Hey Guys,
This is truly scary. I already gave this guy my opinion. Check it out: Breaking
Away From The Roman Catholic Church
Don't forget to drop by my website!
[snipped]
Personally, I believe that the RadTrad schism
is "smallfry" compared to the potential schism of the radical
apparitionists. IF the Pope/Vatican WERE to "take-over" the local
bishops' charism of discernment re: Garabandal, Medjugorje, Naju, etc., etc., -
there are very many who have declared that they will not accept a negative
decision from the Vatican - despite protests of fidelity to Rome!
Have you read the answer to the question put
to the French Bishops' Conference, published in "Christian Order",
May 2002
Reply
To French Bishops' Conference Question On Medjugorje
and at Petersnet Reply To
French Bishops' Conference Question On Medjugorje
In my opinion, the DISobedience to lawful
authority has been massive!
As I mentioned before, I respect
your opinion on these alleged apparitions, but as for me right now, I believe
in the authenticity of Medjugorje. Be that as it may, I will submit 100% to the
final decision of the Church in an instant. But as of right now, we are still
free to travel to Medjugorje and promote the alledged apparitions privately.
EWTN website explains the status of Medjugorje very well under their
"frequently asked questions" directory. PetersNet gave my website a
"yellow light" because of some references I had to Medjugorje on my
bio site. I found it contradictory though that EWTN would get a green light
even though they held the save view as myself on this topic. PetersNet fails to
recognize this letter from Rome when I pointed it out to them: Medjugorje Newsletter
I understand your thoughts, and fully agree
that one is permitted to believe in Medjugorje - hey, I also agree that one may
take up membership in the Flat Earth Society, or believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Seriously, though, it bothers me that many people who believe in Medjugorje -
while stating adherence to whatever "Rome's final decision" may be,
neglect to be docile to the local Vicar of Christ - the Bishop of Mostar's
declarations. The local bishop HAS been placed in his position with the divine
mandate for that area of jurisdiction. It is de fide Catholic Dogma that
"By virtue of Divine Right the bishops possess an ordinary power of
government over their dioceses."
The letter that you refer to is the May 1998
CDF letter to Bishop Aubry. The "guts" of that letter include:
"I am anxious above all to make clear that it is not the
practice of the Holy See to assume, in the first instance, a position of its
own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena.
[.
. .]
"Finally,
concerning pilgrimages to Medjugorje which take place in a private manner, this
Congregation holds that they are permitted, on the condition that they not be
considered a validation of events in progress and which still call for
examination by the Church. "
Repeat: "on the condition..."
The reply to the French Bishops' Conference
question on Medjugorje points out:
"The Judgement Of The Competent Ecclesiastical Authorities
"Up
to this day, only the Bishops of Mostar -- Bishop Zanic, then Bishop Peric --
and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference (dissolved de facto by the partition of
the country after the war) have expressed a judgement on the events of
Medjugorje.
"The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the other hand, has never issued
an official judgement. It has only given directives of a pastoral order.
Not only that, but the French Bishops'
Conference reply asks:
"How, in fact, to organize a private pilgrimage without it
being motivated by the conviction that the events of Medjugorje are of a
supernatural origin? Since this conviction is at the origin of the pilgrimage,
does not this latter not become de facto 'an authentication of events in course
which still necessitate an examination by the Church'?"
It also puts paid to the slander against the
Bishop of Mostar about having his jurisdiction removed from him:
"It is therefore not correct to state that Bishop Zanic was
relieved of the dossier.
"Furthermore,
while the phenomenon 'affects a large portion of the Church', the Congregation
did not intervene of its own accord."
In addition to the 2002 stated document, there
is another one AFTER Bp. Aubry's 1998 letter:
Here is an extract from the Authority for
Mostar, Bishop Peric:
"'Private' visits of this nature have not
been debated, since going to Medjugorje would then be similar to visiting any
other Catholic parish. Yet it has always been clearly stated that this cannot
be done officially, using the Church and the pulpit in order to preach the
authenticity of the alleged 'apparitions' AND proclaiming the place a
'sanctuary' of unrecognized 'apparitions'".
