Bishop says Medjugorje apparitions are divisive

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' post='1019812' date='Jul 8 2006, 08:10 AM']
There have been enough questions and enough things that just don't make sense that I [i]seriously[/i] question the authenticity. One of the major factors is the lack of docility to the local bishop. Leaders and supporters of the Medjugorje apparitions seem too inclined to disregard or contradict the local bishops, which definitely smacks of inauthenticity in my book.
[/quote]
Amen.

This was the kicker for me. I went, and was skeptical, but then kept hearing more and more about disobedience and disappointment with the bishop. If the bishop has concerns, then they darn well ought to be taken seriously.

[the_rev]

here is a long commentary from spiritdaily, (used with permission)

Spirit Daily

__________________________________________

Uproar Over Medjugorje Stirred Again With Bishop's Remarks On Apparitions, Reflecting On Long, Fascinating Dispute

Rome or Mostar?

That question -- and confusion -- reared its head again last week when the bishop of the diocese that oversees Medjugorje, the famous pilgrimage site in Bosnia-Hercegovina, was reported to have once more denounced the apparitions, demanding that seers there "demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience" and "cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish."

Since 1981, six visionaries have claimed to see the Blessed Mother on a regular and in some cases daily basis, issuing a monthly message that is disseminated around the world.

The bishop, Ratko Peric, actually had made the remarks more than two weeks before (it took a while for the diocese to publish them) and the confusion was that the Vatican -- while prohibiting official parish pilgrimages to Medjugorje -- has for years said that the matter is still under review and -- contrary to the bishop's pronouncements -- that unofficial pilgrimages, including by priests and bishops, are acceptable. "You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false," stated the Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, in Rome's last official statement, which was reiterated several weeks ago. "This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want."

There was thus a curious choice: were the faithful to heed the local bishop, who almost always has jurisdiction over apparitions in his diocese, or the Vatican -- which has authority over bishops and the final say on private revelations, through its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

The matter is almost surely one that in the end, publicly or quietly, will be resolved by the Vicar of Rome.

And therein is the uncertainty.

While Pope John Paul II was widely reported to have had a positive discernment of the apparitions, it is not known how the current Pope feels. He has indicated both ways.

But it was Benedict XVI, in 1986, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who removed the authority of the Mostar bishop to rule on the apparitions, placing the matter in the hands of a national commission that is now headed by the Cardinal of Sarajevo -- which has stated that it will not issue a final decision until the apparitions have come to a conclusion.

The issue remains a matter of misunderstanding, misrepresentations, and sharp debate. When he was secretary of the Congregation (under Cardinal Ratzinger), and asked about similarly negative statements from the bishop in a periodical called Famille Chretienne, the new Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, wrote:

"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 [that they were false], 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."

There is thus no judgment recognized at this point by Rome. According to a Croatian source who is close to the situation and friends with both the bishop, who has stayed at her home, and the seers, both Peric and his predecessor had been instructed by the Vatican not to make public remarks about the apparitions.

The history of the controversy is meticulously detailed by a professional British journalist and broadcaster, Mary Craig, who first traveled to Medjugorje to produce a documentary for the British Broadcasting Corporation and later penned a book about the controversy called Spark From Heaven.

According to Craig, the opposition of the local bishop is largely rooted in or at least exacerbated by a long-standing dispute between the secular priests in the diocese, based in Mostar, and Franciscans who have functioned independent of diocesan oversight and operate many parishes in what was once Yugoslavia -- including the parish of Medjugorje.

Franciscans are the oldest priests in the region and predate existence of dioceses. But bowing to pressure from Austro-Hungary, the Vatican created a secular diocese to oversee the area on July 5, 1881, despite dogged Franciscan opposition. It was these attempts by the diocese to absorb Franciscan parishes that initiated antagonisms.

Initially, Pope Leo XIII halted the secular archbishop from claiming right to the Franciscan parishes, but as the years and decades wore on, pressure built and some parishes were turned over.

