The CDF Remind us that Pilgrimages to Medjugorje are Forbidden

and that, for the same reason, when one of the fake “visionaries” shows up on our soil to stage a fake “apparition”, you should avoid that too.

There are plenty of approved private revelations. Stick with those. Things are not going to end well for the Medjugorje fraud. So instead of yet another massive exercise of the anti-charism of discernment in which people explain their missing of the incredibly obvious by recourse to all the standard denialism like “It’s somebody else’s fault that my folk hero is a documented fraud. It’s because the Vatican is being run by Jews and Masons! It’s because Francis is a false prophet! It’s because the smoke of Satan has entered the CDF! It’s because the Croatian bishops of part of The Conspiracy!” just face the fact right now that the local ordinaries have, multiple times, told you that there is nothing supernatural happening and that pilgrimages are forbidden. Face the fact that the “visionaries” have gotten rich off this fraud. Face the fact that their “spiritual advisor” got somebody pregnant and ditched the priesthood.

The CDF, contrary to the delusion of Medjugorje true believers, is not going to overturn the findings of the local ordinaries. The case was not “taken out of the hands of the evil local bishops” so that a righteous pope could heap shame on these latter day condemners of Joan of Arc. It was *handed* to Rome *by* the local ordinaries in the hope that the suckers who are adamantly refusing to listen to the local ordinaries might at least listen to Rome. Whether they will is anybody’s guess, but the latest from the CDF makes clear that things are not trending well for the Medjugorje fraud. Hopefully, the investigators will issue a statement soon. The Ents of Rome are a methodical lot.

  • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/ Kevin Tierney

    It’s time like this that the wisdom of St. John of the Cross shines through again:

    Reject all private revelation, taking no time to discern whether or not it is from God, since it is not necessary for salvation, and God will be pleased by your decision.

    • chezami

      Commence cow-having from “Fatima is apostolic tradition and all real Catholics know this!” zealots in 3…. 2…. 1.

    • http://hjg.com.ar/ Hernán J. González

      The quote is not literal, I believe (for one thin, the expression “private revelation” would be strange to St. John) but grosso-modo, it’s ok.

      To get the real thing, read chapters 16-20 of “Ascent to Monte Carmelo”)
      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/john_cross/ascent.v.xvi.html
      It’s priceless. Though he warns more against a type of concuspiscence (say, mystical sensuality, devotion as a pleasure) than against the type that is more typical of current apparition-zealots (say, curiosity, knowing God’s classified information), his point on where resides the value of “sobrenatural visions” is always very relevant:

      “[the soul] must set its eyes only upon the spiritual good which they [the visions] produce, striving to preserve it in its works and to practise that which is for the due service of God, paying no heed to those representations nor desiring any pleasure of sense”

      And regarding the “factual infallibity” of such (even authentic) revelations:

      “… they frequently act or believe according to that which He has revealed to them, or according to the way wherein He has answered them; for, as they are attached to that manner of communion with God, the revelation makes a great impression upon them and their will acquiesces in it. They take a natural pleasure in their own way of thinking and therefore naturally acquiesce in it; and frequently they go astray. Then they see that something happens in a way they had not expected; and they marvel, and then begin to doubt if the thing were of Godsince it happens not, and they see it not, according to their expectations. At the beginning they thought two things: first, that the vision was of God, since at the beginning it agreed so well with their disposition, and their natural inclination to that kind of thing may well have been the cause of this agreement, as we have said; and secondly that, being of God, it would turn out as they thought or expected. And herein lies a great delusion, for revelations or locutions which are of God do not always turn out as men expect or as they imagine inwardly. And thus they must never be believed or trusted blindly, even though they are known to be revelations or answers or sayings of God. For, although they may in themselves be certain and true, they are not always so in their causes, and according to our manner of understanding, as we shall prove in the chapter following. And afterwards we shall further say and prove that, although God sometimes gives a supernatural answer to that which is asked of Him, it is not His pleasure to do so, and sometimes, although He answers, He is angered.”

      “…since God is vast and boundless, He is wont, in His prophecies, locutions and revelations, to employ ways, concepts and methods of seeing things which differ greatly from such purpose and method as can normally be understood by ourselves; and these are the truer and the more certain the less they seem so to us. This we constantly see in the Scriptures. To many of the ancients many prophecies and locutions of God came not to pass as they expected, because they understood them after their own manner, in the wrong way, and quite literally”

      • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/ Kevin Tierney

        That’s a good one, but I actually had Chapter XI in mind.

        “nd it must be known that, although all these things may happen to the bodily senses in the way of God, we must never rely upon them or accept them, but must always fly from them, without trying to ascertain whether they be good or evil; for, the more completely exterior and corporeal they are, the less certainly are they of God. For it is more proper and habitual to God to communicate Himself to the spirit, wherein there is more security and profit for the soul, than to sense, wherein there is ordinarily much danger and deception; for bodily sense judges and makes its estimate of spiritual things by thinking that they are as it feels them to be, whereas they are as different as is the body from the soul and sensuality from reason. For the bodily sense is as ignorant of spiritual things as is a beast of rational things, and even more so.”

