 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15th, 2007 03:58 am |
|
I hear many Catholics mention this sight (Medjugorje). I have no doubt that some good things happen there. However, I am curious as to what my view on it should be. I recently read an article that informed me that it was a sin to propgate private revelations which have received a negative judgment from a local Bishop. Even if the bishop is wrong, the obedience trums all, and a true revelation would never ask someone to be disobedient to the church. Yet I know many people who seem to be propgating certain messages with Medjugorje, and from what I have heard the Bishop of this church has claimed that he does not believe the apparitions are authentic. Therfore, should I discourage people I know from sharing stories or praying to our Lady of Medjugorje or encouraging pilgrimages etc.?
Actually, I just read a little more and it seems that even though the current Bishop does not believe, there has been no official statement that supersedes an earlier investigation which neither accepted or condemned the apparitions. So what is missing in the current Bishops disapproval to make it wrong to continue to make pilgrimages or talk about Medjugorje? Or is it enough now to simply know that he does not believe that we should stop propogating it? It seems that the Vatican says they accept the first judgment from 1991 and not anything new that he has declared, making his declarations more his opinion than anything formal? How am I to understand this? Why is the current bishops disapproval not enough to overturn the first judgment? http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//questions/faq/faq27.html
What I think, is that right now we do not know enough, but it is ok to believe or not believe the revelations until officially declared otherwise. Pilgrimages are also allowed, as long as not done by a diocese officially, or done seeking to authenticate the events.
A few other questions regarding the topic of private revelation. We are not bound to accept private revelation as it is not part of the deposit of faith. But what about after the church approves one like Fatima? Ae we then bound to accept it, or can we still choose to deny it? We certainly could not say it was demonic if the church approves it. I do happen to believe in approved revelations, I am simply asking if those interested in joining the church need to. For instance, Lucy of Fatima or Padre Pio and others who have experienced private revelations like St. Faustina have been made into saints with feast days. How then could one of the faithful say they do not believe it when it is officially celebrated on the liturgical calendar? But accoriding to what I have heard, we are not requored to believer any private revelations even if they are approved and celebrated by the church. Again, I personally think that if the church approves is, I will certainly celebrate it, but I am just curious as to how much freedom we have in the matter.
Thirdly, I was reading an article about things that evil can or can not do in regard to counterfeiting certain things. I found a few things confusing.
The following section on the power of the demons is taken from Jordan Aumann OP, Spiritual Theology, pp.420-1...
The devils cannot do the following: (1) Produce any kind of truly supernatural phenomenon. (2) Create a substance, since only God can create. (3) Bring a dead person back to life, although they could produce the illusion of doing so. (4) Make truly prophetic predictions, since only God knows the future absolutely, and those to whom He chooses to reveal a portion of it. However, the devil's intelligent conjecture about the future might appear to mere mortals a prophecy. (5) Know the secrets of a person's mind and heart. However, their shrewd intelligence and observation may enable them to deduce many things about a person.
The devils can do the following: (1) Produce corporeal or imaginative visions. (2) Falsify ecstasy. (3) Instantaneously cure sicknesses that have been caused by diabolical influence. (4) Produce the stigmata. (5) Simulate miracles and the phenomena of levitation and bilocation. (6) Make people or objects seem to disappear by interfering with a person's sight or line of vision. (7) Cause a person to hear sounds or voices. (8) Cause a person to speak in tongues. (9) Declare a fact which is hidden or distant.
ok back to my post...how is it that number one of what they can not do is create any kind of supernatural phenomenon, where number 4 and 5 of what they can do is produce stigmata, and simulate bilocation. Would not stigmata be supernatural, or could it be caused by science? And does saying that they could simulate bilocation mean that it was fake and just an illusion? Because I would think making bilocation actually happen would be supernatural as well. So in these instances where they 'produce' or 'simulate' things, saying that it is phony though seems real?
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15th, 2007 09:57 am |
|
I’ll have to make my reply brief — probably too brief for you — since I have only a few minutes right now.
First up, Medjugorje: A couple of years ago the current bishop did an “obedience test” of the phenomenon. He conjured the vision to stop appearing and the visionaries to cease publicizing their “messages.” Neither, apparently, was forthcoming. What does this prove?
When a bishop commands a vision to cease, historically it ceases. Why? Because he has apostolic authority; it has to do with the power of binding and loosing. So if a vision does not obey, it is because it is not of God. Satan disobeys because he is evil and wants to deceive yet more people; this is his nature.
Likewise, if a visionary stubbornly disobeys his bishop, what does this mean? At the very least, it says that there is something wrong with the visionary’s approach to God, and that the message he conveys is suspect.
Meanwhile, the Vatican is basically staying out of the Medjugorje scene after clarifying the standard rule regarding ongoing purported private revelations. There can be no definitive investigation, even by the local bishop, until the apparitions cease; this is part of the rule. So the situation is in limbo until the phenomena come to an end.
Belief in a phenomenon is a private matter unless and until the local bishop pronounces on it, and that won’t happen until after it ends or is proved false. Private pilgrimmages are not forbidden, but officially organized or sponsored pilgrimmages are; this is part of the rule for ongoing phenomena. If the local bishop says he does not believe in the phenomenon, this is just his personal belief. He has to pronounce on it officially for there to be a change of status from “ongoing; unknown.” This means that you have interpreted the matter correctly.
