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

Monday, January 09, 2012

Busted: More Medjugorje myths exposed.



Concerning Bishop Pavao Žanić (May 20, 1918 – January 11, 2000)

Why did the late Bishop oppose the apparitions?  It appears several journalists, in the process of attempting to defame him, may have helped bring the actual truth to light. 
From the beginning in 1981, Bishop Žanić was apparently open to the phenomenon, because, as a Catholic bishop, he believed in the possibility of apparitions of the Madonna in the world. In that context we can understand his struggle against the atheistic, unbelieving Communists with respect to his protection of the Franciscans and the “seers” of Medjugorje. But he was always very cautious regarding the phenomenon under way in that parish. One example is the moment in which he caught the “seer” Mirjana in a contradiction, when she lied under oath on July 21, 1981: “We went to look for the sheep...” no, no: “Sorry, we went out to smoke...” Or think of when he wrote to the Apostolic Nuncio on August 19, 1981: “In my soul a judgment about all this has not crystallized. Hallucinations? Supernatural?” Or when he wrote to Pope John Paul II on September 6, 1981: “I spoke with the young seers. They are seeing 'something', but to me it is not clear if this is a supernatural phenomenon or not”, as we reported in Mirror of Justice, 2001. Therefore he made the distinction between the seers' phantasms and subjective visions and the objective reality of the apparitions and messages of the Madonna which have been verified.

The real turning point for the bishop took place after January 14, 1982, when the three “seers” Vicka, Marija, and Jakov went to him to convey the “message from the Gospa” according to which the Bishop had been “rash” in the Herzegovina case. In that conversation, the Bishop asked the children several times if there had been any messages relating to the “curates”, about which he had already been informed. The seers denied it categorically.

But on April 3, 1982 Vicka and Jakov went to the Bishop, again at the Gospa's orders, to tell him that the disobedient curates of Mostar “did nothing wrong”! At this point when it became clear that the “Medjugorje phenomenon” was inserting itself into the “Herzegovina case”, there was a real change and rupture. And there was no longer a possibility of turning back. A long series of arguments persuaded the Bishop more and more that it was only a case of fraud and lies in service of the sad “Herzegovina case”. Bishop Žanić “crystallized” his attitude out of all this: with his message to the parish priests in December 1982, with the Position of October 1984, especially with the two diocesan Commissions (1982-1986). And also at Medjugorje, from the altar, during the Holy Mass, in the homily of July 25, 1987, on the occasion of the feast of St. James, patron of the parish, he solemnly affirmed with all clarity and resolution, that at Medjugorje there were no authentic apparitions! - Source
Works for me.


An excellent source for accurate information concerning Medjugorje:  Louis Bélanger MEDJUPEDIA – From now on, no more lying…


Disclaimer:  I remain open to all that the Church finally decrees regarding the authenticity of the events at Medjugorje.  It is also my understanding that the current Bishop Peric remains skeptical of the apparition claims and does not approve.  That too, works for me.

36 comments:

  1. It is all too easy to destroy a decent man's character when he is no longer here to defend himself.
    Bishop Peric however, is alive and well and continues to fight against the devil on a daily basis.
    That good courageous man is in need of our prayers, he is in mine, every day.
    Blessings and prayers,
    Ann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. check this out

      http://medjugorje1.blogspot.ca/

      Delete
  2. Thanks Terry--This post was really needed. There isn't enough being said in the Church about Medjugorje, least of all from the pulpit or by the bishops. That, and the dangers of the faithful ordering fish and chips in a restuarant on Friday, only to find out that they have sinned because it was fried in beef fat!!!! Ace

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bishop Peric’s may claim that there are no apparitions happening at Medjugorje, but as the Vatican has stated, this is his personal viewpoint and not that of Mother Church who is still investigating the claimed phenomenon with the assistance of the commission set up by Benedict XVI.

    Bishop Peric is also on record as saying that he does not believe in the apparitions at Lourdes or Fatima.

    But it is no myth that his predecessor bishop Zanic declared publicly from the altar of St James’ Church that “the children are not lying”. How “cautious” is this? Even Fr Jozo Zovko, the parish priest, urged his bishop to exercise caution at the time, but he didn’t take the advice. (At that time Fr Jozo was not convinced that Our Lady was appearing).