        And

        “And, besides all this, when the soul sees that such extraordinary things happen to it, it is often visited, insidiously and secretly by a certain complacency, so that it thinks itself to be of some importance in the eyes of God; which is contrary to humility. The devil, too, knows how to insinuate into the soul a secret satisfaction with itself, which at times becomes very evident; wherefore he frequently represents these objects to the senses, setting before the eyes figures of saints and most beauteous lights; and before the ears words very much dissembled; and representing also sweetest perfumes, delicious tastes and things delectable to the touch; to the end that, by producing desires for such things, he may lead the soul into much evil. These representations and feelings, therefore, must always be rejected; for, even though some of them be of God, He is not offended by their rejection, nor is the effect and fruit which He desires to produce in the soul by means of them any the less surely received because the soul rejects them and desires them not.”

        But your quotes are pretty money as well. I guess we should just say when it comes to private revelation “Everyone shut up and read The Ascent of Mt. Carmel”

        • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/ Kevin Tierney

          Okay wait, how the deuce does someone downvote John of the Cross? Really? REALLY?

          • An Aaron, not The Aaron

            I’ve never understood the purpose of the downvote option. I mean, if you disagree with something someone says aren’t you obligated to explain why? The upvote is obvious. It’s the combox equivalent of nodding your head in agreement. No explanation necessary. The downvote requires explanation, though. Does the downvoter disagree with the whole comment? Just part of it? The punctuation? What?

            • Alma Peregrina

              Yes. Really. I downvoted John of the Cross.

              Why didn’t I explain why I downvoted? Well, simply because I had made up my mind to stop commenting on this blog, since all that I’ve got from commenting here has been fruitless discussions, incomprehensions and even insults.

              So, I resolved to simply go back to simply reading the blog, without writing in it. Voting would be a good way to mantain some participation, though.

              But since you all are having so much trouble with my downvote, I’ll explain why I did it.

              I don’t like St. John of the Cross.
              Don’t like reading him.
              Don’t like how he sometimes acts all buddhist or manicheist or puritan, condemning every sort of pleasure.
              Don’t like how he provides explanations for the ABSURD “dark night of the soul”.
              And don’t like mysticism, I’m more of an Aquinas or Chesterton kind of catholic. At least with Aquinas there’s some rationality and with Chesterton some joy.

              And I don’t like John of the Cross in these comments of yours, because he says that we should simply disregard private revelations.
              I like Fatima and it is approved by the Church, so why should I despise Fatima in favor of something that St. John of the Cross wrote?

              So, here’s what happens: Our Lady is in heaven and appears here on Earth to deliver us an importante message,
              God bends the Laws of Nature to subscribe that message
              Rome approves it…
              … and I must not believe it because a saint said that I shouldn’t. As if St. John of the Cross was holy writ. I sincerely think it is a sabotaging of Our Lady’s and God’s efforts.

              Also, I downvoted your comments precisely because you can’t recognize the irony: You disregard private revelations based on the private writings of a private saint.

              In fact, people in this blog may say that Fatima is not important to the faith (Mark down there even talked about “cow-having” “zealots” – ANOTHER REASON WHY I WASN’T COMMENTING) and no one ever bats an eye…
              … but SIMPLY DOWNVOTING something by St. John of the Cross makes people go bananas. Talk about irony.

              OK, Fatima is not essential to reach heaven. I got it. St. John of the Cross isn’t either. So you can keep John of the Cross and I’ll keep Fatima. The Church is big enough, OK? Stop judging my voting, as if anyone who disagrees with you and shows it is some kind of teenager shouting “you suck”.

              PS1: Please, don’t lump me with Medjugorge. I’m talking about approved apparitions. I’m sick of red herrings.

              PS2: Please, don’t start phycoanalyzing my soul, or showing me more quotes from John of the Cross to make a point… and please, please, do not turn this into a debate. I don’t want one. I’m sick of debates. Let me just stay here, on my corner, reading the blog, voting when I please. Thank you.

              • An Aaron, not The Aaron

                Was that so hard? :)

                • Alma Peregrina

                  Yes, it was. Do you think I like to talk how I don’t like a canonized saint of the Church? When I disagree with something so important, I prefer to keep my mouth shut, lest I’m condemning something that God wills and that can bring people to Heaven.

                  • Marthe Lépine

                    Thank you for taking the time to explain. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with disliking some things that have been said by one saint or the other. It is possible that St. John of the Cross had been writing in response to what has been going during his life, and times of course have changed. In addition, I think it is Mark in fact who has pointed out somewhere else that private revelations are not to be taken as being “universal” and written for all peoples and all times. Some people can read St.John of the Cross or some other saint and find that they happen to answer some things that were preoccupations for themselves, but maybe not for the other members of the parish. So, what St.John of the Cross had to say a few centuries ago makes you uncomfortable, and you don’t like it, probably because it just does not apply to you. Nothing wrong with that. Someone else, however, may find it helpful. God made each one of us different.

              • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/ Kevin Tierney

                We aren’t obligated to take what St. John of the Cross says as Gospel. Yet he is the “mystical doctor of the Church” and the greatest mystic in the West for good reason. And while we aren’t obligated to accept 100% all a saint says, saying that saint is manichean and puritan and a buddhist is bad form to say the least. It implies the Church canonized and named a doctor of the Church a heretic.

                I say private revelations are not necessary for salvation not based not on the writings of a saint…. but the Magesterium of the Church. The Catechism on this matter is crystal clear, as is Benedict XIV, who stated that you cannot give the assent of catholic faith to private revelation, and that a Catholic was free to reject even approved revelations and there’s nothing wrong with that. After establishing the position of the Magesterium, then we look for the saints and doctors as to how why this is the case. And that’s where St. John of the Cross is incredibly important, because he argues the position forcefully, and there really isn’t any Church teaching you can appeal to so you can get around his words.

                • Alma Peregrina

                  “And while we aren’t obligated to accept 100% all a saint says, saying that saint is manichean and puritan and a buddhist is bad form to say the least. It implies the Church canonized and named a doctor of the Church a heretic.”

                  I do apologize for the form, it was written with a hot head. But I never implied the Church canonized a heretic. I only said that St. John of the Cross’ writings sometimes appear to me as so. As I said in my comment, I don’t want anymore red herrings. I respect every saint and Doctor of the Church.
                  —————————————————
                  “I say private revelations are not necessary for salvation not based not on the writings of a saint…. but the Magesterium of the Church. The Catechism on this matter is crystal clear, as is Benedict XIV, who stated that you cannot give the assent of catholic faith to private revelation, and that a Catholic was free to reject even approved revelations and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

                  I agree. A catholic MAY reject approved revelations. Approved revelations are NOT neccessary to reach heaven. Never said otherwise. Read my comment again.

                  But saying “A catholic MAY reject approved revelations” is not the same as saying “A catholic SHOULD reject all revelations”. Which is what you said in your first comment and that I disliked.

                  I’m not interfering with your decision to reject Fatima, but you seem so intent in defending John of the Cross’ writings, that you are taking away my freedom (that the Catholic Church DOES give me) to reject this saint’s writings, as per your saying “because he argues the position forcefully, and there really isn’t any Church teaching you can appeal to so you can get around his words.”

                  I’ll believe Fatima and not St. John of the Cross on this matter. Period. And there isn’t any Church teaching you can appeal to to condemn this decision of mine. You have the ADVICES of ONE saint, which YOU like. Good for you. Let’s shake and depart exactly at this point.

              • freddy

                So, Alma, tell us what you REALLY think!
                (Just kidding) God bless you!

              • Fr. Denis Lemieux

                Alma – thank you for your thoughtful, honest comment, made with clarity, charity, and considerable effort. I respect your thoughts on John of the Cross entirely. As a committed ‘juandelacruzian’ I would just point out that, while yes the saint can be read as a sort of quasi-buddhist/manichean, this in fact reflects that every heresy is a partial truth, and every false religion carries within itself great swaths of truth and goodness. I would argue that John’s ‘manichean’ passages are actually the redemption of manichean doctrine by incorporating it into the fullness of Catholic faith.
                That being said, John of the Cross is a hard read, and definitely not for everyone. And Fatima is magnificent, and Lourdes, and Guadalupe…

                • Alma Peregrina

                  Thank you very much, Father, thank you. Please keep this poor sinner that I am in your prayers.

          • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com/ Beadgirl

            I’ve come to believe that the downvote function is useless and stupid, and on principle I won’t ever use it. I suspect it is used less for “I disagree with your premises and find your argument flawed” and more for “you suck!!!1″

        • Sam Schmitt

          Seems like by “private revelations” St. John was speaking here not of an apparition like the ones at Fatima or Lourdes, but locutions and extraordinary phenomenon that one experiences personally. It’s usually safe to assume that saints know what they;re talking about.

          • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/ Kevin Tierney

            All private revelation is experienced “personally” in the sense that it is not Apostolic Revelation that Catholics have to accept.

            When John of the Cross speaks of revelation which is “sensual”, he is refering to things we perceive with the senses. Apparitions occur through the senses, no?

  • Chauffeur

    Believers: Be faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. We
    are being tested in fire. Be joyful that we have arrived at this
    point! “The apostles for their part left the Sanhedrin full of joy that
    they had been judged worthy of ill-treatment for the sake of the
    Name.” Acts 5:41

    • michicatholic

      Not much of a test in my view. I can easily avoid paying thousands of dollars on a hoax.

  • Caspar

    Does the document actually forbid pilgrimages? Would pilgrimages fall under the categories of “meetings, conferences or public celebrations”?

    • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/ Kevin Tierney

      I would say it is very strongly implied that people not go such pilgrimages. In the past, while the local Bishops opposed hosting official pilgrimages, they realized that innocent Catholics who needed the sacraments were coming, and they needed to be taken care of in a pastoral way without legitimizing the apparitions.

      So I would say don’t go.

      • Dave

        I don’t think it forbids pilgrimages, but I would agree with Kevin that it would be prudent to not go on pilgrimages. Nothing really seems to have changed in regards to Medjugorje itself. They quote the last official word, which was from the Yugoslavian Bishop’s Conference, to the effect that “On the basis on the research that has been done, it is not possible to state that there were apparitions or supernatural revelations.”

        That is not the same as a condemnation. The letter states that it does not want the credibility of non-approved apparitions to be taken for granted, as can be the case when meetings are hosted at a parish or under the official auspices of the Church.

        What seems to have changed is a new approach to apparitions that are under investigation.

        • Headstand

          http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=658
          Finally, when the second commission was formed, Cardinal Franjo Kuharić and the Bishop of Mostar, in the name of the CBY, declared publicly on 9 January 1987: “For this reason it is forbidden to organise pilgrimages or other manifestations motivated by the supernatural character attributed to the events in Medjugorje”.[5] This pronouncement came from the highest level in the Church and must not be ignored as if it were of no significance.

          • Dave

            Archbishop Bertone said, in 1998, in a letter to the Bishop of St. Denis, “Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentication of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.”

            So, pilgrimages are allowed, and obviously most of the people on the pilgrimage are going to be positive toward the alleged phenomena, but the attitude should be one of openness to the eventual findings of the Church.

            • chezami

              You can make a *private* pilgrimage to Hitler’s toilet and the Church won’t say boo. All it means is “The Church doesn’t tell you where you can go to pray on your own.”

              • Fr. Denis Lemieux

                On a lighter note, it probably reflects my fatigue level that I read your comment here as ‘the Church won’t say poo.’ Which is quite appropriate in context.

        • Peter

          Dave, you’re drinking the Medjugorje kool-aid. I personally lean towards the genuinity of the apparitions although I vehemently rejected them in the past. However, no means no – and disobeying a successor of the Apostles is actually a counter-sign to the legitimacy of the apparitions.

          • Dave

            Whatever. I am not planning to go to Medjugorje, but I just don’t see how the letter forbids pilgrimages. It doesn’t talk about pilgrimages at all, and Abp. Bertone said that pilgrimages are permitted as long as the ultimate authenticity of the alleged apparitions is not taken for granted, which is more or less the same thing as the letter says.

    • michicatholic

      What part of “no” don’t you understand?

  • HornOrSilk

    We have to remember, this is a continuation of a long series of responses from the Vatican. The Vatican has said no official church related functions which appear to give any sanction to the visionaries is allowed. Mark is right in saying no pilgrimages, if you understand him to meaning no official church sanctioned functions. Now private actions are still allowed, however, we must keep in mind the local ordinary’s role in apparitions and what the ordinaries have said here.

    • chezami

      True. The Church doesn’t (and can’t) forbid private pilgrimages for the simple reason that she can’t forbid freedom of movement. You can make a private pilgrimage to the grocery store if you like. People make private pilgrimages to Auschwitz. That doesn’t mean the Blessed Mother is appearing there.

      • HornOrSilk

        Right. Just trying to let others understand the point of your post, when they seemed to forget the previous comments.

  • michicatholic

    I went to one of these just to see what it looked like, and it was truly interesting. There was a “vision on command,” which I thought highly suspicious and they “passed the hat,” of course. I’m glad to see the Church put an end to this.

  • An Aaron, not The Aaron

    I don’t understand the purpose of the appeals to the “fruits” of an apparition, at least with respect to low-level miracles happening to people not directly involved with the apparition, like rosaries changing color or a flock of angels (is flock right?) flying overhead or conversions of people visiting the site. Do people really think God would ignore folks when they come to Him honestly, regardless of the location or circumstance? Is God some celestial Grace Nazi (“Ask for my grace at the location of a false apparition? No grace for you!”)? I’ve heard story after story online and in person about what has been experienced at Medj. I have no reason to doubt them. But I think such miracles are happening in a place where six people have been making false statements about Mary for over 30 years. Hopefully, when Pope Francis finally pulls the plug on this nonsense, the people who have experienced something at Medj will recognize that they experienced it in spite of, not because of, the false apparitions.

    • http://therecusanthousemate.blogspot.com/ Chatto

      I think ‘choir’ or ‘host’ are the proper collective nouns for angels :)

      • An Aaron, not The Aaron

        You’re right, of course. Still, when the allegation is that they were flying in formation over Medj I’m tempted to use “flock.” However, since its probably best not to insult beings whose standard greeting to humans includes the phrase “Be not afraid!”, I think I’ll stick with “choir” or “host.”

