Bishop says Medjugorje apparitions are divisive

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1018192' date='Jul 6 2006, 11:13 AM']
She never said all religions are equal. That is an intentional misquote. What she said was that all people are equal and that some are closer to the truth than others. (I'm paraphrasing)
[/quote]
Uhhh... read the context, "she" said a bit more than that with no clarification to that effect:

From www.medjugorje.org
[quote]October 1, 1981

Are all religions the same? [i]"Members of all faiths are equal before God. God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, all religions are not the same because all people have not complied with the commandments of God. They reject and disparage them."[/i]

Are all churches the same? [i]"In some, the strength of prayer to God is greater, in others, smaller. That depends on the priests who motivate others to pray. It depends also on the power which they have." [/i]

Why do You appear to us so often and to others who do not follow God's path?* [i]"I appear to you often and in every place. To others, I appear from time to time briefly. They do not yet follow the way of God completely. They are not aware of the gift which He has made them. That, no one deserves. with time, they also will come to follow the right way."[/i]

* This must be about other apparitions in Hercegovina.[/quote]
The answer to the first question is false ecumenism, if anything. Only "in the world" not all religions are the same? Catholicism and Buddism/Hinduism/Taoism/etc-isms will not be the same in Heaven either... If you reject God and His Commandments, you reject your Salvation.

Besides, with all of the hullaballoo over this particular apparition... why hasn't it been clarified in a more recent apparition? Even in the newly approved apparitions from Amsterdam of Our Lady of All Nations, when something (i.e., a phrase in the prayer she offered) was ambiguous and causing disruption, Our Lady clarified and expanded upon what she meant.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1018516' date='Jul 6 2006, 04:40 PM']
Uhhh... read the context, "she" said a bit more than that with no clarification to that effect:

From www.medjugorje.org

The answer to the first question is false ecumenism, if anything. Only "in the world" not all religions are the same? Catholicism and Buddism/Hinduism/Taoism/etc-isms will not be the same in Heaven either... If you reject God and His Commandments, you reject your Salvation.

Besides, with all of the hullaballoo over this particular apparition... why hasn't it been clarified in a more recent apparition? Even in the newly approved apparitions from Amsterdam of Our Lady of All Nations, when something (i.e., a phrase in the prayer she offered) was ambiguous and causing disruption, Our Lady clarified and expanded upon what she meant.
[/quote]


I've read it in context more than a few times in my life Fides. There's nothing stated that goes against Church teachings. Members (that's a key word) of all faiths are equal but their faiths are not. What's the problem? The Church teaches the same.

[quote]839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334 [/quote]

I can go into VII as well if you like. What is being said that contradicts any of this? Nothing

[quote]Only "in the world" not all religions are the same? Catholicism and Buddism/Hinduism/Taoism/etc-isms will not be the same in Heaven either...[/quote]

There aren't going to be any religions in heaven. One true faith. That'll be it.

Look no one is requiring anyone to believe in what's happening in Medjugorje. But it is quite different to spread untruths about it.

Yeah I've been there. I've personally witnessed the miracles. I have no problems believing that the Blessed Mother is appearing there.

Are there some folks who take it too far? Absolutely. Instead of being an affirmation to their faith, there are some that treat it as the foundation. That's misguided. But if anyone thinks that people didn't take things too far with Lourdes or Fatima, you gots another think coming.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I've been to Medjugorje as well.. climbed "apparition hill" and sat up with hundreds of other people for the "apparition". I've heard Ivan speak several times (including when I was in Medjugorje). I went to Medjugorje with an open mind, not having read anything about the apparitions, and came away VERY skeptical.

[quote]I've read it in context more than a few times in my life Fides. There's nothing stated that goes against Church teachings. Members (that's a key word) of all faiths are equal but their faiths are not. What's the problem? The Church teaches the same.[/quote]
You're still ignoring [i]"in the world"[/i] part. That phrase adds a great deal of meaning which you will not find elsewhere Church doctrine, Catechism or Vatican II. Yes, it may be "nit-picky" and trite to harp on a tiny phrase... however, early Christological Councils had bishops beating each other up over phrases and even single words!