Tensions remained particularly acute in the Diocese of Mostar.

"The mutual animosity was unbelievable," commented an observer quoted by Craig. "The Franciscans simply didn't want to go. After all, they had been there for more than four centuries."

By 1966 the situation was described as "intractable," and attempts by the diocese to absorb the Franciscan strongholds were met by actual protests by villagers, who were loyal to the Franciscans and in some cases reacted with violence.

So furious was the bishop of Mostar at the time, Petar Cule, that he banned Masses, baptisms, and catechism lessons at the guilty parishes. "Cule had the enthusiastic support," writes Craig, "of his new auxiliary bishop, Pavao Zanic."

Bishop Zanic, who immediately preceded Bishop Peric, became bishop on August 31, 1980, and immediately demanded the surrender of three-quarters of the Franciscan parishes -- once more spiking tensions between Franciscans and the diocese. Two especially recalcitrant Franciscan priests, Ivica Vega and Ivan Prusina, were expelled.

It was Zanic -- as successor to Cule -- who would initiate the rulings against the apparitions at Medjugorje, which began shortly after the expulsions.

On January 10, 1982, faced with thousands of pilgrims descending on the Franciscan parish, the bishop set up a four-man commission to study the reputed apparitions.

Just four days later, when summoned to Mostar to see the bishop, one of the seers, Vicka Ivankovic, without preamble, defended the Franciscans and indicated that the Blessed Mother felt he had acted hastily in dismissing the young priests -- a claim that according to Craig enraged the bishop. "'Go away,' he shouted at Vicka, reportedly adding, "And when your Lady finally reveals her true colors and curses God, be sure and let me know," writes the British journalist.

While initially a believer that Mary was appearing, the dispute erupted in the early days of the apparitions and the bishop had also grown concerned about what he later termed as widespread "hallucination" at the site of apparitions.

In 1984, the bishop issued a position paper saying that the only unique feature of Medjugorje was the blame it seemed to levy on him in the matter of the two Franciscans. Animosities only grew as pilgrims streamed in and the diocese was unable to exert control.

The matter intensified in 1985 when on June 2 of that year, Bishop Zanic went to Rome to present an up-to-date report on Medjugorje to the Vatican that was strongly negative. "Rather to his dismay," reports Craig, "he was asked to soft-pedal his opposition, to let events take their own course."

Added Craig -- who also penned a major biography of Lech Walesa -- "an affair that should have been no more than an irritating side issue had turned into a creeping cancer that threatened to destroy the integrity of the Medjugorje events."

Meanwhile, three of the seers, Ivan Dragicevic, Marija Pavlocic, and Jakov Colo, reported that during an apparition, the Blessed Mother had said, "Tell the bishop that I beg him most earnestly to endorse the events in the parish of Medjugorje before it is too late. I want him to approach those events with great understanding, love, and a deep sense of responsibility. The bishop is father-in-chief to all the Hercegovina parishes, and head of the Church in that province. For this reason, I beg him to accept what is happening there."

By this time Medjugorje and its messages were the subject of deep interest by John Paul II, who encouraged visiting bishops to visit the site and studied the monthly messages. It is all but certain that it was John Paul II, working quietly behind the scenes, who prevented the bishop from making official pronouncement.

The Pope's views had been influenced in large measure by French theologian Rene Laurentin, widely considered the greatest Marian scholar in the world and an expert on the apparitions at Lourdes. After visiting Bishop Zanic, Father Laurentin became "alarmed by the anger in the bishop's voice," says Craig, and "begged him not to give voice to accusations which could only scandalize the pilgrims."

The issue was placed in the hands of the Pope's top lieutenant, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- who as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had jurisdiction over private revelations.

The controversy was further fueled, notes the journalist, by the two ends of the Church spectrum: liberals who disdained any supernatural claims, preferring a psychological approach (and dismissing such matters as hallucinations) and "traditionalists on the right" who condemned the ecumenical messages from Medjugorje (where the Blessed Mother had said people of all religions were God's children).

