Medjugorje

[Nicole8223]

The Church has said it is fine for pilgrims to travel there, but that it should be known that it has not yet been investigated and approved.

[Ellenita]

[quote]The Church has said it is fine for pilgrims to travel there[/quote]

Individuals presumably? I definately read that parishes are asked not to make pilgrimages there.

[philothea]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 3 2005, 05:23 PM']
Individuals presumably? I definately read that parishes are asked not to make pilgrimages there. [/quote]
I heard the same thing. It's even iffy whether you can have a priest leading your private pilgrimage.

[Nicole8223]

I'll see if I can find the documentation. I know that it is not reccomended that a parish host the visionaries as speakers until the church further investigates, but they can advertise for any speaking events. A friend of mine just had Ivan at her parish, and she had to produce all the documentation for her bishop before being given permission. I'll find out the source that said it is good for pilgrims to visit.

[Socrates]

While I'm not an expert, and only the Church can make the final judgmenent on this, I do not believe the alleged apparitions there are real.
(See the links popestpiusx posted.) The apparitions contain falsehoods, and bring about disobedience and disunity in the Church. And they are nothing like the approved apparitions, which occured for a limited time, had a focused message, and ended with a definitive sign from Our Lady. The Medjugorje messages just go on and on and on.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Socrates

[jezic]

how do they bring about disunity?

I am wondering this more because i have never heard anything negative about them ......

[Nicole8223]

His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)

Jezic, if you are interested, go to [url="http://www.medugorje.org/faq.htm"]http://www.medugorje.org/faq.htm[/url]. They have answers and documentation for all of the questions being raised.

[quote]Pavao Žanic originally visited Medjugorje five times in the first two months of the apparitions in 1981 and performed a thorough investigation. Afterwards he came only to confer the sacrament of Confirmations to the faithful. In front of over 3000 people at Holy Mass, he declared:

"I am deeply convinced that no child who says that they have seen Our Lady, has been talked into doing so. If we were speaking about one child only, one might say he could be stubborn and that not even the police could make the child renounce what he said. But six innocent, simple children in the space of half an hour, would, if they were pushed, admit all. None of the priests, I guarantee, had any idea of putting the children up to something.... I am also convinced that the children are not lying. The children are only speaking out what's in their hearts... It is certain: the children are not lying". (From a sermon given on the feast of St. James, the patron saint of Medjugorje, on the 25th of July 1981)

In "Glas Koncila", the Croatian national catholic newspaper, 16th of August 1981, he stated; "It is definite that the children were not incited by anyone, and especially not by the church, to lie."

It is unclear why in the months to follow that Bishop Zanic changed his mind. Some say it was due to threats and pressure by the Communist government of imprisonment of both Fr. Jozo and the Bishop if the apparitions did not cease. We all know that Fr. Jozo served 18 months of harsh inprisonment for refusing to denounce Medjugorje. Others say that a reported comment from Our Lady regarding a wrong judgement the Bishop had made with a Franciscan priest infuriated the Bishop. But regardless the ultimate outcome was that the Bishop turned against Medjugorje.[/quote]

[philothea]

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='May 3 2005, 09:33 PM'] His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)
[/quote]
Boggle.



Obviously His Holiness was speaking of [b]approved[/b] private revelations, right?

Edited May 4, 2005 by philothea

[Nicole8223]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 3 2005, 09:44 PM'] Boggle.



Obviously His Holiness was speaking of [b]approved[/b] private revelations, right? [/quote]
No, he was referring to apparitions which had not been investigated fully by the Church, such as Medugorje.

This is why he says if it should be proven true or if it is proven false...implying that it hasn't been declared either way.

[corban711]

but the problem with Medjugorje is not that the Church is only looking into it. the bishops of their diocese have repeatedly said there should be no public, organized pilgrimages there and they have denied these are apparitions of our Blessed Mother. promoters of Medjugorje keep saying, "well Rome hasn't said yet"..but it isn't Rome's job...they have given authority to the local bishop to decide private revelation and all the local bishops that have made statements have been negative. plus, the bishop wrote a pretty rough article on the disobedience of the francsicans.

I don't think their disobedience disapproves the apparitions necessarily, but it will be very difficult for the Church to approve apparitions that are surrounded with disobedience.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='May 4 2005, 01:03 PM'] No, he was referring to apparitions which had not been investigated fully by the Church, such as Medugorje.

This is why he says if it should be proven true or if it is proven false...implying that it hasn't been declared either way. [/quote]
It would only make sense if referring to approved apparitions. (Remember "approved" doesn't mean "proved true." The Church does not require us to beleive in approved appartions.)

