Yes he may be obedient, bt I wonder if it is up to a point. He could put his case quietly rather than publically. There is a different GOld Standard I supect for an Acrhbishop rather thn the rest of us. It reminds me of Padre Pio when the poor guy was under the ban , he just wne ttoally quiet. Though I know the old saying, 'Tests the patience of a saint' may apply in this case. He could still push his case quietly. The Vernable archbishop Fulton Sheen is another good example. From reports he got his nose fairly shoved in it too, but never kicked back, though he was perfectly placed to do so. Ther eis a time and place for kicking back of course, but I don;t think this was such a case. Our Lady could well fight her own corner and I supect will. If I had read all this stuff in a novel I never would ahve beleived it. I would have laughed and said, 'Oh hat is never how the Catholic Church handles such matters!! Don;t be crazy!! Thats nuts!' But it is not nuts at all , these things are realy happening. It is jaw dropping what is going in here. Talk about badly handled.
No harm in giving them an odd rattle. Sometimes obedience is misunderstood. He was given no direct order to be quiet as far as I see.
Yes, Padraig, what you say should be taken into consideration. P. Pio was a monk though where a life in solitude was not something unusual for his vocation. And even in his case if it were not for a friend who took action who knows how many blessings would have been lost. God's will gets done in so many "crooked" ways! Yet a Bishop is a public figure with responsibilities to shepherd his multitude of faithful....and in such times as these he, being closest to the situation, sees and feels the fruits of this great benefit of faith for his people now for so long a time. I might think that he could even see such a condemnation as literally taking the milk from little lambs esp. when now the Philippines is being led by a man who literally condones blood baths....horrible person. And so he cannot stand by as such a shepherd and see his people be demoralized in their simple faith in this wonderful private revelation of so many decades. They probably take this as an insult to the Mother of God....not just to themselves. In his circumstance with the people if he does nothing publicly to defend them they may think that he is not with them. To remain silent with such a conscience and understanding the rather hopeless channels for changing things "quietly" his own heart speaks out....not so different from the idea that when men deny Him (or His mother) even then the rocks themselves will cry out. We can't all be dumber than rocks!! And then JPII said that in today's world if you weren't seen in the media you simply didn't exist!
Yes I am not unsympathertic to the poor man. But he is not doing Our Lady any favours, I suspect. I always look for obedience in discernment.
I have very little sympathy for the Archbishop. It looks like he jumped the gun when he reversed a previous decision of the Church without waiting for a response from Rome and now his pride is hurt. Catholic Filipinos have just elected a head banger as President who has made very ominous statements about the Church. What does that tell us about the hierarchy in the Philippines if not that the faithful don't trust or respect them. And if not, why not? What kind of example have they given to their flock in a poor country where power has been held by a select few? There's also an ISIS presence in the Philippines where they have linked up with the crowd pushing to make Mindanao an independent Islamlic Republic. What is the point of the Archbishop's childish outburst? Is this about Our Lady or an attempt by the Archbishop to raise his own profile?
The Archbishop in Lipa is also a vocal public supporter of Vassula Ryden! Perhaps this is another reason the CDF decided to move very quickly to clamp down on his move to take over and authorize the alleged Lipa apparitions. (I'm cross-posting this on the Vassula/Holy Communion thread.) Vassula Ryden’s trip to The Philippines – May 2008 (http://www.tlig.org/en/news/2008-09-24/2081/ ) During this trip, Mrs Ryden was received by the President of the Philippines, who is a well-known reader and supporter of TLIG, and was the “special guest” of the Charismatic community’s annual Pentecost celebration in Cebu. Vassula also visited Archbishop Arguelles, who gave the Imprimatur to the TLIG books. Two comments: Although Mrs Ryden has many supporters in The Philippines, she does not have the support of Episcopal conference. Indeed, in the official website of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), the 1995 Notification is one of the few documents present in the pages belonging to the Conference’s Commission on the Doctrine of the Faith (http://www.cbcponline.net/doctrine_faith/for_info.html ). The Imprimatur granted by Archbishop Arguelles to Vassula’s books is based on an “illegal” nihil obstat given by