See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Saturday, November 05, 2011

More Religious Urban-Myths: Making stuff up about Medjugorje...



Fatima Visionary Saw and Confirmed the Apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje

Really?  That supposedly is what Sr. Lucia's nephew said she said, and he told Sr. Emmanuel who included it in her book, and then, and then JPII knew about it and now Christine Watkins is writing about it!  She says she said he said:
According to Sister Lucia’s own nephew, Father Salinho — a Salesian priest who lives in Portugal — Sister Lucia continued receiving visions of the Virgin Mary long after 1917, and some of these apparitions of the Virgin spoke to Sister Lucia of the Madonna’s continued work in Medjugorje. This report of Father Salinho’s was documented by the French author Sister Emmanuel Maillard in her book Medjugorje, Triumph of the Heart! (Queenship, 2004), a revised edition of Sister Emmanuel’s earlier popular work, Medjugorje: the 90s. Pope John Paul II met with Sister Emmanuel, was given a copy of her earlier book, and therefore this knowledge – between Fatima’s main visionary and the apparitions in Medjugorje – may not have been foreign to the Vatican.
.
The coherence is evident. Now there is even a report from a Catholic priest and a family member of Fatima’s main visionary, that Sister Lucia herself experienced apparitions of Our Lady speaking about her work in Medjugorje; and, therefore, Sister Lucia reportedly confirmed the apparitions of Medjugorje through her own private revelations of the Virgin. - Source
I object - pure speculation and hearsay.

If I remember correctly, Sr. Lucia was asked about Medjugorje - she said she had no revelations concerning the matter.  If indeed she had experienced - co-apparitions, as it were, we all would have known about it before now, I'm sure.  And no ma'am - I cannot prove my claim any better than you do.

Lesson Here:  Don't put words on Our Lady's mouth.

Photo:  Supposed solar miracle at Medjugorje.  Whatever these 'signs' are - the Miracle at Fatima was unique and so far unequalled.  

18 comments:

  1. I do not believe Medjugorje to be valid--I believe it to be a scam.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At my Church we have a rather Militant Medjugorje group that takes it upon themselves to distribute pro-Medjugorje material around the Church and the parking lot. I found one such basket in the Vestibule at Church and asked Fr. what I should do with it.. he said "put it in the recycle bin"! =)

    When the Church announces that this is NOT a valid vision.. how many people will leave and become part of the Medjugorje cult church? I say a lot. However.. I think what is even sadder to think about is the loss of faith that many people will suffer from that are attached to this vision.. so attached that they cannot face not being a part of this false apparition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Terry, just to clarify... this story has being going the rounds for a long time now. It took life from a passage in Sr Emmanuel’s book: Medjugorje, Triumph of the Heart.

    In a chapter titled: The Pravda Contained The Truth, Sr Emmanuel writes about the Fatima/Medjugorje connection. The final paragraph reads: “And how could I fail to mention here the happiness of Sr Lucy herself, whose visions of Our Lady have continued since 1917, and to who Mary now speaks of her work in Medjugorje! (5)”

    The reference Sr Emmanuel cites for this claim (5) reads: “This was reported by Sr Lucy’s nephew, Father Salinho, a Salesian priest who lives in Portugal, Needless to say, these apparitions pertain to Sr Lucy’s private mystical life and, therefore, will not be the object of an official statement during her lifetime. Happily Pope John Paul II maintains a close relationship with Sr Lucy.”

    So I guess if anyone wants to check the validity of Sr Emmanuel’s claim then Fr Salhino is the man to speak to.

    As to your own claim that the solar miracle of the sun was unique and so far unequalled, Pope Pius XII, in a document hand-written by himself, claims to have witnessed the “miracle of the sun” on four occasions. THis document went on public display at the Vatican in November 2008.

    I’m sure his witness will carry more weight with you than my own testimony of witnessing the “Fatima sun” at Medjugorje. :)

    The “solar miracle” picture used in your post illustrates just one fact. It was taken on a mobile phone, hence the black dot in the centre. Try it home. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here’s the source for the story relating to Pope Pius XII and his witness to the miracle of the sun.
    http://www.zenit.org/article-24149?l=english

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since Sr. Lucy is dead who knows what she said to her nephew? Who knows if the nephew is telling the truth? In fact, who knows if the nephew ever said a single word about Medj? Someone might be lying and using his name.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, her nephew, the priest, will know if he is telling the truth or not, or if he ever said anything about the matter at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No contest Pilgrim. However the experience of Pius XII was private - no one else saw the miracle. At Fatima non believers as well as believers witnessed the solar phenomenon, even those who were not present at the Cova.

    I have been at apparition sites where people claimed the sun was dancing and it appeared to me it was natural atmospheric phenomena.

    I still maintain the miracle at Fatima is unique to itself - especially the supernatural effects it caused. The people were frightened and were certain it was the end of the world or some chastisement.