Official approbation of a private revelation consists simply in a statement that it is not contrary to the faith of the Church and that it has been thought useful to make a public declaration. Once the Church approves a private revelation, official pilgrimmages are allowed and belief in it is officially sanctioned, although still not required.
When a servant of God is canonized, any private revelations he or she may have experienced are automatically approved. Usually, however, any important private revelation will have been separately approved beforehand, such as in the case of St. Faustina and the visions connected with the establishment of the Divine Mercy devotion. But again, no one is ever required to believe a private revelation, even after its approval.
Regarding the list of things evil spirits are capable of doing or simulating: Stigmata, levitation and bilocation are material phenomena, not spiritual. As a result, demons can in fact produce real but false manifestations of them. This is the main reason these particular phenomena are not used for purposes of authentication of a private revelation or in the canonization process of a servant of God.
A true stigma (that is the singular, “stigmata” being the plural) would, as you say, be supernatural. A false stigma would be preternatural. You will recall that Adam and Eve’s initial immortality was preternatural rather than natural; this is why they could lose it. Does this mean that the devil’s handiwork is just an illusion? Sometimes it is, but a demonic material phenomenon can be real, for they have power over matter.
OK, out of time. Hope that suffices.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 05:28 am |
|
I see your points. I t seems though thast many things that were later championed were at first supressed. such as the Divine Mercy message. Or writings of St Teresa of Avila. Or Guadalupe, or countless others. So how to reconcile the fact that obedience is a good litmus test with the fact that many times when the wrong judgment was reached originally that the phenomena did continue until the reistance changed. Is it in the fact that when the message was truly authentic it did find a way out without disobedience? I mean, if one were hearing from God in a unique way, but it was supressed, what should they do, simply wait? Or keep the ideas to themselves and a spirital adviser or superior until further notice? How is it that when the church has misjudged such things initially that we are to always follow it? I guess because God wants us to be obedient. That it is a sign that something comes from God. That God would never have us in rebellion against apostolic authority.
But what of the fact that the Bishop is not officially in control of the matter anymore? It has been moved to the authority of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference I believe. Was his obedience litmus test still effective in showing something because regardless of his ability to make official judgment on the matter he is still to be obeyed by those under his flock?
I also learned there are some Franciscan priests who were removed who have taken over some places and continue to serve illegally. his seems very bad as well. Yet so many people seem to have wonderful experiences over there. I mean, a kingdom divided can not stand, so why would so much seemigly good and bad fruit come of the same place? Is it becasue God being merciful honors the conversion people search after even if they are seeking it in an unorthodox manner?
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 122 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 12:15 am |
|
David,
You seem to imply that there is a precedent for a Bishop ordering an apparition to cease. You realize that if Our Lady really is appearing to the visionaries at Medjugorje (as millions of pilgrims including priests and bishops believe she is) the Bishop would be effectively ordering the Mother of God to stop appearing. I for one question whether a Bishop can order Our Lady (the Queen Mother) to stop appearing. It would seem he wouldn't have jurisdiction over her.
Pretty silly isn't it?
Bishop Zanic, now deceased, did ask the visionaries to stop receiving apparitions in the Church and they complied. Bishop Zanic set up a commission to investigate the authenticity of the visions, but Cardinal Ratzinger rejected it and gave the authority to the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference. Their conclusion was the Zadar Declaration of 1991, which said that investigations continued and that in the meantime pastoral care was to be given to the pilgrims.
Here is a letter from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stating the Bishop Zanic's successor, Bishop Ratko Peric does not have authority over the Church’s decision on Medjugorje.
CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
Citta del Vaticano, Palazzo del S. Uffizio
Pr. No 154/81-06419
May 26, 1998
To His Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry,
Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion
Excellency,
In your letter of January 1, 1998, you submitted to this Dicastery several questions about the position of the Holy See and of the Bishop of Mostar in regard to the so-called apparitions of Medjugorje, private pilgrimages and the pastoral care of the faithful who go there.
In regard to this matter, I think it is impossible to reply to each of the questions posed by Your Excellency. The main thing I would like to point out is that the Holy See does not ordinarily take a position of its own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena as a court of first instance. As for the credibility of the "apparitions" in question, this Dicastery respects what was decided by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia in the Declaration of Zadar, April 10, 1991: "On the basis of the investigations so far, it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.” Since the division of Yugoslavia into different independent nations, it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for.
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", 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.
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 authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.
I hope that I have replied satisfactorily at least to the principal questions that you have presented to this Dicastery and I beg Your Excellency to accept the expression of my devoted sentiments.
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone
(Secretary to the "Congregation for the Doctrine,” presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger)
The bishop of Mostar’s opinion is his own private opinion, which he is entitled to as local Bishop, but remains his personal opinion and does not affect the visionaries.The jurisdiction over the visions and visionaries belongs to the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference.
Last edited on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 12:17 am by TotusTuus
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 01:26 am |
|
brian wrote:So how to reconcile the fact that obedience is a good litmus test with the fact that many times when the wrong judgment was reached originally that the phenomena did continue until the reistance changed. Is it in the fact that when the message was truly authentic it did find a way out without disobedience? I mean, if one were hearing from God in a unique way, but it was supressed, what should they do, simply wait? Or keep the ideas to themselves and a spirital adviser or superior until further notice? How is it that when the church has misjudged such things initially that we are to always follow it? I guess because God wants us to be obedient. That it is a sign that something comes from God. That God would never have us in rebellion against apostolic authority.