Bishop Felix Toppo of India. In a recent interview made available on-line through the official TLIG video website, Bishop Toppo reveals that when Vassula asked him to give the nihil obstat to the TLIG messages, he consulted a famous canonist who clearly told him thataccording to Canon Law he “could not do it”. In fact, when I submitted the same question last year to the Vicar General of my own diocese (*), he told me that since there was a valid Notification in force from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), one could not approve of any gesture going against that clear position of the Apostolic See. Since both Bishop Toppo and Bishop Arguelles are long-time supporters of Mrs Ryden, and given the circumstances in which the nihil obstat and Imprimatur were given (see: http://www.pseudomystica.info/tlignihilobstat.htm ), it is obvious that they are abusive. Their scope is not to protect the faithful from wrong doctrines, but to facilitate the promotion of Vassula’s books among the Catholic faithful, in spite and in contempt of the warnings issued by the CDF, which include a negative doctrinal judgement. This way of proceeding is frequent among TLIG followers, including members of the clergy, who are often put by Mrs Ryden in a position where they have to choose between her and their Church. (*) He is also the diocese’s Censor, i.e. the person appointed by the Bishop to examine before publication those writings which are subject to the Church’s supervision. This is from a website dedicated to exposing issues with Vassula Ryden and her movement, http://www.pseudomystica.info
As Harper is spreading his anti-Vassula propaganda to other threads now, let me post this excellent video of an interview with Vassula from 2002, made in the Philippines, as a kind of 'counter-weight;:
So what??? Now there is supposed to be some kind of condemnation of the Bishop because he is following the current permissions by the Church regarding the bishops' own decisions about Vassula's gatherings in the various dioceses?? And that error of the commenter is then used to associate with the apparitions of Lipa (a totally different and separate situation since Vassula does not come under the auspices of the Roman Church....only the Bishops do and they've been given leeway to not only grant her permission but also to attend such gatherings) also to which the local Bishop is much closer, in person, as well as closer to the factual evidence of error within a fraud "commission" than the authorities' own inaccurate pronouncements "from above and far distant". Completely off base, don't fit together to begin with, and lacking the true facts of both situations. It would appear, in truth then, that the Bishop whose reputation is being besmirched here is actually factually correct in both situations!
The argument in the earlier post is that the Archbishop in both cases acted in opposition to a standing declaration of the CDF, a higher authority. Since Rome asserted jurisdiction over the Lipa apparitions early on and made a definitive pronouncement, he did not have the authority to overrule them and make a public declaration. Similarly, in the case of Vassula, granting an Imprimatur to her writings was a wrongful act given that the Vatican had asserted authority over her case as well. The bishop ignored precedent and exceeded his brief. He cannot make definitive statements on matters that are under the authority of the CDF. To me this shows he has a history of ignoring Rome's written declarations. I suspect that played a part in the quick action the CDF took to override his Lipa declaration. No "besmirching" here, just a statement of the facts.
The Bishop has authority to grant an Imprimatur to a book that he, on this authority, noted could fall into this category. Vassula nor her writings have been condemned. There is only a standing caution.....for those reading such. Then it only follows that the local Bishop/Shepherd is the one to guide the faithful within his jurisdiction under this caution to whether they can feel secure in reading a particular writing. Would you prefer he abrogate this Church authority granted to him?? So there is no reason to keep a Bishop from exercising his authority.....unless you desire to equate "manners" with his personal authority in continuing to issue such.
Yes, you have hit the nail on the head Kevin, as to why this has hit a brick wall as far as the Vatican is concerned. The pity is, I am of the belief that the report that was made known to the Holy Father at the time was based on dishonest information presented. Unless we are to doubt the death bed confessions of some of those Bishops who confessed that they had been threatened with excommunication if they admitted they did believe the authentic supernatural aspects in this case. Of course we also have to take in to account the concern as to whether the events were of the Holy Spirit or the spirit of the evil one. Peace my friend.
