Medjugorje

The latest instructions to the local bishops re: giving a platform to Vassula or not is that it is left up to each. And so, under that permission, she continues to be presented within such permissions in various dioceses and is openly endorsed as well by other bishops or priests who attend such gatherings. Of course we also know of Fr. Laurentin's endorsement as well as both Fr. Jozo and Fr. Petar (the chosen priest to release the messages of Medjugorj). She met with then Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina and gave her presentation there as well. She believes, from that meeting that it should, hopefully, be him as Pope now to truly be the one who bends in order to unite the East and West. And she was thrilled, after such personal knowledge of the man, when he was selected by the Holy Spirit for our current Pope. And after the meeting with then Cardinal Ratzinger and after answering requested questions for greater clarification the Cardinal made a statement to be published with future books of messages that certain clarifications had been made in the ongoing dialogue and he wished for all bishops to understand that. He asked them to be cautious but obviously did not pursue any absolute forbiddance of such relaying of said messages and personal history to the public, as decided, again, by the local bishop. She is Greek Orthodox and thus does not come under the strict rulings of the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy. She meets with them for the purpose of greater understanding and unity....her main mission.

With such permissions of discernment that are ongoing I for one choose not to be holier than the Church!

Too much fear can keep one from seeking ALL of the information available.

 

Pope Benedict took the Medjugorje phenomenon out of the hands of the Bishop of Mostar. Fact. He did this for very good reason. (Some anti Medjugorje journalists have spun this dishonestly and even tried to suggest that +Peric asked Benedict to take control. This is untrue and a desperate attempt to spin the facts by those who would like to see Medjugorje denounced.)

Why not just wait and see what Holy Mother Church has to say ? Obedience, yes ?

 

This is interesting. The main mission of Vassula has been to assist the unification of the East and West Churches. She was shown two straight but separate rods representing the two Churches and was told that they would have to bend to each other. But knowing the attitude of the Orthodox in the past she accepted that it would be the Roman Catholic Church that would have to bend the most and she believed that Pope Francis would be the one who would have such humility to offer the most for that bending towards the other. Now, this interesting article on this subject which shows a start of a possible fulfillment of this....and she was shown how the separate dates for celebrating Easter was a great scandal for the Body of Christ and such separation should have for its first move the joining together for that date:

Russian Orthodox spokesman: common date for Easter celebration acceptable-- if Orthodox calendar is used

Responding to a statement by Pope Francis that all Christians should celebrate Easter on the same date, a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church has said that the proposal would be welcome—as long as the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox method of setting the date.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25275

Hmmm.....the Spirit is indeed moving.....all over.....these days!

 

(Wrong forum, I think, earth to angels... this one is about Medjugorje. As far as I know, Vassula Ryden has been sidelined by The Church, whereas Medjugorje has not and it has been going on for c. 35 years. One would have expected a clear denunciation surely by now if it were a risk to faith and morals. We are waiting for the direction from Holy Mother Church.)

Bella.

 

Just continuing a response to the topic of Vassula that another contributor brought in earlier. You then had better go back a bit and instruct that person about being on the wrong forum. Then again, when you are introducing the topic of private revelations of one kind or another then the forum is bound to widen to the mention of others. And if you read above you might see that Vassula appearances or not in dioceses is left up to the local bishop. She's Greek Othodox so the Roman Church is in dialogue with no need or authorization to "side line" one who is not under their hierarchical jurisdiction.

 

I think I disagree with you. When a thread clearly calls itself "Medjugorje" it probably means that it invites posts about Medjugorje. Otherwise, "widen to the mention of others" as you put it becomes subjective. Perhaps a separate thread entitled "Vassula" might attract the comments you are hoping for.

 

Not to belabor the point but if you assume that I am hoping for any particular comments....well, again, I was just offering a response to something that had already been discussed within the forum. So not guilty! Perhaps you could have the monitors (are you one of them?) to wipe clean those that you feel don't pertain to the topic that you don't feel lends itself to opening. To please you then and to keep to the strictness of rules which I was unaware of, I'll make a connection (actually I had done so earlier if you wish to go back not that far) to the main subject of Medjugorje by saying that Vassula visited there and is wholly behind that phenomenon. And the well known Medj connected priests, Fr. Jozo and Fr. Petar (of the future release of Mirjana secrets), fully endorse Vassula (from Medj) and in the case of Fr. Jozo, has sent his own interpreter to her gatherings when unable to attend himself. See how things can become interconnected esp for these times? And we should rejoice in discovering such things that only get introduced by throwing a wider net out when speaking on any topic. For myself I like to learn all that I can on any chosen thread's topic....esp. those coming in a most unexpected way and linked to it even if only in a peripheral way. ;-)

 

Not to labour the point ? (9lines later......

