What are the views of the Holy Orthodox Church on RCC approved Marian Apparitions?

[ChrisRedfield47]

Btw forgive my spelling guys, as my keyboard is not working correctly.

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by ChrisRedfield47

Alright let me start again....
Marybeloved 90% of what you post, is not something i'm against. You are assuming I am though. You in someway try to make me assume a position im not. The copy and paste you made is precisely what ive been arguing....
What you basically posted is:

Process of Ecclesial Approval
and
Categories of Approval

Now, Let me ask you a favor. And please read carefully. Link me to websites (serious ones) that say that the Vatican has fully rejected or approved (though this is not you position) Medjugorie. I think I should have started here in the first place. Since we are on the internet, I don't expect you to provide me with nothing else, but a list of: "Approved apparitions and Rejected Apparitions". In such lists, please provide me links in which Medjugorje is in the "rejected" side. Now, I provided some links (which I highly doubt you took the time to read). The links show that Medjugorje has not been approved/Rejected, but that a final decision has not yet been taken. When siting a link, Do not link me to a website that shows me that a priest said this, and a bishop said that. Rather, link me to a website that shows Medjugorje one the "rejected" side, by the Vatican of course.

The link I provided earlier is a good example:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html

Let me show you an example of approved apparitions:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Mar...paritions.html

Just as the last link provided, give me some links of "Rejected apparitions", and show me where Medjugorje has been rejected by the Vatican.

Something you should remember: Some lists come with 2 sections as "Approved", and "Unapproved". If you link me to a site like that, remember "that unapproved" does not mean "Rejected". It simply means not approved now, but could be either approved or rejected later. I'm looking for a site with the Rejection status in it.

Remember, im not asking for a website that has comments of Medjugorje in them, since I know there are websites campaigning in favor and against Medjugorje. Again, don't show me comments of clergy. Show me lists of approved/rejected apparitions, that show Medjugorje as "Rejected".

Now to be sincere, I know other sites also that neither approve Medjugorje in their lists, nor reject it (which is my position). Ive seen like 5 different sites where it shows this apparition as "Under investigation", or "No decision taken yet" (as the link I myself posted before) etc. I frankly have not found it rejected. Because it has not been officially rejected yet, neither approved of course. Also, try finding a site with several apparitions, not just a couple.

My point of the whole discussion: Medjugorie has not been approve or rejected, therefore one cannot judge the apparition based on oneself personal opinion. Only comments have been made about the apparition, no official rejection or approval.

Let me give you one more example of what I am requesting from you, before I end my comment:

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_...ons/index.html
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_...ons/index.html

Which shows Medjugorge as "Currently under Vatican investigation (2010)" which is how Ive find it in other sites.

Lastly, im asking for websites, not just one. Since we are on the internet, people can manipulate information easily. So providing me with several would help to clarify your position that Medjugorje has already been "rejected" by the whole Church.

And you are completely failing to see my point! The CHURCH teaches that The Local BISHOP has authority in the matter and these (two) have rejected the apparition and ordered the activities to stop but have been met with defiance. If you think that only a "list" of approved and unapproved by the Vatican matters here then you need to study the office of Bishop, its powers and prerogatives afresh. I know the Vatican has not spoken- But that's not the ONLY voice that matters here- The BISHOP has spoken. UNTIL a different decision comes down from the Church- The Bishop's judgement STANDS and that is why Other Bishops forbid pilgrimages to that place- Precisely BECAUSE the Bishop who has authority already made a decision.

PS:- You are the one who made comments that "Heresies in the message" and "Disobedience to Bishops" don't make it a lie, "They make THE BISHOP disobedient"- That's what prompted me to post that article in full. THE CHURCH herself is the one that made obedience and freedom from any doctrinal error, criteria for judging false apparitions.

You keep telling us to wait for the Vatican before rejecting the Apparition.
-Is it a sin to reject apparitions- even approved ones? Why should you tell anyone that they should not reject Medgugorje or any claimed apparition before the Vatican does? You have it backwards. We don't give it ANY credence, based on what the Bishops have judged UNLESS the church has, through the proper channels deemed it authentic. UNTIL then, it's the BISHOP's and through them, the Church's word against the visionaries- Again, it's the Church for me.