I don't disagree at all the persons all hold equal value and dignity. But religions do not, whether "in the world" or not. There will only be one religion in Heaven. Nonetheless, this is still a very ambiguos answer....
Such that my last paragraph still stands. In all the confusion that followed, there is no clarification. Why would Our Lady not take pains to eradicate this confusion and contention among Catholics over one of her messages? Why does she not address the disobedience and other concerning circumstances surrounding her apparitions? This is very uncharacteristic of her other authentic Apparitions.

[michaelorapronobis]

[mod]edited by Ice Princess: Catholic vs Catholic Debate
A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of religious or the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/mod]

[Resurrexi]

The NO Mass is also free from error. When said with the 1st Eucharistic prayer, ad orientam, without any lay people reading scripture, in Latin, with incence and bells, with Gregorian Chant, without EMHCs, kneeling for Communion, no hand-holdng during Pater Noster, with the sign of peace not extended to the people, the NO can be very pleasing and traditional.

I do, however, perfer the reading cycle in the Tridentine Rite and I perfer the Tridentine offeratory and Non sum dignus thrice and the Canon said in a quiet voice.

Edited July 8, 2006 by StThomasMore

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Michael' post='1019553' date='Jul 7 2006, 08:48 PM']
[mod]Edited by moderator: edited by Ice Princess: Catholic vs Catholic Debate
A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of religious or the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/mod]
[/quote]

First of all, just because something isn't dogmatically defined- much of what we believe has not been- does not mean we are not bound by the Magisterial teaching of the Church not to believe in it.

Secondly, Catholics who are bound solely to the Council of Trent. We are not stuck in the 1500's. The Mass is not from Trent, Michael! There are at least 25 other Catholic rites- Eastern and Western. That alone proves that the so-called 'Tridentine' Mass, is not the 'true' Mass! Also, the Mass is not from Trent. The Mass is from Jesus Christ, it is His Sacrifice. The Missals published in '58, and '62 were not Tridentine, strictly speaking because though it was largely the text that Trent codified- not created or dogmatically approved- it underwent several revisions until 1965.

Thirdly, Please give up this rad-trad propaganda. [u]And we do not criticize the Magisterium, the Pope, and the Mass on Phatmass.[/u] I'm suprised you haven't been suspended or warned already.

Finally, and most importantly, here is an excerpt from the Vatican II documents and an address of Pope Paul VI which prove that the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo are binding.

All 16 documents all end with the following -or very similar- words:

[quote][u][b]“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”[/b][/u][/quote] (Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 366, etc.)

Here is an excerpt from an address of Paul VI:

Paul VI, May 24, 1976: [quote]“It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – [b][u]the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience.[/u] And this is said openly. [u]It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions.[/u]: What traditions?[/b] It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, [b][u]such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith… [/b][/u]

[u][b]“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.[/b] [/u] The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo [without people]. [u][b]The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old[/b], [/u] after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. [b][u]In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…[/b][/u][/quote]

Edited July 9, 2006 by Lil Red

[michaelorapronobis]

[quote]
The NO Mass is also free from error.
[/quote]

How do you know this?

[quote]
When said with the 1st Eucharistic prayer, ad orientam, without any lay people reading scripture, in Latin, with incence and bells, with Gregorian Chant, without EMHCs, kneeling for Communion, no hand-holdng during Pater Noster, with the sign of peace not extended to the people, the NO can be very pleasing and traditional.
[/quote]

How often does this ever happen?

Even when it is said like that, there are still problems. Much of the Sacrificial language has been removed from the liturgy. This action parallels that of the 16th-century reformers, Luther and Cranmer who had removed any specific reference to sacrifice in their Eucharistic services in order to signify their denial of the Mass as a Sacrifice. In the New Mass there is no mention of the Divine Victim in what purports to correspond to the Offertory. In fact, in the General Instruction of the New Mass, there is no mention of an Offertory, as this has been replaced by the Preparation of the Gifts i.e. of bread and wine. So the emphasis has been shifted from the Divine Victim to the produce of the earth and work of human hands. The traditional Offertory prayers - which emphasised the true nature of the Holy Sacrifice in an unmistakable manner - have been suppressed and what remains has been modified to such an extent that their Catholic expression has compromised.

[Resurrexi]

The offering of the Victim to God immediatley after concecration if replaced by the memorial acclemation of the death and ressurection of Christ. It may not be exactly the same, but it is close.

As for the offering of the bread and wine, it may not be pleasing, as it does not please me, but you should know that in the early Church, the only offeratory prayer was the secret?