    • Chauffeur

      About the fruits of Medjugorje: Cardinal Schonborn in Vienna said his seminaries are full because of Medjugorje. There are countless healings and conversions. I’m a daily communicant and pray 3 rosaries per day. I’m pretty sure that’s unlikely, had I not experienced Medjugorje.

      • chezami

        Cdl. Schoenborn was also told by Benedict to shut up about Medj.

        • Chauffeur

          Is that a quote, or your interpretation?

          Chezami, you seem to have a vested interest in NOT seeing the fruits.

          Of course it’s obvious why Pope Benedict would not want any possible coercion to be suggested while his commission is evaluating this apparition. What reason would you give?

          • AquinasMan

            If thousands of people came to my backyard to say a rosary every day, there would be good fruits coming out of my backyard, too, but it wouldn’t mean there’s an apparition taking place. The good fruit is not an outcome of place, but prayer.

            • Chauffeur

              Well, I’m glad we can agree that good fruits are coming out of Medjugorje while the question of whether Our Blessed Mother is appearing continues to remain in question.

              I hope you were able to view this YouTube video:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG283icDn_I&list=PL3988EBF507AC92E1

              God Bless You AquinasMan

              • chezami

                Good fruits came out of the murder of St. Maximilan Kolbe at Auschwitz. That God brings good things out of something does not mean it’s good. Medjugorje is an an obvious fraud.

                • Chauffeur

                  Since God is in control, and since His victory is certain, one could argue that good fruits come out of everything. But your example is a stretch in this context.

              • AquinasMan

                I don’t deny there are good fruits coming out of Medjugorje involving the faith of the pilgrims. The bad fruit is originating with the main players. Again, this is a Gnostic phenomenon, not supernatural.

                • Chauffeur

                  You and Chezami should apply for membership on the Vatican Commission as your posts suggest your opinions are facts.

      • wineinthewater

        But consider the other fruits of Med.: massive disobedience.

        Your conversion experience at Med. does not rely on the apparitions being true. Bring that many people of faith together in an encounter with the Sacraments and miracles are going to happen.

        • Chauffeur

          What disobedience are you speaking about? Yes, I’ve heard “claims” of disobedience, but they are unfounded. You need to do some deep research to find the Truth. Consider this; If the devil (father of lies) wanted to turn the faithful away from God’s plan, what ideas would he promote to them?

      • An Aaron, not The Aaron

        God be praised for your daily communion and regular prayer! If (when) Pope Francis rules negatively as to the apparitions there, will you acknowledge that God can pour out His grace upon anyone at any time? Even in a place where false statements have been made about Mary by false visionaries for over thirty years? I hope so. I know and admire people who share your devotion and I pray they will be able to abandon it when the time comes.

        • Chauffeur

          Absolutely Aaron! If/when the condemnation of Medjugorje is established, I will abandon it. But I strongly believe, things will go the other way. And I worry about those who are so adamant that it is false. Our Mother’s message is for all of us.

          • Andy, Bad Person

            And I worry about those who are so adamant that it is false.

            Why? Even if it approved a la Lourdes or Fatima, the faithful are under no obligation to accept or believe it.

            • Chauffeur

              Andy, Yes you are right. No belief is required of private revelations. But in some posts, I am reading things that might be blasphemy and a type of hatred that suggests leaving the Faith if this is approved. I would prefer apathy from them, but in some cases, their condemnation of the seers and believers is over the top. I can understand someone not believing in Medjugorje… just have trouble understanding someone using foul language toward those who believe.

  • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/ Kevin Tierney

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/11/cdf-prefect-on-medjugorje.html
    This new update seems pretty ironclad about what’s happening. I think the Vatican be about to drop the hammer.

    • Dan F.

      I’m a little nervous about that hammer coming down under Francis. I know that you are a ‘traditionalist’ in all the good sense of that word – maybe my impression is incorrect but isn’t a lot of the Medj support also in the same ‘reactionary’ (if I am using that term correctly) wing of the Church? Might not the “hammer” have the effect of solidifying in the minds of (some) that Francis is all that they fear?

      Maybe I’m out of place (feel free to says so) but this just occured to me as I was sitting here and I wondered what your impression was.

  • sjm

    The reason there are lots of good things (even miracles) happening in Medjugorje is that the Blessed Mother is over there doing overtime damage control. Of course if thousands of sincere people gather to honor her, she’s not going to just leave them there at the mercy of whatever-it-is – she’s going to wade in and help reduce the negative consequences.
    Here’s the reason I finally decided Medj. was a fake – years ago a holy priest came back from there to our area and told a story which he believed proved the apparitions to be real: He was carrying the Sacrament in a pyx in his pocket, and when the “apparition” started, everyone fell to their knees. He tried to, but an invisible physical force prevented him. He interpreted this to us as Jesus or the Blessed Mother preventing the impropriety of Jesus (the superior one) kneeling to His Mother (His inferior).
    Years later (and maybe the now-deceased priest put this into my head), I realized what a silly interpretation that was. Why on earth wouldn’t Jesus want to kneel to his mother? What Jesus WOULDN’T want was one of his holy priests kneeling to a fraud.