[Mark of Ephesus]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

I quoted the article, apparently I read it. Its opinion, speculation, politely put...drival. Nor is it the opinion of the EO, unless you have a statement validating that nonsense by the ELECT of the EO? I assure you it does the EO no justice my brother in Christ.

You aren't going to find a synod ruling on apparitions (as Orthodox synods deal with issues concerning the Orthodox). I had merely hoped to provide a a typical Orthodox point of view.

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Her accute summary is limited to the usual nonsense.. of goddess, delusion, evil, UFOs and ever other apsect of speculation the mind could conceive to refute anything Catholic. A complete lack of investigation, and mind you, without the credentials to draw such conclusions.

Calling it a "lack of investigation" is pretty unfair. Sure, you may disagree with her conclusions, but I would say the article detailed several of the apparitions quite well.

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

She doesn't have a PHD in Psychiatry, nor has she spent ONE MOMENT with any of the Saints. Which btw those who actually hold those degrees, actually have done this, and delusion was the "first" aspect ruled out.

Huh? You need a degree (a PhD no less) to deny a supposed miracle? That position makes little sense even from your point of view (as there are dozens of Atheist Psychiatrists who would say such people are delusional).

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Does she hold a degree in "Unexplained Flying Objects"? Flown in the military, ever experienced UFOs or FM? What experience does she have with such events? How about evil, and what degree does she hold in Philosophy and Theology or Exorcism/Demonic possession?

Again with the degrees? In light of the fact that there are literally thousands of secularists professionals who would deny these events? What you are committing is the reverse form of the argument from authority fallacy. Degrees do not validate a claim anymore than a lack of a degree invalidates a claim.

From your credentialist viewpoint the testimony of the apostles would have been discredited due to their lack of formal education.

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Biblically speaking the only one ever to produce such a profound event unexplainable by modern science and to completely admonish the Laws of Nature and Physics... is GOD. And not only has it never been explained at Fatima, it was, predicted, dated, timed, and then, it occured on schedule. And even in 2012 this cannot be explained by modern science. If fact the amount of energy needed to perform that event would have burned alive everyone of those 70-Thousand. Their is NO explaination to date. Sorry to inform you. Its such a severe break in the laws of nature, it could be nothing but God.

Not true in the slightest. Regardless of whether or not you believe in apparitions, such things cannot be taken at face value. Have you read about the signs the antichrist will perform?

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Do you have "ONE" actual shred of proof that satan could perform such an event as the Miracle of the Sun? Its course not, it doesn't exist. He is not the "CREATOR" of this Universe..GOD is! He is NOT a God, he is a demon who "was" an archangel. Its no mystery on earth how he proceeds though... temptation. His war is against the flesh and truth, which he cannot accept, the temple of God, thus God. Its Biblical.

Revelation 13:13.

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

When you do not know something...the CHRISTIAN path is HONESTY. You say "I DO NOT KNOW". When one jumps to I DO NOT BELIEVE then the first thought which comes to my mind is ........"I wonder how much they actually believe in God thus the Supernatural". When you jump to conclusions of your own opinion, then you need "proof" to back up your claims.....NONE EXISTS!!!! Shouting this or that doesn't make it so.

I have made no statement as to whether or not I believe in the apparitions. I have simply provided a fair assessment from an Orthodox perspective (as requested by the OP).

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

If you don't know, than you simply do not know. If you were not their, did not interview those involved, then you are reduced to others reseach who were there. And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the scholars who have investigated this over the years, the list is staggering. As are the healings and miracles.

Sura 54:1-2 :http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

"The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain. And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion."

Not even the Catholic hierarchy accepts such supernatural occurrences as miracles from God simply because they occur (or else every Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. miracle would be accepted).

[Alfonsus]

My own conclusion is that Orthodoxy too, accept apparition as a possibilities. It is only that they don't have systematic centralized way of evaluating it, thus it acceptance/rejection will gradually established based on the faithful acceptance/rejection of them.

The inclusion of several feasts commemorating apparition existed in Orthodox calendar. It shows that apparition acceptance is not something totally absent from church life.

The stories of apparitions are cherished within saint's biography. From this we can see that apparitions get a better chance of approval when the receiver is glorified.