[Franimus]

*grabs the wheel and turns it back to Medjugorje*

Let's get back on topic, shall we?
Obviously, the Medjugorje apparitions are divisive, we are all witnesses of this right now in this thread.

so... as pointed out before, this lack of prophecy thing does really bother me... But, they haven't declared themselves Pope yet! Gotta give them credit for that......

[p0lar_bear]

There have been enough questions and enough things that just don't make sense that I [i]seriously[/i] question the authenticity. One of the major factors is the lack of docility to the local bishop. Leaders and supporters of the Medjugorje apparitions seem too inclined to disregard or contradict the local bishops, which definitely smacks of inauthenticity in my book.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' post='1019812' date='Jul 8 2006, 08:10 AM']
There have been enough questions and enough things that just don't make sense that I [i]seriously[/i] question the authenticity. One of the major factors is the lack of docility to the local bishop. Leaders and supporters of the Medjugorje apparitions seem too inclined to disregard or contradict the local bishops, which definitely smacks of inauthenticity in my book.
[/quote]
Amen.

This was the kicker for me. I went, and was skeptical, but then kept hearing more and more about disobedience and disappointment with the bishop. If the bishop has concerns, then they darn well ought to be taken seriously.

[the_rev]

here is a long commentary from spiritdaily, (used with permission)

Spirit Daily

__________________________________________

Uproar Over Medjugorje Stirred Again With Bishop's Remarks On Apparitions, Reflecting On Long, Fascinating Dispute

Rome or Mostar?

That question -- and confusion -- reared its head again last week when the bishop of the diocese that oversees Medjugorje, the famous pilgrimage site in Bosnia-Hercegovina, was reported to have once more denounced the apparitions, demanding that seers there "demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience" and "cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish."

Since 1981, six visionaries have claimed to see the Blessed Mother on a regular and in some cases daily basis, issuing a monthly message that is disseminated around the world.

The bishop, Ratko Peric, actually had made the remarks more than two weeks before (it took a while for the diocese to publish them) and the confusion was that the Vatican -- while prohibiting official parish pilgrimages to Medjugorje -- has for years said that the matter is still under review and -- contrary to the bishop's pronouncements -- that unofficial pilgrimages, including by priests and bishops, are acceptable. "You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false," stated the Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, in Rome's last official statement, which was reiterated several weeks ago. "This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want."

There was thus a curious choice: were the faithful to heed the local bishop, who almost always has jurisdiction over apparitions in his diocese, or the Vatican -- which has authority over bishops and the final say on private revelations, through its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

The matter is almost surely one that in the end, publicly or quietly, will be resolved by the Vicar of Rome.

And therein is the uncertainty.

While Pope John Paul II was widely reported to have had a positive discernment of the apparitions, it is not known how the current Pope feels. He has indicated both ways.

But it was Benedict XVI, in 1986, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who removed the authority of the Mostar bishop to rule on the apparitions, placing the matter in the hands of a national commission that is now headed by the Cardinal of Sarajevo -- which has stated that it will not issue a final decision until the apparitions have come to a conclusion.

The issue remains a matter of misunderstanding, misrepresentations, and sharp debate. When he was secretary of the Congregation (under Cardinal Ratzinger), and asked about similarly negative statements from the bishop in a periodical called Famille Chretienne, the new Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, wrote:

"What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of Famille Chretienne, declaring: 'My conviction and my position is not only 'non constat de supernaturalitate,' but likewise, 'constat de non supernaturalitate' of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje [that they were false], should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion."

There is thus no judgment recognized at this point by Rome. According to a Croatian source who is close to the situation and friends with both the bishop, who has stayed at her home, and the seers, both Peric and his predecessor had been instructed by the Vatican not to make public remarks about the apparitions.

The history of the controversy is meticulously detailed by a professional British journalist and broadcaster, Mary Craig, who first traveled to Medjugorje to produce a documentary for the British Broadcasting Corporation and later penned a book about the controversy called Spark From Heaven.

According to Craig, the opposition of the local bishop is largely rooted in or at least exacerbated by a long-standing dispute between the secular priests in the diocese, based in Mostar, and Franciscans who have functioned independent of diocesan oversight and operate many parishes in what was once Yugoslavia -- including the parish of Medjugorje.