    What prompted bishop Zanic to change his mind? What brought him to the conclusion that ALL the children were lying, and not just Vicka and Jakov? Should all six seers be denounced as liars because bishop Peric was unable to accept the the statement of two that related to another rmatter? How wise is that?

    Bishop Zanic came under pressure from the communists, just as all those connected to the phenomenon, the visionaries, their families, the local priests and the parishioners. Claims of the Mother of God appearing was a threat to the atheistic communist regime. Some saw it as a political challenge and a threat to destabilise communist power. Would this turn out to be another Solidarity movement as witnessed in Poland just a few months earlier? So the authorities clamped down on any potential unrest that the phenomenon might bring. We see similarities today with the Arab Spring uprisings and how governments react.

    Of course there was pressure put on bishop Zanic to put a stop to the claims of apparitions at Medjugorje. Fr Jozo was just one of many priests sentenced to prison on trumped-up charges of insurrection. Poor bishop Zanic faced a dilemma. Should he be prepared to sacrifice all the interests of the Catholic Church and the faithful in his diocese, see more priests imprisoned, churches closed, privileges withdrawn, further clampdowns and harassment against families that openly witnessed to their faith. Did he also face pressure from within the Church itself, even from the Vatican, not to confront the Communists with support for the claimed apparitions; after all, the Church had not yet examined the claims?

    But how was the bishop to back-pedal and openly demonstrate to the Communists that the Church was not behind the phenomenon? How was he to translate the pressure he was under to the people after telling them “the seers are not lying”? It had to be done quickly. What better way than to shoot the messengers. Cast out two and so cast doubt on the others?

    And when we accuse someone of lying, then we must remain with the lie unless we are able and prepared to admit that perhaps there is truth in what was said. Interestingly, the remark attributed to Vicka that the bishop had been hasty in removing two priests did have truth after a Vatican enquiry years later confirmed the mistake made by the bishop.

    More...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fr Jozo had doubts about the phenomenon at the beginning. He could not understand why people would rush to the hills for the apparitions and would say to them, “God is here, in the sanctuary, here in this church!” But the people wouldn’t listen. They kept gathering on the hill in their thousands. So great were the crowds that the communists started posting militia with guard dogs at the base of the hill to stop the people gathering, and then instructed them to gather in their church. For Jozo, that was the first sign that there may be some truth in the phenomenon. It was unheard of for communists to ORDER the people to go to Church. They always did their utmost to deter people from attending Church, with threats and intimidation, withdrawing jobs and education opportunities and forcing families into exile. Now they were telling the people to go to Church! How God works in mysterious ways.

    Another interesting outcome of the claimed phenomenon in communist Yugoslavia was that pilgrims from other communists countries were free to travel to the area. Had the phenomenon happened in a western democratic country then the pilgrims living in communist ruled countries would never have had the opportunity to travel outside of the communist bloc at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pilgrim,

    It's unfortunate that you rely on websites bent on calumniating a dead bishop, based on subjective information from a few translated works of protagonists.

    ALL:

    I would invite more objective readers to look at facts which readily dismiss much of what is shamefully spread on pro-Medjugorje websites and blogs. There are several sources out there, including the diocesan site. It seems odd to me that a reporter like Andrea Tornielli couldn't be objective enough to pick up the phone and talk to Bishop Peric about what hew as being told by Croatians about Bishop Zanic. Peric speaks fluent Italian. There's just one example of objective reporting flying out the window (do read the source provided by Terry which explains Tornielli's part in all of this).

    One thing to be aware of is the Herzegovina Case - not as protagonists of Medjugorje and local Franciscans paint it, but as the Holy See views it. For starters, read the Holy See's decree, Romanis Pontificibus which was just translated into English last summer.

    Here are sites I recommend perusing. At least when a claim is made it is not just stated that it is proven, it is backed up with documents and other information.

    The diocesan site (note Medjugorje in the sidebar and that there is an English section)

    Site of Louis Belanger (do check his "about" tab)

    and:

    Site of Italian Medjugorje researcher, Marco Corvaglia who has a ton of detailed studies and supporting information translated in his English section (with more on the way). Check the extensive History: Facts and Documents section.

    Anyone interested in this subject may want to check those sites once weekly for further updates.

    I'm so very thankful to know that this matter is in the hands of competent experts on the Commission who will not neglect to judge the events, before "fruits" are considered.

