Rome Makes A Statement On A Medjugorje Priest

[Deb]

If anyone would like to read some intelligient information answering questions such as disobedience against the bishop, have the visions gone on too long, false ecumenical teachings etc., this site is very clear and upfront about all the questions and with a constant explanation as to these things in relation to the Catholic Church. All of the questions are answered by Dr. Mark Miravalle. [url="http://medjugorje.wordpress.com/?s=heaven"]http://medjugorje.wordpress.com/?s=heaven[/url]

Dr. Miravelle also touches on Medjugorje in several articles on his web site.

[url="http://www.markmiravalle.com/articles_mark_miravalle/"]http://www.markmiravalle.com/articles_mark_miravalle/[/url]

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1644954' date='Sep 1 2008, 09:33 PM']Oh, man. Ya, that sends a tremor through the force.[/quote]

As if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

It is not true to state that Fr. Vlasic has nothing to do with Medjugorje. He was one of its most influential leaders, perhaps the most.

Rome itself has stated that a part of the discernment of alleged private revelations is to investigate the actions of the associates of the alleged 'visionaries.' Fr. Vlasic walking right up to the Pope himself and telling him that he (Vlasic) [i]guides[/i] the "visionaries" is proof enough that he is a close associate.

The appropriate act for any Catholic in this regard is to go to the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno and ask him what the situation is. Here is his own outline of the Fr. Vlasic affair through the Diocesan Chancellor:


[url="http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=227"]http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=227[/url]