Franciscans are the oldest priests in the region and predate existence of dioceses. But bowing to pressure from Austro-Hungary, the Vatican created a secular diocese to oversee the area on July 5, 1881, despite dogged Franciscan opposition. It was these attempts by the diocese to absorb Franciscan parishes that initiated antagonisms.

Initially, Pope Leo XIII halted the secular archbishop from claiming right to the Franciscan parishes, but as the years and decades wore on, pressure built and some parishes were turned over.

Tensions remained particularly acute in the Diocese of Mostar.

"The mutual animosity was unbelievable," commented an observer quoted by Craig. "The Franciscans simply didn't want to go. After all, they had been there for more than four centuries."

By 1966 the situation was described as "intractable," and attempts by the diocese to absorb the Franciscan strongholds were met by actual protests by villagers, who were loyal to the Franciscans and in some cases reacted with violence.

So furious was the bishop of Mostar at the time, Petar Cule, that he banned Masses, baptisms, and catechism lessons at the guilty parishes. "Cule had the enthusiastic support," writes Craig, "of his new auxiliary bishop, Pavao Zanic."

Bishop Zanic, who immediately preceded Bishop Peric, became bishop on August 31, 1980, and immediately demanded the surrender of three-quarters of the Franciscan parishes -- once more spiking tensions between Franciscans and the diocese. Two especially recalcitrant Franciscan priests, Ivica Vega and Ivan Prusina, were expelled.

It was Zanic -- as successor to Cule -- who would initiate the rulings against the apparitions at Medjugorje, which began shortly after the expulsions.

On January 10, 1982, faced with thousands of pilgrims descending on the Franciscan parish, the bishop set up a four-man commission to study the reputed apparitions.

Just four days later, when summoned to Mostar to see the bishop, one of the seers, Vicka Ivankovic, without preamble, defended the Franciscans and indicated that the Blessed Mother felt he had acted hastily in dismissing the young priests -- a claim that according to Craig enraged the bishop. "'Go away,' he shouted at Vicka, reportedly adding, "And when your Lady finally reveals her true colors and curses God, be sure and let me know," writes the British journalist.

While initially a believer that Mary was appearing, the dispute erupted in the early days of the apparitions and the bishop had also grown concerned about what he later termed as widespread "hallucination" at the site of apparitions.

In 1984, the bishop issued a position paper saying that the only unique feature of Medjugorje was the blame it seemed to levy on him in the matter of the two Franciscans. Animosities only grew as pilgrims streamed in and the diocese was unable to exert control.

The matter intensified in 1985 when on June 2 of that year, Bishop Zanic went to Rome to present an up-to-date report on Medjugorje to the Vatican that was strongly negative. "Rather to his dismay," reports Craig, "he was asked to soft-pedal his opposition, to let events take their own course."

Added Craig -- who also penned a major biography of Lech Walesa -- "an affair that should have been no more than an irritating side issue had turned into a creeping cancer that threatened to destroy the integrity of the Medjugorje events."

Meanwhile, three of the seers, Ivan Dragicevic, Marija Pavlocic, and Jakov Colo, reported that during an apparition, the Blessed Mother had said, "Tell the bishop that I beg him most earnestly to endorse the events in the parish of Medjugorje before it is too late. I want him to approach those events with great understanding, love, and a deep sense of responsibility. The bishop is father-in-chief to all the Hercegovina parishes, and head of the Church in that province. For this reason, I beg him to accept what is happening there."

By this time Medjugorje and its messages were the subject of deep interest by John Paul II, who encouraged visiting bishops to visit the site and studied the monthly messages. It is all but certain that it was John Paul II, working quietly behind the scenes, who prevented the bishop from making official pronouncement.

The Pope's views had been influenced in large measure by French theologian Rene Laurentin, widely considered the greatest Marian scholar in the world and an expert on the apparitions at Lourdes. After visiting Bishop Zanic, Father Laurentin became "alarmed by the anger in the bishop's voice," says Craig, and "begged him not to give voice to accusations which could only scandalize the pilgrims."

The issue was placed in the hands of the Pope's top lieutenant, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- who as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had jurisdiction over private revelations.

The controversy was further fueled, notes the journalist, by the two ends of the Church spectrum: liberals who disdained any supernatural claims, preferring a psychological approach (and dismissing such matters as hallucinations) and "traditionalists on the right" who condemned the ecumenical messages from Medjugorje (where the Blessed Mother had said people of all religions were God's children).