(snipped)
"Regarding
'pilgrimages to Medjugorje of a private nature', the Congregation maintains
that they are allowed 'UNDER THE CONDITION that they are not considered an
authentication of events still going on, which demand further investigations by
the Church'. Hence, nothing new here. Official or church pilgrimages are not
allowed, NOR ARE 'PRIVATE VISITS' ALLOWED THAT HAVE THE INTENT OF PROVING that
the so-called 'apparitions' and alleged 'messages' are authentic! Therefore the
official position of the local Bishop is the same official position of the
Bishops' Conference of 1991. And both priests and the faithful as Catholics
should adhere to this position!
Mostar, July 21, 1998
+ Ratko Peric
Bishop of Mostar"
One
only has to look at any pro-Medjugorje site to view the "Latest Messages
From Our Lady" to see that the intent IS to promote the authenticity!
Catholics
ARE entitled to believe AND to investigate. But they ought also be entitled to
investigate them critically.
At
this point, I would like to raise again a precedent - that of Magdalene de la
Cruz. Here is her story:
Magdalen
of the Cross - false "visionary"
"The
mystical experiences of the great St Teresa of Avila herself were the subject
of much suspicion and outright hostility on the part of many learned and holy
theologians of the time, not necessarily to the concept of private revelations,
or to the charismata as manifested in certain individuals, rather, at least in
part, because of the fact that many members of the 'theological establishment'
in Spain and throughout Europe had only recently been deceived by a false
mystic, the notorious Magdalen of the Cross:...Magdalen of the Cross...at the
beginning of the century of St Teresa of Avila, fooled almost the whole of
Spain...on certain days she had either the stigmata or sweats of blood, and she
announced the defeat and imprisonment of Francis I by the Spanish army at
Pavia... Hence, the tide of enthusiasm of which he was the cause. Common
people, parish priests, emperors, many venerated her, and consulted with her.
However, an apostolic visitor from Rome was shocked by some detains he saw in
her convent. He spoke to each of the sisters and, especially with the Mother
Abbess, Magdalen of the Cross, who eventually confessed that, while a young
shepherdess, she had sold her soul to the devil in return for his giving her
the power of performing prodigies. Thus she deceived everybody for thirty
years. (2) The footnote is from "Rev. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, C.P. C.R.
V., Rules for the Discerning of Spirits in the Spiritual Exercises of St.
Ignatius of Loyola, Angelus Press, Kansas City, MO. 1992."
Extract from
"Medjugorje, The Facts and Logic", by Brian Hughes
Further
information may be gleaned from Volume 1 ~ the collected works of St Teresa of
Avila, translated by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D., and Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D.,
Institute of Carmelite Studies, Washington, D.C., 1976: "Another
visionary, Magdalena de la Cruz, a Poor Clare with a reputation for holiness,
severe fasts, and long vigils, also bearing the stigmata, let it be known that
she no longer required any food except the consecrated Host in daily Communion.
In an investigation by the Inquisition she confessed to being a secret devil
worshipper. Inspired by two incubuses with whom she had made a pact, she became
very skillful at all sorts of legerdemain, Through her success in fooling both
bishops and kings, she brought the fear of being deceived to all of Spain."
From the Introduction to the above book, by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D., p.8
Please
do not get me wrong, "Robert"; I am pro Marian devotion and accept
all the private revelations that have been declared by the appropriate
authority to be "worthy of credence." In fact, my wife, Norma, and I
went on pilgrimage for three months to Fatima, Lourdes, Knock and other
interesting places in 1965.
PS:
HAVE you read the reply on the question raised at the French Bishops'
Conference?
I found the article you quoted from on PetersNet. I just noticed you
had an additional link to there as well. I read it and am researching it
myself. A friend is also mailing me some info via snail-mail in regards to this
article (pro-medjugorje). It should take a little while to get to me. I have to
read both sides before I give you my opinion.
Great.
I sent off my last reply before reading this post; and I had to immediately
leave home for Saturday morning Mass, plus a bit of shopping.
One thing I would like to point out though. I will fully admit that
there are some who follow Medjugorje who are radicals and to be blunt...
"nut-jobs". I fully expect these folks to fight tooth and nail if
Rome ever condemns Medjugorje. But most folks who I've met who believe in
Medjugorje are not like this.