Fra Tomislav Vlašić “within the context of the Medjugorje phenomenon”
Chancellor, 2008-08-31
Due to the fact that the case of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, OFM, according to the letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, n.144/1985-27164, dated 30 May 2008, and published in the Bishop’s circular letter prot. 930/2008 on 8 July 2008, mentions “within the context of the Medjugorje phenomenon”, we wish to inform the priests, religious men and women as well as the faithful of the Dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan on the involvement of Fr. Vlašić in the case of Medjugorje, keeping in mind all that was earlier published in the book „Ogledalo Pravde“[1] – Mirror of Justice.
Tomislav Vlašić was born in Sovići, in the parish of Gorica (Herzegovina) on 16 January 1942. He was ordained a priest on 26 July 1969, as a member of the Franciscan OFM Province of Herzegovina. Before his arrival in Medjugorje, Fr. Tomislav was the associate pastor in the parish of Čapljina. Even at that time he was known as a “charismatic” who gathered priests, religious sisters and the laity together for dubious charismatic spiritual renewals.
May 1981. In May of 1981, “Fr. Tomislav Vlašić went to Rome for an international Congress of representatives of the Charismatic movement. During the Congress he asked some of the participants to pray together with him for the healing of the Church in Yugoslavia. The religious sister Briege McKenna, who joined him in prayer had a vision: she saw Fr. Vlašić sitting with a multitude of people around him and from the place where he was sitting there came forth rivers of water. Another religious priest present, Emile Tardiff O.P., prophesied: ‘Do not be afraid, I will send you my Mother’. A few weeks later, the Madonna started appearing in Medjugorje”.[2]
- This would imply that one should seek the origins and foundation of the Medjugorje phenomenon within the context of the transferring of exponents of the Charismatic movement!
September 1981. Fr. Vlašić left Čapljina for Medjugorje without the Bishops’ prior knowledge nor permission in September of 1981, just two months after the beginning of the so-called “apparitions” which can be seen from the entries in the baptismal register. He began to compile the “Parish Chronicle” on the so-called “apparitions” on 11 August 1981, yet the actual writing of the Chronicle “did not begin before the end of October 1981”.[3] On 19 July 1982, the OFM Provincial recommended that Fr. Vlašić be assigned as the “spiritual assistant in Medjugorje”. Bishop Žanić, whilst not knowing the moral situation of Fr. Vlašić, issued a decree on 27 July of the same year transferring him to Medjugorje. Fr. Vlašić followed the “seers” from the very beginning and when he was officially assigned as associate pastor in Medjugorje, he became their “spiritual leader”.
December 1983 – The Oath. Bishop Žanić visited Medjugorje on 16 October 1983 and inquired about the Diary of the “seer” Vicka Ivanković and on the Parish Chronicle so that he could better judge the phenomenon. Fr. Tomislav handed over the Chronicle yet he denied the existence of the “seer’s” Diary, saying he could swear an oath on the cross. He then came to the Diocesan Chancery Office in Mostar on 14 December 1983 and before the Bishop gave an oath on the cross that he had never held Vicka’s diary in his hands nor that he had any knowledge that such a diary existed. However, the Diary did exist as was proven from Fr. Tomislav’s own Parish Chronicle and from his letter to the Bishop of 21 December 1983.
In a conversation held in 1983, Fr. Vlašić informed the Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar that “The children have decided to enter the convent, but they are awaiting the right moment which only they know”.[4] Yet the only one to enter the convent was Ivan Dragićević, who after not even two full years in the minor seminaries of Visoko and Dubrovnik decided to leave.
In a letter dated 13 April 1984, Fr. Vlašić presented himself to the Holy Father as the one “who through Divine providence leads the seers of Medjugorje”. He informed the Pope that the “Madonna continues to convey her biography to the seers” and informed the Holy Father that “I am in Rome from 29 April till 10 May for an international meeting. I know that you are very busy, but if you could receive me for a few minutes I would be able to explain the strong points of the apparitions”.
- It remains unknown if the Pope received him in a private audience.
A second letter, six pages long, sent to the Pope two weeks later, contained “messages”: “The time is close at hand. We are approaching the end”.
On 22 August 1984, Fr. Vlašić wrote to Bishop Žanić informing him that the Madonna’s 2000th birthday was to be held that same year on 5 August! No important ecclesiastic person took this news seriously and neither did Bishop Žanić nor the Holy See. However, during 1984, on 4 and 5 August, a large group of people gathered in Medjugorje to “celebrate” the Madonna’s “birthday”.
- The “Mladifest” (Youth festival) that is usually held at the beginning of August, is probably attached to this Medjugorje invention of Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić.
On 30 October 1984, Bishop Žanić published his Position in which he mentioned some of the above-mentioned facts on Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, referring to him as a “mystifier and charismatic magician”.
In 1984, Fr. Tomislav had to leave Medjugorje and was assigned to the parish of Vitina as associate pastor.
Archbishop Frane Franić in his interview given to Fr. Slavko Barbarić, on 18 December 1984, said that he had a “deep impression” of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić and that “he is on the path of serious sanctity evident in his sense of detachment and inner strength”.[5]
On 5 January 1985, Fr. Tomislav Vlašić wrote to one of his “dearest brothers” in the Vatican (Msgr. Hnilica?) asking for protection from the bishop: “It would be necessary to get all the others involved (intellectuals, theologians, bishops, cardinals...). We have to admit that Satan can also work through the structures of the Church.”
Unfortunately the same Fr. Vlašić – according to the authentic documentation from his association – conjured evil spirits up in Medjugorje, for which his actions are under pain of mystified motivations.
In 1987 he left Vitina for Parma, Italy, together with the German citizen Agnes Heupel (like “Claire and Francis”, as literally written by T. Vlašić[6]), where he established the male and female association called “Kraljice mira, potpuno smo tvoji. Po Mariji k Isusu” (Queen of Peace, totally yours. Through Mary to Jesus). From that time onward, the name of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić is no longer on the list of the members of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina. However, his name is attached to that of Marija Pavlović who in February 1988 went to join Vlašić’s association. This is where Fr. Tomislav got his “charismatic” hands involved, for in his brochure “Jedan poziv” (A single call) he wrote: “Amongst other things I asked the Madonna a question through Marija Pavlović. Marija then gave me the Madonna’s answer on 8 March 1987: ‘This is God’s plan’”[7]. And at the end of this brochure Marija writes: “As you can see, the Madonna has given the community its programme: ‘Kraljice mira, potpuno smo tvoji. Po Mariji k Isusu’ and is guiding this community through Fr. Tomislav and Agnes, while sending messages through her to the community”.[8] Yet on 11 July 1988, Marija radically and in written form denied the declaration of Fr. Tomislav and even her own “testimony”: “before God, before the Madonna and the Church of Jesus Christ. Everything that can be understood as a confirmation or approval of this Work of Fr. Tomislav and Agnes Heupel, on the part of the Madonna through me, absolutely does not correspond to the truth and furthermore the idea that I had a spontaneous desire to write down this testimony is also not true”.
- We know that no lies can correspond to the truth, yet one can see from this how the notorious lies of Medjugorje have also been attributed to the Madonna, which Bishop Žanić painstakingly struggled against in order to defend the honour and dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
Through his letter dated 5 December 1997, the local Ordinary, Msgr. Ratko Perić, on the basis of can. 975 of the Code of Canon Law, declared that Fr. Tomislav Vlašić has no faculties to hear confessions in the territory of the Dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan.