I think you have figured it out pretty well here. You go through all the more common scenarios. I see no need to pin it down further, because we do not have all the specifics.
I also think you are correct in your surmise that since the bishop in question was relieved of his jurisdiction over this phenomenon and the people involved in it, any failure to obey would not be understood by the Church as a lack of genuineness of the apparitions. For lack of time, I did not deal with this point earlier.
A kingdom divided can not stand, so why would so much seemingly good and bad fruit come of the same place? Is it because God, being merciful, honors the conversion people search after even if they are seeking it in an unorthodox manner?
Miracles happen to very imperfect people, even those in a state of sin. Visions belong to the same general category: one does not have to be extraordinarily holy to be chosen by God to experience something which may be intended (for instance) to bring him to repentance.
TotusTuus wrote:You seem to imply that there is a precedent for a Bishop ordering an apparition to cease. You realize that if Our Lady really is appearing to the visionaries at Medjugorje (as millions of pilgrims including priests and bishops believe she is) the Bishop would be effectively ordering the Mother of God to stop appearing. I for one question whether a Bishop can order Our Lady (the Queen Mother) to stop appearing. It would seem he wouldn't have jurisdiction over her.
As I said above, this is the historical method for testing a spiritual phenomenon, and the historical response is that if it is genuine, the phenomenon ceases. A bishop is a descendant of the apostles; he has the power of binding and loosing. If a priest has power over demons (and he does; this is why a priest can exorcise), a bishop by virtue of his office of shepherd has power over those whom God assigns him, including even the saints of heaven insofar as they interact within his earthly jurisdiction. Considering what we know about the communion of saints, calling on an apparition to cease is no more “silly” than calling on a visionary to refrain from publishing the messages he receives. If God obeys a priest at the altar, and the Son of God becomes truly present at holy Mass, is this not a much greater thing than the cessation of a phenomenon which may or may not be genuine?
The remainder of your comment has been treated above. There has been, regardless, no positive statement concerning the authenticity of the phenomena reported at Medjugorje, and none can be expected until the phenomena definitively cease. This is the Church’s standard procedure. The bishop of Mostar was removed from the case because of his personal bias, not because he was incompetent, in his office as bishop, to handle the case. It is ordinarily the local bishop’s duty to order an investigation and to make a ruling on such phenomena at the appropriate time. This ruling is not, and cannot, be merely his private opinion, because he speaks for the Church.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 03:35 am |
|
Still, does it not say something that when they were ordered not to publish or spread the messages by the bishop, that they continued doing so anyway, and went ahead with it on the 25th anniversary of the appearances? Did they or did they not disobey apostolic authority? It seems some people are saying they did and others are saying they did not.
And there is still the matter of the disobedient priests who were supposed to be removed and are not leaving. Though I am not sure how this is linked to the apparitions or visionaries but it speaks to the fact that things are not exactly going smooth down there.
help me understand these two points together.
First up, Medjugorje: A couple of years ago the current bishop did an “obedience test” of the phenomenon. He conjured the vision to stop appearing and the visionaries to cease publicizing their “messages.” Neither, apparently, was forthcoming. What does this prove?
When a bishop commands a vision to cease, historically it ceases. Why? Because he has apostolic authority; it has to do with the power of binding and loosing. So if a vision does not obey, it is because it is not of God.
I also think you are correct in your surmise that since the bishop in question was relieved of his jurisdiction over this phenomenon and the people involved in it, any failure to obey would not be understood by the Church as a lack of genuineness of the apparitions. For lack of time, I did not deal with this point earlier.
So was there or was there not a disobedience that may or may not speak to the nature of this event? Or was the disobedience irrelevant beacause the Bishop no longer had outhority on the matter?
From what I read there was an original disobedience. Actually, this took place in 2006...still I would think whether or not the Bishop was officially in charge of the matter, that He still has authority over his flock and that they should have obeyed? Or am I missing something? It was Bishop Peric who did this, now are we saying that since it is a matter of the Yugoslavian Bishop's Conference that they really did not owe the Bishop their obedience? I can understand why the matter is out of the Bishop's hand regaring judgment, still I would think his authoirty should be followed, and that his opinion should be trusted unless proven otherwise, for I believe he is who the pope wants to be the bishop of the place. I think we should be more wuick to trust a Bishop's opinion than our own, even though their are some bad apples out there. Plus it seems to me from an interview that I found that Pope Benedict seems to be skeptical as well, unless I misread my source or it was inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_Test_of_Medjugorje
Last edited on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 03:41 am by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 10:17 am |
|
brian wrote:Does it not say something that when they were ordered not to publish or spread the messages by the bishop, that they continued doing so anyway, and went ahead with it on the 25th anniversary of the appearances? Did they or did they not disobey apostolic authority? It seems some people are saying they did and others are saying they did not.
My intention was to say only that this is a grey area, and I do not feel comfortable in committing to one position or the other. My intention is to withhold judgment until the Church speaks definitively. This may not be within my lifetime, and that is fine with me. It is not necessary that I have these points resolved because they are not necessary to the Catholic faith.
Help me understand these two points together.
I have stated the general principle of episcopal intervention and mentioned the bare fact of the recent case in Medjugorje. I have also mentioned that this bishop’s jurisdiction in the matter of the apparition is questioned because he is not part of the commission assigned to it by the CDF. This leads me to the conclusion that it is not proper for me to make a judgment, but only to consider the possibilities.