In July of 1984, the visionaries were banned from the church by the bishop -- who did have the authority to do that -- and henceforth would have their apparitions in the rectory or a side chapel.

As for investigations, a commission that was seen as negative to Medjugorje from the start was established by Bishop Zanic but composed of just four people (only one of whom visited Medjugorje) and in January of 1984 Cardinal Kuharich of Zagreb asked Bishop Zanic to form "a larger, more serious commission," says the author.

Such was done and a new commission was formed with 14 members.

"None, however, was known to the public, and none had the remotest connection with the events they were investigating," notes Craig. "Moreover, the mixture was no more balanced than before, as ten of the 14 were known opponents of Medjugorje. Indeed, one of Zanic's fellow bishops dryly observed that disapproval of Medjugorje seemed to be a condition of selection." According to Craig -- -- who also takes swipes at the pro-Medjugorje camp -- the bishop, in pronouncing himself chairman of the commission, "declared his intention of 'crushing the apparitions.'"

If any more heat was needed, the Archbishop of Split, Frane Franic, threw his support behind Medjugorje, saying that the apparitions had borne more fruit for the region in three years "than all of our pastoral letters in forty."

It was a strange result, noted Craig, "for Satan to achieve."

The controversy over the apparitions, though still erupting, was thus a full-blown one more than twenty years ago. But back to the history:

The new commission proceeded with a report deploring those who "organize pilgrimages and demanded silence on the subject," says the book.

"But the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, gave it front-page prominence, and from there it spread around the world," says Craig, "creating the false impression, highly satisfactory to Bishop Zanic, that Medjugorje had been placed out of the bounds to faithful Catholics."

When the commission met on October 11, 1984, it was rapidly deadlocked despite the bishop's efforts and managed only a re-issuance of its earlier communique promising more investigation and expressing dissatisfaction over pilgrimages, which had continued and soon were to expand to such an extent that Medjugorje became the most visited site of apparition at such an early stage in modern Church history, with millions traveling there despite the rule of Communism.

When the new communique was sent for endorsement by the Yugoslav bishops, says Craig, the word "official" was inserted in front of "pilgrimages," thus recognizing that "though there could be no major pilgrimages led by a bishop or cardinal to Medjugorje, private pilgrimages remained a matter of free choice."

They further suggested that a larger commission be instituted -- with international membership, for with visitors from nearly every nation, Medjugorje had far outgrown status as a local or even national event. So it is that the issue was beginning to grow beyond local control.

Despite criticisms, says Craig, "Bishop Zanic's position paper almost came near to torpedoing Medjugorje, as the international press danced to his tune."

A lack of knowledge into Church jurisdictions when it comes to apparitions aggravated the problem. So did politics.

"Communist journals in Zagreb and Belgrade were claiming that Cardinal Ratzinger had banned the pilgrimages," writes the former BBC broadcaster. "But Ratzinger maintained a prudent silence on the subject of Medjugorje, and Glas Koncila (a newspaper that made it sound like Medjugorje had been condemned) had to publish a denial."

The fight between Bishop Zanic and Archbishop Franic exploded in 1985 when Bishop Zanic asked the Vatican Secretary of State to stop the archbishop from interfering in the issue while, for his part, the archbishop went higher -- to Cardinal Ratzinger, pleading that the Vatican halt Bishop Zanic from defaming the site and noting the "large number of authenticated cures" at Medjugorje, something that had also caught the attention of Father Laurentin.

"An international commission should be set up, to stop the Bishop of Mostar forbidding all pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which would cause great scandal not only in Yugoslavia but throughout the world," wrote Archbishop Franic -- who on paper had spiritual if not administrative authority. "Medjugorje belongs not only to the Church in Yugoslavia but to the universal Church."

The bishop suffered further scrutiny when he accused a Franciscan who had served as a spiritual director at Medjugorje of having an affair with a nun -- an accusation that was hotly denied and eventually discredited.

In July of 1985, however, one of Cardinal Ratzinger's assistants, Archbishop Alberto Bovomne, asked Italian bishops to "publicly discourage the organization of pilgrimages and all other forms of propaganda for Medjugorje." It seemed like Bishop Zanic was finally on his way to settling the matter.

But in April of 1986 Bishop Zanic -- traveling to Rome with further commission findings -- "returned visibly chastened from a visit to Cardinal Ratzinger," reported Craig.