In July of 1984, the visionaries were banned from the church by the bishop -- who did have the authority to do that -- and henceforth would have their apparitions in the rectory or a side chapel.

As for investigations, a commission that was seen as negative to Medjugorje from the start was established by Bishop Zanic but composed of just four people (only one of whom visited Medjugorje) and in January of 1984 Cardinal Kuharich of Zagreb asked Bishop Zanic to form "a larger, more serious commission," says the author.

Such was done and a new commission was formed with 14 members.

"None, however, was known to the public, and none had the remotest connection with the events they were investigating," notes Craig. "Moreover, the mixture was no more balanced than before, as ten of the 14 were known opponents of Medjugorje. Indeed, one of Zanic's fellow bishops dryly observed that disapproval of Medjugorje seemed to be a condition of selection." According to Craig -- -- who also takes swipes at the pro-Medjugorje camp -- the bishop, in pronouncing himself chairman of the commission, "declared his intention of 'crushing the apparitions.'"

If any more heat was needed, the Archbishop of Split, Frane Franic, threw his support behind Medjugorje, saying that the apparitions had borne more fruit for the region in three years "than all of our pastoral letters in forty."

It was a strange result, noted Craig, "for Satan to achieve."

The controversy over the apparitions, though still erupting, was thus a full-blown one more than twenty years ago. But back to the history:

The new commission proceeded with a report deploring those who "organize pilgrimages and demanded silence on the subject," says the book.

"But the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, gave it front-page prominence, and from there it spread around the world," says Craig, "creating the false impression, highly satisfactory to Bishop Zanic, that Medjugorje had been placed out of the bounds to faithful Catholics."

When the commission met on October 11, 1984, it was rapidly deadlocked despite the bishop's efforts and managed only a re-issuance of its earlier communique promising more investigation and expressing dissatisfaction over pilgrimages, which had continued and soon were to expand to such an extent that Medjugorje became the most visited site of apparition at such an early stage in modern Church history, with millions traveling there despite the rule of Communism.

When the new communique was sent for endorsement by the Yugoslav bishops, says Craig, the word "official" was inserted in front of "pilgrimages," thus recognizing that "though there could be no major pilgrimages led by a bishop or cardinal to Medjugorje, private pilgrimages remained a matter of free choice."

They further suggested that a larger commission be instituted -- with international membership, for with visitors from nearly every nation, Medjugorje had far outgrown status as a local or even national event. So it is that the issue was beginning to grow beyond local control.

Despite criticisms, says Craig, "Bishop Zanic's position paper almost came near to torpedoing Medjugorje, as the international press danced to his tune."

A lack of knowledge into Church jurisdictions when it comes to apparitions aggravated the problem. So did politics.

"Communist journals in Zagreb and Belgrade were claiming that Cardinal Ratzinger had banned the pilgrimages," writes the former BBC broadcaster. "But Ratzinger maintained a prudent silence on the subject of Medjugorje, and Glas Koncila (a newspaper that made it sound like Medjugorje had been condemned) had to publish a denial."

The fight between Bishop Zanic and Archbishop Franic exploded in 1985 when Bishop Zanic asked the Vatican Secretary of State to stop the archbishop from interfering in the issue while, for his part, the archbishop went higher -- to Cardinal Ratzinger, pleading that the Vatican halt Bishop Zanic from defaming the site and noting the "large number of authenticated cures" at Medjugorje, something that had also caught the attention of Father Laurentin.

"An international commission should be set up, to stop the Bishop of Mostar forbidding all pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which would cause great scandal not only in Yugoslavia but throughout the world," wrote Archbishop Franic -- who on paper had spiritual if not administrative authority. "Medjugorje belongs not only to the Church in Yugoslavia but to the universal Church."