From what I read there was an original disobedience. Actually, this took place in 2006...still I would think whether or not the Bishop was officially in charge of the matter, that He still has authority over his flock and that they should have obeyed?
The alleged disobedience by the friars did not begin in 2006, but earlier, dating back to the previous bishop’s feud with the Franciscans. Since I do not have specifics on the nature of the accusation or the exact relationship between the bishop’s authority and the canonical status of the order (the Franciscans traditionally are directly under the pope rather than the local bishop, but I do not know what power the bishop retains in this circumstance), again I cannot judge.
The matter is further complicated by the fact that almost all of the original seers are currently living in other parts of the world and therefore are no longer under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Mostar. How can they be considered disobedient to him?
All I can do is report the facts as they have been made known to the public (you have confirmed them by your research) and state the general rules regarding such things as episcopal jurisdiction and the traditional conjuration of visionaries and visions alike.
You are aware that temporary restrictions have been placed on official and public worship or display in the case of nearly every apparition while it was ongoing or while the Church was investigating it, including those which the Church later judged authentic; this is a matter of record. So from this standpoint, there is nothing unusual. But by the same token, the Church neither recommends nor forbids private belief in the phenomena at Medjugorje because it has not judged whether or not they are authentic.
My suggestion, then, is that we not try to outrun the authority of the Church. The apparitions are ongoing, and nothing will be declared until they cease definitively and the Church has thoroughly investigated the matter.
David
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 122 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 04:15 pm |
|
According to a decree in 1966 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith, seers do not need ecclesiastical approval for private revelations:
A. Ecclesiastical permission is not required for publication of revelations, visions, miracles or for the
frequenting of non-recognized places of apparitions.
A decree of the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith" was published in the "Official Acts of
the Holy See" (A.A.S.) 58/16, dated December 29.1966.
Articles 1399 and 2318 of Canon Law are abrogated by this decree.
This decree of abrogation was approved October 14, 1966 by His Holiness the Sovereign Pontiff Paul VI. who ordered at the same time its publication.
This approval by the Holy Father took place during an audience accorded to His Eminence Cardinal Ottaviani,
Pro-Prefect for the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith."
The decree was made in Rome. November 15, 1966. It bears the signatures of:
A. Cardinal Ottaviani. Pro-Prefect
P. Parente. Secretary
The decree took effect three months after its publication, hence on March 29.1967.
Canon 1399
The Canon 1399 forbade by right the publication of certain books such as those that deal with revelations, visions, prophecies and miracles.
This Canon has been repealed. This means that as far as these publications are concerned, the prohibition is lifted as to their being bound by ecclesiastical law. This means that henceforth: Catholics are permitted without need of Imprimatur, or of NIhil Obstat. or any other permission. to publish accounts of revelations, visions, prophecies and miracles. Of course these publications must not put in danger the Faith or the Morals: this is the general rule which every Catholic must follow in all his actions, even journalists. especially Journalists.
There is hence no longer any prohibition concerning the narrative of seers. be they recognized or not by Ecclesiastical Authority.
All the more reason is it permitted for Catholics to frequent places of Apparitions, even those not recognized by the Ordinaries of the diocese or by the Holy Father Granted that the Catholic visitors who frequent these places must respect the Faith and the Morals. However, they are not subject to any ecclesiastical discipline, not even for their public prayers.
Permission is required only for the celebration of Holy Mass or any other religious service.
Canon 2318
Canon 2318 carried penalties against those who violated the taws of censure and prohibition.
This Canon is abrogated since 1966. None can incur ecclesiastical censure for frequenting places of Apparitions even those not recognized by the Ordinaries of dioceses or by the Holy Father.
Also. "those who would have incurred the censures treated in Canon 2318 will be like absolved by the very fact of the abrogation of this Canon." (Cardinal Ottaviani)
So the visionaries do not need the permission of the Bishop of Mostar to make public their private revelations.
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18th, 2007 01:19 am |
|
TotusTuus wrote: According to a decree in 1966 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith, seers do not need ecclesiastical approval for private revelations:
A. Ecclesiastical permission is not required for publication of revelations, visions, miracles or for the frequenting of non-recognized places of apparitions.
A decree of the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith" was published in the "Official Acts of the Holy See" (A.A.S.) 58/16, dated December 29.1966.
The entire Canon Law was replaced in 1983 and it supercedes all earlier versions of Canon Law.
You can find the currently valid Code of Canon Law at the Vatican web site.
The Holy Father is the author of Canon Law, so his authority supercedes the law at any time. But the Code of Canon Law in 1983 certainly superceded the statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated in 1966. I didn't have time to research the current Code regarding apparitions, but perhaps you'll have the time to do it for us.
To the best of my knowledge, the Church (meaning Rome) has taken no official position on the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje. The previous bishop and the bishop's conference of the former country of Yugoslavia have made statements, but they are no longer in effect as the bishop has retired, and Yugoslavia no longer exists. I know many people who have visited there, and who have had profound experiences. I know a deacon who swears his rosary was turned to gold, and I have no reason to doubt him. The former archbishop of New Orleans, Phillip Hannan, is a firm believer. But at this time, the Church has taken no official position.
Even if the apparitions are false, a person who truly believes them to be real can have a life-changing experience based on his or her own belief. And the Church says that privately, I may choose to believe if I wish. However, until the Church makes an official pronouncement, it may not be publicly declared. People may choose to express their devotion privately (even if that private devotion occurs in a group), but public devotion is not appropriate. So if you choose to believe, that is fine. And if you choose not to believe, that is also fine.