    As for Sr. Lucia's nephew, no matter if Sr. E wrote down what Father said or not - it is still hearsay. For instance, what if he asked his aunt, "Is it the same virgin appearing in Medjugorje that appeared to you?" And what if Lucia responded with something like, "If our Lady is appearing in Medjugrje, then it would be the same Madonna who appeared at Fatima."

    In the end, it doesn't matter - since it is what the Church decides. Except for when the Second Coming occurs, apparitions do not trump Church teaching.

    Fatima has not seen its completion yet - therefore I'm persuaded that people would do well to follow and fulfill our Lady's requests made there first.

    God bless you. Please pray for me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hearsay? Nothing new. St Thomas wasn’t convinced by the testimony of his fellow apostles to the Resurrection. It happens, but it doesn’t mean that hearsay can’t sometimes be the truth.

    There is two distinct solar phenomena that happens at Medjugorje. One, the spinning sun, is very common, and often witnessed in other places around the world. The second is, what I term the Fatima sun, and fits the description to the “dancing” sun recorded in many reports of the time.

    The “dancing sun” moves in spectacular ways, zig-zagging across the sky, as well as giving the appearance of descending to the earth and then retreating. And it pulsates and spins as well. I have seen the “dancing sun” phenomenon only once at Medjugorje.

    I’ve lost count of the times of the times I have witnessed the “spinning sun” phenomenon, in Medjugorje and elsewhere.

    You accept the “Fatima miracle of the sun” (perhaps because the Church has accepted Fatima) yet choose not to believe those who give witness to the same phenomenon at Medjugorje (perhaps because the Church has not yet reached a final decision on what is happening there). Not a problem. Thomas, too, preferred to wait until he could see with his own eyes.

    But his initial disbelief did not negate the truth of what the others had witnessed before him.

    Sure, I’ll pray for your needs. I know how hard it can be (and still do) to understand and let go and trust in all that the Lord reveals, even when we walk alongside him, as Thomas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. pilgrim, how do you explain the fact that the Medugorje thing has gone on for sooooooooooo long, that the Blessed Mother supposedly jabbers on about all kinds of things, that the Bishops in those parts are extremely skeptical, and that the seers have not lived the exemplary kinds of lives one usually sees with those who witness such apparitions (Bernadette, Lucia, etc.)?

    I'm sorry, but the M.O. of Medugorje seems to resemble Bayside more than it does Fatima.

    Besides, a faithful Catholic can choose to ignore it EVEN IF it is approved. A Catholic can reject Fatima even, and guess what? If that Catholic prays for sinners, prays the rosary, is faithful to his state of life and executes his duties in a spirit of prayer and penance, he's fulfilling the Blessed Mother's requests anyway.

    Medugorje can add NOTHING to what we need for salvation, and if anyone thinks Medugorje is *necessary*, then that's a good sign that it's false.

    Besides, did you just compare Medugorje to the Resurrection?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mercury... as Jesus says, he did not come to call the virtuous, but sinners.

    But if the Church accepts Fatima and Lourdes as worthy of belief, then I think it is legitimate to ask just why Our Blessed Mother chose to appear in those places and at that time. She must have had a reason for doing so, maybe the same reason that she has for appearing at Medjugorje.

    Thirty years of apparitions isn’t a problem for me. I know that the time it took for the Israelites to reach the promised land also raised several questions and doubts among them. Why do some people live to a very old age and others don’t? God knows the answer.

    As to the “supposedly jabbers” accusation, I haven’t heard that one before, but perhaps it depends on how receptive one is to repetition. Those who pray the Rosary could be accused of jabbering their prayers, but do we? Are we not invited to contemplate on the words and the mysteries contained?

    There are many saints that have not always led exemplary lives. I don’t think it is a condition for sainthood. If it was then none of us would be saints in the making.

    As to the opinion of bishops on Medjugorje, should we take on board their opinion? If so then why should we be selective when the Church decides to accept an apparition worthy of belief and then say we don’t have to believe the declaration of the Church?

    Rejection of apparitions isn’t the issue, but rejection of God is, and if God is in the apparitions of Medjugorje as in the apparitions of Fatima and Lourdes, then are we not bound to at least listen to the message and respond.

    As I see it, Our Lady apparitions are always a call to her children to return to God’s ways, to make their paths straight. We can listen and say, it doesn’t apply to me, or we can listen and ask oneself, is she speaking to me?

    We have a choice, and a free will.

    Medjugorje may not be necessary for salvation, in your opinion, but Our Lady’s fiat and acceptance of the message brought by the angel was necessary for our salvation. And she still has a role. Why else do we pray to her as an intercessor and the Mother of God?

    Yes, Events at Medjugorje can be compared to the Resurrection, just as all of us can be resurrected in Christ during our lives. When we sin we choose death, when we repent of our sins we choose new life. Of course, we do not have to be in Medjugorje to repent of our sins and receive absolution pronounced by the priest through the ministry of the Church and the power of the Holy Spirit. But the charism of Medjugorje is repentance, and so many are reconciled with God and his Church and return to to a Sacramental life. That is a good thing.

