Medjugorje "work Of The Devil"

[Selah]

[quote]Not a very clear-cut answer, I'd expect.
I'm sure all apparitions could lead people astray through some kind of misplaced devotion... You know what I mean, right?[/quote]

Yes...I guess I'm a little against him calling it a "work of the Devil" because we don't know who or what the apparition is. If it is Mary, we've been calling her a Devil, and...well, that sounds really, really wrong. I dunno.

[KnightofChrist]

The Vatican has banned Catholics from going to Medjugorje? Really then why do so many in [u]rebellion[/u] go?

Edited January 17, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[MithLuin]

No, it has not banned people from going. It has given general disapproval of organizing pilgrimages there, though.

[quote]At the Vatican, officials said they are still monitoring events at Medjugorje, but emphasized that it was not necessarily the Vatican's role to issue an official judgment on the alleged apparitions there.

[b]More than once in recent years, the Vatican has said that dioceses or parishes should not organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje. That reflects the policy of the bishops.

But the Vatican has also said Catholics are free to travel to the site, and that if they do the church should provide them with pastoral services. [/b]

That has left a margin of ambiguity among Catholics. Adding to the confusion have been claims that the late Pope John Paul II strongly supported Medjugorje in various private statements; the Vatican has never confirmed those statements.

After Pope Benedict was elected, it was rumored that as a cardinal he had once traveled incognito to Medjugorje, and that as pope he could be expected to officially approve the site as a Marian shrine.

In his February visit to the Vatican, Bishop Peric said he spoke to the pope about these rumors, and that the pontiff only laughed in surprise.

[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0603480.htm"]CNS, 2006[/url][/quote]

A pilgrimage site generally needs Chruch approval. If the Church approved of pilgrimages to Medjugorje, it would be condoning the visions as authentic. She [u]will not[/u] do that with them being ongoing - even if the people in charge clearly thought they were authentic, it would be imprudent to give an official okay (because if it were something demonic, the messages could continue, but now saying something very inappropriate.) One of the main reasons for caution/skepticism has been the sheer number of messages, which has led at least one evaluation to say that there might have been something supernatural in the beginning, but there is nothing now. People who do consider the messages to be real see the repetitiveness as a Mother saying, "Now, how many times do I have to tell you...?"

But if you would like to read the Vatican's statements (through the CDF and the official spokesman, Navarro-Valls), go [url="http://www.medjugorje.org/declars.htm"]HERE[/url]. The upshot is: private pilgrimages (even groups) are fine, but official church-sponsored (ie, organized by the parish or diocese) trips are inappropriate.


As for the article in the OP, Bishop Gemma's comments were made [i]in anticipation[/i] of the Vatican's conclusion. (The original article was from the UK's Catholic Herald, found [url="http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000299.shtml"]HERE[/url]) Meaning, he thinks that the investigation begun in 2006 will have a negative conclusion, but the Vatican hasn't actually made public any conclusions yet. Up until 2006, the Vatican has supported the local bishop in his condemnation of the events, so I agree that it seems likely the Vatican itself will reach the same conclusion. But, we'll see. [url="http://www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=3062"]This book[/url] would suggest otherwise, but I do not know how accurate its information is.

When that many people visit, money is always involved and an issue, but I don't think that speaks of whether Mary is really there or not, any more than it spoke of whether Padre Pio's activities were supernatural. It is certainly a reason for the church to be cautious, though.

Edited January 17, 2009 by MithLuin

[dairygirl4u2c]

the 'spiritual advisor' of the seers, when the apparitions began, was in trouble for impregnating a nun before the apparitions began. he tried to hide it, unsuccessfully. the vatican made him go into solitude under pain of excommunication. he starts a new community, starts a relationship with a woman who is 'healed' by medjugorje. she later recently claims the whole medjugorje thing is a fraud. B16 was the bishop back before pope reprimanding the priest earlier.
[url="http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2189236/part_4/sex-lies-and-apparitions.thtml"]http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/fe...paritions.thtml[/url]

mary gets dirty veil at apparition. etc
[url="http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/9463/medjugorje.html"]http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/9463/medjugorje.html[/url]

poem of the man god, on the forbidden books list, per B16, before he was pope. the founder of religious group in alabama, who prints it, is upset it's banned. mary suddenly says that the book is real, and not bad. the leader of that group, lives with millions, while his community, lives in trailors and near poverty. many come from there disillusionsed, that he's a brainwasher, and that it's all a hoax. he made his million printing about medjugorje, and taking their life's earnings. marriages end in divorce, when the inhabitants can't agree as to the place's validity. families are not allowed to speak to the outside world. the leader got his start, but having one of the seers, have an 'apparition' while there. he anticipated it, by buying a field, so it could become a pilgrimage. this all shows the potentially bad fruits of the book guy, and the apparition generally.
[url="http://jloughnan.tripod.com/valtmedj.htm"]http://jloughnan.tripod.com/valtmedj.htm[/url]


a main question about medjugorje is that people see etc miraculous things, and that they did the examination on the seers. i think they need to do another examination, the vatican. and, as for the other stuff, maybe the exorcist is right, an that's attributable to satan. or, maybe there's more to miracles than we really understand at this point.

Edited February 14, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Oliver]

Im going there in the Easter Holidays with my family.

[mortify]

Catholics obsessed with Apparitions pose a greater risk for schism than the trads.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='mortify' post='1780625' date='Feb 14 2009, 01:24 PM']Catholics obsessed with Apparitions pose a greater risk for schism than the trads.[/quote]

Hm. Well, those obsessed with non-approved apparitions or pending-approval apparitions, maybe. But there is nothing wrong with being a Fatima or Lourdes fan.