And I trust I will be corrected if I'm wrong.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18th, 2007 01:48 am |
|
TotusTuus wrote:The visionaries do not need the permission of the Bishop of Mostar to make public their private revelations.
Since this point was made as well on other grounds by each in turn, it seems that none of the participants in this thread is opposing the idea.
Curiously, the only places I find the document you cite is in the apologetical efforts for questionable apparitions such as those at Bayside (the so-called “Lady of the Roses”) or for unauthorized advocacy (as distinct from simple publication of events or messages) of ongoing or still unapproved private revelations such as those at Medjugorje or Garabandal, and from internal evidence it seems to contain commentary which may be interpolated. I find no record of it on official sites or in compilations. This does not mean it is false, but just to say that I have not been able to locate a reliable source.
On the assumption that the document is genuine, I do have one reservation about its use which may have escaped you. It is that, while the initial permission that used to be required is no longer needed in order to publish material concerning “revelations, visions, prophecies and miracles,” there is no indication that this includes immunity to subsequent censure, and this latter is what we are dealing with in this thread. Indeed, there is a statement in the body of your citation which points to the fact that censure is still applicable: “Of course these publications must not put in danger the Faith or the Morals: this is the general rule which every Catholic must follow in all his actions, even journalists. especially Journalists.” (sic) Such a fail-safe is necessary to keep the Church from losing control over the deposit of faith.
But this is all meaningless speculation. Since, as Rick has indicated, the Code of Canon Law currently in effect was promulgated in 1983, it would definitely supercede any prior document, including the one you have cited. Therefore, even if the document is genuine, it is no longer in effect.
Mark, keep in mind that Church authorities will pronounce their verdict; it will come in its own time and in its proper place and manner, and it will be true. We have only to be patient.
David
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 122 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19th, 2007 06:03 pm |
|
I was merely responding to the suggestion made in numerous places, including this thread, that there is some sort of “obedience test” which the Bishop has put into effect and which the seers have supposedly failed. It was also suggested that anyone who promoted messages from an apparition or manifestation which the local Bishop opposed was committing a sin.
This is the sort of speculation and game-playing which I find baseless and conterproductive. It seems to me, these are the folks who should be cautioned about the need to wait for the Church to make its announcement before making final judgement and assuming that those who are responding to the mesages there are somehow disobedient or in sin. In the meantime, the faithful are free to exercise their own personal judgment about whether, indeed, Medjugorje is a continuation of Fatima and Our Lady is pleading with her children to avoid worldwide catastrophy by accepting a "peace plan from heaven": prayer, fasting, reading the bible, Confession, Eucharist.
The nature of prophecy is that it is addressed to a specific people, time and circumstance. If we fail to exercise the "sensus fidelium" then, as at Fatima, we may fail to heed a prophetic voice in a timely manner. Fatima, which was a plea from Our Lady in 1917 to help end WWI through prayer and conversion, only received full Church approval in 1930.
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19th, 2007 07:50 pm |
|
TotusTuus wrote: The nature of prophecy is that it is addressed to a specific people, time and circumstance. If we fail to exercise the "sensus fidelium" then, as at Fatima, we may fail to heed a prophetic voice in a timely manner. Fatima, which was a plea from Our Lady in 1917 to help end WWI through prayer and conversion, only received full Church approval in 1930.
Mark, you are certainly free to believe as you wish. I believe there are a number of problems with several of the apparitions currently being touted around the world, but I cannot doubt the profound and positive effects they have had on some people. I have read several of the messages from Medjugorje and found them disturbing, so I do not choose to read any more. They do not seem to me to be the type of loving instructions that our Blessed Mother has given in other, approved apparitions. That is my personal belief at this time. As you know, Catholics are not bound to believe that Mary has ever appeared to anyone since her Assumption into heaven. I am free to ignore even the apparitions at Fatima and Lourdes if I wish to do so.
As a private revelation, both you and I are free to accept or reject it until such time as the Church makes an official pronouncement. And yes, such a pronouncement is likely to take place long after the fact. and even then it will not be binding on Catholics.
At CHN, our objective is only to teach the truth. And the truth regarding the apparitions at Medjugorje is that the allegations that our Blessed Mother is appearing has not been approved by the Church at this time.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19th, 2007 10:29 pm |
|
TotusTuus wrote:I was merely responding to the suggestion made in numerous places, including this thread, that there is some sort of “obedience test” which the Bishop has put into effect and which the seers have supposedly failed.
As I outlined in a previous post in this thread, I believe we are agreed that, while the process itself is legitimate and has been practiced at least since the middle ages, there are some problems with its particular application in 2006 with regard to the purported apparitions at Medjugorje and the visionaries involved.
The fact that the local ordinary has been omitted from the commission assigned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to study and supervise the reported phenomena is a serious hindrance. The fact that there may have been anomalies in the manner of execution further complicates the matter. And the fact that the majority of the visionaries either are no longer receiving revelations or are living in places other than the diocese where the apparitions are supposedly taking place puts them effectively outside the jurisdiction of the local bishop. Therefore, quite aside from the objections you brought up, there is reason to doubt that this particular “litmus test” (as the media have dubbed it) was valid.
It was also suggested that anyone who promoted messages from an apparition or manifestation which the local Bishop opposed was committing a sin.
