[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.

[davidtlig]

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.

That's an understatement. He views them as virtually demonic! Some years ago Cardinal Bertone, who at the time worked at the CDF, issued a letter formally taking away the bishop's authority, stating that the bishop's views were his own personal views. Unfortunately, the current Prefect of the CDF (Cardinal Levada) has rather confused the matter by referring people again to the bishop!

This situation actually illustrates that the whole position of the authority of the local ordinary in these matters is largely one of church 'etiquette' rather than law. There seems to be no canon about discernment of apparitions.

In fact, the quote from the Catechism that you posted is our best guide to how we should proceed with apparition discernment:

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.

This is what is happening in Medjugorje. The Magisterium of the Church (which is NOT the bishop) has basically offered no guidance at the moment and so the people are making their own discernement which is entirely in keeping with the Catechism's words.

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

No, if you accept for a moment that Medjugorje was authentic, do you think our Lady would have wanted everybody to stay away for 30 years, waiting for the Church to make a decision?