[davidtlig]

Of course, if you come out in favor of the Bayside affair or the like, you may find at least me a part of that anti-Brigade...

I am pleased to confirm that I do not believe in the authenticity of Bayside.

Based upon your postings, to date, I'm not sure we're not dealing with a "one trick pony" here

Well, I may well be such a pony because when our Lady comes to earth in this remarkable way for such a long time in Medjugorje, it clearly puts things into a particular perspective and discussions about politics lose some of their lustre.

With a grand total of 14 days experience on FR, I don't think you know either AnAmericanMother or me well enough to categorize either of us a member of The anti-Medjugorje brigade or not.

Actually, I believe your postings on this one thread betray your views rather clearly but if I am mistaken I will be delighted!

[markomalley]

Actually, I believe your postings on this one thread betray your views rather clearly but if I am mistaken I will be delighted!

You may well be mistaken.

Actually, my attitude is "wait and see." The CDF has not formally condemned them. So I don't. CDF has condemned Bayside (and that is why this is a "ringer" question).

The local ordinary is not happy with what's happening at Medjugorje, but I don't believe that he has formally condemned the apparitions either. (Having said that, I will be happy to be corrected one way or the other)

I can well afford to be patient. Private revelations do not change the Deposit of Faith:

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.

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

You may also wish to read the 2000 CDF document, The Message of Fatima.

It's not that I am skeptical or disbelieving on it. But, as with any private revelation, messages received by way of an apparition, even an approved one, have to be kept in their proper context.

FWIW.

[AnAmericanMother]

I have no opinion one way or the other on Medjugorje. You may be in the position of everything looking like a nail because you're holding a hammer.

My default in this (or any other situation) is to presume that the Holy Father has done what needs to be done. I might have hammered the Cardinal a little harder (he is a sad case) but that's not my decision. Sure it was speculation on my part that he hadn't released the serious hammering, and I was wrong . . . but it was a reasonable speculation until we had more facts, and erring on the side of BXVI doing the right thing.

I am hesitant to criticize a man who is a brilliant thinker, an obviously orthodox Catholic, and working hard to restore continuity with Catholic tradition. All this second guessing, after awhile, borders on disobedience, and there's enough of that going around already (lots of it from people like the Cardinal).