The bishop's commission assembled to vote the following month, with results that were never made public but were considered suspect.

"The die was cast," writes Craig. "The Commission may not have completed its work, but it had voted. The ballot papers were sent to Rome.

"Three weeks later, in May, Cardinal Ratzinger dissolved Bishop Zanic's commission, and ordered the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference to set up a new one. He gave no reasons for this action, unprecedented in the history of the Vatican, which has always left such investigations to the local bishop. In October, Cardinal Kuharic of Zagreb and Archbishop Franic of Split sent a joint letter to all the bishops, asking for nominees from each diocese."

Thus, the matter is now in the hands of a national commission -- albeit different from the one formed immediately after Cardinal Ratzinger stripped the Mostar diocese of its authority over the matter.

Although Bishop Zanic is now deceased, his successor and close assistant, Bishop Peric, who assumed control on July 24, 1994, is at least equally opposed to the apparitions and reportedly was a significant force behind Bishop Zanic's own misgivings throughout the 1980s.

His pronouncements are now in eerie echo of Bishop Zanic's -- and with the same result in the press.

Interrupted by civil war in Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and creation of the new nation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the national commission, which issued an intermediate report in 1991 saying there was as yet no proof of the supernatural, has been reformed into one that is headed by Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo and also includes his auxiliary bishop; the Bishop of Banja-Luka; and Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar.

How the Church will eventually rule is anyone's guess. Dozens of visitors, including bishops and archbishops, have said that John Paul II was highly favorable, and recent handwritten notes to a Polish intellectual have documented the late Pope's devotion to the site, but the stance of Pope Benedict is not known. If the commission rules against Medjugorje during his pontificate, he then has to accept it fully or intervene once more.

It has been asserted that as Cardinal Raztinger he visited Medjugorje incognito in 1984 and then again in 1986 or 1987 -- a claim given some credence by the fact that John Paul II encouraged underlings to go there and by the fact that high-ranking Vatican observers have been noted in the village on various occasions, including in 2002. However, Bishop Peric asserts the Pope told him recently that he never did visit the famous site. The Vatican itself has not commented.

The Vicar General of Sarajevo in Bosnia-Hercegovina told Spirit Daily several years ago that there will be no official determination on the apparitions until long after they have ended. That vicar, Father Mato Zovkic, said there are no current plans to reopen an investigation into the apparitions that stalled when a previous investigative body was dismantled due to the Bosnian conflict. He said it could take "10 or 15 years" after the conclusion of apparitions for the Church to reach a final determination on authenticity. At least two members, Cardinal Pulic, in concert with Bishop Peric, have indicated negatively.

"As the local bishop, I maintain that regarding the events of Medjugorje, on the basis of the investigations and experience gained thus far throughout these last 25 years, the Church has not confirmed a single apparition as authentically being the Madonna," he said. According to reports in the Catholic media, he then called on the alleged visionaries to cease with the "public manifestations."

"In this fashion," said the bishop, "they shall show their necessary adherence to the church, by placing neither private apparitions nor private sayings before the official position of the church. Our faith is a serious and responsible matter," he added. "The Church is also a serious and responsible institution."

Bishop Peric made his remarks on June 15 at a confirmation Mass in Medjugorje's St. James Church, a week before a record number of pilgrims flooded the area for the apparition's 25th anniversary. The diocese published the homily in Italian and English on July 3.

Meantime, in Medjugorje, where the seers do not publicly react to press reports, sources say the apparitions and messages will continue until they hear from Rome.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote]Meantime, in Medjugorje, where the seers do not publicly react to press reports, sources say the apparitions and messages will continue until they hear from Rome.[/quote]
When Rome won't say either way until the conclusion of the Apparitions?? This makes them all the more dubious.

It's interesting that when discussing the Bishop's opinion on the apparitions, the dicussion always turns political--how the Franciscans have been there since before the war and have the loyalty of the people.. blah, blah, blah. The POINT of contention is not who the people favor, nor length of residence, but the OFFICE of the Bishop which demands respect and a certain amount of obedience, even from non-diocesan priests/religious. The disobedience, etc. exampled by the Franciscans in Medjugorje is nothing short of scandalizing and undermining the authority of the Church (symbolized by the Bishop). This is why the Franciscans are a problem.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Stop Medjugorje Marian apparition claims, bishop tells visionaries
By Simon Caldwell
7/6/2006
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

MEDJUGORJE, Bosnia-Herzegovina – The bishop whose diocese includes the Bosnian village of Medjugorje has urged six alleged Marian visionaries to [u]stop claiming that Mary has been visiting them for 25 years[/u].