Apart from that, we can read stories regarding monks having apparitions. The story are more readily accepted by the laity, at least as a pious story. I remember reading a story regarding an unknown saint, a female saint, which icon was founded but apart from the name no one know the saint story. One day a monk receive an apparition of the saint, after which the monk ask the saint to pray along with him to test if she was evil spirit. Passed the test, they converse and the saint give the monk the story of her martyrdom. I think the saint is one of great miracle worker.

So I conclude, yes the Orthodox too accept the possibility of apparitions, visions, locutions. It is just that how it become accepted is different from Catholic way of recognition.

Somehow I too find Latin Catholic obsession with vision or apparition as over the board.

[adoglover1956]

[This answer is not intended as an exhaustive history, an attempt to settle allegations or open questions, much less to judge the authenticity of the apparitions.]
History. On June 24, 1981, six children in the town of Medjugorje, Yugoslavia (today, Bosnia-Herzegovina), began to experience phenomena which they alleged to be apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This apparition had a message of peace for the world, as well as a call to conversion, prayer and fasting. It also entrusted to the children secret messages about events to be fulfilled in the future. These "secrets," confided individually to different visionaries, have not been revealed to the public. The apparitions themselves have continued almost daily since 1981, with some of the now young adults continuing to experience them regularly (those who have not yet received all the secrets intended for them) and others not. Originally they occurred on a hilltop near the town where a large Cross commemorating the Redemption exists. They have since occurred in many other places, including the parish church, St. James, and wherever the visionaries happen to be located at the time of the apparition.

The news that Our Lady might be appearing immediately began to attract pilgrims to Medjugorje, first from the surrounding countryside, and then, despite the communist government of that day, from Europe and the whole world. These included clergy and theologians, as well as experts from the physical and medical sciences who testified to some kind of phenomenon taking place when the apparition was said to be occurring. The private judgement of these early visitors did much to bolster people's belief in the events at Medjugorje. In addition, some pilgrims reported seeing the sun spin and being able to look at it without pain or eye damage, others that their rosaries turned gold colored, still others that remarkable physical or spiritual/moral healings had taken place. All of these contributed to the fame of the alleged apparition.


Ecclesiastical Evaluation. The initial, informal, response of the Bishop Zanic of Mostar, in whose diocese Medjugorje is found, is said to have been favorable. However, it is alleged that comments attributed to the vision that was critical of the secular clergy and himself convinced him the visions could not be authentic. He nonetheless established a commission in 1982, comprised of theologians, scientific experts and religious superiors to investigate the Medjugorje events. Its three year study produced a vote from two members of the commission in favor of supernaturality, one that it was authentic initially but no longer so, one abstention and eleven votes that nothing supernatural was occurring there. Letter of Bishop Zanic

Since the Medjugorje events had exceeded the scope of a local event, Cardinal Kuharic, President of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference, announced in January 1987 that a national commission would be established to continue investigating. This decision had been communicated to the Holy See, which stated that it accepted the judgment of the diocesan commission under the authority of the local bishop but urged, as well, that the work be continued at the national level. The Bishops' Conference's instructions to the faithful were that pilgrimages should not be organized to Medjugorje on the basis of its being supernatural and that the Marian devotion of Catholics should be in accordance with Church teaching.
In April 1991 the following declaration was made by the Bishops' Conference of the former Yugoslavia:

The bishops, from the very beginning, have been following the events of Medjugorje through the Bishop of the diocese [Mostar], the Bishop's Commission and the Commission of the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia on Medjugorje.

On the basis of the investigations so far it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations. [emphasis added]

However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who come to Medjugorje, prompted both by motives of belief and various other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the diocesan bishop and with him of the other bishops also, so that in Medjugorje and in everything connected with it a healthy devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary may be promoted in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

For this purpose the bishops will issue specially suitable liturgical-pastoral directives. Likewise, through their Commission they will continue to keep up with and investigate the entire event in Medjugorje.

[adoglover1956]

From the point of view of an ecclesiastical evaluation the status of Medjugorje has not changed since this 1991 declaration. The Holy See has allowed this status to remain as it is. Responding to bishops on the matter it simply repeats the aforementioned decision. However, a response from the Secretary of the Doctrinal Congregation, Archbishop Bertone, to a French bishop in 1996 precipitated a flurry of reports that Medjugorje was off-limits to Catholics. In August 1996 the Director of the Holy See's Press Office, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, stated:

You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want.