These
are the ones with whom I have dealt over the last couple of years. I must say,
that I have not yet (yourself excluded) met anyone who have not become
illogical in discussions. Perhaps it may be because you have not
"scratched" one?
Let's not forget that every alledged apparition and even APPROVED
appartions have these sort of people. Even Fatima itself has been the object
used to cause division as can be seen after the Third Secret was revealed. One
example that comes immediately to mind is Bob Sungenis who is also a supporter
of the renegade priest, Fr. Gruner.
No,
I have not forgotten this; but taking the example that you give - Fatima, I go
back to the matter of "Who had the authority regarding the Fatima
apparitions and messages?" It does not matter one fig who else spoke (or
now speaks) on the authenticity (or, more correctly, the
"credibility") of Fatima.
My
answer, of course, is the local Authority; the local Vicar of Christ; the
Bishop of Leiria - in which Fatima occurred. In order to be "even
handed" in comparing Medjugorje with Fatima - I would ask you to determine
whether the local Bishop of Fatima made one single negative declaration in
respect of the events at Fatima? Did he ever declare that "there is no
evidence of any supernaturality", or, worse, "there IS evidence that
there is no supernaturality" - or of miracles!
I
would go even further to ask you: "Has ANY negative declaration by a local
Bishop been reversed by the Holy See?"
To
the best of my knowledge the answer is "no"! No, The Divine Mercy was
not declared in the negative by the local Bishop; it was the Holy See that did
so - and Pope John-Paul II ultimately had that reversed. Interesting question,
yes?
Rather than simply "reading both sides", I
believe that one should read what he who "has the authority to speak for
the Church" said and still says.
Here
may be viewed verifiable EVIDENCE from ECCLESIAL AUTHORITY –
The
sources may be examined at either
Mike
Chonak's DOCUMENTS ABOUT MEDJUGORJE at
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents
or
Medjugorje
Is All That Glitters Gold? at
http://home.earthlink.net/~agless/Medjugorje.htm
1987
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19870109_kuharic.html
January
1987: Communique of Yugoslav bishops concerning the facts of Medjugorje
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19870725_zanic.html
July
1987 Declaration of the Bishop of Mostar on Medjugorje
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19901127_zagreb.html
November
1990: Statement by Bishops' Conference of Yugoslavia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19941011_peric.html
11
October 1994: Synod intervention. Bishop Ratko Peric
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19960323_bertone.html
March
1996: CDF letter to Bp. Taverdet
SACRED
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Vatican
City, March 23, 1996, Prot. No. 154/81-01985
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19960619_vis.html
June
1996: Declaration on Pilgrimages to Medjugorje
VATICAN
CITY, JUN 19, 1996 (VIS) - The director of the Holy See Press Office, with
regard to news of recent days concerning pilgrimages to Medjugorje, answered
journalists' questions this morning with the following declaration:
No
new fact has occurred in this regard. As has been stated on previous occasions,
it is a duty in such cases to
respect the immediate competency of the local episcopacy...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19970125_vis.html
Medjugorje:
The State of the Question
This
extract from an interview with Mgr. Ratko Peric, Bishop of Mostar, by Yves
Chiron was published in Présent, 25 January 1997. The interviewer was
particularly anxious to obtain clarification from the Bishop concerning the
claim by propagandists for Medjugorje that superior authorities in the Church
will overturn the verdict --non constat de supernaturalitate (that there is no
evidence of any supernatural happenings at Medjugorje).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19970516_luburic.html
May
1997: Diocesan Statement
Medjugorje:
a Place of Religious Disorder, Disobedience, and anti-Ecclesiastical Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19971002_peric.html
Bishop
of Medjugorje Says Apparitions Not Supernatural
In
this letter, the ordinary of the Diocese of Mostar, in which Medjugorje is
located, says he judges the alleged apparitions to be proven false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19980526_bertone.html
May
1998: CDF letter to Bp. Aubry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998
Document at:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~chonak/documents/m19980721_peric.html
July
1998: Private Visits to Unauthentic Apparitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002
Document at:
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_may02_bonus.html
or
at:
http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve_full.cfm?RecNum=4314
May 2002: Who Has Authority To Speak About This
[Medjugorje] In The Name Of The Church?"
In
my opinion, the DISobedience to lawful authority has been massive!