Don Ante Luburić, Chancellor


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ogledalo Pravde, Biskupski Ordinarijat u Mostaru o navodnim ukazanjima i porukama u Međugorju (priprema i slog: D. Kutleša), Mostar 2001.
[2] L. Rooney - R. Faricy, Maria regina della pace, Milano, 1984, p. 34. See also P. Žanić, Posizione attuale (non ufficiale) della Curia Vescovile di Mostar nei confronti degli eventi di Medjugorje, Mostar, 30. X.1984, pp. 6-7.
[3] N. Bulat, Istina će vas osloboditi. Nepouzdanost izvora i nedoličnost poruka. Studija o nekim međugorskim pitanjima (1986), Mostar 2006, p. 25.
[4] M. Botta - L. Frigerio, Le apparizioni di Medjugorje, Pessano 1984, p. 129.
[5] R. Laurentin, La fine delle apparizioni è prossima?, Marzo 1985., p. 20.
[6] T. Vlašić, Una chiamata nell'anno mariano, Milano 1988, p. 5.
[7] Idem, p. 6.
[8] Idem, p. 16.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

Double post, my bad.

Edited September 2, 2008 by KevinSymonds

[Deb]

Again, he has not been involved in Medjugorje for a very long time and the letter that is supposedly from the visionary was not from her and she very publically stated that in a news format when it occured.
He is being used by Satan and his behavior is not a marker to be used in making decisions about Medjugorje. Now, go read Dr. Miravalle.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Deb' post='1645195' date='Sep 2 2008, 07:22 AM']Actually that is incorrect. Fr. Vego encountered his difficulties and was removed in 1982, light years before there was ever any souvenir shop. It just makes a better story.[/quote]

I am pretty sure it is not incorrect. I got the story about Fr. Vego and his souvenir shop from Medjugorje.org, from an article published in the Fall 1999 issue of Medjugorje Magazine. It is actually in the form of a letter written by Fr. Svetozar Kraljevic, O.F.M. to a Medjugorje critic, defending the pastoral work being done there. I imagine he would have the accurate story.

[url="http://www.medjugorje.org/svetletter.htm"]http://www.medjugorje.org/svetletter.htm[/url]

The relevant portion:

[quote]2. Pregnant nuns. It is true that "a" nun got pregnant by a priest. The priest was Fr. Ivica Vego. The entire time he was in Medjugorje, he was not in pastoral work in the parish because of a suspension from the Bishop. He never heard confessions or celebrated Mass publicly. He rarely wore his habit.[b] He was in charge of the souvenir shop where this sister worked. Human weakness overwhelmed both of them. We know that. Yes, that did happen in Medjugorje.[/b]

A Cardinal of the Church (I can't mention his name), said the following to one of our Croatian Bishops: "There will be a great effort in the world to discredit the Church in Ireland and the Church in Croatia." The system is well known. It is to find a priest who has sinned and to speak about him and all of his weaknesses. It is to go public on TV and not to let it be forgotten. In doing this, the plan is to defeat the Church. It is easy and simple and it works.

In the tradition of the Church, sin remains in the confessional, the repentant sinner receives forgiveness and life goes on; but in the world today, sin is encouraged and the sinner is crucified; his sin never to be forgiven or forgotten. The story about a former priest, Ivica Vego and a former nun, who now live in Italy raising their five children in seclusion, is sad, to say the least.[/quote]

There is SO much misinformation out there about Medjugorje, some spread by hostile traditionalists and some spread by enthusiasts. But there are certainly a lot of problems with the Franciscans there. Mary apparently told the "seers" that Fr. Vego was innocent of all the charges against him. I guess Mary was wrong?

