the press.
It is reasonable to suppose and expect that the six visionaries will be questioned and examined by the commission on their claims of messages and secrets. So Petrus’ shout is not really news. Who of us is to know if some or all of the visionaries have not already met with commission members?
I just wonder if the Petrus statement about the commission wanting to know the secrets is just paving the way for an attack against the visionaries to claim they are being disobedient when they refuse to do so, knowing already that to reveal the any secret before being instructed by Our Lady would also lead to claims of disobedience.
Best advice I could give the visionaries in this scenario is the passage spoken by Jesus in last Saturday’s Gospel: “Remember, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; so be cunning as serpents and yet as harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)
That the visionaires will be asked/required to submit the secrets to the commission is tremendously significant.
The fact that the seers will HAVE TO OBEY the Vatican and disclose the ‘secrets’ is going to be very interesting to discover – and whether they will or not.
If they don’t, then they are not practicing Catholics, as it is fundamental to ALL members of the Catholic Church to obey the Pope!!! I’m surprised that the Vatican hasn’t demanded that the seers divulge the secrets already.
Why would the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Catholic Church, give 5 people 10 secrets to keep to themselves and not tell even the Pope about?
To create a cult following, claiming to have the privilege of knowing secrets divulged by the Mother of God without telling anybody is purely diabolical. Everybody loves a secret. So, what a perfect way for the devil to create a cult for the wayward to follow.
I have never been drawn to Medj. and have seen only rotten, dishonest, and greedy swindling acts in the guise of Catholicism, in the ones who have become cult followers.
I must say that the Petrus website has become (or probably always was) a definitively accurate mouthpiece of those in the Catholic Church who are fundamentally opposed to contemporary actions of the Holy Spirit in general and Medjugorje in particular.
Kevin Symonds sums up this piece perfectly. But it is good to know how the ‘opposition’ are thinking and also good to know that the commission is going to question the visionaries, although that was always going to have to happen if the commission was doing its job properly.
David
David,
In the end, let’s pray that everyone can accept the Holy Spirit’s involvement in this Commission, thus fully embracing the final outcome.
Timely reading for tomorrow Gospel:Matthew 11 : 25
Jesus exclaimed: “I bless you Father, Lord of heaven and of earth for hiding these things from the learned and the clever and revealing them to mere children. Yes, Father, for that is what it pleased you to do.”
There was filming of the then children to whom Our Lady appeared that showed their demeanor drastically change and that their full attention was on something no one else saw and they were even unaware of their surroundings. Doctors tested them during those early apparitions by poking them and recording their vital statistics. I hope the Vatican will review these early tapings. There is no way they could all have been in the same state of elevated conciousness in unison at the same moment. Medjugorje was under Communistic rule and even the Communists tested them physically to try to disprove what the visionaries were seeing.
I don’t think we should forget that the Holy See has access to all of the work and findings of previous commissions. This is not a start-from-scratch commission. The Vatican has been kept informed of events at Medjugorje throughout the years. Some of the groundwork for this current commission began even before news of the commission was announced and at least one member of the current commission has carried out work on behalf of a previous commission.
Whatever happens, especially in the case of whether or not the visionaries are asked to reveal their secrets, obedience will be paramount.
When one looks at the past lives of the saints, especially those who had “approved” visions, *obedience* to the legitimate Catholic Church authority was the key.
For example, once the Sacred Heart of Jesus told St Margaret Mary to do something, but her Superior did not approve. Later when St. Margaret Mary asked Our Lord about it He said: “Further, I am satisfied that thou should prefer the will of thy Superiors to Mine, whenever they may forbid thee to do what I command thee; I shall know well how to find means for the accomplishment of My designs, even though they may appear to be opposed and contrary thereto.”
“Therefore, not only do I desire that thou shouldst do what thy Superiors command, but also that thou shouldst do nothing of all I command thee without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please Me.”
A Superior may or may not be inspired by God in his command, but you are always inspired in obeying in all things but sin.
If Our Lord commended St. Margaret Mary for obeying her superior, then Our Lady would expect no less from the visionaries themselves. Our Lady will never advise that the visionaries not obey the commission if they are asked to reveal any information.