    • Dave

      I would say that it doesn’t mean much of anything, personally.

    • Chauffeur

      Seems like a pretty slim reason to reject Medjugorje. Consider the messages, the miracles, the scientific studies, the conversions, the religious vocations. Then decide. But an interpretation of someone kneeling or not kneeling?

      • chezami

        I have. There is not evidence that Mary is appearing at Medj. That’s why the local ordinaries said so and why the CDF just made sure that the fake seers can’t have their quack apparitions and road shows in the US.

        • Chauffeur

          Consider Chezami for a moment, that you might be wrong. You may be suggesting things of God coming from the devil. Jesus was very critical of the Scribes and Pharisees who did this. Read Mark 3:22-29 about the unforgivable sin. Choose your words (and condemnation) carefully!

          • Headstand

            I, for one, am just deeply grateful that the CDF has shut down your kind of ugliness and division from further spreading here in the US by this most recent letter.

            • Chauffeur

              HA! Well, no, they didn’t “shut us down”. But seriously, consider the possibility that the “ugliness” you’re speaking of truly involves Our Blessed Mother. How will you account for such comments?

              • Headstand

                Gratefully, the veracity of your claims are of no importance, our Church doesn’t require my belief in them. Therefore, I, for one, consider yourself shut down.

              • AquinasMan

                Any notion that the Blessed Virgin would stand in opposition to an edict of the local bishop(s), and tempt others to do likewise, is hilarious. It’s a fraud.

                • Chauffeur

                  What edict? Again, those opposed to Medjugorje “create” things that don’t exist. What about Fatima, and Lourdes where the Church expressed grave doubts. Was our Blessed Mother wrong in those cases too?

                  • AquinasMan

                    Grave doubts are not the same as a formal order to knock it off with the apparitions which goes unheeded. The public declarations of two successive bishops at Mostar are easily Googled. Furthermore, a peasant girl going to the grotto without any fanfare whatsoever is not an equivalent comparison to a cash-cow world tour going on for thirty years. Additionally, the Blessed Virgin was gracious enough to bestow public miracles at Fatima and Lourdes (along with a theology lesson WAY above the pay grade of Bernadette Soubirous). There are no Church-validated supernatural events/healings at Medj.

                    What gives away Medjugorje, ultimately, is the Gnostic current of the alleged “secrets” that the seers will not reveal, even to the Pope. See, they can keep the circus going without any proof, because “secrets” are going to come true, oh, any day now (for the last thirty years). That’s what we call the “power” of knowing something no one else is allowed to know. Even Jesus did not “know” the time of Judgment, but apparently this group does? Really?

                    • Chauffeur

                      If you will look up these documents, you will quickly discover that what you believe was said, and what was actually said are two very different things. The bishops did not say “Knock if off.” And the local ordinary may excommunicate someone for willful disobedience. (Why didn’t he?) Cash cow? What I witnessed would be called poverty. Granted, Ivan married into a wealthy family. Money in itself is not the root of all evil – it’s the “love of money”. No, the “secrets” do not include the time of Judgment. More misinformation. The visionaries have said that these things do not involve the “End of the World.” These lies continue to be perpetrated by …. whom…. Who’s really behind the hatred of Medjugorje… Who would be so opposed to God’s plan?

                    • AquinasMan

                      Why do you believe it’s God’s plan? Who gave you that charism to proclaim an apparition’s authenticity over and above the Church?

                      BTW, How would you know what the Secrets don’t contain?

                    • Chauffeur

                      I believe it is God’s plan. But I subject myself to the final authority of the Church.

                      I’ve studied most everything I can about Medjugorje. One of the visionaries (Mirjana I think) said this is not about the end of the world. I’m sorry I don’t have immediate access to the source.

                    • Chauffeur

                      Here is a YouTube video of Mirijana for your discernment.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG283icDn_I&list=PL3988EBF507AC92E1

          • HornOrSilk

            Even if he is wrong, the doubt is not a sin. Imagine if you are wrong and promoting a devilish hoax as God. What harm could that do?

            • Chauffeur

              OK, Imagine we believers are wrong. What did Jesus say? Read Luke 9:49.

              • HornOrSilk

                Which says nothing to the question and situation. Typical.

                • Chauffeur

                  OK, If you won’t consider a biblical response, consider this…
                  Some of Chezami’s comments have not expressed “doubt” as you claim, but rather, appear to me to be very judgmental, using words such as “fake seers” and “quack apparitions”. In your mind, does that address the question and situation. I believe it is atypical for an honest response from one who believes in Medjugorje, and so I apologize if it appeared I was attempting to side-step your question.

