Posted on 07/25/2006 4:34:34 AM PDT by siunevada
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, announced a commission would be formed to review the alleged Marian apparitions at Medjugorje and pastoral provisions for the thousands of pilgrims who visit the town each year.
"The commission members have not been named yet," Cardinal Puljic told Catholic News Service in a July 24 telephone interview. "I am awaiting suggestions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" on theologians to appoint.
"But this commission will be under the (Bosnian) bishops' conference" as is the usual practice with alleged apparitions, he said.
The cardinal said he did not expect the commission to be established until sometime in September because of the summer holidays.
He said the primary task of the commission would be to review a 1991 report from the region's bishops that concluded, "It cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations."
In addition, he said, the commission would be asked to review pastoral provisions that forbid official diocesan and parish pilgrimages to Medjugorje, while at the same time allowing priests to accompany groups of Catholics in order to provide the sacraments and spiritual guidance.
When asked if the new commission was the idea of the doctrinal congregation or of the bishops' conference, Cardinal Puljic said, "I would rather not answer that question."
Cardinal Puljic announced the future formation of the commission during the bishops' July 12-14 meeting in Banja Luka.
On June 25, thousands of pilgrims converged on Medjugorje to mark the 25th anniversary of the first alleged apparition to six young people.
The Vatican continues to monitor events at Medjugorje, where the apparitions apparently continue, but it has not taken a formal position other than to support the bishops' ban on official pilgrimages.
Officials from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were not available July 24 for comment.
I would expect them to confirm the findings of that report.
Medjugorge has already been condemned twice by two different Bishops of Mostar. "Nothing supernatural" was the decision.
"Medjugorge has already been condemned twice by two different Bishops of Mostar. "Nothing supernatural" was the decision."
This simply isn't true.
When the first bishop presented his findings to Rome, Ratzinger dissolved the bishop's commission and placed the matter into the hands of the episcopal bishops' commission (comprising of the bishops of former Yugoslovia). In other words...the matter was taken out of the hands of the Bishop of Mostar - although he did have a vote on the new commission.
This is the commission that produced the 1991 statement.
The next bishop of Mostar has expressed his personal opinion but Rome has cautioned him and concerned catholics that it is to be considered his personal opinion - and still considers the commission of Bosnian bishops to be the authoritative body in this matter.
That is why it is not the bishop of Mostar calling this new investigaion, but rather the commission of bishops.
First of all, you can't do that. The local Ordinary is always the bishop that decides on these matters; that is simply Catholic canon law. Second, TWO Bishops of Mostar have condemned Medjugorje, not one. Third, "by their fruits you shall know them". The "seers" of Medjugorge are not living sanctified lives at all. In fact, the contrary is true. One of the females, (I forget her name), has admitted to falsifying documents in an attempt to make money from a hotel which was built to accomodate the pilgrims. But what really strikes me as just plain weird is that Blessed Virgin Mary has been hanging around that place for over 20 years now, which is absolutely ridiculous and does NOT represent how all of her other apparitions have taken place. The whole thing seems like one big crock to me.
"First of all, you can't do that."
Sure you can. Rome can do what it wants.
When bishops present their findings they wait to see if they are accepted by Rome - or not.
For example...when Bishop Bello of Betania approved apparitions in his diocese, he waited for 3 years before publicizing his decision. He was waiting to see what the response would be from Rome. When Rome did not dispute his report, he took that as approval...which it was.This did not happen with Bishop Zanic's original decision.
If Rome had accepted Zanic's decision, there never would have been a second commission formed, nor a second statement issued.
"The local Ordinary is always the bishop that decides on these matters; that is simply Catholic canon law"
Usually the case - but Rome always has final say and can place the matter in the hands of whomever they choose.
"Second, TWO Bishops of Mostar have condemned Medjugorje, not one. "
Again...Rome has stated the second bishops statements are to be considered his personal opinion. The matter is not in his hands...it has been placed into the hands of conference of Bosnian bishops.
If you were correct...then there never would have been a 1991 statement issued not would there be another investigation being called for now by the Bosnian bishops.
" Third, "by their fruits you shall know them".
The Church will discern the fruits, and those who have authority to investigate will look at all aspects - good and bad - and have to decide what is credible and what is not.
This will not be decided by individual catholics who think they know they know the whole story. You can rest assured that those charged with the investigation will have access to much more knowledge concerning the situation than any of us.
