"approved" Apparitions

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='27 June 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1277660008' post='2134943']
Well if he's publicly twisted things, that should be easy to cite and link[/quote]

Do you accept class notes?

[u]Date[/u]: Tuesday, December 6, 2005.
[u]Place[/u]: Egan Hall--Main classroom building of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.
[u]Teacher[/u]: Dr. Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D.

I was in his class on the above date when Dr. Miravalle stated--and I remember it clearly--that concerning the doubts of Bishop Pavao Zanic on Medjugorje:

"[i]It wasn't until Our Lady said that [i]you must pray for the bishop[/i] that the bishop took that as Our Lady slandering him[/i]."

Being conversationally fluent on the Medjugorje case, I gaffed because I knew that is [i]not[/i] what the "Gospa" said at all. Here is what she did say about Bishop Zanic on 26 April, 1982:

"[i]The Bishop has no real love of God in his heart[/i]."

That's a far cry from "you must pray for the bishop."

What Miravalle did in class was "interpret" the message as opposed to letting the real words speak for itself. He misrepresented the facts to an entire class and I was mortified.

-KJS

Edited June 27, 2010 by KevinSymonds

[HisChildForever]

Bayside is just whack. I stumbled onto their website a few years ago and I became terrified that I was Hell bound for listening to rock music. Anyway, "Mary" told the "seer" Veronica that one of the Popes was replaced or switched with an evil Pope. Yeah, okay.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='27 June 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1277662394' post='2134956']
Bayside is just whack. I stumbled onto their website a few years ago and I became terrified that I was Hell bound for listening to rock music. Anyway, "Mary" told the "seer" Veronica that one of the Popes was replaced or switched with an evil Pope. Yeah, okay.[/quote]

Bayside was just whacko.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='27 June 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1277662394' post='2134956']
Bayside is just whack. I stumbled onto their website a few years ago and I became terrified that I was Hell bound for listening to rock music. Anyway, "Mary" told the "seer" Veronica that one of the Popes was replaced or switched with an evil Pope. Yeah, okay.
[/quote]

that "apparition" was one of those cases where it was easy for the Church to dismiss as a fraud...

[Jaime]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' date='27 June 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1277661792' post='2134953']
Do you accept class notes?

[u]Date[/u]: Tuesday, December 6, 2005.
[u]Place[/u]: Egan Hall--Main classroom building of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.
[u]Teacher[/u]: Dr. Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D.

I was in his class on the above date when Dr. Miravalle stated--and I remember it clearly--that concerning the doubts of Bishop Pavao Zanic on Medjugorje:

"[i]It wasn't until Our Lady said that [i]you must pray for the bishop[/i] that the bishop took that as Our Lady slandering him[/i]."

Being conversationally fluent on the Medjugorje case, I gaffed because I knew that is [i]not[/i] what the "Gospa" said at all. Here is what she did say about Bishop Zanic on 26 April, 1982:

"[i]The Bishop has no real love of God in his heart[/i]."

That's a far cry from "you must pray for the bishop."

What Miravalle did in class was "interpret" the message as opposed to letting the real words speak for itself. He misrepresented the facts to an entire class and I was mortified.

-KJS
[/quote]

Well that's a far cry from what you originally stated. A classroom isn't considered a public setting and "well I heard it" doesn't constitute a citable source. Plus the fact that I cannot find anywhere in the reported messages of Medjugorje (or on any site that promotes the messages) anything that recognizes your claim that she ever said the "bishop had no love in his heart"

so if you could provide a source for that.

You're denouncing what Miravele says in the article based upon what you"heard" in a classroom. Tell me Kevin, does he say anything inaccurate in the article posted? Because I haven't seen him mispeak once.

[Selah]

[quote]Bayside is just whack. I stumbled onto their website a few years ago and I became terrified that I was Hell bound for listening to rock music. Anyway, "Mary" told the "seer" Veronica that one of the Popes was replaced or switched with an evil Pope. Yeah, okay.[/quote]

Okay, so Bayside is full of croutons.

