Do you believe the Medjigoure "apparitions" to be

[GodChild]

I think its a shame ppl put so much emphasis on these apparitions - they should not be the foundation of people's faith but solid education and knowledge - as for this particular apparition, there are alot of websites about the dubious "holiness" of the "seers" - which if true casts doubt on the apparitions authenticity

[cathoholic_anonymous]

The seers go to great lengths to 'prove' their own holiness. That, in itself, is enough to set alarm bells ringing for me.

It could be that Medjugorje is like La Salette - it began with authentic visions and ended with the seers attempting to prolong their fame and making up false messages. However, right now I am inclining to the view that it is totally false, especially as the seers appear to be preoccupied with 'proving' their holiness. They seek to justify themselves even in the face of small criticisms, which St Bernadette never did. She never did it because she never needed to.

I have a devotion to Our Lady of Walsingham and Our Lady of Lourdes, and beyond that I don't really pay much attention to apparitions. Walsingham and Lourdes mean something to me because they draw my attention to three crucial aspects of the faith: conversion, penance, healing. The two apparitions also convey the story of the Incarnation in a very profound way, from Mary's Immaculate Conception to her life in the little house at Nazareth. I can't see any of this in Medjugorje. Perhaps I am just blind, but I can't see it.

[Starets]

That's quite fine, CA. I personally am nervous when ANYONE goes to great lengths to display their holiness

[Hemidemisemiquaver]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' post='1397910' date='Oct 5 2007, 09:40 AM']I'm just waiting for the Church to make a declaration of authenticity or inauthenticity. I personally do not feel right having anything to do with it until that time.[/quote]


[quote name='GodChild' post='1398127' date='Oct 5 2007, 05:57 PM']I think its a shame ppl put so much emphasis on these apparitions - they should not be the foundation of people's faith but solid education and knowledge - as for this particular apparition, there are alot of websites about the dubious "holiness" of the "seers" - which if true casts doubt on the apparitions authenticity[/quote]



What I can't understand is why these alleged apparitions have to cease before the Vatican can investigate them.
I think this is a falsehood. Why is the Vatican dragging it's heels on this one ? when only to let it drag is causing more and more of a Schism.
The Catholic faithful should not take any notice of these fabricated messages !!! Otherwise you are in disobedience to Rome and part of the Schism.

Please can you direct me to a good site that casts doubts on the authenticity of these Medj head messages.

Many , thanks

Edited December 3, 2007 by Hemidemisemiquaver

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Hemidemisemiquaver' post='1428584' date='Dec 3 2007, 05:06 PM']What I can't understand is why these alleged apparitions have to cease before the Vatican can investigate them.
I think this is a falsehood.[/quote]

It's not a falsehood. The reason why the Vatican has to wait for the supposed apparitions to cease is so that it can it make a thorough investigation into all the available evidence. The Church couldn't do that if the visions were ongoing, as new material would be emerging all the time.

[kafka]

it is the Wisdon of the Sacred Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit

[Hemidemisemiquaver]

Well let common sense prevail.
The Vatican have had nigh on 20 or is it 26 years to amass enough evidence against this ridiculous hokum at Medj.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Hemidemisemiquaver

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hemidemisemiquaver' post='1428697' date='Dec 3 2007, 04:52 PM']Well let common sense prevail.
The Vatican have had nigh on 20 or is it 26 years to amass enough evidence against this ridiculous hokum at Medj.[/quote]
20 years is a drop in the bucket in a 2000 year old Church.

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually 20 years is one percent of 2000. when said that way, it makes 2000 years seem so short, cause 20 isn't that much, and 20 only 100 times isn't that much.

not to quibble. it's a drop in the bucket. just saying is all.

[Hemidemisemiquaver]

Well, it certainly took less time than that to declare Josemaria Escriva's miracles attributed to him who is now a Saint, and also the Pope John Paul's cause for beatification is being pushed at lightning speed. same with Cardinal Newman , all worthy of their titles.