Edited September 2, 2008 by Maggie

[Deb]

There were a lot of problems with the Bishop and the Franciscans which had been occurring off and on for years prior to Medjugorje. Fr. Vega was actually defrocked in January of 1982 and it had nothing to do with getting a nun pregnant. It had everything to do with the problems that had been going on between the Bishop and the Franciscans since 1968. If while he was no longer a Franciscan or a priest, he got a nun pregnant, it has no bearing on Medjugorje in any way.
An objective statement about what the Blessed Mother may have or may not have said is below. To imply that the Blessed Mother would have approved of a priest getting a nun pregnant is really offensive.

At the beginning, Bishop Zanic had also believed in the apparitions. He had stated publicly, "The children are not lying". In his statement in 1984 he admits that he, for his part, had thought, "If the scandalous "Herzegovina-Case" .... could not have been solved with human means then maybe God wanted to send us Our Lady to bring the disobedient back to obey and love the Church". But what then brought about this change of mind in him? Here the case of the two Franciscans Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina plays an important role. Both chaplains were suspended by Bishop Zanic because of disobedience and, as a result of his pressure, they were expelled from the Order. In this matter, the Gospa supposedly said that the bishop had acted too hastily, that both were innocent. From there on, it seems, the bishop turned into a radical opponent of Medjugorje. In the statement of 1984, he writes, "The attacks of Our Lady against the bishop and the defence of the ex-Franciscans of Mostar were the strongest proofs against the authenticity of the apparitions". Thus, in short, his train of thought is: A mother of God, who criticizes a bishop, cannot be the Mother of God! To this, I want to make two comments. From the history of the Church, we know enough examples when prophets criticized high and the highest officials of the Church. For example, what the saintly prophetic women, Birgitta of Sweden and Catherine of Siena, told Pope Gregory XI. on behalf of God in order to induce him to leave Avignon and return to Rome, by far surpasses any criticism and admonition that Bishop Zanic got to hear. But one should note that these messages were handled very discretely, as personal messages by the Franciscans and the visionaries and were never published. Bishop Zanic did this himself. Probably because he thought that this was the strongest proof against the authenticity of the apparitions. Everyone can judge for himself how effective this argument is. The second comment: In the case of the two Franciscans Vega and Prusina, Rome's judgement is quite interesting: They were treated unjustly and were expelled without the necessary procedure. Doesn't this almost sound like what the Gospa supposedly had said, that the bishop had acted too hurriedly?

Oh, that also is from Medjugorje.org

[kafka]

I am not going to debate on this subject. But I will say this. Medjugorje is a contradiction. A stumbling block. And it will be exonerated by God. And soon. This place has changed so many poeples lives, and it will continue to help people for a time and when Father Petar Ljubicic anounces to the world the 1st & 2nd of the ten secrets those who are willing to heed his advice will be comforted and grateful.

Edited September 2, 2008 by kafka

[Ziggamafu]

There are problems with the Medjugorge apparitions for sure...but the good things - conversions, specifically - would seem to me to far outweigh the suspicious aspects...Satan cannot be divided against himself, after all. Nevertheless, just because the phenomena is not diabolical in origin does not necessarily mean it is of divine origins (God can use errors - even false religions - in his own subtle ways to bring about conversions to the one true religion).

In any case, I'm under the impression that the secrets are supposed to come to pass within the visionaries' lifetimes, beginning as soon as the final secret is shared with the final visionary. So, if true, it would seem that peculiar things should start happening within the next decade or so...

Edited September 2, 2008 by Ziggamafu

[Guest KevinSymonds]

I read Dr. Miravalle's article when it came out several months ago.

Dr. Miravalle was a college professor of mine on both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

He publicly misrepresented an important fact of Medjugorje and misled people (I will not debate his intention as that is before him and God).

By such an action, Dr. Miravalle proved that he is not a reliable source of information on Medjugorje.

That said, I wish to address a point that has been made.

It has been stated that Vicka denied ever having written a Diary. It is true that she denied having a Diary with recorded statements of her alleged vision.

It is also true that Fr. Rene Laurentin and Fr. Tomislav Vlasic have publicly written about the existence of the Diary. The Bishop himself has read it.

It has also been stated by Marija Pavlovic-Lunetti that she revokes an earlier statement she made concerning an alleged message from heaven that backed up Fr. Vlasic's community.

Both cases are extremely revealing, well documented and cannot be denied.

If anyone wants to find out what is happening, how about E-mailing Bishop Peric? He does have E-mail and writes people back.