The bishop suffered further scrutiny when he accused a Franciscan who had served as a spiritual director at Medjugorje of having an affair with a nun -- an accusation that was hotly denied and eventually discredited.

In July of 1985, however, one of Cardinal Ratzinger's assistants, Archbishop Alberto Bovomne, asked Italian bishops to "publicly discourage the organization of pilgrimages and all other forms of propaganda for Medjugorje." It seemed like Bishop Zanic was finally on his way to settling the matter.

But in April of 1986 Bishop Zanic -- traveling to Rome with further commission findings -- "returned visibly chastened from a visit to Cardinal Ratzinger," reported Craig.

The bishop's commission assembled to vote the following month, with results that were never made public but were considered suspect.

"The die was cast," writes Craig. "The Commission may not have completed its work, but it had voted. The ballot papers were sent to Rome.

"Three weeks later, in May, Cardinal Ratzinger dissolved Bishop Zanic's commission, and ordered the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference to set up a new one. He gave no reasons for this action, unprecedented in the history of the Vatican, which has always left such investigations to the local bishop. In October, Cardinal Kuharic of Zagreb and Archbishop Franic of Split sent a joint letter to all the bishops, asking for nominees from each diocese."

Thus, the matter is now in the hands of a national commission -- albeit different from the one formed immediately after Cardinal Ratzinger stripped the Mostar diocese of its authority over the matter.

Although Bishop Zanic is now deceased, his successor and close assistant, Bishop Peric, who assumed control on July 24, 1994, is at least equally opposed to the apparitions and reportedly was a significant force behind Bishop Zanic's own misgivings throughout the 1980s.

His pronouncements are now in eerie echo of Bishop Zanic's -- and with the same result in the press.

Interrupted by civil war in Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and creation of the new nation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the national commission, which issued an intermediate report in 1991 saying there was as yet no proof of the supernatural, has been reformed into one that is headed by Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo and also includes his auxiliary bishop; the Bishop of Banja-Luka; and Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar.

How the Church will eventually rule is anyone's guess. Dozens of visitors, including bishops and archbishops, have said that John Paul II was highly favorable, and recent handwritten notes to a Polish intellectual have documented the late Pope's devotion to the site, but the stance of Pope Benedict is not known. If the commission rules against Medjugorje during his pontificate, he then has to accept it fully or intervene once more.

It has been asserted that as Cardinal Raztinger he visited Medjugorje incognito in 1984 and then again in 1986 or 1987 -- a claim given some credence by the fact that John Paul II encouraged underlings to go there and by the fact that high-ranking Vatican observers have been noted in the village on various occasions, including in 2002. However, Bishop Peric asserts the Pope told him recently that he never did visit the famous site. The Vatican itself has not commented.

The Vicar General of Sarajevo in Bosnia-Hercegovina told Spirit Daily several years ago that there will be no official determination on the apparitions until long after they have ended. That vicar, Father Mato Zovkic, said there are no current plans to reopen an investigation into the apparitions that stalled when a previous investigative body was dismantled due to the Bosnian conflict. He said it could take "10 or 15 years" after the conclusion of apparitions for the Church to reach a final determination on authenticity. At least two members, Cardinal Pulic, in concert with Bishop Peric, have indicated negatively.

"As the local bishop, I maintain that regarding the events of Medjugorje, on the basis of the investigations and experience gained thus far throughout these last 25 years, the Church has not confirmed a single apparition as authentically being the Madonna," he said. According to reports in the Catholic media, he then called on the alleged visionaries to cease with the "public manifestations."

"In this fashion," said the bishop, "they shall show their necessary adherence to the church, by placing neither private apparitions nor private sayings before the official position of the church. Our faith is a serious and responsible matter," he added. "The Church is also a serious and responsible institution."

Bishop Peric made his remarks on June 15 at a confirmation Mass in Medjugorje's St. James Church, a week before a record number of pilgrims flooded the area for the apparition's 25th anniversary. The diocese published the homily in Italian and English on July 3.