Sometimes God's prophetic action is like a seed and has to buried in the ground by evil for a while for a while in order for it to bear fruit
Lipa prelate quits after row with Vatican BY WILLIAM DEPASUPIL, TMT ON FEBRUARY 4, 2017 THE outspoken Archbishop of Lipa, Ramon Arguelles, has resigned, months after getting a well-publicized rebuke from the Vatican over the authenticity of alleged Marian apparitions in a Carmelite monastery in 1948. The Vatican announced on Thursday that the bishop of Daet, Gilbert Garcera, 58, had been appointed by Pope Francis as the new metropolitan archbishop of the Archdiocese of Lipa in Batangas. Archbishop Ramon Arguelles No reason was given for Arguelles’ sudden resignation, but the news service of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines noted that the prelate resigned three years ahead of the mandatory retirement age of 75. Arguelles, who served the Lipa archdiocese for almost 13 years, was a vocal opponent of the death penalty, divorce and the Reproductive Health bill, among other national issues. His November 2009 decree lifting the ban on the public veneration of the image of “Mary, Mediatrix of all Grace” and forming a new commission to reexamine the 1948 apparitions was welcomed by Marian devotees, but apparently did not sit well with the Vatican. In September 2015, Arguelles released an official statement approving the apparitions, and declared “that the events and apparition of 1948 also known as the Marian phenomenon in Lipa and its aftermath even in recent times do exhibit supernatural character and is worthy of belief.” Arguelles’ declaration was overruled by the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which issued a decree in December 2015 stating that the apparitions to a Carmelite postulant, Teresita Castillo, were a hoax. The decree, made public in June 2016, also ordered that “any and all commissions studying the question of the alleged supernatural phenomenon of the alleged apparitions in the Carmel of Lipa be immediately disbanded.” The CDF disclosed previously sealed findings of a probe it conducted from 1949 to 1951, in which the prioress of the Carmelite convent supposedly admitted to “deception.” It also revealed for the first time that Pope Pius XII himself had confirmed the results of the CDF investigation, which meant that the apparitions could no longer be examined. http://www.manilatimes.net/lipa-prelate-quits-row-vatican/310439/
Here is an article from Spirit Daily: Archbishop Takes Sharp Issue With Vatican Over Lipa The archbishop who last year approved apparitions of Mary in the Filipino area known as Lipa to a Carmelite nun in the 1940s -- an approval that has now been "nullified" by a Vatican Congregation -- told Spirit Daily Monday (6/7/16) that he maintains belief in the apparitions, has a personal devotion to it, has had no direct communication with the Cardinal, Gerhard Muller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who nixed it, and may appeal directly to the Pope, whom he does not believe is aware of Cardinal Muller's action. The archbishop, Ramon C. Arguelles of Lipa , had declared the apparitions "worthy of belief" on September 12, 2015, and stated that the events were indeed supernatural, strongly encouraging devotion to "Our Lady, Mediatrix of Grace," as she called herself there. As we reported at the time, "Unless overturned by Rome, the apparition is thus 'Church-approved.'" That reversal occurred on December 11, 2015 -- though Archbishop Arguelles was not made aware of it until two weeks ago. The archbishop says a bishop in the Philippines Conference of Bishops informed him on May 28 that the Congregation had nullified his approval and that he had received the official document on May 31 from the nation's papal nunciature in Manila. (We strictly abide by such determinations.) Asked if he had yet responded to the surprising nullification, the archbishop said, "No, because I was sent nothing directly," but added he may attempt to take the issue up with the Holy Father "if I can reach him." The Vatican document (see below) argued that a contentious negative ruling made in 1951 against the apparitions held sway because it was "confirmed" by the Holy Father, at the time was Pius XII. For more than half a century now, the matter has been the focus of terrific dispute, with four of the six bishops involved with the original negative document in 1951 later recanting (and despite what they signed, expressing belief in the apparitions) and Cardinal Santos of Manila authorizing promulgation of the devotion. Arguelles says two Filipino bishops outright ignored the commission's negative ruling, allowing faithful to continue visiting the shrine. The alleged repression in the 1950s was also orchestrated by the papal nuncio in Manila, at whose direction the committee of Filipino bishops had been convened, hastily concluding that the Lipa events were not of a supernatural nature, their own verdict signed without interviewing the visionary, who was sequestered at a different convent and forbidden, as were the other nuns, to speak of the happenings, which began in 1948. While the committee of bishops appeared unanimous in their conclusion that Lipa was fraudulent, there were the several who confessed before they died that they too had been coerced, signing the negative "findings" only under threat of excommunication. The dissension included claims that diaries kept by the seer-nun, Sister Teresita Castillo, and boxes of other material were ordered burned by those who opposed the apparition and that allegedly miraculous rose petals were discarded. A statue representing the Virgin of Lipa (though ordered to be destroyed) was hidden instead. A bishop who had previously approved of Lipa (after a personal encounter with the rose petals) was unceremoniously stripped of his administrative powers (ostensibly for "poor accounting