[the_rev]

[quote name='marielapin' date='27 June 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1277661632' post='2134952']
That may be so, but visiting for medical purposes out of obligation and having hugely advertised gatherings at that site are different. I posted a few links on the previous page that go into more details, including views from some priests in Medj who distance themselves from this organization.
[/quote]

You are presupposing that Marija is okay with the huge festivities. You are also presupposing that she is directly responsible for the event. She simply comes out of obligation. She does not put up the billboards. That is Caritas of Birmingham. It seems that your arguments come from guilt by association, because Marija is involved with Caritas, because Caritas is cultish and not Catholic, Marija because she is involved must be diabolical.

In fact, I think we are looking to closely at the Catholic element here. Are not the messages of Our Lady at any apparition site, meant for all people, Catholics and Non-Catholics alike? Does not Our Lady desire for the return of non-catholics to the Church? In many ways, I see Medjugorje as very ecumenical in a sense. Some may shiver at the mention of ecumenism. Some will argue because Our Lady never has said you must be Catholic, yet she asks us to live her messages. These messages are praying the rosary, fasting, receiving the sacraments (Eucharist and Penance), and the reading of scripture daily. If Our Lady is asking her children to live her messages, and if you want to live the messages of Medjugorje, the necessary presupposition is that one must be Catholic. To fully live the alleged messages given at Medjugorje, one must be practicing the truths and beliefs of Catholicism.

In the end, in Medjugorje is condemned by the Church, the "five stones" (mentioned above) will still be able to be practiced by those who adhered to the messages, because the fine stones are intrinsically Catholic and provide for a spirituality.

Edited June 27, 2010 by the_rev

[the_rev]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' date='27 June 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1277661792' post='2134953']
Do you accept class notes?

[/quote]

Logically speaking, I think class notes would fall under false authority, they are merely subjective to the person taking the notes and are open to interpretation by the note taker.

[the_rev]

double post

Edited June 27, 2010 by the_rev

[the_rev]

My last consecutive post. As a person who has been to Medjugorje, and ultimately received my conversion and vocation as a result of Medjugorje, I hate participating in debates about Medjugorje. I have found that dialogues on Medjugorje are very banal. You are against Medjugorje and will use your sources, I'm for and will use my own sources. Through the exchanges, you are not going to have a sudden awe enlightening moment, and all of a sudden believe. This topic is a topic of division and really no progress is ever made in discussions. In stead of going back and forth, I believe we just need to wait for the Vatican to "condemn" it, or approve it or be neutral towards it rather than participating in our own heated debates of our own opinions.

[marielapin]

[quote name='the_rev' date='27 June 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1277666196' post='2134985']
You are presupposing that Marija is okay with the huge festivities. You are also presupposing that she is directly responsible for the event. She simply comes out of obligation. She does not put up the billboards. That is Caritas of Birmingham. It seems that your arguments come from guilt by association, because Marija is involved with Caritas, because Caritas is cultish and not Catholic, Marija because she is involved must be diabolical.

In fact, I think we are looking to closely at the Catholic element here. Are not the messages of Our Lady at any apparition site, meant for all people, Catholics and Non-Catholics alike? Does not Our Lady desire for the return of non-catholics to the Church? [/quote]

I have no personal convictions that Medj is diabolical, so please please don't put words in my mouth. I know that you personally and others on this site have had positive experiences with Medj. I will side with whatever the official Vatican ruling is on that subject and do not believe myself above the church in knowledge on this subject. I also do not believe that she puts up these billboards herself. But I also do not believe these gatherings are a complete surprize to her nor that they are completely beyond her control. She could just not show up to begin with.

What I do call into question is this: that she must know by now that this association is creating scandal for her cause (if nothing else by the continued rejection of this group by Medj priests, and advocates). I can totally understand not knowing these things at first, but since Caritas is a group that wants to spread Medj, I do not understand why she couldn't just explain that her continued association with them in such a public way brings scandal to the message that they are both trying to spread.