@boots
Do you mean this kind of testing? I think you’ll want to watch the video footage.
http://marcocorvaglia.typepad.com/msm/2010/04/i-was-afraid-that-the-infant-jesus-was-slipping.html
I think you will also want to read up more on the communists on Medjugorje here…
http://marcocorvaglia.typepad.com/msm/2010/04/medjugorje-the-communists-and-the-bishop.html
Here’s the full list of good reading, which includes much indepth discussion of testing, as opposed to generalities found on many Medjugorje sites.
http://marcocorvaglia.typepad.com/msm/2010/04/medjugorje-without-mask.html
The man seen discussing that informal test that was captured on video is Louis Belanger – a researcher out of the University of Montreal (now retired), who was there in that room and seen in the video as it rolled. Here is his brand new website devoted to Medjugorje, with very detailed discussion.
http://en.louisbelanger.com
Marian… you failed to mention that Sr MM brought her predicament before the Lord and it was the Lord who gave her permission to do the will of her superior. Sr MM did not disobey the Lord and so neither disobeyed her superior. It was the Lord’s will that was fulfilled.
Well, we can see where this sort of argumentation is going. It’s preparing a defense of any seers who refuse to cooperate with authority, on what are essentially subjectivist grounds. It is preparing reasons to reject any warnings from CDF against the Medjugorje messages, if the Congregation should decide to issue any.
The principle these dissenters are following is a common argument presented by ‘liberal’ Catholics: a claim that the individual’s religious experience has a primacy in forming conscience, against any duty to obey the lawful pastors or their teaching, even the Supreme Pontiff.
St. Paul would not have any patience with this. He believed in the actual Church, the specific, concrete Church, made up of apostles and bishops; knowing that despite its weaknesses Christ has set them to teach and govern the Church in His name and with His authority, even if an angel should come with a new message.
@Pilgrim: I really don’t think that any quotes from saints about obedience would ever suffice.
However, obedience holds the most important of all tests in a private revelation, even though it is not the first thing looked at. The capacity of one to understand obedience, background, holiness, and humility are looked at first. Satan is not capable of obedience because that implies obeying a mere creature. This was the test that saved Sister Josefa Menendez from being fooled by the appearance of Satan as Our Lord. Her spiritual director ordered her to renew her vows at any and every appearance of Our Lord.
Some of her other experiences can be found in THE WAY OF DIVINE LOVE by Sr. Josefa Menendez:
Our Lord told her–Page 414: “Seek Me in your Superiors. Listen to their words AS IF THEIR WORDS FELL FROM MY LIPS; I AM IN THEM FOR YOUR GUIDANCE.”
“I want you always to obey and I, myself, will obey.” (THE WAY OF DIVINE LOVE, by TAN)
God will obey the human that He placed in authority. If God did not obey, He would contradict His own words, “Whatever you bind on earth, I will bind in Heaven.” How would we know if it was really God, or the father of lies. John told us how to know.
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits … he who is not of God does not listen to us [the bishops]. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:1-6)
Marian wrote: “God will obey the human that He placed in authority. If God did not obey, He would contradict His own words, “Whatever you bind on earth, I will bind in Heaven.”
It never ceases to amaze me how some people distort Scripture for their own reasons.
I warned in an earlier post that the Petrus “flyer” was simply a ploy to stir up the argument on obedience. Seems I was right in my assessment judging by the particular responses of Richard and Marian.
Pilgrim writes: “Best advice I could give the visionaries in this scenario is the passage spoken by Jesus in last Saturday’s Gospel: “Remember, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; so be cunning as serpents and yet as harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)”
What a perfect example of the corrosive effects on Catholics of the Medjugorje phenomenon. While many, if not most, Medj. believers would humbly surrender to the Church’s decision and authority, some fanatics are clearly prepared to disobey if they disagree with that authority and its decisions, and to do so under the guise of obeying Jesus, and Mary, over the Church.
Yet, every saint and spiritual writer has always put fidelity to the publicly revealed authority of the Church over fidelity to the subjective authority of a personally accepted mystical experience.
The authority of Cardinal Ruini acting on behalf of the Pope is authority revealed in Scripture and Tradition; the authority of the “Gospa,” even if it should happen to be the Virgin Mary, cab only be a possible authority until authenticated by the public authority of the Church. Since without the public authority of the Church the “Gospa” lacks authenticability, “she” remains “proven” by the experience and the reason of the seer alone, and the seers’ followers rest THEIR belief on the sand of that fallible judgment. Until authenticated by teh Church the seers and their followers are obliged to act on the certain knowledge of faith, or prove themselves without it. The history of heresies and false mysticism is littered with the “bodies” of moribund theologians, seers and their supporters, who could not see past their own egos and their own presumed ability to reason to the truth.
Okay, Bruce, try this one for size, from today’s Gospel (Matthew 11 : 25-26)
Jesus exclaimed, I bless you Father, Lord of heaven and of earth, for hiding these things from the learned and the clever and revealing them to mere children. Yes Father, for that is what it pleased you to do.
29 years of apparitions and three commission later, excluding the current commission, we still have no authentication by the Church, for or against the Medjugorje phenomenon, even after the visionaries have not revealed the “secrets” to previous commissions.