    Bayside I know nothing about. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. By jabbering I did not mean repetition, but the sheer volume of what has supposedly been said at the apparition site. It does not match what typically happens. She didn't speak at all in several important apparitions.

    "As to the opinion of bishops on Medjugorje, should we take on board their opinion? If so then why should we be selective when the Church decides to accept an apparition worthy of belief and then say we don’t have to believe the declaration of the Church?"

    I don't see what you mean here. The bishop of Mostar does not just have an "opinion", he has authority. If he rejects it, the Blessed Mother would NEVER encourage anyone to disobey a bishop - the implications of that would be enormous.

    And we are not bound even to accept the apparitions approved by the Church, even those which have her enthusiastic support. One is completely free to reject even Fatima, and it is not a sin, nor is it disobedient. Apparitions do not hold ANY doctrinal authority, nor can they. The Church cannot make a declaration binding ANYONE to accept ANY private revelation, EVER.

    "Rejection of apparitions isn’t the issue, but rejection of God is, and if God is in the apparitions of Medjugorje as in the apparitions of Fatima and Lourdes, then are we not bound to at least listen to the message and respond."

    No, we are not bound, because God would not reveal anything new. IF there is good reason to believe it is authentic, then it may be helpful to us (as Fatima has been), but we cannot be bound to accept anything whatsoever revealed in a private revelation. Equating rejection of Medugorje with rejection of God would be laughable if it weren't dangerous.

    "Medjugorje may not be necessary for salvation, in your opinion ..."

    No, in Church doctrine actually. It is not my opinion. Acceptance of Medugorje, or Fatima, or any apparition is absolutely and utterly not necessary for salvation. Whether someone is brought back on the right path with the help of an apparition is a different story, but on judgement day no one will be asked why they did not accept such and such an apparition.

    And it an exercise of the virtue of prudence to not accept any apparition until the Church approves it. And no, it's not the same as not accepting the Risen Christ ... Christ is necessary for salvation, no one apparition is or can be. Several saints have written on the discernment of spirits and how we have to be very prudent with such things - universal testimony is that it is actually better to disbelieve such things until there is good reason to believe, and the local bishop's rejection is a very good reason to stay away from the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mercury... The Vatican insists that the local bishop’s belief or non-belief in the Medjugorje phenomenon is his personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Church which has still to make a final judgement.

    And if the Church was ever to bring a judgement that the Medjugorje phenomenon is worthy of belief, then the local bishop, according to your own understanding, would still be able to hold onto his personal belief and opinion.

    So the personal belief of the bishop is not binding on any of us. If it is, the surely any declaration made by the Holy See in declaring Medjugorje as worthy of belief also invites us to acceptance.

    It may not be essential to our salvation, but I repeat, Mary’s acceptance and co-operation was essential, and her apparitions have been the cause for many of her children to repent of their sins and return to the Church. She does only the will of God, and if it is God’s will that she should call her children to Him, then perhaps we should consider listening to what she has to say.

    As to the volume of her messages, who am I to deny our Blessed Mother her voice? Who am I to say to my Mother, stop speaking to me? Who am I to question the wisdom of a mother’s love for her children?

    But I can choose to listen or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When did "the Vatican" say such a thing? The local authority's acceptance or non-acceptance is usually a good indication of how the Vatican will proceed in such cases.

    I will not listen to anything that comes from Medugorje, and it will not make a lick of difference. There is nothing new that can be said, and if Mary were speaking to the Church she would not be encouraging disobedience to a bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mercury... EWTN gives this explanation re the bishop’s opinion:

    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.

    Cadinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, has also publicly stated that the expressed views of the Mostar bishop were his PERSONAL opinions.

    As to the question of disobedience, just because the local bishop disbelieves doesn’t mean we all have to disbelieve with him and then be classed as ‘disobedient’.

    All the Franciscan priests working in the parish of Medjugorje are signed in and approved by the local bishop. What’s the problem?

    As I said, we are free to choose to believe or disbelieve, to listen or not. I choose to believe and listen, you choose differently. It’s not a problem to me. I respect you free will to choose.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The bishop's opinion is his opinion, but his opinion should weigh more than anyone else's (except the Vatican), as he IS the local ordinary, and it is one of the functions of his office to make pronouncements on such things. The Bishop of Mostar's opinion on the matter is much more weighty than say, the Bishop of Baton Rouge, or even Cardinal Schönborn.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sure, the bishop’s opinion is important, but it doesn’t mean that an opinion that contains the truth. Other bishops have spoken in support of the Medjugorje phenomenon.

    But tell me, how would you class the Mostar bishop’s opinion when it is reported that he doesn’t believe in the apparitions per se, either those at Lourdes or Fatima?

    What sort of “weight” does this opinion carry with the faithful, or even his fellow bishops? But as you said, no one is bound to believe in any apparition, even the Mostar bishop, it seems.

    So if the man carries a personal non-belief in apparitions is his judgement on matters concerning the Medjugorje phenomenon one that we should seriously consider?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm just saying his opinion weighs more than others.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.