...When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no possibility [for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje] ... nothing has changed, nothing new has been said.

...The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the Church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje. This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession.

...Has the church or the Vatican said no [to Catholics visiting Medjugorje]? NO. ... The difference, in the terms of canon law, is that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you are saying this is true. News Report.

More recently in a letter to the Bishop of St. Denis, Archbishop Bertone commented on a statement by the current Bishop of Mostar that the alleged apparitions were not simply lacking evidence of supernaturality but were in fact NOT supernatural (i.e. definitively so). He stated:

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 FamilleChretienne, 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 authentication of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church. Letter to Bishop Aubrey

[adoglover1956]

Mystical Phenomena. The presence of remarkable phenomena is for many sufficient evidence of the validity of an alleged apparition. For others the judgment by local Church authority that there is no evidence of supernaturality at a site suggests fraud, mental illness or the demonic. The Church for her part, however, takes great care before affirming the certain supernaturality or non-supernaturality of phenomena, as the Roman statements given above show. There are likewise few examples of outright condemnation. When they do occur it is usually on the basis of doctrine which is contrary to the faith

.The reasons for such caution are rooted in the Church's common teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross both assert that as a general rule mystical phenomena (whether in the lives of saints or in apparitions) are the work of the angels. Unless God Himself needs to act to immediately produce an effect (such as to create out of nothing or to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul), He works through creaturely instruments. Thus the intellectual lights granted in contemplative prayer, the visions and locutions of private revelations, the levitations of the saints, the ecstasies of mystics and visionaries, and most external phenomena associated with mysticism, are produced by the angelic nature. Since both good and evil spirits possess the angelic nature the presence of such phenomena alone is an equivocal sign of authenticity. This means that a great deal of unexplained phenomena can occur without indicating positively that the event is from God. This is why the Church looks, among other things, for evident supernaturality, that is, for effects beyond the ability of men or angels which can be attributed to God alone.

Theologians remain divided in judging which phenomena fall clearly into the category of strict supernaturality. However, the practice of the Church in the canonization process of recognizing as miraculous those cures which meet certain strict criteria is a standard that has been applied in approving apparitions, as well (e.g. Lourdes, Beauraing, Banneux). At Fátima the Miracle of Sun likewise fell into the category of a natural prodigy. It is clear, however, that the phenomena which many laity have experienced in connection with alleged apparitions in our days, and which they consider to be proof that they are authentic, do not in fact rise to the level of evident supernaturality. Angelic or demonic activity would be sufficient to explain them. Without a proof of the supernatural order there is little likelihood of the Church affirming an apparition as authentic.

[adoglover1956]

In the case of Medjugorje the commissions found that nothing directly connected with the apparition met this strict standard. As the earlier quoted statements show, the Church remains open to new evidence of supernaturality should it occur and has not judged that Medjugorje is NOT supernatural, much less condemned it.



What the Church has forbidden. From the statements given to date by ecclesiastical authorities it is clear that no one holding an office in the Church (bishop, pastor, rector, chaplain or other) may by virtue of that office lend official sanction to activities which tend to assert the supernaturality of Medjugorje, that is, to contradict the decisions made by competent local authority. Those statements speak only of pilgrimages organized under official auspices; however, common sense tells us that a conference or other activity sponsored by a diocese, parish or other Catholic institution would also be prohibited. Likewise, there could not be public veneration (cultus) of the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Medjugorje, since this would suggest the certainty of her appearing there. The title Queen of Peace, however, is already part of the patrimony of the Church.
The Yugoslavian statement speaks of liturgical-pastoral directives which may be developed. Catholics would be obliged to obey whatever positive or negative directives the Bishops' Conference or the local bishop issued regarding the site.