                  • Headstand

                    Why can’t you display the same grace and good manners as Ivan by following his example and also discontinuing any further engagement in opposition to the guidance of our Church?

                    • Chauffeur

                      Well thankfully, the CDF has not decided that I may no longer express my opinions! (If it did, I would comply.) But to answer your question, the CDF is NOT suggesting disengagement in this subject as you infer. Stick to the truth. Let me ask – What if Lucia had not returned to the Cova as ordered by her parish priest?

                    • Chauffeur

                      Headstand, your previous response was deleted, but here is my response to your last post….(in response to my comment below where I asked you a question you chose not to answer.)
                      “Jesus said, ‘And neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things’.”
                      BUT
                      to directly answer your question,
                      engagement is NOT in opposition to the guidance of our Church. Please
                      read carefully what the CDF issued. Don’t read more (or less) into it.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    The verse didn’t give any answer. A nice random verse which says nothing is not a Biblical response.

                    And it is find to reject it. There is NO HARM in rejection an apparition. But there is GREAT harm in following a false one.

                    • Chauffeur

                      To paraphrase the subject question (as I understood it): “Is there harm to promote something that is not yet authorized by the Church?” Luke 9:49-50 says “It was John who said, ‘Master we saw a man using your name to expel demons and we tried to stop him because he is not of our company.’ Jesus told him in reply, ‘Do not stop him, for an man who is not against you is on your side.’”

                  • HornOrSilk

                    No, the question was not about authorization, but following false apparitions. There are all kinds of false ones which look pious but lead people astray. Look up prelest.

                    • Chauffeur

                      Well who says it’s “false”? Have you been able to determine that we should ignore a vision who says she’s the Queen of Peace with an important message? Of course, I agree that we MUST abandon promoting a “devilish hoax” but I didn’t understand that this had been determined about Medjugorje (which it hasn’t) and so I misunderstood the question.

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      Anyone can say it is false, even if it is approved, and still be fine with the Church. I can disbelieve Fatima, Lourdes, or Guadalupe as a hoax and still be fine. Private revelation may be helpful, but is unnecessary.

                    • Chauffeur

                      Yes Andy, if it is approved by the Church, you still do not have to believe in it (although you can’t truthfully call it “false”). It may seem false to you, but that doesn’t mean that it is false. All too often, on other subjects, Cafeteria Catholics contradict the Magisterium while still believing their rebellious positions are legitimate in the Catholic Church. Not surprisingly, these seem to be the people who need confession the most, but haven’t been there in years.

                    • chezami

                      But it will, in fact, never ever ever be approved by the Church, because it is quite obviously a fraud.

                    • Chauffeur

                      HA! You should be on the Vatican Commission if you have some clear inside charism that provides such clarity in “facts”. But seriously, chezami, God Bless You. God’s ways are not man’s ways. Don’t lock yourself into a corner that prohibits allowing God to be God. No man will stand proud before God. Let’s submit our wills to the final authority of the Church.

                    • chezami

                      The facts are simple: the local ordinaries say there’s no evidence Mary is appearing Medjugorje. They’ve said it for 22 years. They’ve told people there will be no church-approved pilgrimages. People like you refuse to listen and spread poppycock in such quantities that they referred the matter to Rome in the sure and certain knowledge that when Rome finishes the investigation, their judgment will be vindicated. Now Rome is saying, “Not only no pilgrimages to Medj, but enough with the carnival barker roadshows by the visionaries anywhere else either.” In short: “listen to the local ordinaries”. Medjugorje is a fraud. When he commission issues its findings, they will be identical to those of the local ordinaries–or they may possibly go so far as to *condemn* the fraud. What they absolutely positively will never do is overturn the current judgment of the local ordinaries that Mary is appearing to these frauds and liars.

                    • Chauffeur

                      Well your first premise is true, but your mixture of truth and lies that follow remains in question. Please chezami, leave your heart open. Dismiss it if you must. But let go of your hatred.

                    • chezami

                      No hatred. Just a clear-eyed assessment of the facts. Oh. And calling me a liar is another way of saying “Please ban me.” Bye!

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      Not believing in private revelations, a perfectly legitimate option, is “Cafeteria Catholicism?” As to your other attempts to read souls, I suggest you back off.

                    • Chauffeur

                      No Andy, please don’t twist my words. Please note I said “on other subjects….”

          • Peter

            That’s a heretical use of Scripture. NOONE and I mean NOONE must believe in any private apparition, especially one that has NOT been approved.