Peace!
-Kevin Symonds

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1645526' date='Sep 2 2008, 03:54 PM']In any case, I'm under the impression that the secrets are supposed to come to pass within the visionaries' lifetimes, beginning as soon as the final secret is shared with the final visionary. So, if true, it would seem that peculiar things should start happening within the next decade or so...[/quote]
most likely next year

[Maggyie]

According to the article in Medjugorje Magazine, Fr. Vego WAS still a priest, and he WAS still a Franciscan, who did on rare occasions wear his habit, when he impregnated his Sister co-worker.

The Bishop is right to feel that the disobedience of the seers and their Franciscan hangers-on is the strongest proof against authenticity. Everyone always brings up Catherine of Siena and Pope Gregory when they want to be disobedient or wag their tongues against legitimate authority. Rad Trads do it, leftist dissenters do it, all to justify what is really unjustifiable, and what a horrible fate for St. Catherine to be abused so.

Jesus Christ Himself in the divine economy gave authority over souls to Bishop Zanic (and also to his successor, who incidentally also wants the seers to stop promoting the messages). When he raises his voice to govern, feed, or teach his flock, it is the voice of Christ HIMSELF. We ought to run, to fall over each other in hurrying to obey the sweet commands Our Lord gives us in the person of our bishop. All of the great saints knew and know this. St. Catherine herself constantly urged obedience to the ecclesiastical authorities; she once wrote that the Pope was "Christ on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey even to the point of death. Whoever refuses to obey him is ... living in damnation." There is a difference between criticism, exhortation and disobedience. Our Lady would [b]never[/b] incite disobedience against Bishops and priests.

A good contrast to the Medjugorje debacle can be found in the life of St. Pio. Although he suffered a great deal from his religious superiors who were embarrassed by the public furor over his stigmata and other gifts, St. Pio was always a model of obedience.

In 2006 the Bishop called on the seers and others to once and for all demonstrate ecclesastical obedience. He asked them for the [i]bare minimum[/i] of ceasing to publicize the messages they were supposed to be getting from Our Lady. I myself had taken more of an ambivalent attitude toward the alleged apparitions until I read that article. I thought to myself, "well, he's laying down the gauntlet, the proof will be in the pudding." Needless to say his request was ignored.

Is it possible that the Church will declare Medjugorje worthy of belief? Certainly. Please don't get me wrong, I would actually hope so, the more Marian apparitions the better! But that wouldn't imply approval of all the scandal, division and disobedience that has poured from there over the years.


[quote name='Deb' post='1645496' date='Sep 2 2008, 03:47 PM']There were a lot of problems with the Bishop and the Franciscans which had been occurring off and on for years prior to Medjugorje. Fr. Vega was actually defrocked in January of 1982 and it had nothing to do with getting a nun pregnant. It had everything to do with the problems that had been going on between the Bishop and the Franciscans since 1968. If while he was no longer a Franciscan or a priest, he got a nun pregnant, it has no bearing on Medjugorje in any way.
An objective statement about what the Blessed Mother may have or may not have said is below. To imply that the Blessed Mother would have approved of a priest getting a nun pregnant is really offensive.

At the beginning, Bishop Zanic had also believed in the apparitions. He had stated publicly, "The children are not lying". In his statement in 1984 he admits that he, for his part, had thought, "If the scandalous "Herzegovina-Case" .... could not have been solved with human means then maybe God wanted to send us Our Lady to bring the disobedient back to obey and love the Church". But what then brought about this change of mind in him? Here the case of the two Franciscans Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina plays an important role. Both chaplains were suspended by Bishop Zanic because of disobedience and, as a result of his pressure, they were expelled from the Order. In this matter, the Gospa supposedly said that the bishop had acted too hastily, that both were innocent. From there on, it seems, the bishop turned into a radical opponent of Medjugorje. In the statement of 1984, he writes, "The attacks of Our Lady against the bishop and the defence of the ex-Franciscans of Mostar were the strongest proofs against the authenticity of the apparitions". Thus, in short, his train of thought is: A mother of God, who criticizes a bishop, cannot be the Mother of God! To this, I want to make two comments. From the history of the Church, we know enough examples when prophets criticized high and the highest officials of the Church. For example, what the saintly prophetic women, Birgitta of Sweden and Catherine of Siena, told Pope Gregory XI. on behalf of God in order to induce him to leave Avignon and return to Rome, by far surpasses any criticism and admonition that Bishop Zanic got to hear. But one should note that these messages were handled very discretely, as personal messages by the Franciscans and the visionaries and were never published. Bishop Zanic did this himself. Probably because he thought that this was the strongest proof against the authenticity of the apparitions. Everyone can judge for himself how effective this argument is. The second comment: In the case of the two Franciscans Vega and Prusina, Rome's judgement is quite interesting: They were treated unjustly and were expelled without the necessary procedure. Doesn't this almost sound like what the Gospa supposedly had said, that the bishop had acted too hurriedly?