While the evidence you offered to the contrary does not apply due to its outdated character, there are some points that can be adduced pro and con. That is, certain things may and may not be done. Some of this is according to canon law, but most of it has to do with the authority of the bishop. There is a difference, often a fine line, between publishing revelations or descriptions of apparitions and publicly promoting them. Basically, the local ordinary is the usual arbiter of what will be allowed or forbidden, based on his prudent judgment of how best to handle the particular situation.
EWTN has published a detailed description of general rules and particular precautions the faithful should follow regarding apparitions. It may be accessed on the internet as follows:
From the EWTN website home page, on the Faith menu, choose Catholic Q&A, then on the sub-menu, Faith FAQs. This brings up a list called Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Near the bottom of the list, choose Spiritual Theology & Questions. This brings up another list called Spiritual Questions. Choose the Apparitions/Private Revelations. (These complex directions are necessary because EWTN uses framed pages in this area of the website, making it impossible to give a direct link.)
There is no need to pass these rules off as “speculation and game-playing.” They are the rules, reasonably laid down by the Church, that EWTN itself adheres to. Precisely because there is no speculation or promotion in their agenda, EWTN can reputably act as spokesman for the Church’s own rules. It is those heedless of the rules who must be “cautioned to wait for the Church” to make its pronouncement; disobedience to a bishop is a serious offense and a scandal to the Church.
Yes, the faithful are free in most cases (condemned claims excepted) to “exercise their own personal judgment” regarding the authenticity and interpretation of private revelations in the absence of an official judgment. But once an official judgment or interpretation is given, this should be adhered to — not because it is infallible, but because it is issued by the authority of a bishop. And this interim freedom, it should again be noted, does not extend to active promotion or public devotion, but only to personal and private belief and devotion. “Catholics must always follow the external precepts imposed by the Church in such matters, that is, what they may or may not do, as opposed to what they think” (from the EWTN FAQ on Medjugorje).
This gives sufficient latitude for personal prayer and conversion. You mention, in reference to the apparitions at Fatima, that they were not approved until 1930, thus supposedly hindering the apparition’s effort to help bring World War I to an end. This is not factual, because the apparition did not ask for and God did not need official Church approval for the war to end. In fact it did end 12 years before official approval was given. What was asked for, meanwhile, were prayer and penance, which can easily be done on an individual and private basis and which, in any case, are what the faithful at large should have been doing anyway, apparition or no.
The problem faced by the Church in the 20th and now the 21st century is not one of institutional intransigence or interference with the sensus fidelium, but of faithlessness and indolence among those supposedly Christian and Catholic. This is what recent apparitions have addressed, and what those who say they believe the apparitions should be addressing. If we take care of our own souls and those in our charge, in our homes and in our parishes, God will take care of the rest.
David
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 122 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 12:50 am |
|
Thank you for your thoughtful replies on this topic. I am quite in agreement that we have all that is necessary in the public deposit of faith to gauge our response to God and interpret the "signs of the times". Private revelation, as one priest at EWTN described it, adds only an urgency or timeliness to the clear demands of the Gospel.
I want to make it clear too, my total agreement with the statement "But once an official judgment or interpretation is given, this should be adhered to".
I have no interest in carrying this topic forward, however, just to set the record straight I want to state too, I was not suggesting that the Church's slow deliberation on the Fatima events and messages were a "hinderance" to God's purposes. Personally, I am thankful the Church moves slowly and carefully on these matters.
My only point was that if we are obtuse to "what the Spirit is saying to the churches", under the guise of waiting for the Church's judgement (necessarily a slow, deliberative process) we may miss an opportunity to seize an significant invitation to a timely grace (for example, the revelation of the Divine Mercy through St. Faustina). The sensus fidelium, in fact, is an important stage or factor in the Church's decision-making process.
Last edited on Mon Aug 20th, 2007 12:52 am by TotusTuus
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 03:51 am |
|
| If I attend a group that prays the rosary after mass, and we add a litany of names for Mary, and one of the names is 'Our Lady of Medjugorje' and if once in a while the person leading the rosary (which is strictly a lay person and we do this of our own will, though with the churches permissin, is this no problem because it is private devotion, or should it bother me because I am still on the fence regarding my belief in this event and do not think we should be publicly acknoewledging it as part of a prayer devortion going on after a mass at a specific church? Last edited on Mon Aug 20th, 2007 03:51 am by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 08:35 am |
|
Brian, I can offer only an opinion on your concern about “Our Lady of Medjugorje” being mentioned in connection with a public rosary inside a church, based on the rules I have read. Only your bishop can give an official answer.
Here’s how I see it: By praying in an organized manner, as a regularly scheduled parish group event in a church, you are making it a public devotion. So I consider that the mention of Mary by this unauthorized title is out of place. But its inclusion is probably a minor thing, and one can make a mental reservation and pass on if there is any doubt or concern. So I would ignore the lapse, more or less as I would ignore a minor infraction of the rubrics at Mass, and continue praying the “good parts.”
TotusTuus: “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, running down upon the beard, upon the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes! It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion! For there the LORD has commanded the blessing, life for evermore” (Psalm 133).
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 09:11 am |
|
brian wrote: I am still on the fence regarding my belief in this event and do not think we should be publicly acknoewledging it as part of a prayer devortion going on after a mass at a specific church?