You are wrong on this stance. Rome has given the local Ordinaries to power to condemn or approve apparitions, this is the norm of the Catholic Church. Rome will only invtervene at the request of such Ordinary, or if the Ordinary is acting against Catholic doctrine. It takes a new-age liberal Catholic to want to change the rules to help their cause of diluting Catholicism and spreading error.
Prior to the destructive liberalism that Pope JPII introduced into the Church, it would be unthinkable for Rome to 'overrule' an Ordinary in these matters, as it were, just to foster an agenda or assert it's ultimate influence. It was Rome, after all, whose wisdom asserted that the local Ordinary "has the doctrinal and pastoral duty" (authority) to approve or condemn alleged apparitions. In the case of Medjugorge two seperate local Bishops have condemned the apparition by declaring that 'noting supernatural has occurred'. In every other age of the Church that would have been more than enough to end the case.
Here is an excerpt of a homily given by Bishop Ratko Peric on June 15, 2006, (he is the local ordinary of Mostar:) "On the basis of Church investigations of the events of Medjugorje, it cannot be determined that these events involve supernatural apparitions or revelations. This means that till now the Church has not accepted, neither as supernatural nor as Marian, any of the apparitions." -
- "Priests who canonically administer this parish of Medjugorje or those who come as visitors, are not authorised to express their private views contrary to the official position of the Church on the so-called “apparitions” and “messages”, during celebrations of the sacraments, neither during other common acts of piety, nor in the Catholic media."
"The Catholic faithful are not only free from any obligation to believe in the authenticity of the “apparitions”
"As the local Bishop, I maintain that regarding the events of Medjugorje, on the basis of the investigations and experience gained thus far, throughout these last 25 years, the Church has not confirmed a single “apparition” as authentically being the Madonna. The fact that during these 25 years there has been talk of tens of thousands of “apparitions” does not contribute any authenticity to these events, which according to the words of our current Pope, who I encountered during an audience on 24 February this year, commented that at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith they always questioned how all these “apparitions” could be considered authentic for the Catholic faithful."
Here is 1978 directive from Rome concerning who shall approve or condemn apparitions, (under Pope Paul VI - BEFORE the advent of JPII and ultra-liberalism).
1. Today more than formerly, the news of these apparitions is spread more quickly among the faithful thanks to the means of information ("mass media"); in addition, the ease of travel supports more frequent pilgrimages. Also, the ecclesiastical authority was itself brought to reconsider this subject.
2. Similarly, because of current instruments of knowledge, the contributions of science, and the requirement of a rigorous criticism, it is more difficult, if not impossible, to arrive as speedily as previously at judgements which conclude, as formerly happened, investigations into this matter (“constate de supernaturalitate, non constat de supernaturalitate”); and because of that, it is more difficult for the Ordinary to authorize or prohibit public worship or any other form of devotion of the faithful.
For these reasons, so that the devotion stirred up among the faithful by facts of this kind can appear as a disposition in full communion with the Church, and bear fruit, and so that the Church itself is able to ultimately distinguish the true nature of the facts, the Fathers consider that it is necessary to promote the following practice in regard to this matter.
So that the ecclesiastical authority, (the local Ordinary), is able to acquire more certainty on such or such an apparition or revelation, it will proceed in the following way:
a) Initially, to judge the facts according to positive and negative criteria (cf. below, n.1). b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).
c) Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgement on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.
I. Criteria of judgement, concerning the probability at least, of the character of the apparitions and supposed revelations.
A) Positive criteria:
a) Moral certainty, or at least great probability, as to the existence of the fact, [revelation] acquired at the end of a serious investigation.
b) Particular circumstances relating to the existence and the nature of the fact:
1. Personal qualities of the subject—in particular mental balance, honesty and rectitude of moral life, habitual sincerity and docility towards ecclesiastical authority, ability to return to the normal manner of a life of faith, etc.
2. With regard to the revelations, their conformity with theological doctrines and their spiritual veracity, their exemption from all error.
3. A healthy devotion and spiritual fruits which endure (in particular, the spirit of prayer, conversions, signs of charity, etc).
B) Negative criteria:
b) Doctrinal errors that one would attribute to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit in their manifestations (taking into account, however, the possibility that the subject may add something by their own activity—even if this is done unconsciously—of some purely human elements to an authentic supernatural revelation, these having nevertheless to remain free from any error in the natural order. Cf. St Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises, n. 336).
c) An obvious pursuit of monetary gain in relation with the fact.
d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject, or his associates, at the time of the facts, or on the occasion of these facts.