Meantime, in Medjugorje, where the seers do not publicly react to press reports, sources say the apparitions and messages will continue until they hear from Rome.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote]Meantime, in Medjugorje, where the seers do not publicly react to press reports, sources say the apparitions and messages will continue until they hear from Rome.[/quote]
When Rome won't say either way until the conclusion of the Apparitions?? This makes them all the more dubious.

It's interesting that when discussing the Bishop's opinion on the apparitions, the dicussion always turns political--how the Franciscans have been there since before the war and have the loyalty of the people.. blah, blah, blah. The POINT of contention is not who the people favor, nor length of residence, but the OFFICE of the Bishop which demands respect and a certain amount of obedience, even from non-diocesan priests/religious. The disobedience, etc. exampled by the Franciscans in Medjugorje is nothing short of scandalizing and undermining the authority of the Church (symbolized by the Bishop). This is why the Franciscans are a problem.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Stop Medjugorje Marian apparition claims, bishop tells visionaries
By Simon Caldwell
7/6/2006
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

MEDJUGORJE, Bosnia-Herzegovina – The bishop whose diocese includes the Bosnian village of Medjugorje has urged six alleged Marian visionaries to [u]stop claiming that Mary has been visiting them for 25 years[/u].

"As the local bishop, I maintain that regarding the events of Medjugorje, on the basis of the investigations and experience gained thus far throughout these last 25 years, the church has not confirmed a single apparition as authentically being the Madonna," he said. [b]He then called on the alleged visionaries and "those persons behind the messages to demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish."

"In this fashion [u]they shall show their necessary adherence to the church, by placing neither private apparitions nor private sayings before the official position of the church[/u]," he said.[/b]

"Our faith is a serious and responsible matter," he added. "The church is also a serious and responsible institution."

The bishop made his comments June 15 during a homily at a confirmation Mass in Medjugorje's St. James Church. The diocese published the homily in English and Italian July 3.

On June 25, thousands of pilgrims converged on Medjugorje to mark the 25th anniversary of the onset of the alleged apparitions.

Since June 24-25, 1981, the alleged visionaries together claim to have received more than 30,000 messages.

But Bishop Peric said in his homily that "so-called apparitions, messages, secrets and signs do not strengthen the faith, but rather further convince us that in all of this there is nothing either authentic or established as truthful."

He said in February that Pope Benedict XVI expressed similar doubts when they discussed Medjugorje during the Bosnian bishops' visit to the Vatican.

Bishop Peric told the congregation that because the church did not accept the claims of the visionaries it was illicit for priests to "express their private views contrary to the official position" during Mass, in acts of popular piety or in the Catholic media.

He said Catholics were forbidden from making pilgrimages to Medjugorje if by such visits "they presuppose the authenticity of the apparitions or if by undertaking them attempt to certify these apparitions."

Bishop Peric said his views, and those of his predecessor, Bishop Pavao Zanic, who was also opposed to the claims, were supported by the pope. He expressed appreciation to Popes Benedict and John Paul II, "who have always respected the judgments of the bishops of Mostar-Duvno, of the previous as well as the current bishop, regarding the so-called apparitions and messages of Medjugorje, all the while recognizing the holy father's right to give a final decision on these events."

He also warned his audience of a schism emerging in the region between the church and more than a dozen Franciscan brothers and priests who have been expelled by the generalate of the Order of Friars Minor in Rome because of their disobedience to the pope.

He said that the expelled Franciscans "have not only been illegally active in these parishes, but they have also administered the sacraments profanely... or they have assisted at invalid marriages."

[u]Bishop Peric said he shared the view of Bishop Zanic that the visions and the Franciscan "schism," which began under Pope Paul VI in the 1970s, are linked[/u].

Throughout the 1980s, Franciscan Father Jozo Zovko acted as "spiritual adviser" to the visionaries.