Do the decisions of the Church amount to an obligation to believe in the intellect that Medjugorje is not supernatural? The answer is no. First, even private revelations approved by Rome bind the faithful to accept them only based upon reasonableness, not faith. Pope Benedict XIV stated,
Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [Benedict XIV, De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

This means that once a private revelation has achieved Papal approbation it is unreasonable, i.e. imprudent but not against the faith, to not accept it as authentic. The contrary would also be true. If Rome judged a private revelation to not be supernatural, the reasonable person would be satisfied with that conclusion. Would they sin if they did not accept it? They might sin by imprudence, rash judgement or the like, but not against the faith or the obedience they owed the Holy Father. Catholics must always, however, following 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.

As far as theological judgements made at the local level, therefore, the standard could not be any higher, and is certainly lower. The issue of Medjugorje, therefore, cannot be resolved solely on the basis of the local Church's finding that there is no evidence to date of supernaturality. This is even more clear in light of the statement of Archbishop Bertone that the Bishop of Mostar's 1998 statement that it is certainly "not supernatural" is his own personal opinion. Others are therefore entitled to their personal opinions, also.


What the Church permits. As the already cited statements note, Catholics may go to Medjugorje. Such pilgrimages may even include priests acting as chaplains, as opposed to officially sponsoring them. Also, the Church has not suppressed discussion of Medjugorje, therefore, it is allowed. Common sense, however, says that Catholics on both sides of the Medjugorje issue should exercise prudence and charity in speaking of others who believe differently. Medjugorje is not a litmus test of orthodoxy, though every Catholic will have a moral obligation to accept the judgement of Rome, in the manner Pope Benedict explained, should it ever be rendered.

St. Augustine probably gave the simpliest and most helpful rule for all matters of the Church's life when he said (in my paraphrase):

In necessary things unity,
in undecided things freedom,
and in all things charity.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

[ChrisRedfield47]

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

And you are completely failing to see my point! The CHURCH teaches that The Local BISHOP has authority in the matter and these (two) have rejected the apparition and ordered the activities to stop but have been met with defiance. If you think that only a "list" of approved and unapproved by the Vatican matters here then you need to study the office of Bishop, its powers and prerogatives afresh.

Ok look, I understand that 2 bishops have rejected the apparition. I'm not arguing against that. Nor is it my intention to go against those bishops. All I am saying is that in the past, some bishops have been wrong concerning some things they have rejected or condemned. A brief brief example is the rejection/condemnation of Galileo Galilei's works. Which was condemned by at least 7 cardinals, several other bishops and yes, at least 2 Popes. Though I know very well that the Church did not engage in infallibility.

As CAFs tract states:
"Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first."

Now, I don't wanna change the subject, but this was just a brief example, of errors/mistakes that Priests, Bishops and even Popes made when rejecting something, in which they were wrong. Because these clergy were not speaking as the whole Church in these matters. In the same way, I understand what you said about the local bishops. I already know that beforehand. But you also must understand, that these can make mistakes even in these cases.

The reason why I asked for a "list" is not intended to ignore the Bishops, but looking at what the Church's position is right now concerning the apparition. And that position is "Under Investigation". Not approved or rejected, simply no decision has been filed yet. If we were to apply your logic in times of Galileo regarding a condemnation or rejection of bishops, then you would have fallen into a mistake with them.

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

I know the Vatican has not spoken- But that's not the ONLY voice that matters here- The BISHOP has spoken. UNTIL a different decision comes down from the Church- The Bishop's judgement STANDS and that is why Other Bishops forbid pilgrimages to that place- Precisely BECAUSE the Bishop who has authority already made a decision.

Right there you said I know the Vatican has not spoken. Ok here is where I wanted to get at. Yes it is the voice that in the end matters. The Bishops condemnation matters specially during the process of investigation (and can cancel or discontinue prayers/pilgrimages to the said appearance), and If the Vatican disapproves, then there's no way around it. Its a deception.

But if the Vatican gets in the issue (which it already has), and approves it, the local Bishops' condemnation wouldn't matter after the approval (understand this correctly). He (or they) would have to stand corrected. Above the Bishops, there is the Pope, and he has not spoken officially yet (as the whole Church). How many are the cases in which one Bishop says one thing and the Pope says another? Who is more authoritative? Yes you know the answer no need for explanation. Certainly the Pope has given his opinion on the matter, but that's it. He has not used his power to either approve or disapprove yet.