I agree with David on this one. It is probably inappropriate, but Our Lady is Our Lady everywhere, so whether the Church ultimately approves this apparition or not, she is still Our Lady of Medjugorje as she is Our Lady of Washington D.C. and Our Lady of Houma, Louisiana. The statement does not neccessarily require an acceptance of the apparition. So even though it is really not appropriate since it's not an approved title, the infraction is minor and your own mental reservations allow you to determine the meaning of what you say as part of this "private devotion" held in public.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 04:46 pm |
|
but what about when they read the latest message from medjugorje before praying the rosary?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 05:28 pm |
|
brian wrote: but what about when they read the latest message from medjugorje before praying the rosary?
As I said, Brian, I really don't think it's appropriate, but I wouldn't make a big deal about it. On a scale of possible infractions it ranks pretty low on the scale since the Church has never actually ruled the alleged apparition as "not worthy of devotion".
Even when conducted publicly, the rosary is still a private devotion and we are free to make additions and even subtractions. In our parish, the "Prayer to St. Michael" is added at the end, along with several ejaculations ("St. Louis, pray for us; St. Theresa, pray for us, St. Jude, pray for us") and a few other prayers. This is part of a public recitation of the rosary on Saturday evening before mass. On Wednesday's before the evening mass, a rosary is said for the safety of our troops and in addition to the basic rosary, other prayers are added and some are deleted. And that's all OK, since the rosary is a private devotion. If it were public and part of the Church's liturgy, there would be a ritual and a proscribed way to say it that we would all be obliged to follow.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
RCWarrior
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 93 |
| First Name: | stefany | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | I am a Devout Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21st, 2007 09:44 am |
|
| I'd just like to say that I was at Medjugorgie and one would have to be there to comment at all. Regardless of what the bishop feels, he has a right to not believe but millions of others do. There are supernatural happenings there and I have experienced one. Yes, the Mother of Christ IS appearing their no matter what the outcome. Take it from someone who WAS THERE. I suggest you read the book "MEDJUGORIE" by Wayne Weibel who was a die hard Protestant before converting there on the mountain after his experience.
____________________
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle; I just wish he didn't trust me so much---Mother Teresa
If you invoke The Blessed Virgin when you are tempted, she will come at once to your help, and Satan will leave you----St. John Vianney
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29th, 2007 11:56 pm |
|
Not that I wanted to debate this issue anymore, and I am totally happy not to decide here whether or not I accept the apparitions or think others should, but I had a question about interpreting the stance of the church on this issue as we have discussed.
I was handed a brochure encouraging me to go to a pilgrimage with them. I think it may be a violation of what they are supposed to advertise as an official Parish sponsoring the event and sending a priest as the spiritual adviser. If I understand correctly, there is nothing wrong with the church sponsoring or encouraging people to go, but that they are not allowedto say anything that seeks to affirm that the revelations are true? So it is fine to have the trip, and even for many to go assuming that something special is happening and all personally believing in the apparitions, even the priests. But they are just not suppsed to advertise it as such? Or is it ok even to advertise it as such but not seek to validate it by going?
Anyway, here are some excerpts from the leaflet. My questions are: Is it in violation of what is acceptable? and if it is in violation, should I at least call the Pastor of the church write the Bishop just to let them know and trust that they will deal with it if it needs to be re-worded, or should I just leave it alone since it is simply up to me to trust those above me and not worry about decisions that are over my level?
"Join Our Lady of (church name) on a Pilgrimage...activities...Mass...follow the path up Apparition Hil where the visionaries frist encountered Our Lady. Touch and pray before the cross that commemorates the spot where Mary first appeared to the visionaries. Each evening at 5 or 6...we will join...villagers...to pray the rosary. The apparition takes place at 5:40 PM...Visit Fr. Jozo's parish and receive his powerful healing blessing...when the apparitions began in 1981...."
Is it ok to mention these things, or should they say it in a different way, or at all, like 'go to where many believe the Virgin Mary is appearing....
Again, I am not trying to speak against the pilgrimage or the apparitions, I will simply trust what the Church says or does not say and keep my opinion (which I am trying to avoid forming for a long time and maybe at all) to myself. I believe it is both possible that Our Lady is appearing and it is good for people to go and believe and experience the great things that are happening, but at the same time out of obedience to the Church that this brochure to be worded differently.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2007 01:44 am |
|
From what you give of the advertisement, Brian, it seems to be typical travel hype. Yes, it makes some assumptions. In this it may be compared to the advertisements one reads for so-called health supplements, which will rattle on about the advantages of the concoction, but also include the required disclaimer that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not found any medical effectiveness in it. That’s all legal, even if it is misleading and unhelpful. The brochure about the trip is not pitching a bald-faced lie, and it doesn’t go beyond the historical facts, but it does assume that the apparitions are genuine, and it assumes that you, the reader, do too.
Would the pastor or the bishop welcome an alert? Probably not. There is no open heresy or rampant disobedience to Church regulations. The brochure is pitching a trip and an experience, not directly the idea that the apparitions are genuine. It will then be up to the consumer to judge for himself whether the tour offer is worth the price and whether it would be a good idea to go.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2007 01:59 am |
|
I think we need to remember that any trips to the sites of unapproved apparitions are private, and private individuals are free to take these trips until the Church declares otherwise.
Having said that, let me also say that I know many people who have visited various alleged sites and had truly positive faith experiences. I don't consider that evidence of the truth of the apparition; faith is a personal thing, and my response is based on what I put into it. I cannot be made to believe something unless I am open to the possibility of its truth. We have all seen friends and family members who are so closed-minded to the Catholic Church that Jesus himself could come down and they still wouldn't believe. (Didn't Jesus tell the rich man in hell that even if someone returned from the dead, they still would not believe?)