    It's not important that one side wins or loses. The only interest we should have is that the truth wins.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You presume much, Dianne, about my reliance and sources, but your opening statement is simply your personal opinion. Bishop Zanic holds a personal view on the Medjugorje phenomenon. He also hold a personal view (non-belief) on Lourdes and Fatima. Of course, he is not bound to personally believe in the Lourdes, is he?

    ReplyDelete
  7. John/Ace - That is an important detail you know - fish cooked in beef fat. Straining the nat...

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Diane - thanks very much for contributing here - your links are very good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. “If the scandalous ‘Hercegovina-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”.
    Bishop Pavao Zanic, 1984

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pilgrim

    The whole claim about Bishop Peric, "not believing in Lourdes and Fatima", is based on the testimony of persons who allegedly heard this in a private setting (he said, she said). You call it proof; I call it very questionable.

    Setting that all aside, there is still one matter that seems to escape protagonists. From the CCC (emphasis mine in bold):

    There will be no further Revelation

    66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

    67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.


    So, not belonging to the "Deposit of Faith", no one, including Bishop Peric is required to believe in Lourdes or Fatima, even if he were to publicly acknowledge that.

    A word of caution for anyone who thinks that the sensus fidelium is what determines authenticity... not so. A wave of enthusiasm for a phenomena does not = sensus fidelium. That sensus fidelium must be following something which is in full harmony with Sacred Scritpure, the Magisterium, and Sacred Tradition. The CCC continues:


    Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

    With regards to Medjugorje, there are "doctrinal confusions", which the Commission is sure to be reviewing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here we go folks: At 11:06 Pilgrim pasted in a statement, attributed to Bishop Zanic, but he does not provide a source. But, alas, pasting the statement in Google turns up the origin of this claim which is found here.

    In what is a characteristic of protagonists (who are notorious for making unsupported claims about the bishop or bishops in Mostar), that document which Pilgrim copied the text from, provides no source for what they allege Bishop Zanic has said.

    When you visit the sites I mentioned further up, you will find a big difference. Skeptics and critics back up their claims rather than put out inuendo which is then copied into cookie-cutter responses all over the web without supporting documentation.

    Sorry, but I become an even greater skeptic when the "gospa" is defended unto calumniating vicious untruths about the Bishops of Mostar, as Bishop Peric points out in the original source quoted by Terry in the body of this post.

    Dubious!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Slight grammatical problem in my post above. It should read, "..unto calumniating and spreading vicious untruths..."

    See what you started Terry? LOL.

    Whomever said this blog is much like the bar in Cheers, was right on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Diane - I know! Nevertheless, I appreciate the good information you bring to the discussion. It is important. Thanks so much.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, Diane, we can call into question everything if we choose to, even bishop Peric’s non-belief in Lourdes and Fatima. I wonder why the bishop has not yet publicly denied the statement of Fr John Chisholm and Liam Prendergast. Could they be lying?

    Here’s what Prendergast wrote: “During the talks the Bishop denied any supernatural events occurring in Medjugorje. Fr Chisholm referred to supernatural events at Lourdes and Fatima but the Bishop did not accept this and said he did not believe in any apparitions. When pressed on the Lourdes apparitions, he stated, ‘I believe what I am required to believe, that is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that was issued four years before Bernadette’s alleged apparitions.’”

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nobody has to believe in private revelation. This alleged apparition in Medjugorje goes against all that Mary stands for; she always counsels obedience, as she did at the Wedding Feast of Cana. Do whatever He tells you. The problem here, is that the seers don't listen to the Bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pilgrim,

    Perhaps he hasn't publicly denied it because it's just to ridiculous to address.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Diane, just because someone does produce a source to your satisfaction does not deny the truth of its existence. Neither is your attempt to ridicule or belittle Medjugorje protaganists a solid response but just another of your opinions. Neither does your claim that skeptics and critics back up their claims. That’s a generalisation that can be easily argued against.

    The statement of Prendergast and Fr Chisolm is clear. There is no innuendo. Do you include this statement as one of the “viscious untruths” you accuse others of?

    I ask because you have generalised somewhat with your statement about the bishops of Mostar, and I am not sure if you are including the statement of Prendergast and Fr Chisolm when you make the accusation of “calumniating and spreading vicious untruths”.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Terry,

    I hope you know the "Cheers" thing was a compliment.

    I like how Patrick Madrid responded to some comments at his blog on this same subject you posted about.