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

PS:- You are the one who made comments that "Heresies in the message" and "Disobedience to Bishops" don't make it a lie, "They make THE BISHOP disobedient"- That's what prompted me to post that article in full. THE CHURCH herself is the one that made obedience and freedom from any doctrinal error, criteria for judging false apparitions.

Certainly I maintain my position that they don't make it a deception. I'm not arguing that it is used as criteria for judging false apparitions or not. But it is just that, "criteria". There is a difference between that, and a final judgement from the whole Church.

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

You keep telling us to wait for the Vatican before rejecting the Apparition.

Yes, this sums up my position. Why? Because the Church wont make a mistake in its final decision that's why. It cannot approve what is a lie. On the other hand, we (yes I include myself) can error in our judgements.

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

-Is it a sin to reject apparitions- even approved ones?

No. And I have never argued this. In fact if you read my last posts, I clearly stated that you don't even have to believe in them. The questions you are asking only back up what I have posted. You can freely not be devout to any particular Virgin Mary of any particular apparition. It is not a sin. You are free on that, and no one here is arguing that.

[ChrisRedfield47]

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

Why should you tell anyone that they should not reject Medgugorje or any claimed apparition before the Vatican does? You have it backwards.

No I don't have it backwards. I am "suggesting" to not reject any apparition until it is formally rejected by the Church. This is not thinking backwards. Rather I am relying completely on whatever the Church says. If the Church says rejected, I say rejected. If the Church says approved, then I say approved. What has the Church said so far? quoting you: "I know the Vatican has not spoken"

If it has not spoken, it has not spoken. Therefore, we don't have guarantee whether its a deception or not. All I'm "suggesting" is we shouldn't make our own judgement, rather we should rely on the Church's position. You seem to have made your own judgement concerning the apparition. The poster named adoglover1956 also made his judgement already pretty much calling the apparition SATANIC (see post 19). I'm not saying its not satanic, neither that it is. I say "What has the Church said officially about it?" If the answer is "No decision yet", then my answer is "No decision yet".

I recommend all Catholics to do the same, rely on the Church. If rather one wants to rely on his/her own knowledge rather than on the Church herself, and therefore make one's own judgement, good luck.

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

We don't give it ANY credence, based on what the Bishops have judged UNLESS the church has, through the proper channels deemed it authentic.

This is exactly what Ive been stating...
I say don't give it credence unless the Church approves. But at the same time I say don't disapprove it, unless the Church disapproves. Because there is a risk making a mistake concerning one's own judgements.

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

UNTIL then, it's the BISHOP's and through them, the Church's word against the visionaries- Again, it's the Church for me.

Ok, I don't argue against anything stated here.

[adoglover1956]

A last statement in the string of posts that I have supplied. TEN more secrets??? Is the Virgin Mary...out Blessed Mother in the business of just providing countless secrets? I hope not. By promising nothing but secrets she is holding the faithful somewhat hostage. Let me string you along for 31 years and maybe longer. What's the point?

Deceitful "visionaries" that have been caught in the act of lying. Messages the "visionaries" have given to the local bishop telling them they have been wrong in accusations against a priest. Only to find out the priest was guilty of adultery. Come on. None of this happened with Fatima or Lourdes. There was no confusion. There was a steady message. The visionaries were always told be to faithful to the church and the local priest and bishop. Isn't the difference clear?

Here a secret...there a secret...everywhere a secret. Three were enough and they were very prophetic very close to they time they were given. Communism and the world wars. We can say one thing about Med...lot's of money is being made by travel agents and local hawkers.

God bless

[adoglover1956]

ChrisRedfield47...

My friend...the local church has condemned the apparitions. I find it hardly likely that the Vatican will counter that. Especially given the fruits of the apparition.

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by ChrisRedfield47

Ok look, I understand that 2 bishops have rejected the apparition. I'm not arguing against that. Nor is it my intention to go against those bishops. All I am saying is that in the past, some bishops have been wrong concerning some things they have rejected or condemned. A brief brief example is the rejection/condemnation of Galileo Galilei's works. Which was condemned by at least 7 cardinals, several other bishops and yes, at least 2 Popes. Though I know very well that the Church did not engage in infallibility.