I don't know whether these apparitions are true or not. I will await the definitive judgment of the Church. Until then, I rejoice with those whose faith has increased as a result of their pilgrimages, and I pray for those whose motivation is to make money off of the events.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2007 05:38 am |
|
CajunRick wrote:
I think we need to remember that any trips to the sites of unapproved apparitions are private, and private individuals are free to take these trips until the Church declares otherwise.
But how is it private if it is being sponsored by a specific parish? It is not a group of individuals just deciding to go, but a pilgrimage with the name of a church atached to it. Does that not make it public? What exactly is a parish not allowed to do regarding publicly saying that the apparitions are real if it is allowed to advertise a trip where you can go and witness the apparition yourself?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2007 09:08 am |
|
It is not a group of individuals just deciding to go, but a pilgrimage with the name of a church attached to it. Does that not make it public?
Even “public” events can be “private” within the meaning of canon law, Brian. Is the trip being organized as an official parish event? (Almost certainly not. These excursions are nearly always sponsored by a travel agency that offers a package tour for groups, and the group initiative usually comes from individual laymen.) Will the pastor be leading an organized pilgrimmage? (Even so, it is legal for a priest to “accompany” an informal group as chaplain.) So basically, I think you will find that this excursion really is, within the Church’s definition of terms, “just a group of individuals who decide to go.”
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2007 09:13 am |
|
brian wrote:CajunRick wrote:
I think we need to remember that any trips to the sites of unapproved apparitions are private, and private individuals are free to take these trips until the Church declares otherwise.
But how is it private if it is being sponsored by a specific parish
In the same way that a rosary is a private devotion even though it takes place in church before mass.
The parish is operating as a tour guide or travel agent, and they are making money off the deal. (If not the parish, at least the priest who will be travelling with the group is getting a free trip.) A priest friend of mine takes several trips there a year. Unless the Church officially disapproves the apparition, such trips are not forbidden. However, no church will be built on the site, no international conferences will be scheduled there, the pope will not visit, etc., all of which have happened at places like Fatima and Lourdes. Also, no church will be named after unapproved apparitions.
A parish can sponsor private devotions such as missions, retreats, novenas, prayer groups, scripture studies, etc. The fact that they are sponsored by the parish does not make them liturgical (i.e., "public") actions.
The parish can also sponsor bingo games, trips to zoos, movie nights, teen and adult dances, Sunday dinners, Thanksgiving food drives, and all sorts of other activities. In our area it's not uncommon for a priest to take a group on a fishing trip and offer mass on a beach. In this case a "public" (i.e., liturgical) action takes place within the confines of a "private" (i.e., non-liturgical) action, which is perfectly acceptable as long as there is no overlap.
They would be crossing the line if they offered mass in honor of "Our Lady of Medjugorje" as we do to Our Lady of Guadeloupe on December 12th.
In addition, the priest will have certain restrictions to follow. He can offer mass for the members of his group but not for the general public. If he has permission from the local bishop he could be invited to concelebrate at a regularly scheduled mass, but if he is able to obtain permission to otherwise say mass in a church, it would be a private mass only for members of his party and not for the general public. And of course, he must use an approved liturgy for the day of the mass.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2007 03:55 pm |
|
Thanks for the help. I think I now know that I should just let it drop unless there is some good reason to ask about it, but to make no incentive to mention it unless it seems to come about naturally. It is good for me, and other than that I can pray for those who go, that they will draw closer to God on their trip.
Brian
|
|
|
RCWarrior
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 93 |
| First Name: | stefany | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | I am a Devout Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 8th, 2007 01:45 pm |
|
| PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION!!! NOONE HERE CAN COMMENT ABOUT MEDJUGORJIE UNLESS YOU PERSONALLY WERE THERE. My two cents to Cajunrick is remember that an apparition cannot be approved because she is still appearing there. This is why the church cannot approve it. I am also surprised in you at how you doubt other apparitions as well like Fatima when 80,000 people saw the miracle of the sun as well as the atheist newspaper who printed it. And Lourdes, to deny the Blessed Mother of these well documented apparitions is disturbing to me. I suppose you also doubt guadalupe Mexico, Garabandal spain, Knock Ireland, Cairo Egypt etc...you say you doubt Medjugorgie b/c The blessed mother doesn't speak like that, well, who is one to say how and what she says?? One message she told the visionaries was that "God does exist". who are you to say those words are not hers? Point being I told you before that I visited there and had a supernatural experience. Was I hallucinating? Are over millions of converts also hallucinating?? Atheists are becoming Catholic, non-Catholics are Catholic. Go and see for yourself the statue of Christ with its leg oozing some kind of oil that cannot be explained, and go see how holy it is. Perhaps you too will come back a different person..
____________________
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle; I just wish he didn't trust me so much---Mother Teresa
If you invoke The Blessed Virgin when you are tempted, she will come at once to your help, and Satan will leave you----St. John Vianney
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 8th, 2007 02:36 pm |
|
Well, first it is wrong to say no one can comment on a thing without firsthand experience. That's like the pro-aborts saying that men can't talk about abortion because they are not women. It's a fallacy.
I agree that there can be undue skepticism (and in this case, quite a bit, I think), but on the other hand (as has been pointed out above several times), no Catholic is required to believe in any Marian apparition, no matter how firmly | | |