But three church commissions failed to find evidence to support their claims, and in 1991 the bishops of the former Yugoslavia declared that "it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations."

A short while later Father Zovko was stripped of his faculties to exercise any priestly functions by Bishop Zanic in a decree upheld by Bishop Peric.

[thessalonian]

[quote]So there's your answer Prose- until there are no more claims of "apparitions" the Vatican can't decide. This just shows the sad, powerful influence of the devil in our world. [/quote]

Actually this is not true. The Vatican does not normally approve apparitions until after they are over and the whole mater is studied. But in fact they can and will condemn them. The Bayside apparitions were exposed as false and even demonic before they were over.



[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1018184' date='Jul 6 2006, 08:44 AM']
If all Catholics had done that, we wouldn't have any approved apparitions.

However, with Medjugorje, it seems that something is amiss if Our Lady is making ambiguous statements that do not jive with Catholic theology (like "all religions are equal"), and the Bishop has spoken out against the apparitions, AND there are problems with disobedience. I have trouble reconciling an image of the Blessed Mother supporting and appearing to those who would undermine the authority of the Church she mothers.
[/quote]


Fides, could you please show me where the quote "all religions are equal" comes from? I can't find it in the medujgorie apparitions. The disobedience of priests to their Bishop is concerning. However I have seen much positive fruit. This could simply be attributed to the faith of the people on the pilgrimages, which God would honor. I don't know.

Edited July 12, 2006 by thessalonian

[Lilllabettt]

People always say, look at the fruits. I hear about people who went a little loopy after visiting that place, but it is true that other people have had beautiful spiritual experiences there.

I think the thing you have to look at is how the visionaries are living their lives. Do they refuse gifts and attention? Do they encourage people to listen to the Church before listening to them? Do they scorn the trappings of consumerism? Do they love poverty, humility, obedience?

I do not know the answers to these questions. I imagine that people over there can see better than I.
But the Lady of Medjugorje makes me feel funny. She doesn't sound like Mamma.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Thess,

I posted the "message" a few posts after making that claim (see post #31)

[Jaime]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1023139' date='Jul 12 2006, 03:44 PM']
Thess,

I posted the "message" a few posts after making that claim (see post #31)
[/quote]

Yes you posted it then misquoted it again.

Never was it quoted that all religions are equal. All people are equal. That still isn't contrary to Church teachings

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1023149' date='Jul 12 2006, 06:12 PM']
Yes you posted it then misquoted it again.

Never was it quoted that all religions are equal. All people are equal. That still isn't contrary to Church teachings
[/quote]
post #33...

[quote name=''Fides et Ratio' date="Jul 06 2006' date=' 10:31PM'']I don't disagree at all the persons all hold equal value and dignity. But religions do not, whether "in the world" or not. There will only be one religion in Heaven. Nonetheless, this is still a very ambiguos answer....
Such that my last paragraph still stands. In all the confusion that followed, there is no clarification. Why would Our Lady not take pains to eradicate this confusion and contention among Catholics over one of her messages? Why does she not address the disobedience and other concerning circumstances surrounding her apparitions? This is very uncharacteristic of her other authentic Apparitions.
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote]"Members of all faiths are equal before God. God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom."[/quote]

This sounds a lot like religious indifferentism. Nothing wrong with [i]members[/i] of all "faiths" being equal before God, but the second part sounds extremely phishy to say the least. - "God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom."

God rules over one Kingdom - his Church - which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
He does not rule over many different seperate "kingdoms."

How can each of these separate "kingdoms" (religions) with their differing and conflicting claims, each be ruled over by the same God as its Sovereign?
And which religions in the world qualify as "faiths" under the sovereign rule of God?
The Eastern Orthodox?
The Anglicans?
The Baptists?
The Mormons?
Islam?
Hinduism?
Wicca?
The Church of Scientology?
The Church of Satan?

Very, very phishy statement.