"As the local bishop, I maintain that regarding the events of Medjugorje, on the basis of the investigations and experience gained thus far throughout these last 25 years, the church has not confirmed a single apparition as authentically being the Madonna," he said. [b]He then called on the alleged visionaries and "those persons behind the messages to demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish."

"In this fashion [u]they shall show their necessary adherence to the church, by placing neither private apparitions nor private sayings before the official position of the church[/u]," he said.[/b]

"Our faith is a serious and responsible matter," he added. "The church is also a serious and responsible institution."

The bishop made his comments June 15 during a homily at a confirmation Mass in Medjugorje's St. James Church. The diocese published the homily in English and Italian July 3.

On June 25, thousands of pilgrims converged on Medjugorje to mark the 25th anniversary of the onset of the alleged apparitions.

Since June 24-25, 1981, the alleged visionaries together claim to have received more than 30,000 messages.

But Bishop Peric said in his homily that "so-called apparitions, messages, secrets and signs do not strengthen the faith, but rather further convince us that in all of this there is nothing either authentic or established as truthful."

He said in February that Pope Benedict XVI expressed similar doubts when they discussed Medjugorje during the Bosnian bishops' visit to the Vatican.

Bishop Peric told the congregation that because the church did not accept the claims of the visionaries it was illicit for priests to "express their private views contrary to the official position" during Mass, in acts of popular piety or in the Catholic media.

He said Catholics were forbidden from making pilgrimages to Medjugorje if by such visits "they presuppose the authenticity of the apparitions or if by undertaking them attempt to certify these apparitions."

Bishop Peric said his views, and those of his predecessor, Bishop Pavao Zanic, who was also opposed to the claims, were supported by the pope. He expressed appreciation to Popes Benedict and John Paul II, "who have always respected the judgments of the bishops of Mostar-Duvno, of the previous as well as the current bishop, regarding the so-called apparitions and messages of Medjugorje, all the while recognizing the holy father's right to give a final decision on these events."

He also warned his audience of a schism emerging in the region between the church and more than a dozen Franciscan brothers and priests who have been expelled by the generalate of the Order of Friars Minor in Rome because of their disobedience to the pope.

He said that the expelled Franciscans "have not only been illegally active in these parishes, but they have also administered the sacraments profanely... or they have assisted at invalid marriages."

[u]Bishop Peric said he shared the view of Bishop Zanic that the visions and the Franciscan "schism," which began under Pope Paul VI in the 1970s, are linked[/u].

Throughout the 1980s, Franciscan Father Jozo Zovko acted as "spiritual adviser" to the visionaries.

But three church commissions failed to find evidence to support their claims, and in 1991 the bishops of the former Yugoslavia declared that "it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations."

A short while later Father Zovko was stripped of his faculties to exercise any priestly functions by Bishop Zanic in a decree upheld by Bishop Peric.

[thessalonian]

[quote]So there's your answer Prose- until there are no more claims of "apparitions" the Vatican can't decide. This just shows the sad, powerful influence of the devil in our world. [/quote]

Actually this is not true. The Vatican does not normally approve apparitions until after they are over and the whole mater is studied. But in fact they can and will condemn them. The Bayside apparitions were exposed as false and even demonic before they were over.



[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1018184' date='Jul 6 2006, 08:44 AM']
If all Catholics had done that, we wouldn't have any approved apparitions.

However, with Medjugorje, it seems that something is amiss if Our Lady is making ambiguous statements that do not jive with Catholic theology (like "all religions are equal"), and the Bishop has spoken out against the apparitions, AND there are problems with disobedience. I have trouble reconciling an image of the Blessed Mother supporting and appearing to those who would undermine the authority of the Church she mothers.
[/quote]


Fides, could you please show me where the quote "all religions are equal" comes from? I can't find it in the medujgorie apparitions. The disobedience of priests to their Bishop is concerning. However I have seen much positive fruit. This could simply be attributed to the faith of the people on the pilgrimages, which God would honor. I don't know.

Edited July 12, 2006 by thessalonian