Skip to comments.Medjugorje decision expected from Vatican
Posted on 05/31/2012 2:28:31 PM PDT by Gillibrand
Guidelines date from 1978 - publication linked with Medjugorje? The newly published guidelines were already on 25 February 1978 adopted by the CDF, as William Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation points out in his introduction. At that time, they were brought to the attention of the bishops, but not made known. The reason was that they concerned "primarily the pastors of the Church" said the Prefect. Why have they now been published? Is the disclosure in connection with the decision still-awaited in 2012 on Medjugorje?
(Excerpt) Read more at cathcon.blogspot.com ...
I’m wondering if it would be appropriate to post a thread about the same article, placing the emphasis on the theology of discerning apparitions. So many people on FR express the belief that such apparitions are public revelation, a source of Catholic doctrine, or simply untested against scripture.
On a different level: I have read Davies. (Well, much of it; my wife read the whole book.) It is one steaming pile of ethnic hatred, scandal-mongering and puffery. Davies is one sick, hateful dude and belongs nowhere near any rational discussion.
You’re afraid to read the article? You might catch Catholicism?
At a special mass in Massachusetts, attended by hundreds of people, and highlighted by the testimony of one of the visionaries, I listened to two people describe being cured of stage four cancer at Medjugorje. Many other people spoke of miracles, such as seeing rosaries turn to gold. It was unforgetable, to say the least.
Is Catholicism "catchable"?
Yes, Catholicism is highly contagious. Now, if you go read the article, you’ll find it contains significant theology on the Church’s discernment of apparitions. I was considering excerpting the article to highlight this theology. And yes, I was having a little fun with you.
Why are the apparitions always of Mary and not of Jesus Christ? If, as the article states, the apparition will always lead TO Jesus, and not away from Him, why isn’t He the apparition seen? That’s part of the “theology of apparitions” I don’t understand.
Jesus appeared to St. Gertrude, smvoice ; He appeared to other saints as well ..
Has anyone you know taken those rosaries to a jeweler to make sure they are really gold and not just a tint change from the chemicals in one’s skin?
I don’t know, but they were surprisingly matter-of-fact, when speaking about it.
Yes they are. I have met quite a number of Medjugorje believers and I hope that they will not have a faith crisis if Medjugorje is found not to have any supernatural basis.
Jesus returning would be public revelation, and signal a new Earth. I would suppose that whatever he said would be taken as the ultimate last word, and the entirety of the New Testament would be subsumed by the Newer Testament, wouldn’t you? I’m sure there’s far better theological reasons than that.
But why this nagging, persistent suspicion that Mary leads AWAY from Christ? (You didn’t say that, but that parallelism was inferred by “If... TO... why isn’t.”)
The bible says, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” The very wording, “Mother of God” was given as an appellation for Mary PRECISELY because it necessarily insists that God has a mother.
(The Catholic/Orthodox appellation, “Theotokos,” means “bearer of God.” It’s a little more precise the biblical “meter mou KYRIOS” because it clarifies that while KYRIOS refers to YHWH, that Mary only bore YHWH, as the Ark bore the covenant; she did not create him.)
And indeed, the apparitions do insist that Jesus is God, and that she is the mother of Jesus (”My son...”).
After hearing the testimony of the two people miraculously cured of cancer, I’d be shocked.