And the local Bishop has most firmly and clearly condemned these so-called "apparitions."
(Of course, there are some who will deny the authority of this Good Bishop.)

These Medjugorje "apparitions" are a big load of carp - that's right, I said carp - the big smelly fish.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Socrates

[Jaime]

God rules over all the faiths you've listed and all the ones you don't. If he didn't, he would not have the authority to judge them.


Nothing phishy at all.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1023139' date='Jul 12 2006, 03:44 PM']
Thess,

I posted the "message" a few posts after making that claim (see post #31) ;)
[/quote]

Please don't take this post wrong. You know I have the highest regard for you.

Yes I saw that quote, and figured it was the one you were refering to. I still want to know where it says all religions are the same or equal. That quote does not say that pure and simple. I have no problem with what that quote says and do not find it ambigous at all.


[quote]Are all religions the same? "[b]Members[/b] of all faiths are equal before God. God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, [b]all religions are not the same [/b] because all people [b]have not complied with the commandments of God. They reject and disparage them[/b]."[/quote]

The quote says MEMBERS of all faiths are equal before God. God shows no partiality and loves all men equally is what that tells me. Not that there religous beliefs are equal. God does rule in some fashion over all men. (romans 2:14-16, I can quote Pius XII as

Edited July 13, 2006 by thessalonian

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Thess, you too, are ignoring the clause "in the world" which is where I think the response takes on a level of ambiguity and where most of my concern with the response lies. "In the world" or not, all religions are not the same. I also take issue where the fact that there is no explicit affirmation of the Catholic faith in the response.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1023674' date='Jul 13 2006, 02:00 PM']
Thess, you too, are ignoring the clause "in the world" which is where I think the response takes on a level of ambiguity and where most of my concern with the response lies. "In the world" or not, all religions are not the same. I also take issue where the fact that there is no explicit affirmation of the Catholic faith in the response.
[/quote]
I'm confused. How does "in the world" make that statement ambiguous?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1023686' date='Jul 13 2006, 02:16 PM']
I'm confused. How does "in the world" make that statement ambiguous?
[/quote]
I just don't get the clarification made by that phrase. Is it any different in Heaven?

Furthermore, I don't have the claimed books handy, so I hestitate to cite these... but the only clarifications I can seem to find on the matter only seem all the more condemning of the apparitions...

[quote]Question: "Is the Blessed Mother calling all people to be Catholic?

Seer Vicka Ivankovic: "No. The Blessed Mother says all religions are dear to her and her Son." (Janice T. Connell, The Visions of the Children, The Apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje, St. Martin's Press, August 1992).
[/quote]


Nonetheless, THERE IS great confusion over this particular aspect of the messages... why hasn't she clarified herself? There was no hesitation when there was some confusion over the prayer she gave in the recently approved apparitions at Amsterdam for Our Lady to clarify herself and dispell the confusion that surrounded part of her message.




Most of my concern with Medjugorje is the lack of obedience displayed by many who are directly invovled with the apparitions. Now that the Bishop has asked them to stop out of obedience to the Church, what follows will be telling evidence of their devotion.

[Sojourner]

Hmmm. I just don't see the problem with either of those statements. Of course, I don't have the context in which they were made, but I can easily make sense of them in a way that jives with what I understand of church teaching.

I suppose that, like anything, your presuppositions coming in will color your interpretation of a given statement. I apparently don't have the same presuppositions that you do.

I can't really speak to the question of obedience as I haven't read enough on the topic to be able to form a reasonable opinion.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1023674' date='Jul 13 2006, 12:00 PM']
Thess, you too, are ignoring the clause "in the world" which is where I think the response takes on a level of ambiguity and where most of my concern with the response lies. "In the world" or not, all religions are not the same. I also take issue where the fact that there is no explicit affirmation of the Catholic faith in the response.
[/quote]


Sorry, but the "in the world" phrase does nothing to change my thinking. Are you somehow thinking the sentence before it is implying that there are people of differing faiths in heaven? That would be a strech. There is no way the statements presented in post #31 say that all religions are the same or equal. As I read it, just the opposite. She simply does not say all religions are the same.

