"approved" Apparitions

[the_rev]

[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 [/quote]

The comment wasn't meant to make you feel bad or pity yourself. It's just we need to agree to disagree, and realize that at this time it is all personal opinion supported with our own sought out evidence. I look forward to the official declaration by the Church. Private revelation is not meant for everyone and is merely private, it doesn't need to be accepted by you to be Catholic. In the case that Medjugorje was to get approved, you would not believe in it, and that is alright because that is your right and you are entitled to that. And if Medjugorje is condemned, I will acknowledge the Vatican's ruling, and I will praise God for the good fruit of Medjugorje, for the souls that were brought back to the sacraments, and I will ignore the messages out of obedience to the Church. The thing is debates like this, I feel don't go anywhere and have been hashed over time and time again.

Edited June 27, 2010 by the_rev

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='the_rev' date='27 June 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1277674889' post='2135080']
The comment wasn't meant to make you feel bad or pity yourself. It's just we need to agree to disagree, and realize that at this time it is all personal opinion supported with our own sought out evidence.[/quote]

I am unsure of the reference to self-pity when I expressed sadness.

[quote]I look forward to the official declaration by the Church. Private revelation is not meant for everyone and is merely private, it doesn't need to be accepted by you to be Catholic. In the case that Medjugorje was to get approved, you would not believe in it, and that is alright because that is your right and you are entitled to that. And if Medjugorje is condemned, I will acknowledge the Vatican's ruling, and I will praise God for the good fruit of Medjugorje, for the souls that were brought back to the sacraments, and I will ignore the messages out of obedience to the Church. The thing is debates like this, I feel don't go anywhere and have been hashed over time and time again.[/quote]

the_rev, believe me when I say that I am sick and tired of hearing about "the latest message(s)" from this or that "seer." In that [i]I [u]am[/u] sympathetic[/i] to your point. The fact remains, however, that these people are out there and they are deluding the faithful. There needs to be those who can answer the call of these false prophets in our midst.

-KJS

[HisChildForever]

I never understood the zeal and the passion of those who defend Medjugorje. None of us can be certain until the Church speaks.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='27 June 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1277676647' post='2135089']
I never understood the zeal and the passion of those who defend Medjugorje. None of us can be certain until the Church speaks.[/quote]

That doesn't mean people can't have and/or express their opinions. I speak for the positive and negative sides.

[Crispy]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' date='27 June 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1277674618' post='2135079']
the fact remains that the "Gospa" clearly stated something contrary to Magisterial teaching.[/quote]
[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]

I took the time to unpack that canon question not for its own sake, but because that was your proof that Miravalle had made a misrepresentation of the Medjugorje messages. If your assertion about the canon being contrary to the "Gospa" message is shown to be false, then Miravalle did [i]not[/i] err in saying that no Medj. message is contrary to authentic Church teaching.

[quote]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.

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

I too have heard his side in person and in his own words, also over several years. I was his student too - I just finished undergrad at FUS. I would agree if you said that Dr. Miravalle is somewhat provocative in his oratory style, but I have not drawn your same conclusion about him, namely, I don't believe that he is in error.

[quote]Furthermore, yes, Miravalle is inaccurate in the article. I already pointed that out (second post on this page) and you have not addressed it yet.
[/quote]

Above I have just addressed your point.

[quote]The fact remains, however, that these people are out there and they are deluding the faithful. There needs to be those who can answer the call of these false prophets in our midst.[/quote]

Amen brother. Please let us fight the good fight against all false prophets in our world. But it is not an undeniable fact that the Medj. seers are false prophets who are "deluding the faithful. Therefore, as one who believes that the Medj. apparitions are from God, I will do my part to defend them. Do not think less of me for this.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' date='27 June 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1277678212' post='2135092']
That doesn't mean people can't have and/or express their opinions.
[/quote]

Never said otherwise.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='Crispy' date='27 June 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1277678367' post='2135093']
[quote]I took the time to unpack that canon question not for its own sake, but because that was your proof that Miravalle had made a misrepresentation of the Medjugorje messages. If your assertion about the canon being contrary to the "Gospa" message is shown to be false, then Miravalle did [i]not[/i] err in saying that no Medj. message is contrary to authentic Church teaching.[/quote]

My first point with Dr. Miravalle was not the reference to IV Lateran. My original point was the statement he made in class on 12-6-05. That was my point of discussion that Dr. Miravalle misrepresented something the "Gospa" said. I shall call this "Point One" from here on out.

Then, as the point was contested based upon a claim to illegitimacy, the focus of the discussion changed to a remark I made on IV Lateran. I shall call this "Point Two."

After point two, some confusion has arisen as to what point is being discussed/addressed at a given moment. I hope this is not the case in the future.

That said, you have not proven the case on point two. Appealing to science vis-a-vis molecules and biology, etc., is not a defense against the literal meaning of canon I from IV Lateran. Said Council was not speaking about science. It was talking about an article of faith. Kind of like the discussion about Joshua holding the sun in the sky for 24 hours in relation to geo-/heliocentrism, the historical-critical methods and the inspiration of the Scriptures.