    In the typical duplicitous fashion, we have Medjugorje proponents telling skeptics they should be silent and wait for the Commission all the while they promote it as authentic (even being so bold as to refer to her as "Our Lady" before the Church deems it worthy of belief - something not even Bernadette did!).

    Patrick writes:

    ...I detect in your comments and those of countless others who want to silence Medjugorje skeptics a double standard that says: “Those who believe the alleged apparitions are authentic are free to proclaim and promote their belief to the world. But those who are skeptical must be silent.”

    Double standard. Not acceptable.


    Amen!

    In another response, one commenter accuses him of "bending people's will" by sharing with his readers what Bishop Peric just released in defense of Bishop Zanic on the diocesan site. He responds, in part:

    Finally, my modest proposal is, to use your own words, that you forget the futile activity of attempting to bend people’s will on this issue, at least those who are skeptical of Medjugorje.

    It’s very telling that, whenever a question or difficulty related to the alleged apparitions is raised by a skeptic, it is dismissed and derided as merely a “spiteful criticism” and a “narrow attack.” Nothing I have ever said or written about this subject has been spiteful. And I believe it’s just as telling that Medjugorje adherents feel perfect freedom to routinely disparage their fellow Catholics who are skeptical by branding their legitimate concerns as “futile,” “spiteful,” “narrow,” etc.

    Please think about that.


    You can read his post, and the combox, here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How can someone suggest that Bp. Zanic or Bp. Peric didn't believe in Lourdes or Fatima? That is ridiculous.

    Bp. Peric stated in a 1993 interview that Zanic was "a very Marian bishop, who as a priest and later as a bishop made eleven pilgrimages to various Marian shrines all over Europe: Lourdes, Fatima, Syracuse, etc."

    In the same interview, Peric mentioned the Church's recognition of Lourdes and its fruitfulness for 135 years, without the slightest suggestion that he thinks any differently.

    And this interview has been on the web for thirteen years. I put it there as part of the first critical web site about the Medjugorje case. So this is no secret.

    Pilgrim, where have you been for these 13 years? You should be doing your homework and reading the facts about what Bp. Peric believes and what Bp. Zanic believed and you should not spreading other people's lies.

    As Bp. Peric quipped, "Perhaps misinformation is another of Medjugorje's phenomena."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pilgrim,

    Just to be clear to you, and to other readers, I was referring to the untruths being spread about Bishop Zanic in the document which is the subject of Terry's blogpost.

    I ought not need to communicate what is already in the bishops words at his own website, in this link (offered again for convenience).

    The Medjugorje Movement will defend the "gospa" even unto attacking the local bishop. Bottom line: Even if he were wrong in his personal position, the Blessed Virgin Mary would not condone treating him with the kind of contempt so visible on the sites of promoters and supporters, and in the books of protagonists who have committed a breach of ethics, by withholding information and altering messages to suit their less than objective leanings. You won't read about this on promoter sites.

    I have a question for you Pilgrim. If there are invalid sacraments taking place in several parishes very close to Medjugorje on the part of some renegade Franciscans who chose to usurp parishes, don't you find it just a bit odd that the "gospa" is completely silent and not voicing displeasure at such grave sinfulness nearby?

    Anyone interested in understanding this can see the introduction I wrote to Romanis Pontificibus, and you will find it under the section, "Medjugorje Angle".

    It boggles my mind that she would not voice displeasure at these things.

    ReplyDelete
  21. RC... I don’t think anyone has ever said that bishop Zanic did not believe in Lourdes or Fatima.

    Diane, thank you for your clarification re the Prendergast and Fr Chisholm statement.

    As to the bishop not responding to the statement because it is too ridiculous can you clarify what you mean by this?

    Is it ridiculous because the statement of Prendergast and Fr Chisolm isn’t true, or ridiculous for another reason?

    And are you speaking for the bishop when you say ridiculous or is it just your personal opinion and no way reflects the bishop’s position on the very public statement made by the two Irishmen?

    As to your question re “Gospa” and surrounding parishes, better you ask our Blessed Mother yourself, and see what answer she gives you. But if she doesn’t respond with an answer, will that deny her existence?

    ReplyDelete
  22. My apologies to RC... looking back on my posts I did refer to bishop Zanic as not believing in Lourdes and Fatima. I meant, of course, bishop Peric. Sorry for any confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm an Episcopalian and so have no dog in this in-house Roman Catholic fight. We Anglicans also have our holy places and shrines of devotion, but apart from Walsingham, which is entirely based on medieval legend, Anglicans prefer to venerate things and places that are connected to something actually found in Holy Scripture or in some verifiable, historic fact.