Obedience is definitely key to the whole thing and we will see where that heads. Having a bishop who is against them is not any proof of anything because both Fatima and Gudalupe had bishops who were against them. But if this appartion brings about division and disobedience it will be a big blow to it's authenticity. So I share your concerns in that area.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Fair enough. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree... I read those entries (and interviews with the seers) and take their wording very differently. It may seem trite to harp on a small phrase, but, as I said before, Council Fathers beat each other up over phrases. I reserved a few books from the library to do more careful study myself on the apparitions to get more context (but the first 3 years-- from whence the questionable message comes-- are not included in most of the books I could find, even and including the Medjugorje website....)


All in all, I think the most recent article I posted from CWN, and the Bishops' command should be the focus right now:
[quote]"Therefore I responsibly call upon those who claim themselves to be “seers”, as well as those persons behind the “messages”, to demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish. In this fashion they shall show their necessary adherence to the Church, by neither placing private “apparitions” nor private sayings before the official position of the Church."[/quote]
There's the simple litmus test. If the apparitions are authentic, then they will cease upon the Bishop's command. (you can find the text of Bishop Peric's entire homily [url="http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2006/07/homily-of-bishop-ratko-peric-of.html"]here[/url])

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1023509' date='Jul 13 2006, 04:15 AM']
God rules over all the faiths you've listed and all the ones you don't. If he didn't, he would not have the authority to judge them.
Nothing phishy at all.
[/quote]

[quote]"Members of all faiths are equal before God. [b]God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom.[/b]"[/quote]
The problem here is that a "faith" refers to a set of beliefs and practices, not just a group of people.
Yes, it is true that God rules over all people and all the entire universe as soveriegn Lord. However to say "God rules over each [i]faith[/i] just like a sovereign over his kingdom" implies that God somehow rules over each religion as a seperate kingdom, and that He is the Lord of each of these sets of beliefs and practices, no matter how false or erroneous.

There is only one Kingdom of God - the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. All who are in His kingdom are there because they are in some way part of the Church (as by Christian baptism). God does not rule over multiple "kingdoms" or multiple "faiths."
He does not have a Catholic kingdom, and a Muslim kingdom, and a Buddhist Kingdom, and a Mormon kingdom, etc., etc.

If this "message" is only to say that God is Sovereign Ruler over all men, then why doesn't the "apparition" just say so, rather than saying he rules "each faith."
This statement is extremely ambiguous, misleading, and poorly-worded at best, outright heretical at worst. In any case, it hardly sounds like something Our Blessed Mother would proclaim to the world.

[quote]Question: "Is the Blessed Mother calling all people to be Catholic?

Seer Vicka Ivankovic: "No. The Blessed Mother says all religions are dear to her and her Son." [/quote]
If accurately reported, this statement is even more problematic. This is straight-out religious indifferentism and heresy. Here the so-called apparition claims that not all people are called to Christ's own Church (as if some are called to false religions and erroneous beliefs).

Note that it says "all [b]religions[/b]," not "[b]followers[/b] of all religions."

How can erroneous beliefs and falsehoods be "dear to the Blessed Mother and her Son"??
Is paganism involving human sacrifice "dear to her and her Son"?

I have seen nothing to convince me these "messages" are authentic. Whatever their source, it is NOT the Blessed Virgin.

[thessalonian]

Socrates,

I searched through the website with the apparitions and cannot find anywhere that Mary says "all religions are dear to her son". Now I think this quote you have is taken from an interview with the seer and not the Blessed Mother's own words. So let's be a little more careful next time where the words come from. Quite clearly the BM has said that all religions are not the same. Most certainly there is truth in all religions and this truth is to be revered while the errors are to be rejected.

Blessings