In all honesty, I've heard all this before and don't wish to hear it
again. I've read rebuttals to all of these "facts" and it has
convinced me at this time to still accept Medjugorje. Please take me off your
mailing list.
Message
received. Wilco!
Just
a last thought - wouldn't the charitable thing be to disabuse me of the errors
- the errors which you know all about, but that I do not?
As
Professor Julius Sumner Miller frequently said: "Why is it so?"
Sorry John. I've learned my lesson in the past when dealing with
this subject. Even though I believe in the alledged apparitions at Medjugorje,
my intent isn't to try and convince others of their authenticity, especially
someone as yourself who is vehemently opposed to them. I merely wish to live the
true Gospel which the Church through Medjugorje has proclaimed. My life and
Faith have been greatly touched through Medjugorje, but as I said before, if
the Church ever condemns it, I will drop it like a hot potatoe. I respect your
opinion in these matters as I do other fine Catholic men and women who feel
differently than you do about Medjugorje, some of whom are even Bishops and
Cardinals. Obviously their continued private support of Medjugorje must be
because they understood the directives from the Sacred Congregation of the
Faith in the same fashion that I did. I could recommend some good books which
have helped me form my opinion on this topic if you would like. I'm sure you've
probably read them as well though.
One
last thought though. Those who oppose Medjugorje so strongly always speak of
how Medjugorje is leading to great disobedience within the Church. I always
have to wonder though, being that these folks are so attached to and believe
throughout their being that Medjugorje is false, what would happen if the
Church ever approved Medjugorje. Would these same folks be the cause of the
division which they so loudly preached against before Rome's approval? Or would
they accept Rome's position.
No
problems - I too understand the attachment that many people have to particular
phenomena.
Let
me start off by telling you that I am NOT against mystical phenomena such as
apparitions. I accept as worthy of credence all that the lawful authority in
the Church has declared to be worthy of credence. For example, the apparition
at La Salette (which was approved - but NOT Melanié Calvat's so-called
"Secret of La Salette" which was not approved, but which, in fact,
ended up on the Index of Forbidden Books together with the writings of her
Spiritual Advisor, the Abbé Combe), Beaurang, Banneux, Fatima, the Divine Mercy
- and so on. I might have mentioned that my wife, Norma, and I went on
pilgrimage to Fatima, Lourdes, Knock, etc. in 1965 at the ages of 29 and 30
respectively. We had to sell our house to do so, stayed away from Australia for
3 months and started all over again on our return.
So,
please believe me when I say that I am a Marian devotee.
In
my presentation of the History of Medjugorje, I have been pretty careful to
rely on Ecclesiastical documentation. It would have been easy to add
commentaries from other knowledgible sources but I desired to stick with the
mainly Episcopal sources.
If
you have read the answer to the French Bishops' Conference question as to
"Who has the AUTHORITY to speak for the Church" on the matter of
Medjugorje, you will see that resoundingly the answer corresponds with Defined
Catholic Dogma.
Finally,
Bishop Brincard asked the very fundamental question:
"Have they obeyed the Bishop of Mostar? Have they respected
him?"
But,
you ask "what would happen if the Church ever approved Medjugorje. Would
these same folks be the cause of the division which they so loudly preached
against before Rome's approval? Or would they accept Rome's position."
"Robert",
as a Catholic Apologist, do you not see the inversion of your question?
This
is the position for a Catholic:
1.
A Catholic must believe
all public revelation.
2.
A Catholic may believe
private revelation which has not yet been subject to a negative decision.
3.
A Catholic may disbelieve
private revelation which has not yet been subject to a negative decision.
4.
A Catholic may not
believe private revelation which has been subject to a negative decision.
5.
A Catholic may not
believe private revelation which has been subject to a positive decision.
You
should know that - and should not have asked the question - for (while it may
be imprudent not to believe in a private revelation upon which the Church
authority has positively declared) - it is NOT required to be believed by a
Catholic.
On
the other hand, many Medjugorjians HAVE said that they would not accept a
negative decision from Rome - IN THE SAME WAY they they reject the negative
decisions from the Bishop appointed "by Divine Mandate" for the See
of Mostar in this day and age.
Has
this sort of attitude prevaled before? Of course: a couple of examples are
Necedah and Bayside.