    I often wonder why it is that people need, even the hunger, for visions, apparitions and the more notable, esoteric religious phenomena. In cases such as Medjugogorje, Padre Pio, the Shoud of Turin and others, the "faithful" are even prepared to fight over the reality of them.

    The church, and I especially mean that part of it that is Roman Catholic, does not require belief in any of these quasi-supernatural phenomena. Such happenings, even Lourdes or Fatima, have never been made part of the required church dogma called the Deposit of Faith. As such, it's shameful that Medjugorje takes up time and resources and the focus needed for the sacramental life, witness and mission outreach of the church. We all know that there is so much else that needs doing besides sinking any more time or energy into the Medjugorje thingy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Didn't Fr Z just post something about it being ok to deep fry fish in beef fat on Friday's in Lent? Or was that in one of Medj.'s messages?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Happy New Year to you all!!!

    I have been visiting various family and friends over the last 2 weeks, sharing some good times, good food and good music. I hope each one of you had the chance to build meaningful memories with your loved ones this Christmas season.

    As we settle back into the regular grind of our busy lives, I want to reach out with an epiphany I had during the holiday season that I hope you will carry with you throughout the year.

    A well-known department store ran a campaign for their holiday sales season using the slogan “Believe.” When I first noticed the tag, I thought how wonderful that they had decided to add a spiritual dimension to an experience that generally stands in contradiction to what the holiday is really all about. However, as I went on with my Christmas shopping, my second thought was, “Yes, but believe what?” Here we were presented with faith, but faith that had no object.

    At Christmas we celebrate Love. Love in its highest form chose to dwell among us and revealed its name to us, Jesus. Yes, Jesus truly is the reason for the season, the reason for our ability to love. Without Jesus as the object of our faith, Christmas has no purpose. Embrace higher love each day and pass it on, this is how each day becomes a little Christmas for each of us, Higher Love born anew and given as a free gift.

    Who will you pass Higher Love onto today? This week? Throughout the year?

    I choose to pass Higher Love to each of you. I am Sharon Gee be with love today.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There is a very informative article by the late Fr Ljudevit Rupcic appertaining to private revelation and its role in the Church.
    PRIVATE REVELATION AND MEDJUGORJE

    ReplyDelete
  27. Haha, why does Sharon Gee only ever show up in posts like this?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sharon Gee never shows up at my blog. She must have a thing for Terry.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sharon Gee functions as comic relief when the bar gets testy. Sort of like Rosencrans and Guildenstern.
    (Yeah, I know I spelled that wrong.)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Paul Bayliss sheds light on the “myth exposed” claims: Catholic Church, Ecclesia Dei

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am new to this blog, but found my way via the recommendation of another blogger.
    Poring over the main body of comments debating the empirical authenticity of the recent Međugorje 'phenomenon', I was at first glance rendered inarticulate, insofar as I lack the legalistic prowess of the incumbent expert commentators here. As a Roman Catholic, I too, concur fully with the author of this post and affirm the disclaimer that, "I remain open to all that the Church finally decrees regarding the authenticity of the events at Medjugorje".
    When the dedicated Vatican commission finally declares its verdict, as a personal proponent of the Međugorje apparitions, I am reasonably confident that I can then say, quod erat demonstrandum! However, until any final declaration is officially made, I see no point in even debating whether these supernatural events constitute genuine Marian phenomena, or, as the default skeptic camp maintain -sophisticated fabrications. Pending that time when the 'winning' camp can proclaim: QED, it remains essentially a matter of personal faith.
    However, if, as is the majority view here, the whole thing does turn out to be an elaborate hoax, it does beg some rather inexplicable questions with regard to any credible motive for why the fraudsters would want to sustain such a preposterous 'myth' for 30 years! Given that Bosnia and Herzegovina didn't even exist until 1990, save as one of the six federal units constituting the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and didn't attain statehood until 1995 following the Dayton Peace Accords, the assertion that the propagation of such a myth was apparently politically motivated by some Quasi-Solidarność revolutionary movement fighting "atheistic Communinsm" is simply an anachronism -it defies physics! So the 'anti-communism' conspiracy theory has at least 16 years unaccounted for, between 1995 and the present? What pretext for manufacturing a Marian apparition, could these mysterious "seers" and their 'schismatic' priests dream up when state-enforced atheism became ancient history, post Dayton? Maybe they thought, hey, let's just capitalise on the hysterical momentum already garnered from millions of 'gullible' pilgrims who are gonna make us rich. Even organised fraudsters might baulk at such unscrupulous subterfuge.
    Thus since, the mainstay of these comments appear to be more akin, at least in content, to a legal tribunal, than a Christian discussion forum, I wholeheartedly agree with 'Robert Zacher', who injected some much needed sanity into an otherwise obsessive wrangle, when he states (I'm paraphrasing here, for emphasis), "I often wonder why...the "faithful" are even prepared to fight over the reality of them... it's shameful that Medjugorje takes up time and resources and the focus needed for the sacramental life, witness and mission outreach of the church. We all know that there is so much else that needs doing besides sinking any more time or energy into the Medjugorje thingy."
    Or indeed, sinking more time into any other ecclesiastical
    inquisition for that matter!