E) Psychic disorders or psychopathic tendencies concerning the subject, which would exert an unquestionable influence on the allegedly supernatural facts, or indeed psychosis, mass hysteria, or other factors of the same kind.
It is important to consider these criteria, whether they are positive or negative, as indicative standards and not as final arguments, and to study them in their plurality and in relation with the other criteria.
II. Intervention of the competent local Authority
1. As, at the time of a presumed supernatural fact, worship or an ordinary form of devotion is born in a quasi spontaneous way among the faithful, the competent ecclesiastical Authority has the serious obligation to inform itself without delay and to carry out a diligent investigation.
2. At the legitimate request of the faithful (when they are in communion with their pastors and are not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion if, assuming the criteria given above having been applied, nothing is opposed to it. But there must be vigilance nevertheless, to ensure that the faithful do not regard this way of acting as an approval by the Church of the supernatural character of the event in question (cf. above, Preliminary Note, c).
3. By virtue of his doctrinal and pastoral duty, the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene immediately of his own authority, and he must do so in serious circumstances, for example, when it is a question of correcting or of preventing abuses in the exercise of worship or devotion, to condemn erroneous doctrines, to avoid the dangers of a false mysticism etc.
4. In doubtful cases, which do not involve the welfare of the Church, the competent ecclesiastical Authority may refrain from any judgement and any direct action (more especially as it can happen that, at the end of a certain time, the supposedly supernatural event can lapse from memory); but he should not remain less vigilant about the event, in such a way as to be in a position to intervene with swiftness and prudence, if that is necessary.
III. Other Authorities entitled to intervene
1. The foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary.
The rest of this directive explains that Rome can intervene if the local Ordinary requests it, (which is not the case with Medjugorge), or if certain other extreme conditions exist, such as the local Ordinary acting outside of the faith, etc. It also goes on to say that Rome can intervene if the local Ordinary agrees it is necessary or some other "qualified group of faithful" requests it, but gives this ominous caveat: "vigilance is necessary so that the recourse to the Sacred Congregation is not motivated by suspect reasons (for example to force, in one way one or another, the Ordinary to modify his legitimate decisions, or to confirm the sectarian drift of a group, etc.)" -----------------------
You can do as you please, Scotswife. After all, cafeteria Catholicism is pretty much what the new-age Church is all about. But as for me, I'm sticking with tradition, history and orthodoxy.
Thank you for acknowledging that Rome has ultimate authority.
For awhile I was beginning to think you believed that there were cases where bishops had ultimate authority with no accountability to Rome.
Certainly you can believe as you wish - and you have obviously projected a great deal of rubbish upon someone who you have no knowledge of.
Common sense and logic play a part here....if you noticed...it was the bishop of Sarajevo who announced the new investigation - not the bishop of Mostar.
"Rubbish" eh? What will you do when Rome agrees with both Bishops and condemns Medjugorge? Don't think that Medjugorge is a shoe-in for approval just because the Vatican has taken up the issue, Pope Benedict XVI isn't a new-age liberal like his predecessor who rubber stamped more saints than all his predecessors combined and introduced more novelties than a joke shop. In the meantime, it's officially condemned until the Pope says differently.... so happy modernizing to you.
""Rubbish" eh? "
Yes, rubbish. You have no idea what my thoughts are on the matter as all I've done is point out factual events.
In fact..your latest rant just gave me a case of the giggles.
"What will you do when Rome agrees with both Bishops and condemns Medjugorge?"
I trust Rome to do the right thing...plain and simple.
" Don't think that Medjugorge is a shoe-in for approval just because the Vatican has taken up the issue,"
I never said it was a shoe-in for approval.
In fact this new investigation will most likely NOT result in approval. Why? Because committe members have already stated that any possible (note: I said POSSIBLE) approval would be delayed until cessation of alleged apparitions and examination of truthfulness of prophecies (Lourdes and Fatima were not approved until many years after the events)
So...this new investigation will most likely have one of 2 results...a condemnation, or a continuation of the 1991 position.
"Pope Benedict XVI isn't a new-age liberal like his predecessor who rubber stamped more saints than all his predecessors combined and introduced more novelties than a joke shop"
Pope Benedict is his own man, and I trust him to do the right thing
" In the meantime, it's officially condemned until the Pope says differently.... so happy modernizing to you."
You see? It's THIS kind of rhetoric that makes me giggle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.