Otherwise, the implication would be that it is better to beleive absolutely anyone who claims they've had a heavenly apparition or private revelation.
That would be absolutely absurd!

[Aloysius]

he was obviously referring to approved apparitions

meaning that if one day they prove that Juan Diego never existed and Our Lady of Guadeloupe never appeared to him it is better that we believed it even if it was not true.

remember, when the Church approves an apparition it says that nothing in its messages run contrary to Catholic Teaching. it is not saying 'this definitely happened'. which is why before something is approved we should not put much stock in the messages as they could be leading us away from Church Teaching.

[popestpiusx]

It appears the supporters of this nonsense have no desire to read refutations of what they are posting. See the links I posted. They answer specifically the claims you are making. And the quote from Bishop Zanic is laughable considering his adament insistence that nothing is taking place there.

[philothea]

I have spent a lot of time in research this afternoon.

First, I was looking for that quote from Urban VIII, which appears all over unapproved apparition sites, while other debunking sites try to find the original source. No one seems to have the source.

Anyway, then I looked for more Medjugorje stuff. The [url="http://www.unitypublishing.com/newswire/truth.html"]article[/url] from Bishop Zanic published in 1990 makes the apparitions seem very unlikely to be from Mary.

A few excerpts:

[quote] I told him about the case of the ex-franciscan priest Ivica Vego.  Due to his disobedience, by an order of the Holy father the Pope, he was thrown out of his franciscan religious order OFM by his General, dispensed from his vows and suspended "a divinis".  He did not obey this order and he continued to celebrate Mass, distribute the sacraments and pass the time with his mistress.  It is unpleasant to write about this, yet it is necessary in order to see who Our Lady is speaking of.  According to the diary of Vicka and the statements of the "seers", Our Lady mentioned 13 times that he is innocent and that the bishop is wrong.  When his mistress, sister Leopolda, a nun, became pregnant, both of them left Medjugorje and the religious life and began to live together near Medjugorje where their child was born.  Now they have two children.[/quote]

[quote]Here I will only mention the bloody handkerchief.  Word spread around that there was a certain taxi driver who came across a man who was bloody all over.  This man gave this taxi driver a bloodied handkerchief and he told him to:  "throw this in the river".  The driver went on and then he came across a woman in black.  She stopped him and asked him to give her a handkerchief.  He gave her his own, but she said:  "not that one but the bloody handkerchief."  He gave her the handkerchief she wanted and she then said:  "If you had thrown it into the river the end of the world would have occurred now."  Vicka Ivankovic wrote in her diary that they asked Our Lady if this event was true and she said that it was, and along with this, "that man covered, with blood was my son Jesus, and I (Our Lady) was that woman in black."

    What kind of theology is this?  From this it appears that Jesus wants to destroy the world if a handkerchief is thrown into a river and it's Our Lady who saves the world![/quote]

[quote]A conversation with Vicka:  "The bishop has the duty to judge whether or not this is Our Lady..." said Rev. Grafenauer.
Vicka:  He can judge as he wants, but I know it's Our Lady.

Graf:  The Church says that those who are confident in themselves, that this itself is a sign that Our Lady is not in question here.
Vicka:  Let those who are doubtful remain doubtful, I'm not.
Graf:  This is not a good sign... you once told the bishop that he should listen more to Our Lady than to the Pope.
Vicka:  Yes I did.
Graf:  This means that the bishop should listen to you more than to the Pope.
Vicka:  No, not me.
Graf:  But the bishop doesn't know what the phenomenon is and perhaps it is not Our Lady.
Vicka:  Yes it is Our Lady.
Graf:  You told the bishop that he is to blame and that those two (Vego and Prusina) are innocent and that they can perform their priestly duties.
Vicka:  Yes I did.
Graf:  Can they hear confession?  Did Our Lady mention this?
Vicka:  Yes.
Graf:  If Our Lady said this and the Pope says that they cannot...
Vicka:  The Pope can say what he wants, I'm telling it as it is!
Graf:  See, this is how one can come to the conclusion that this is not Our Lady... when the Pope says no, they cannot celebrate Mass, and they cannot hear confessions, and then on the other hand, Our Lady says they can do both, this cannot be!
Vicka:  I know what is right (What Our Lady said). [/quote]

There's lots more but I'm getting too depressed to read enough to find more quotes.

[Nicole8223]

I've hear the visionaries talk many times...they never talked as they supposedly did in the excerpt you posted. I don't believe they are really quots.

As for the Bishop, he originally declared all as true, saying the children were not lying...and then he was threatened and then his mind was changed....hmmmm