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Continued...

    Moreover, what kind of a message are we as Catholic Christians sending to our brothers and sisters in other denominations, faiths and to the secular world; such Neo-Phariseeism makes for very poor ambassadors of Christ to the secular world; incidentally, we may remember, when we're not off on some legalistic tangent, that that's the one Our Lord Jesus Christ has "commanded" us to bear Christian witness to, in our daily lives: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34)
    On the contrary, if the world sees us, and deduces, “Look at those Christians, see how they love (Hate!) one another”, Tertullian's Apology, Chapter 39.7 (circa 200AD / words attributed to how third century 'atheists' saw their Christian contemporaries) it will only serve to inflame the emergent and visceral hatred of present day, militant, atheists who seek to eradicate all forms of religious belief!
    “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet."
    -Matthew 5:13
    As I have already stated, that while I personally believe that the apparitions in Medjugorje are authentic, I also acknowledge the church to be the ultimate arbiter of any official future endorsement; while I remain open-minded, I am curious, to say the least, why others appear to be engaged in some kind of urgent pharisaical crusade to debunk what they dogmatically believe to be heresy; I also wonder if there were similar antagonists, following previous apparitions in church history which have now been authenticated? Thankfully there also appear to be modern-day Gamaliels on this Blog who, in accordance with the Magisterium and the respective Commission, are prepared to excercise a bit more wisdom!
    "But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin... Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
    -Acts 5:39

    ReplyDelete
  33. Continued...

    I do not claim to understand all of the contentious arguments surrounding the authenticity of the Međugorje apparitions, but I would also venture that much of what is being interpreted by Western Christian observers as being of a purely religious nature, is in fact far more to do with local politics and nationalism. For example, the brash display of Croatian nationalist emblems which has evidently replaced the unitary Bosnian flag, points to festering wounds along old ethnic fault lines in a still fragile Balkan state.
    But whichever temporal portal in time and space that Our Blessed Mother chooses to employ to communicate with her children, Međugorje, Fatima, Lourdes, Zeitoun, Hriushiw or maybe somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy, she is not constrained by mere human territorialism; her call throughout the ages has always been essentially the same: a constant renewal of continuous prayer and conversion to God; prayer until it becomes a joy!
    I will conclude with a message from Gospa given in 1993, which I feel sums up primacy of prayer, and true conversion, as being a living witness to the presence of Jesus in our lives...

    Medjugorje Message, February 25, 1993

    “Dear children! Today I bless you with my motherly blessing and I invite you all to conversion. I wish that each of you decide for a change of life and that each of you works more in the Church not through words and thoughts but through example, so that your life may be a joyful testimony for Jesus. You cannot say that you are converted, because your life must become a daily conversion. In order to understand what you have to do, little children, pray and God will give you what you completely have to do, and where you have to change. I am with you and place you all under my mantle. Thank you for having responded to my call. ”

    In Christ Jesus,

    Steve.

    http://steve-maranatha.blogspot.com/p/about-maranatha.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. View from an anthill: I suspect most anti-Medjugorje folks are anti-almost-any-and-all-current-purported-apparitions-and-locutions. Under all the pro and con arguments, many of which have merit, I think it's really one's personal, unspoken view of what God, Jesus or Mary would or would not do or say that really determines their positions. (Which, of course, are worthless, since tiny human minds are anticipating God's wisdom and actions.)

    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.