Oh, that also is from Medjugorje.org[/quote]

Edited September 3, 2008 by Maggie

[Guest KevinSymonds]

I second the above from Maggie, insofar as the sentiments of obedience are concerned, I should say.

[Deb]

The Church is holy. It's members are sinners. Always look at the fruits.

What bothers me the most and I have said this many times, is that there are people out there who adamantly work hard to tear down Medjugorje. I believe that to be the workings of Satan who has very little ground there.
I would be surprised if everyone in and connected with Medjugorje never sinned. That would truly be a miracle.
I can't be completely objective because Medjugorje is where I was brought when I was a non believer, a sinner and living in despair and God came to me there and brought me to him. The Blessed Mother used people around me to get me there to begin with. So, I firmly believe the Gospa is there and will remain there until the work she is doing for Our Father has been accomplished.

As for when that happens, only the visionaries know. Three of them still do not have all ten secrets. Mirjana will be the one to give the secrets to Fr. Peter during her lifetime. She turned 43 this year. Mirjana says though, do not give one second to worrying or wondering about what is to come. You could die tomorrow. Live your life for the Lord every day.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

Many people claim that if you speak against Medjugorje, you are working for the devil. Medjugorje is not an approved apparition site so people are free to express their positive or negative view of Medjugorje.

It is a two-way street that many proponents of Medjugorje often forget. They tell those with negative views of Medjugorje, "the Church hasn't ruled on it so don't say it is not of God."

It's a two-way street.

Is stigmatizing someone as an agent of the devil a "fruit" of Medjugorje? Should we be demonizing people who have a different take on the subject?

A serious problem with discernment of apparitions nowadays is people viewing "the fruits" as the end-all, be-all authority and actually use it synonymously as "The end justifies the means." That is a moral proposition explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church.

"Fruits" have their place in the discernment of apparitions, according to Rome. Both Cardinal Ratzinger as well as the CDF's 1978 document indicate this fact.

No matter the conversions, no matter how many rosaries are claimed to turn to gold, no matter how many flying pilgrims (I exaggerate to make a point), etc., is not enough to justify us to turn our minds against the rampant disobedience that occurs [i]every minute[/i] in Medjugorje. It is certainly not enough to demonize Medjugorje's bishop who, I would add, has remained steadfast in telling the simple history of Medjugorje from the ecclesiastical end of things.

But wait, he is against Medjugorje so he is an agent of the devil.

Alas...who should we turn to for the truth?

Oh, yes, the "visions."

-KJS

Edited September 3, 2008 by KevinSymonds

[Deb]

You only show your ignorance and hostility towards something you do not understand by making statements like, [b]rampant disobedience that occurs every minute in Medjugorje[/b]

The Bishop in Mostar is not involved in Medjugorje and has not been for a long time. The matter was taken out of his hands (by the Vatican) and handed to a national commission headed by Cardinal Puljic'. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who rejected the document by the Bishop of Mostar that condemned Medjugorje to begin with. That was done 22 years ago!

Response from Bishop Bertone(the secretary to the congregation presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger) to Bishop Aubry in 1998 laid out the following:

1 -The declarations of the Bishop of Mostar only reflect his personal opinion. Consequently, they are not an official and definitive judgment requiring assent and obedience.
2 - One is directed to the declaration of Zadar, which leaves the door open to future investigations. In the meanwhile private pilgrimages with pastoral accompaniment for the faithful are permitted.
3 - All pilgrims may go to Medjugorje in complete obedience to the Church.