In Birmingham, Catholics are already looked on as strange, and they are a minority. A Catholic priest was shot to death by a KKK member on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral in the 30's. There is still a lingering and active distrust of Catholicism there that I had to fight when joining the church myself. So when a Marian visionary shows up and has the name Caritas of Birmingham associated with it, it does NOT make non-catholics more open to the message, due to the local public's knowledge of this group just by reading the papers. It also does not open Catholics to the message if they have personal knowledge of this organization and their heterox leanings. Surely you can understand this? I am trying to explain what others in my hometown community have said when these gatherings happen. It makes them very uncomfortable. It makes me very uncomfortable and is NOT good publicity of the message. Outside of the area I'm sure there is much less stigma associated with this association, but for the folks there, it is a black mark (whether fair or not).

I realize this man donated a kidney to her brother, and I can understand such obligations, but would not the purpose of the Medj. message be more important?

[Crispy]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' date='27 June 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1277659504' post='2134938']
One place where Miravalle is in clear error, he states:

"[i]The messages of Medjugorje do not contain a single doctrinal teaching that contradicts authentic Catholic Magisterial teaching[/i]."

Take the following statement of the "Gospa" from 24 July 1982:

"The body, drawn from the earth, decomposes after death. It never comes back to life again. Man receives a transfigured body"*

Compare the above with [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html"]Canon 1 of the IV Lateran Council[/url]:

"He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ."
[/quote]

I'm no doctrinal scholar, but I can offer a thought about this contention of yours here. There have been billions of human persons created since Adam and Eve. Since these have been spread over many ages, I'm inclined to believe that at least some of the matter (carbon and hydrogen atoms, etc.) which constituted the former bodies of persons past has been recycled into new bodies. It is probable that some of us have some of the matter that once belonged to someone else's body.

At the Resurrection of the dead, what happens? To me, it seems silly to demand that all of the original matter of our former bodies must then be reassembled into our glorified bodies. It would mean multiple bodies share some of the same matter, which would be absurd. It would also mean matter being rearranged from all over the world (since earth and decomposed matter may shift location over the years), which doesn't seem necessary. I don't think the canon meant to define that God must recreate every human body with every original bit of matter. Our glorified bodies will truly be our bodies, but probably made of slightly different stuff. It's important that they be our original bodies, but I don't think they must be of the same matter to be original. Rather, I think "[Our] own bodies which [we] now have" will have the same imprint left by our soul having lived in it. All the effects of our personal soul having been fused with flesh will be present in out glorified bodies; God would simply will them into this state.

That, I think, is how we ought to read that canon, so as to avoid an absurd conclusion and the premature defamation of a theology professor's character. All due respect to you, my brother.

[quote name='the_rev']I have found that dialogues on Medjugorje are very banal. You are against Medjugorje and will use your sources, I'm for and will use my own sources. Through the exchanges, you are not going to have a sudden awe enlightening moment, and all of a sudden believe. This topic is a topic of division and really no progress is ever made in discussions.[/quote]

Unfortunately, I think I agree with you the_rev, for those staunch in their beliefs. I wish it weren't so.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote]Well that's a far cry from what you originally stated. A classroom isn't considered a public setting and "well I heard it" doesn't constitute a citable source.[/quote]

By whom is it not considered a public setting?

[quote]Plus the fact that I cannot find anywhere in the reported messages of Medjugorje (or on any site that promotes the messages) anything that recognizes your claim that she ever said the "bishop had no love in his heart"

so if you could provide a source for that.[/quote]

Do you only look on sites that [i]promote[/i] the "messages?"

If we depended upon CNN or Keith Olbermann for our news....

My point is that you may want to try looking on the "FOXNews-esque" web sites and books for information pertaining to Medjugorje. May I suggest [url="http://en.louisbelanger.com"]one such web site[/url] recently cited by Patrick Madrid on the Drew Mariani radio show?

New Jerusalem reproduces [url="http://www.newjerusalem.com/bishop-truth.htm"]a document[/url] that Bishop Pavao Zanic himself wrote which contains the information you seek.

Please note that I provide this source only for its valuable reproduction of the document you seek, not for any other personal views.