I guess not revealing “secrets” on demand by Church authorities is also deemed by same authorities not to be a reason to produce a negative conclusion. If it was, then the Church would have done so, would it not?
Pilgrim,
Taking the skeptical attitude of the Christian toward powerful worldly persons (“be…as cunning as serpents…”) and applying it to one’s obedience with the pastors of the Church is an inversion of Christian spirituality.
Bruce is quite right to speak of the “corrosive” effect that Medjugorje has evidently had. It may have led you to treat the pastors of the Church, including the saintly Pope Benedict XVI, as worldlings toward whom one should apply “cunning”, including possible evasions and refusals to comply. Well, believe me, refusal to comply will not constitute any kind of wisdom in this case.
Our Lord also spoke to the apostles:
“He who hears you hears me.”
and to St. Peter:
“What you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven…”
Regarding the previous commissions, it is a mistake to regard their verdicts as not negative. “Non constat” is the only negative verdict mentioned in the 1978 CDF “Procedural Norms for Discernment”, though I expect that “constat de non” also remains an option.
I agree with what has been said in reference that the alleged “message” of the seer becomes more important that that of the local ordinary. We have seen this all along with the events in Medjugorje. All one has to do is read the official diocese of the website of Mostar to see that. The information regarding the events at Medjugorje is crystal clear.
Experience has shown time and time again that no amount of discussion (especially with Church teachings on obedience) will convince the followers of the “seers” that they are wrong, since they get their information directly from “Heaven”.
Unfortunately, these followers come to believe that: if the local Bishop condemns the apparitions, they say he is corrupt; if the Doctrine of the Faith condemns the apparition, they say the Doctrine is outdated; and even if the Holy Father condemns the apparition, (which has never happened in history) they will say that he is a false pope. They will only believe the alleged “message”, nothing else.
It is the bishop alone, and not the individual that God gave the gift of discernment *and* the right to govern his respective diocese.
(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Pages 289, 290) “By virtue of Divine right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses. In regard to the relation between the Papal powers the Vatican Council declared: `This power of the Pope in no way derogates from the ordinary and immediate power of Episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles feed and govern each his own flock as true pastors; but rather, this authority is asserted, strengthened and vindicated by the Supreme and Universal Pastor.”
Ordinary power refers to the authority of the bishop coming from his office. Even if you believe your bishop to be bad, whatever his decision on an apparition in his diocese is, it is bound in Heaven and the individual has an obligation of obedience to his decision.
God is ultimately in control.
If the purported visionaries are asked to divulge anything-Heaven may or may not allow it.
God wills or allows all things-His Will, not ours.
Perhaps this is God’s Plan. Until anything is done one way or another-and after-we must be obedient to Christ’s Church. So far, Medjugorje has not been condemned-28 years, and counting…
God Bless.
+Pax, -Dawn
I thought the official meetings had already begun? Must have been misinformed.
Our Lady of Laus, pray for the Commission!
I’m truly sorry for the exploitation of the faithful that has been permitted for so long.
No doubt Rome will compensate the alledged seer’s one way or another.
The political and financial benefits of the site has served it’s purpose and now credibility needs to be restored.
The Jewish maid I grew up with would certainly not have ignored the cries all these years of the innocent children around the world whose faith has been lost and souls tortured by sex-abuse in the church and not have taken a stand as a mother let alone Queen of Heaven.
Nick, that point puzzled me too; there was a news report on CWN about a meeting of the Commission in, I think, March; perhaps that was only an organizational meeting?
I’m sorry, but either my ADD or my complete frustration with this whole “phenomena” makes it impossible for me to understand exactly what is happening here. It’s very complex and confusing.
I have taken the stand (from copious reading pro and con) that this is a hoax. And the basis of my opinion is the reports of blatant disobedience and lies coming from the seers themselves. I’m not going to footnote my “proof”: there is plenty out there including M. Davies, E. Michael Jones, R. Salbato, etc. You can “shoot” the messengers, but they have done their homework, as far as I can see.
Forget T. Vlasic; evil can always penetrate the work of God to confuse and disable the true works of grace. He’s a study in and of itself; my opinion is that he “attached” himself to this and just made it all the more evident that something was not right.
But I just hope something understandable to everyday folks (I include myself in this category) can be accomplished through the work of the Commission. Holy Mary, pray for them!
That makes two of us, Fr. John Mary. I’m confused.
Joe
God gave us a mind to be used to seek truth not be blindly mislead by falsehood. Faith isn’t having to see signs and wonders. Faith is listening to our bishop and believing in all of the invisible graces that God gave us through the Sacraments that only become visible through loving God, loving other people, loving ourselves and respecting His creation.