On October 6, 2002, Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escrivá, calling him "the saint of the ordinary" and describing his teachings as "timely and urgent today."

Josemaria Escriva's canonization was initiated in 1994 and he was declared a Saint , as above in 2002.
a very short space of time , as you can calculate.


So, I ask again , why is the Vatican dragging its heels on the supposed events at Medj .?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Hemidemisemiquaver

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Hemidemisemiquaver' post='1429144' date='Dec 4 2007, 08:18 AM']Well, it certainly took less time than that to declare Josemaria Escriva's miracles attributed to him who is now a Saint, and also the Pope John Paul's cause for beatification is being pushed at lightning speed. same with Cardinal Newman , all worthy of their titles.

On October 6, 2002, Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escrivá, calling him "the saint of the ordinary" and describing his teachings as "timely and urgent today."

Josemaria Escriva's canonization was initiated in 1994 and he was declared a Saint , as above in 2002.
a very short space of time , as you can calculate.
So, I ask again , why is the Vatican dragging its heels on the supposed events at Medj .?[/quote]

The Vatican is not 'dragging its heels'. It is following the exact same rules that came into play when Josemaria Escriva was canonised. For a canonisation to be approved they only need two miracles. That's it. They also waited for the saint to be dead before opening the proceedings. The usual pattern was followed.

If you're accusing the Magisterium of failing in its role just because it won't discard the rules it has always used to judge the veracity of an apparition, you are equally guilty of encouraging schismatic sentiment in the church. There are Medjugorje supporters who attack the church hierarchy, openly or under a thin veil, and is your attitude that much different?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Church Punk]

I have heard that the Church has never given her approval to Medjigoure because one of the seers had stated that Our Lady told them that it was not necessary to be obedient to the bishop. This is an automatic flag raiser if it is true, because in every approved vision Our Lady has always issued the seer to be faithful to the Bishop.

Thats just my 2 cents.

[siebersusi]

My dads silver watch turned gold when he went to Medjigoure.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Hemidemisemiquaver' post='1429144' date='Dec 4 2007, 02:18 AM']Well, it certainly took less time than that to declare Josemaria Escriva's miracles attributed to him who is now a Saint, and also the Pope John Paul's cause for beatification is being pushed at lightning speed. same with Cardinal Newman , all worthy of their titles.

On October 6, 2002, Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escrivá, calling him "the saint of the ordinary" and describing his teachings as "timely and urgent today."

Josemaria Escriva's canonization was initiated in 1994 and he was declared a Saint , as above in 2002.
a very short space of time , as you can calculate.
So, I ask again , why is the Vatican dragging its heels on the supposed events at Medj .?[/quote]


Hmm what's the common thread? Oh yeah

Both were dead before the process started.

Seeing a pattern here?

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Hemidemisemiquaver' post='1429144' date='Dec 4 2007, 03:18 AM']Well, it certainly took less time than that to declare Josemaria Escriva's miracles attributed to him who is now a Saint, and also the Pope John Paul's cause for beatification is being pushed at lightning speed. same with Cardinal Newman , all worthy of their titles.

On October 6, 2002, Pope John Paul II canonized Jose María Escrivá, calling him "the saint of the ordinary" and describing his teachings as "timely and urgent today."

Josemaria Escriva's canonization was initiated in 1994 and he was declared a Saint , as above in 2002.
a very short space of time , as you can calculate.
So, I ask again , why is the Vatican dragging its heels on the supposed events at Medj .?[/quote]

Both St. Jose Maria Escriva's and Bl. John Henry Newman's work was complete and therefore able to be seen in its entirety. When the sum of their work was seen to be completely true to the faith and extraordinary they were able to be elevated. All that can be done right now is to collect the information which I am sure is being done. Approval of apparitions is extremely detailed. It will take many, many years before they can get through it all to make any kind of judgement. And, of course, it can't even start until the apparitions end.

If I were you I would be careful about how invested you become in this. We don't know the authenticity and it is possible to be led astray.

Just for your information, Blessed John Henry Newman was beatified 101 years after his death.