If you question the validity of the document, I encourage you to visit the [url="http://www.cbismo.com/"]web site of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno[/url] and [url="biskupija@cbismo.hr"]E-mail Bishop Peric[/url].

adresa:
Nadbiskupa Čule bb. pp. 54,
88000 Mostar
tel.: 036/334-050
fax: 036/334-080
e.mail: biskupija@cbismo.hr

[quote]You're denouncing what Miravele says in the article based upon what you"heard" in a classroom. Tell me Kevin, does he say anything inaccurate in the article posted? Because I haven't seen him mispeak once.[/quote]

Not to be rude but you misunderstand me.

I disagree with Dr. Miravalle because I have heard his side [i]in his own words and in person over the course of several years.[/i] After looking at the evidence for myself, I came to the conclusion that he was in error.

Furthermore, yes, Miravalle is inaccurate in the article. I [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=106374&st=20"]already pointed that out[/url] (second post on this page) and you have not addressed it yet.

In charity, I remain:
-KJS

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='the_rev' date='27 June 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1277667090' post='2134995']
My last consecutive post. As a person who has been to Medjugorje, and ultimately received my conversion and vocation as a result of Medjugorje, I hate participating in debates about Medjugorje. I have found that dialogues on Medjugorje are very banal. [b]You are against Medjugorje and will use your sources, I'm for and will use my own sources.[/b] Through the exchanges, you are not going to have a sudden awe enlightening moment, and all of a sudden believe. This topic is a topic of division and really no progress is ever made in discussions. [b]In stead of going back and forth, I believe we just need to wait for the Vatican to "condemn" it, or approve it or be neutral towards it rather than participating in our own heated debates of our own opinions.[/b]
[/quote]
Couldn't agree more. And I could have written that word for word myself. These debates can go on forever (and we're not even in the Debate Table.) Do a quick search through PM and you'll find them. Can we just go with this and call it a day? I am anyway. God bless!

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='Crispy' date='27 June 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1277670802' post='2135033']
I'm no doctrinal scholar, but I can offer a thought about this contention of yours here. There have been billions of human persons created since Adam and Eve. Since these have been spread over many ages, I'm inclined to believe that at least some of the matter (carbon and hydrogen atoms, etc.) which constituted the former bodies of persons past has been recycled into new bodies. It is probable that some of us have some of the matter that once belonged to someone else's body.

At the Resurrection of the dead, what happens? To me, it seems silly to demand that all of the original matter of our former bodies must then be reassembled into our glorified bodies. It would mean multiple bodies share some of the same matter, which would be absurd. It would also mean matter being rearranged from all over the world (since earth and decomposed matter may shift location over the years), which doesn't seem necessary. I don't think the canon meant to define that God must recreate every human body with every original bit of matter. Our glorified bodies will truly be our bodies, but probably made of slightly different stuff. It's important that they be our original bodies, but I don't think they must be of the same matter to be original. Rather, I think "[Our] own bodies which [we] now have" will have the same imprint left by our soul having lived in it. All the effects of our personal soul having been fused with flesh will be present in out glorified bodies; God would simply will them into this state.[/quote]

I like your thoughts but remember that we are dealing with a supernatural, not a natural, process. To speak of the resurrection of the dead at the end of time in purely natural terms, well, that's like trying to explain transfiguration in purely natural terms. It just ain't happenin'.

I will admit that I could be dead wrong on this point of natural/supernatural, but the fact remains that the "Gospa" clearly stated something contrary to Magisterial teaching. Hey, have you heard the gaff on "unbelieving Judases?"

[quote]That, I think, is how we ought to read that canon, so as to avoid an absurd conclusion and the premature defamation of a theology professor's character. All due respect to you, my brother.[/quote]

My challenge of Dr. Miravalle was not rooted in my point on Canon I of IV Lateran. My challenge was rooted in a statement he made in class concerning an inaccurate respresentation of the "Gospa" of Medjugorje.


[quote]Unfortunately, I think I agree with you the_rev, for those staunch in their beliefs. I wish it weren't so.[/quote]

I am sad to hear both you and the_rev say this. You make me and others sound like terrible and unfair people.

If the facts of a case run afoul of the Church's teaching such as what is found at Medjugorje, then I have every reason to disagree with an alleged revelation. I enjoy the right under those same Church teachings to raise and defend my opinion (not judgment, mind you) in the public forum. I am confident in that.

-KJS