Medjugorje

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='May 4 2005, 01:03 PM'] No, he was referring to apparitions which had not been investigated fully by the Church, such as Medugorje.

This is why he says if it should be proven true or if it is proven false...implying that it hasn't been declared either way. [/quote]
It would only make sense if referring to approved apparitions. (Remember "approved" doesn't mean "proved true." The Church does not require us to beleive in approved appartions.)

Otherwise, the implication would be that it is better to beleive absolutely anyone who claims they've had a heavenly apparition or private revelation.
That would be absolutely absurd!

[Aloysius]

he was obviously referring to approved apparitions

meaning that if one day they prove that Juan Diego never existed and Our Lady of Guadeloupe never appeared to him it is better that we believed it even if it was not true.

remember, when the Church approves an apparition it says that nothing in its messages run contrary to Catholic Teaching. it is not saying 'this definitely happened'. which is why before something is approved we should not put much stock in the messages as they could be leading us away from Church Teaching.

[popestpiusx]

It appears the supporters of this nonsense have no desire to read refutations of what they are posting. See the links I posted. They answer specifically the claims you are making. And the quote from Bishop Zanic is laughable considering his adament insistence that nothing is taking place there.

[philothea]

I have spent a lot of time in research this afternoon.

First, I was looking for that quote from Urban VIII, which appears all over unapproved apparition sites, while other debunking sites try to find the original source. No one seems to have the source.

Anyway, then I looked for more Medjugorje stuff. The [url="http://www.unitypublishing.com/newswire/truth.html"]article[/url] from Bishop Zanic published in 1990 makes the apparitions seem very unlikely to be from Mary.

A few excerpts:

[quote] I told him about the case of the ex-franciscan priest Ivica Vego.  Due to his disobedience, by an order of the Holy father the Pope, he was thrown out of his franciscan religious order OFM by his General, dispensed from his vows and suspended "a divinis".  He did not obey this order and he continued to celebrate Mass, distribute the sacraments and pass the time with his mistress.  It is unpleasant to write about this, yet it is necessary in order to see who Our Lady is speaking of.  According to the diary of Vicka and the statements of the "seers", Our Lady mentioned 13 times that he is innocent and that the bishop is wrong.  When his mistress, sister Leopolda, a nun, became pregnant, both of them left Medjugorje and the religious life and began to live together near Medjugorje where their child was born.  Now they have two children.[/quote]

[quote]Here I will only mention the bloody handkerchief.  Word spread around that there was a certain taxi driver who came across a man who was bloody all over.  This man gave this taxi driver a bloodied handkerchief and he told him to:  "throw this in the river".  The driver went on and then he came across a woman in black.  She stopped him and asked him to give her a handkerchief.  He gave her his own, but she said:  "not that one but the bloody handkerchief."  He gave her the handkerchief she wanted and she then said:  "If you had thrown it into the river the end of the world would have occurred now."  Vicka Ivankovic wrote in her diary that they asked Our Lady if this event was true and she said that it was, and along with this, "that man covered, with blood was my son Jesus, and I (Our Lady) was that woman in black."

    What kind of theology is this?  From this it appears that Jesus wants to destroy the world if a handkerchief is thrown into a river and it's Our Lady who saves the world![/quote]

[quote]A conversation with Vicka:  "The bishop has the duty to judge whether or not this is Our Lady..." said Rev. Grafenauer.
Vicka:  He can judge as he wants, but I know it's Our Lady.

Graf:  The Church says that those who are confident in themselves, that this itself is a sign that Our Lady is not in question here.
Vicka:  Let those who are doubtful remain doubtful, I'm not.
Graf:  This is not a good sign... you once told the bishop that he should listen more to Our Lady than to the Pope.
Vicka:  Yes I did.
Graf:  This means that the bishop should listen to you more than to the Pope.
Vicka:  No, not me.
Graf:  But the bishop doesn't know what the phenomenon is and perhaps it is not Our Lady.
Vicka:  Yes it is Our Lady.
Graf:  You told the bishop that he is to blame and that those two (Vego and Prusina) are innocent and that they can perform their priestly duties.
Vicka:  Yes I did.
Graf:  Can they hear confession?  Did Our Lady mention this?
Vicka:  Yes.
Graf:  If Our Lady said this and the Pope says that they cannot...
Vicka:  The Pope can say what he wants, I'm telling it as it is!
Graf:  See, this is how one can come to the conclusion that this is not Our Lady... when the Pope says no, they cannot celebrate Mass, and they cannot hear confessions, and then on the other hand, Our Lady says they can do both, this cannot be!
Vicka:  I know what is right (What Our Lady said). [/quote]

There's lots more but I'm getting too depressed to read enough to find more quotes.

[Nicole8223]

I've hear the visionaries talk many times...they never talked as they supposedly did in the excerpt you posted. I don't believe they are really quots.

As for the Bishop, he originally declared all as true, saying the children were not lying...and then he was threatened and then his mind was changed....hmmmm