From Cardinal Schonborn,
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn comments:

“The letter of Archbishop Bertone to the Bishop of Le Reunion sufficiently makes clear what has always been the official position of the hierarchy during recent years concerning Medjugorje: namely, that it knowingly leaves the matter undecided. The supernatural character is not established; such were the words used by the former conference of bishops of Yugoslavia in Zadar in 1991. It really is a matter of wording, which knowingly leaves the matter pending. It has not been said that the supernatural character is substantially established. Furthermore, it has not been denied or discounted that the phenomena may be of a supernatural nature. There is no doubt that the Magisterium of the Church does not make a definite declaration while the extraordinary phenomena are going on in the form of apparitions or other means. Indeed, it is the mission of the shepherds to promote what is growing, to encourage the fruits which are appearing, to protect them -if need be- from the dangers which are obviously everywhere. As with Lourdes and other apparition sites, it is also necessary to see to it that the original gift is not stifled by unfortunate developments. Medjugorje is not invulnerable. That is why it is and will be so important that Bishops also publicly take under their protection the pastoral pronouncement of Medjugorje so that the obvious fruits that are in that place might be protected from any possible unfortunate developments. I believe that the words of Mary at Cana: “Do whatever He tells you,” make up the substance of what She says throughout the centuries. Mary helps us to hear Jesus. She desires with her whole heart and with all her strength that we do what He tells us. This is what I wish for all the communities of prayer which were formed from Medjugorje; this is what I wish for our diocese and for the entire Church.

Perhaps personally, I have not yet gone to Medjugorje; but in a way I have gone there through the people I know or those I have met who, themselves, have gone to Medjugorje. And I see good fruits in their lives. I should be lying if I denied that these fruits exist. These fruits are tangible, evident. And in our diocese and in many other places, I observe graces of conversion, graces of a life of supernatural faith, of vocations, of healings, of a rediscovering of the Sacraments, of Confession. These are all things which do not mislead. This is the reason why I can only say that it is these fruits which enable me, as bishop, to pass a moral judgment. And if as Jesus said, we must judge the tree

1998: Returning from a mission in Romania, Sister Emmanuel had the opportunity to attend a breakfast with Cardinal Shonborn in Vienna. There Cardinal Schonborn recounted an interesting meeting he had with Cardinal Ratzinger. Sister reports: “During the late 90s, as Cardinal Schonborn was visiting Cardinal Ratzinger in Rome, he told Cardinal Ratzinger: “If one day you close down Medjugorje, I'll have to close down my Seminary in Vienna because the great majority of my seminarians received their calling through Medjugorje.” Cardinal Ratzinger replied immediately: "We have no plan to close down Medjugorje!"



I will form my opinions, in obedience with my Church and base it on my own personal revelations and the fruits of my own life, the quality of the people who live in Medjugorje and the hundreds of people I know who have been there and whose lives were altered forever by it. Feel free to take yours from...??????????? Oh, a bad priest was there.

Pope John Paul II had great love for Medjugorje and the visionaries. That alone is good enough for me.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

There is another claim of Medjugorje supporters that often comes out when someone is trying to have a constructive conversation on the topic of Medjugorje. That claim is often, "You don't know what you are talking about."

It has been my experience that this particular claim is oftentimes without basis. Those people who tend to be the leading questioners of Medjugorje are quite educated and are conversationally fluent in the facts and history of Medjugorje. They are all quite good people and I know this because I personally know or have corresponded with a few of them.

However, the above people suffer from the stigma of being agents for the devil because they look at the Church's history, tradition and criteria for discernment of private revelation and believe they have found discrepancies between that tradition and the claims of Medjugorje. When they try to publicize this knowledge, they are ruthlessly attacked by Medjugorje supporters (and/or the Medjugorje establishment) in the worst way possible--their good names are slandered and their characters assassinated.

They have tasted the bitter fruits of Medjugorje. It is really sad and I think these people deserve better than what they receive from Medjugorje supporters.

Investigating could save the Medjugorje supporters' souls.

Instead, supporters give credence to documents whose original meanings and contexts have been spun around by what is called the "Medjugorje propaganda machine" that these documents are practically unrecognizable anymore.

A fundamental fact of any document that is published on Medjugorje is that any statement from 1991 onwards refers back to a declaration made in Zadar, 1991. This document written in 1991 is what I call the "ruling document" on Medjugorje.

This document is often cited by later documents. Yet a key element that is terribly neglected by Medjugorje's supporters is what the document said regarding pilgrimages to Medjugorje.