In order to read the Scriptures so as to understand them properly, one needs to be a part of the believing community. This because the Holy Spirit is operating in the community of the faithful and He authored the Scriptures. There is a point to which science cannot answer questions of faith regarding the Scriptures.

Science cannot explain the resurrection of the dead (neither can a theologian for that matter, though for different reasons). It is a dogma of the Faith. We believe it because God has said it is going to happen at the end of time. Thus while science might be able to aid our understanding in some ways, it cannot explain the mystery.

So while I [i]understand, respect and honor[/i] your thoughtful point about science and canon I of IV Lateran, it does not hold under the supernatural glance of faith. To persist in a naturalistic line of reasoning undermines the supernatural nature of the event and I strongly caution against such a course of action.

For more information on the "hidden side" of Medjugorje, I recommend Donal Anthony Foley's "[i]Understanding Medjugorje[/i]" as there is quite a bit of documentation in it.

Regarding point one, I have not heard a response from you as to my question: "By whom is it not considered a public setting?"

[quote]I too have heard his side in person and in his own words, also over several years. I was his student too - I just finished undergrad at FUS. I would agree if you said that Dr. Miravalle is somewhat provocative in his oratory style, but I have not drawn your same conclusion about him, namely, I don't believe that he is in error.[/quote]

Congratulations! Welcome to the ranks of the FUS Alumni! A proud group, dare I say. Are you a fellow theology major?

Regarding my conclusions on Dr. Miravalle's belief in Medjugorje, there were two halves of my remarks. The first was what you stated above. The second was that I have researched the issues for myself and then drew the conclusion he was in error.

I have discussed part of my story on this matter on my blog. [url="http://d-rium.blogspot.com/2010/06/apologia-for-my-work-part-one.html"]I invite you to read it[/url].

[quote]Amen brother. Please let us fight the good fight against all false prophets in our world. But it is not an undeniable fact that the Medj. seers are false prophets who are "deluding the faithful. Therefore, as one who believes that the Medj. apparitions are from God, I will do my part to defend them. Do not think less of me for this.
[/quote]

It is not a question of thinking less of you. I do, however, request that people who take up the cause be theological in their discussions and not argue from sentimentalism or emotionalism. It's one thing to be passionate about a topic, but quite another to be irrational--though I am not saying [i]you[/i] or anyone else here have done this.

I must also respectfully disagree with you in your "undeniable" statement. When you go back and do the research, there is really only one conclusion: Medjugorje cannot be supernatural in origin. That is, however, the discussion and I believe more will come out during its course

@HisChild: gotcha.

-KJS

Edited June 27, 2010 by KevinSymonds

[Malajacafa]

[quote name='the_rev' date='27 June 2010 - 03:31 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. 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.
[/quote]

Nah, it's already been condemned by the local Bishop and that's good enough. He (Bp Zanic) has the charism to say so, and he said, "Nothing supernatural" (meaning nothing from God) at Medj. But yes, conversions and vocations. But the apparitions? No.

Those "seers" are all very well off. They've made a lot of money from Megj. Not good.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='Selah' timestamp='1277643062' post='2134831']
I've read about the different Marian apparitions and even the visons of Christ. One thing that...well, I'll be honest here...one thing that upsets me is how hasty decisons are made to condemn them. I heard for instance, that before the Divine Mercy Diary was approved, it was locked up. And the Fatima and Lourdes apparitions were not treated with such respect before they were approved.

And as for Medjugorje, Garabandal, and Bayside, I see so many websites condemning them as demons...why? Why be so hasty? We don't know who it is, what's going on there. And, what if Bayside or Garabandal, even Medjugorje (though I am skeptical about Medjugorje) turn out to be Mary? We will have been calling her a devil all this time!

Would it not be better to just admit that we don't know? More repsectful to Our Lord and Lady to make sure we know 100% so as not to offend them if it actually is them?

I dunno. Let me know what you guys think.

+Selah
[/quote]



You;'ve made a very good point. Thanks for sharing.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

The Bishop is the head of the Church (St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle, wrote: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be as wherever Jesus Christ is; there is the Catholic Church). It is not Rome or the Pope who is the head but each Bishop and the Pope is the first among equals. Each bishop is the Supreme Authority and face of the Church in each diocese. It is right and good that the Bishops, with the Pope, come together to investigate these apparitions and teach the laity concerning them; however, the authority and job first belongs to the local bishop in his role as teacher and shepherd of God's people. As such, it is unwise to follow any apparition that is not approved and is even discouraged by the local bishop (such as is the case with Medjugorje) and especially when such discouragement is met with out and out disobedience by a clergyman. God can bring good out of all things and will use any opportunity to make Himself known where people open themselves to Him, but one should not knowingly disobey a bishop or encourage others to do so.