practices"), and his equally favorable auxiliary bishop removed and banished to a different diocese. It was further alleged but never proved that Church interrogators tried to intimidate the alleged visionary into signing a false confession, a statement saying the apparitions were a fabrication intended to bring her personal attention, and when the befuddled young postulant found the strength to refuse, she was confronted by an angry psychologist/priest who made motions as if ready to throw an ashtray at her. Meanwhile the prioress of the Carmel convent there, Mother Mary Cecilia of Jesus, who supported the apparitions , was transferred to another convent and given the role of a scullery maid. "I told them that four bishops quoted [in the 1951 committee] had made notarized declarations that they believed in manifestation of Lipa," argues Archbishop Arguelles. "I had asked for documents on the investigation but several of the six were not bishops before 1950. Four died believing and even the Cardinal, in 1963 -- twelve years after ban -- had signed a document that allowed printing and spread [of the devotion], so that means he also believed. That's why I am now asking how it can really said that the declaration of 1951 could be the official stand of the Holy See. The four bishops encouraged support." Still, the current Vatican ruling holds sway and must be obeyed. The Congregation is the Vatican body with authority over mystical claims. Its determinations can be reversed only by the Holy Father, who has been silent on the issue. There have long been questions about Lipa. While the original rose petals that were said to have materialized in the air there and fallen to the ground, with holy images on them, appeared inexplicable, some have raised skepticism of many others who in the apparition's wake claimed the same phenomenon. Moreover. Sister Teresita's experiences began not with the Virgin but with an attack by what apparently was an evil force that banged on her door and carried the smell of sulfur. Those who support such happenings argue that the devil often attacks when he knows the Blessed Mother is about to appear, in an attempt to dilute it or divert attention. On the other side are those who fret that a deceiving spirit counterfeits Mary. Archbishop Arguelles, who has visited Lipa since childhood, and says he has himself seen miracles occur there and is skeptical that Pius XII was involved in the original Lipa ruling. "I don't think that in 1951, Pope Pius XII was even thinking of what was happening in such a small country as the Philippines with so many things were happening in the world," he argues, adding that the Pope was favorable toward such mysticism. "He approved an apparition in 1954 in Italy and also Our Lady of All Nations was also approved by Pius XII, as was a weeping statue and in Syracuse [Sicily]," he told Spirit Daily in a lengthy interview. He also argues that there was an approval of Lipa in 1992, when the late Archbishop Mariano Gaviola lifted the ban enforced forty years earlier by the then Lipa Apostolic Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos. "I was just repeating and following the decree of 1992," Arguelles maintains. continued....
continued.... In 2010, however -- to make matters still more convoluted -- the Vatican "affirmed"that the apparitions were "not supernatural": that unusual forces had been "excluded. This was under Benedict XVI. The Lipa archbishop has conceded that the latest ruling by Cardinal Muller , who also has indicated opposition to Medjugorje, holds sway and as a matter of "obedience" released what he was given by the nuncio on May 31. "I did not respond and I have no intention," he says. "The document was not addressed to me but was meant for me and implied I was disobedient and I am not disobedient. I think there is a lot of antagonism to whatever is Marian and I am very hurt by that. I don't know if the Holy Father Pope Francis knows about this. I think this is completely contrary to what he believes." When asked if he would halt people from visiting the shrine, Archbishop Arguelles said, "No, no not at all. You don't stop people from believing and loving the Blessed Mother. No, no, no. They can tell me to keep silence, but they cannot force me to say it's not true, as one bishop of Lipa once said." "I don't think Pope Francis knows what's going on," says Arguelles. "I don't think he knows about the letter." Arguelles said he may attempt at contact the Holy Father, "but I don't know if I can reach him, especially if some people around him know I am approaching him. I don't know if I'm capable of getting to him." He said he did give Pope Francis a Rosary from the site's devotion, known as Our Lady Mary Mediatrix of All Grace, when the Holy Father visited the Philippines last year. "This is a place of our continual prayer for you," he told the Supreme Pontiff just before the Pope left Manila to return home. "Things are still happening there, at Lipa, things that be can't be explained and the Blessed Mother has plans for us," he claims. Asked why he thinks it took so long for Muller's document to reach him, the archbishop replied, "Your guess is as good as mine. It's strange. There are so many strange things in the whole thing, so I believe even more that Lipa phenomena are true. There are too many testimonies. This is also my experience. I sometimes pray hard for the Church in Europe." He laments "all these beautiful things that [he believes] Heaven is doing" in the area of Lipa. Arguelles, a bishop since 1994, says he prayed at Lipa as a seminarian and young priest "spent solitude" there, and then "even as bishop -- I pray in Carmel. It's part of my life. And I am thinking I became archbishop of this place for a reason." We naturally will abide strictly to the Vatican's recent declaration on the apparitions. http://www.spiritdaily.com/interviewarchbishop.htm