In short, Zadar 1991 was explicit in saying that no pilgrimages are allowed to Medjugorje with the intent of proving them authentic or with the understanding that they are considered as authentic by the Church. Even the pro-Medjugorje web site medjugorje.org accepts this interpretation (however so they don't observe it).

Logically speaking, this clause in Zadar 1991 forbids about 90-99% of all pilgrimages to Medjugorje. Why? Well, ask yourself...why do people go to Medjugorje?

Because it is a popular vacation resort spot? No.

Because it is a beautiful area that is just ideal for newlyweds? No (although I confess that the area is beautiful, speaking as one who was in Medjugorje 11 years ago).

Because people are claiming the Mother of God appears there? [b]Yes! Again and again: YES![/b]

People go to Medjugorje because they believe the Mother of God appears there and they hear stories that are all based in these alleged visions. That is a direct violation of Zadar 1991's terms and is grounds for the accusation of disobedience.

It is futile and utterly ridiculous to argue otherwise why people--[i]en masse[/i]--go to Medjugorje. There is no other reason why "millions" of people go there every year. If someone can create an argument that 2 million people go to Medjugorje each year simply because they are curious or wish to take a vacation there from a brochure they read in their local travel agent's office, I'd be glad to see such an argument made.

Meanwhile, I take private statements that are attributed to John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger very lightly. The Church is governed by public documents. I pick up a copy of Denis Nolan and Sr. Immanuel's book "Medjugorje: What Does the Church Say?" and thumb through it. To be quite honest, I just shake my head. It is not about official Church documents. Instead, this book is a collection of alleged private statements (many of which can not be verified without considerable effort) and must be taken on simple trust by those who say the Pope or Ratzinger told me "X" about Medjugorje.

Othertimes I will take the comments and question them so as to understand the precise meaning of the person who is said to have made the statement. For instance, I have read on the Internet that Cardinal Ratzinger once remarked to Cardinal Schonborn of Austria, "We have no plans to close down Medjugorje!" This is on the testimony of Cardinal Schonborn himself, who I may add, has no authority whatsoever on the subject of Medjugorje. Any statement attributed to him is [i]his own personal, private statement[/i]. At any rate, I ask myself, what did Ratzinger mean?

Did he mean Rome supports and believes in Medjugorje against the evil Bishop of Mostar-Duvno?

Did he mean that Rome is taking the "wait and see" approach typical of Bishops in order to discern the events?

Or are people simply making more of the "quote" than meets the eye?

I will let people decide for themselves based upon legitimate criteria and knowledge of the faith, not to mention a little common sense. Just start with the simple question, "What did Ratzinger mean?" or "What was the context?"

There are words but then there is how they are used. Context determines meaning. Think about it. No one needs their own personal revelations to figure out common sense and form their own opinion.

Also, for many years now I keep hearing that the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno has been stripped of his authority to judge Medjugorje or that he is no longer involved in the discernment.

Can anyone please provide the Vatican's letter with the protocol number on it that states the Bishop's authority was removed? I have yet to see this letter signed in Ratzinger's own hand and I would be very glad to finally see a copy of it.

Also, if Bishop Peric is no longer involved, why did Rome ask him to publish this knowledge concerning Fr. Vlasic instead of just publicizing the document on its own authority?

-KJS

[Domine ut Videam]

I believe this should be moved to the Debate Table

[Ziggamafu]

Seconded.

And an interesting debate it might be!

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1646821' date='Sep 3 2008, 10:39 PM']Seconded.

And an interesting debate it might be![/quote]

I agree Although it is a debate that has been gone through before....

I recently read a wonderful story about St. Margaret Mary, one of my patronesses, that has some application here. If you remember the story of the Sacred Heart you know that St. Margaret Mary did not have an easy time with her religious superiors.

[quote]St. Margaret Mary Alacoque was told by her Superior not to do something ordered to her in a vision. She consulted Our Lord next time He appeared, who told her:

"Therefore not only do I desire that you should do what your Superiors command, but also that [b]you should do nothing of all that I command without their consent[/b]. I love obedience, and without it no one can please me." ("Autobiography" # 47).

He also told her (ibid. # 57): "Listen, My Daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for [b]he has no power over the obedient[/b]."[/quote]

Edited September 5, 2008 by Maggie