      • john konnor

        ..i suggest you exercise some reasonable diligence before you cast your pearls (or the graces God has given you) before suspect seers…the founding fake pope of the shcismatic Catholic Church of troya de palmar had so called visions of Mary and Jesus in the early seventies…these messages were printed in a book to which the franciscans of medjugorje had access…there are suspicious similarities between those messages and the messages of medjugorje….. both chronicles contain the familiar exhortation to …”Pray, pray, pray”….as well as the infamous…”thank you for having responded to my call”… a famous medjugorej adjuration….however the troya de palmar visions were false and so we have Mary appearing consequently and repeating the same nuts and bolts messages..here is the link if you care to explore…

        http://www.marcocorvaglia.com/medjugorje-en/the-true-source-of-the-medjugorje-messages-is-clemente-dom%C3%ADnguez-schismatic-and-excommunicated-here-.html

        …..as i said to counter ignorance which is a state of lack of knowing what one should through reasonable deliberation..and incurring guilt..hence pulling others into the same scandalous situation … i suggest you study the phenonmenon before making a fool of the Catholic Church to the rest of the world…indeed following Mary to the Holy land…alabama…ireland…etc etc…its a farce…the rest of the world says the Church is chasing spirits…the pride of the proponents and their roque bombast towards authority..betray the sham of their exterior affectations of contrived humility… .it is a foppish spiritual menagerie…quite a pity

  • kenofken

    Rome could put this thing to rest by simply issuing two findings about the apparition: One, that it validates for all time the Church’s stance on ordination of women and two, that the Blessed Mother favor Pope Francis AND Obamacare! Both ends of the spectrum of the Catholic world would be put off the thing forever, without any need to invoke authority that neither recognizes anyway…

  • JimL’Esperance

    Until the ‘Miracle’ is performed, by God…like at Fatima, the Church will not rule on the authenticity of the Medjugorje Apparitions. John Paul ll said, “Because the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ are present everywhere in Medjugorje..let the people go.” Over 80 Bishops and Cardinals have visited this site. The seminaries would be empty , if not for Medjugorje! John Paul ll: “My only regret is that I have to lead the Church from the Vatican and not from Medjugorje.” Remember, when God sends us Angels or Our Lady, He doesn’t need the Church’s permission. He is God! He has, though , given the Church the authority to “..bind or loose on earth, that which shall be bound in Heaven.” Prudence does not mean to ignore the ‘fruits of the Spirit’, only that they be tested. Medjugorje, by all that it teaches, is Catholic and scripturally accurate.

    • HornOrSilk

      Typical claptrap from the Medj promoters, with all kinds of false claims like telling people the Popes supported Medj

      • Chauffeur
        • HornOrSilk

          Once again, typical Medj junk. The Medj people make up stories of the Pope supporting them, and since they said it, it must be true! WOW!

          • Chauffeur

            There are numerous confirmations of Pope JP2′s positive comments about Medjugorje. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion that they’re all lying. Conversely, I see NO Pope condemning Medjugorje.

            • HornOrSilk

              There are only Medj people in their circle jerk repeating their rumors to each other. It’s like a snake oil salesman saying “The other snake oil salesman said the Health and Human Services department agreed this snake oil works, so you have two of us snake oil salesmen saying it, so it must be true.”

              • Chauffeur

                Do you have proof of this – or is just an opinion presented as the truth? I believe you’ll find this is the major difference you’ll see in our methods of presenting our case.

                • HornOrSilk

                  I’ve seen the Medj supporters and how they ALWAYS knock the Bishops who have pointed out Medj is false. They show no sense of obedience and make up stories of Popes. ALL. THE. TIME. And each time one is knocked, a new one is made. It’s all a scam and you are just probably one involved with it for all I know. The cult believer always ignores reality.

                  • Chauffeur

                    I don’t doubt that there have been some inappropriate comments made toward Bishops by Medjugorje supporters. I see that too in the pro-life crowd toward those whom they oppose – who are otherwise generally good people. However, I’ll always be pro-life. And similarly, in spite of the errors of a few, the Medjugorje group are more likely to be found in Eucharistic adoration, praying the rosary, and volunteering to serve others. Oddly, your comment sounds very familiar – similar to comments from my “pro-abortion” “friends” who have typified pro-lifers as people who ignore reality. I’m curious… do you participate in pro-life events, or is this just another issue of many?

    • chezami

      False. The Church can declare an apparation fake at any time and has done so many times in the past. The notion that the Church is held hostage until these frauds decide to shut up is one of the many urban legends True believers have propagated. It is absurd on the face of it. Don’t be snookered by it.

  • john konnor

    ….medjugorje has turned from a jocose lie in the beginning to an officious lie to a very mischievous and injurious lie…stop the insanity…if you feel compelled to explore the catholic faith and Mary do so through true sites such as Lourdes, Fatima, or Banneaux (Virgin of the poor) dont give your money & for the love of God dont go to medjugorje….the only secret attached to medjugorje is that OUr Lady never appeared there (except in the imaginations of the seers as a mental construction) a phantasia of the mind with no objective evidence grounded in reality …and nobody is supposed to ever find out..that is the real secret behind the 10 secrets of Medjugorje….

    http://medjugorje1.blogspot.com/2013/12/spirit-of-medjugorje-update-patience.html

    ..please listen to mark shea he is playing the part of the good mother who is trying to scold you out of living your life in daydreams…God bless


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X