1. You are not obliged to please me
2. I haven't accused you of anything so, no need to feel guilty.
3.. No I'm not a monitor of this site.
4.. Vassula Ryden's locutions and teachings have been declared heretical by the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
5. This is a thread about Medjugorje. Even Satan has visited Medjugorje.

 

#4 is in error. It is up to the local bishop as to whether Vassula gets a platform under Church auspices or not. And the latest advisory is only a caution as well as a notation re: the ongoing dialogue and further "clarifications" of earlier questions via that dialogue to be noted in further publications. Hardly "heretical" and never condemned....and as I noted, in some good Medjugorje company, as well as endorsed by Fr. Laurentin. I wouldn't be anxious to compare such with a Satanic example. Only points to a sense of desperation rather than any equal balance to the presented facts in reality.

And yes I believe it was you (no one else here) who admonished me (see, left out accused) about introducing another topic which you believed did not fit the titled thread when, as explained, I did not. I was innocently and merely following along with the flow of the discussion which had already introduced the side discussion to which you objected.

Now then, just who is it who is prolonging this topic within the topic originally so objected to by yourself?

I think we've about exhausted this pretty needless effort when it seems nothing can be done to wipe the slate clean anyway unless you can implore the moderator to do just that. Fine with me. There are a lot more important things to worry about these days that's for sure!!

 

Hi, Rino. You are back. Nice. Where could I find the exact lines about Ivan selling tickets to his 'apparitions'?
My opinion is that Medjugorje phenomenon is new age stuff. Just read the so called messages, Mirjana's parchment (uh!), the hysteria and how people has become so addicted to Medjugorje. Not to mention the kind of spirituality the Pope has refered.

Have you visited Medjugorje lately, Rino?

 

What are the messages of Medjugorje: prayer, penance and reconciliation. Regarding whether private revelation is still necessary, Bishop Graver answered in one of his homilies: "It is true! With Christ and the Apostles, public revelation to the Church has ceased. But this does not mean that God will not communicate with us in later times through other means. In the event that God does speak to us, it is always something great and holy, whether He speaks through a prophet or an uneducated peasant child."
"For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets." Amos 3:7
If you doubt, you must make a pilgrimage to Medjugorje and ask our Blessed Mother to let you know if She is truly appearing there. She will answer you! God bless you.

 

Rino, have you heard of the Commandment, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

For those unfamiliar with 'Rino' and 'Maria Faustina' on this forum, they both have a hatred for what is going on in Medjugorje and take every opportunity to bear false witness of the events there.
Sorry to be so direct but there is a limit to the nonsense I can take from people who try to denigrate the graces of Medjugorje. I realise that this will probably provide an excuse for a tirade of anti-medjugorje propaganda but I just had to respond to Rino's post.

 

Your links say nothing about Ivan "organizing pilgrimages". He, as do other alleged seers when in the village, offer to answer questions and speak with the pilgrims....duh! And certain pilgrimage organizers who know them tend to include their accommodations. So those seers who live there offer their services as well as accommodations. Much better that they can support their families so that they no longer have to be split up with the fathers having to go elsewhere to find work for most of the year. People in general should learn from their example and should do as much service as they in their own neighborhoods and perhaps the world would be a much better place. And, btw, Pope Francis has made it a point to condemn gossip....unless you are on a tirade against him as well!

Perhaps your particular friend "who owns a hotel" there and who considers pilgrims only as "tourists who bring money" is the one who is need of conversion. Seems as though your criticism should be headed in his/her direction for better use of it. Indeed.

 

Some aspects of Medjugorje which I believe favour it are; the messages of each visionary never contradict either scripture or the other visionaries. Also, the late Fr. Slavko in his experiences with, and study of the visionaries said they would never be close friends, because their personalities were so different.

 

Father Laurentin also points this out in his books on Madjugorje. Not only are the visionaries very different, they are of different socio-economic backgrounds and have different interests. In the natural world, they would never have remained such a close, loving, and supportive group of friends for over 30 years.

Anyone who wants to truly explore Medjugorje should read at least one good book about it. Father Laurentin is obviously a solid reference, whose books get into a lot of analysis, including the medical tests that have been run on the visionaries.

 

I am away on Retreat for three days. I am not happy with this thread as it is turning toxic so I am going to freeze it till I come back.

I remind folks of the teachings of the Church on the sin of Calumny and Detraction. Which is a very serious sin indeed as it offends against charity.



PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"

ARTICLE 8
THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT



You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.253
It was said to the men of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn."254
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:



Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

I am baffled how any Catholic in good standing can think him or herself so freely about named individuals in such a way.

THIS IS A MORTAL SIN.

In addition you leave yourself perfectly open to legal action.

DETRACTION

From Latin detrahere, to take away).
Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.

The determination of the degree of sinfulness of detraction is in general to be gathered from the consideration of the amount of harm the defamatory utterance is calculated to work. In order to adequately measure the seriousness of the damage wrought, due regard must be had not only to the imputation itself but also to the character of the person by whom and against whom the charge is made. That is, we must take into account not only the greater or lesser criminality of the thing alleged but also the more or less distinguished reputation of the detractor for trustworthiness, as well as the more or less notable dignity or estimation of the person whose good name has been assailed. Thus it is conceivable that a relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station, such as a bishop, might seriously tarnish his good name and be a mortal sin, whilst an offence of considerable magnitude attributed to an individual of a class in which such things frequently happen might constitute only a venial sin, such as, for instance, to say that a common sailor had been drunk. It is worthy of note that the manifestation of even inculpable defects may be a real defamation, such as to charge a person with gross ignorance, etc. When this is done in such circumstances as to bring upon the person so disparaged a more than ordinary measure of disgrace, or perhaps seriously prejudice him, the sin may even be a grievous one.

There are times, nevertheless, when one may lawfully make known the offense of another even though as a consequence the trust hitherto reposed in him be rudely shaken or shattered. If a person's misdoing is public in the sense that sentence has been passed by the competent legal tribunal or that it is already notorious, for instance, in a city, then in the first case it may licitly be referred to in any place; in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten. When, however, knowledge of the happening is possessed only by the members of a particular community or society, such as a college or monastery and the like, it would not be lawful to publish the fact to others than those belonging to such a body. Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way.

The employment of this teaching, however, is limited by a twofold restriction.

• The damage which one may soberly apprehend as emerging from the failure to reveal another's sin or vicious propensity must be a notable one as contrasted with the evil of defamation.
• No more in the way of exposure should be done than is required, and even a fraternal admonition ought rather to be substituted if it can be discerned to adequately meet the needs of the situation.

Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks. Historians have a still greater latitude in the performance of their task. This is not of course because the dead have lost their claim to have their good name respected. History must be something more than a mere calendar of dates and incidents; the causes and connection of events are a proper part of its province. This consideration, as well as that of the general utility in elevating and strengthening the public conscience, may justify the historian in telling many things hitherto unknown which are to the disgrace of those of whom they are related.

Those who abet another's defamation in a matter of moment by directly or indirectly inciting or encouraging the principal in the case are guilty of grievous injustice. When, however, one's attitude is simply a passive one, i.e. that of a mere listener, prescinding from any interior satisfaction at the blackening of another's good name, ordinarily the sin is not mortal unless one happens to be a superior. The reason is that private persons are seldom obliged to administer fraternal correction under pain of mortal sin (see FRATERNAL CORRECTION). The detractor having violated an unimpeachable right of another is bound to restitution. He must do his best to put back the one whom he has thus outraged in possession of the fair fame which the latter hitherto enjoyed. He must likewise make good whatever other loss he in some measure foresaw his victim would sustain as a result of this unfair defamation, such as damage measurable in terms of money. The obligation in either instance is perfectly clear. The method of discharging this plain duty is not so obvious in the first case. In fact, since the thing alleged is assumed to be true, it cannot be formally taken back, and some of the suggestions of theologians as to the style of reparation are more ingenious than satisfactory. Generally the only thing that can be done is to bide one's time until an occasion presents itself for a favorable characterization of the person defamed. The obligation of the detractor to make compensation for pecuniary loss and the like is not only personal but becomes a burden on his heirs as well.

 

I do not honestly know how certain people can make these nasty kind of posts without their consciences tearing them to pieces.

What are you thinking? It does not matter whether the apparitions are true or false we are all subject to Charity.

Thousands of people will read this stuff. Have a thought for your souls.

 

For goodness sake anyone should know you cannot make these kind of scurrilous, criminal allegations on a public forum.
I have deleted Rino Vegar's membership and deleted the awful postings.

Profound apologies to all concerned.

This forum will end up giving me heart failure.

awful.

 

Izvinjavam se neko iz Medugorje, koji je uvredio bilo kojim postove na ovom forumu. Moje molitve su s vama.

Ovo je rad đavola i da će učiniti sve od sebe da vidim takve stvari ne ponove.

Mir.