You just don't get it- and this example you've given proves it. The Church's Councils have given the BISHOPS first and main AUTHORITY in matters of apparitions in their jurisdictions. You keep insisting that as long as the Vatican has not spoken, then "the church" has not spoken- That's exactly what I'm saying is FALSE. The Vatican is not the only way the Church speaks. Canon Law gives different powers and prerogatives to different offices- In THIS case, the BISHOP has FIRST and MAIN authority. You are not just free to ignore their judgments unless you think you're free to ignore Ecumenical Councils and Canon Law that gives them that power and authority (indeed we must say "governs" the power and authority, because the authority comes straight from Jesus Christ). THAT is placing your own opinion above the Church.

You are trying to override and rubish the Bishop's judgments by saying that we should not reject this apparition before the Vatican says so, as though the Bishop's judgments amounts to nothing more than a bowl of soup. What is wrong here is not your understanding of apparitions but of the CHURCH. The Pope is not the ONLY authority, he's the foremost one. He does not function in some corner all by himself- He's one of the BISHOPS, he works WITH them.

The examples you give as to bad Bishops and Cardinals apply EQUALLY to Popes- Or do you just assume that all the Popes we've had were Saints? Not trusting that the Bishops' judgements in this matter have any weight is basically refusing to trust that the process the CHURCH has set up is valid and basically saying that the ONLY way that God, The Holy Spirit guides the Church is via the Pope and no one else- That's simply NOT true. If God and the Church give a Bishop certain prerogatives in his jurisdiction, the CATHOLIC thing to do, is to TRUST that authority, SUBMIT to that authority and that process and believe that GOD works THROUGH that process, not against it. You believe that God only works through the Vatican and never through the Bishop even when the Bishops exercise their legitimate authority- NOT Catholic teaching.

[GraceDK]

I know its besides the point here, but I wish you to know that I and 7-8 of my friends have become Catholics directly through visits in Medjugorje.
Some of us were Protestants, some of us were Atheists, some of us were New Agers etc.
In Medjugorje an inner transformation happend in me so I started hungering for the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

I wished to say this because someone says that the fruits have been bad and have been division.
I have met many American Catholics who are against Medjugorje. In Europe its a huge pilgrimage place, and I hardly meet any blatant anti-Medjugorje statements here.

When you go there you encounter a LIVING Catholic Church full of young and old. You see priests and religious, you see happy and devout.. you see endless lines of people waiting to go to confession after they haven't been in confession for 10-30 years.
I personally know two priests who go to Medjugorje frequently. I also know a conservative Cardinal who went not long ago, as a pilgrim.

Now one thing was overlooked in this thread.. The point where someone claimed that "The Apparition said all Religions are dear to God".
I would like a credible link to a credible source for this statement.

I am in no way in favour of syncretism, and should it be proven that the apparition said all religions are equal, neither would I wait for Church judgement, and She would have to make none, for the fakeness would be obvious..
But it simply doesn't make any sense from what I have seen, that pilgrims are certainly not relativists but the most serious Catholics I have met. Many of us have converted precisely because we know that the fullness of faith is found in the Catholic Church. You also don't see other faiths publicly represented there.

Let us not forget that when we read about Padre Pio, it was said about him that he was crazy and bad, by the bishop too... but people kept coming by the hundreds and today he is declared a saint.
At any other pilgrimsite the spontaneous massive number of pilgrims to a place that seems to urge people to more devotion and sacramental life, has always been the beginning of approved apparitions.

Lastly. It matters little to me personally. I had Christ before I went to Medjugorje and I had Him after. He ALONE is the Bread of life. People who get steeped in apparitions and private revelations instead of focusing on Jesus Christ, the Sarcaments and Scripture are to me, weak witnesses for our faith.
I have met some Catholics who say: to Jesus through Mary but who seem to trust Mary much more than Jesus. Such people you also find in Lourdes and Fatima.
I have never really been a fan of Fatima, and am happy Im not asked to believe in any of them. To me apparitions can only ever be means, stations on the way... must never become ends in themselves. Neither must Mary or any saint.

[Sam_777]

Originally Posted by GraceDK

I have never really been a fan of Fatima, and am happy Im not asked to believe in any of them.

Interesting GraceDK !, I was like you till this weekend, read more here.