Another
proximate to schism mentality is Garabandal, which is almost a sister
phenomenon to Medjugorje. With Conchita's "there will be only three more
popes," many Garabandalians are prepared to reject the pope elected on the
death of Pope John Paul II - for they expect him to be antiChrist.
That
this is also contrary to Defined Catholic Dogma - that there will be a pope
UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD, and that the pope will always be the Bishop Of
Rome, cuts no ice with them. "Conchita said...."
Enough!
At least for today, eh?
God
love you, and thanks for replying,
I fully understand that even APPROVED apparitions don't have to be
accepted by us. My point was that if Medjugoje is ever accepted by the Church,
those who condemn it now must respect that decision and must not still go
around condemning those who believe in it. That was only the point I was trying
to make. And I have a feeling that those who reject it now and are so attached
to their opinioin of it may in fact not respect the pronouncement by the
Magisterium in favor of Medjugore, if it ever comes. Their pride about possibly
being wrong may take over their obedience and respect of the Magisterium. It's
just something I wonder about.
God
Bless you John. Hey, keep doing what you're doing. One of us has got to be
wrong on this topic and the truth will come out in the end. As I have said
before, if I am wrong, so be it. The Marian devotion that has developed in me
because of these alleged apparitions will stay with me no matter what happens.
I
had no intention of avoiding the question. In the very unlikely event of
Medjugorje being approved by the appropriate authority - and I stress that the
appropriate authority to date HAS AUTHORATIVELY DECLARED that "there is no
evidence of any supernaturality" (which YOU do not NOW accept!!!) - then,
at that time I will re-assess the matter. But, even then, there will be no
obligation on ME to then believe.
In
the meantime, there IS a NOW obligation, I believe, for Medjugorjians to be
OBEDIENT to the local Bishop's jurisdictional authority (the other lawful
authority, the Yugoslavian Bishops' Conference now being defunct.) Not only
that, but, I believe there IS a NOW obligation to honor (1st Divine
Commandment) the Spiritual Father of Mostar who "by Divine
mandate..." has the charism of discernment.
However,
let me put your mind at rest as to MY commitment to obedience to the authority
of the Church on two matters - which involved a reversal of attitude for me.
1st:
I am a former adherent to the schismatic and excommunicated Society of St Pius
X of some 23 years. I thank God for His Mercy in resuing me from that criminal
state. In 1997 I was fully reconciled with my Parish Priest, who is in
communion with the Archbishop of Melbourne, who is in communion with the Pope
in Rome.
I
fully eschew my previous schismatic attitudes previously held - of which I am
now repentent - and as a self-imposed penance, I activated my website in order
to refute those errors previously held.
2nd:
In the interim, I became aware of and studied an organization which attempted
to set itself up in my Parish - the Neocatechumenal Way. I wrote about it and
against it. I had files against it on my website. The minute (literally) that I
received notification of the Statutes for the Neocatechical Way's being
approved in Rome - I removed ALL critical data from my site.
I
place extremely great importance on obedience to lawful authority - even
though, at times, I may disagree with it.
Ask
yourself the question: Would Jesus be happy with the degree of disobedience and
hatred expressed for the Vicars He chose for Mostar in the last 20 years?
I
forgot to address a matter you mentioned in the last post: "even Bishops
and Cardinals" going to Medjugorje.
In
practical terms: one thousand bishops or cardinals do not trump one pope; and,
one thousand bishops and cardinals do not trump one bishop in his own diocese.
Cast
yourself back to the case of Magdalena de la Cruz in the early 16th Century.
Practically the whole of the Episcopacy grovelled at the feet of that
mystic/stigmatic - who was possessed by the devil. That bishops and cardinals
can be deceived as easily as anyone else is just a matter of fact.
"Robert",
this is what worries me in talking with supporters of Medjugorge; many of them
have called me and/or my website "evil", and "doing Satan's
work." For my anti-Integralest stance, I have been actually cursed. None
(yet) argue point by point the evidence I produce. "Why is that so?"
(Prof. Julius Sumner Miller.)
Brian
Harris addresses this matter at Medjugorje The
Facts and Logic from which I take this short extract:
"When
one cites the facts about Medjugorje , sparing no effort to make a logical and
coherent case against it, one is never refuted point by point; the Medjugorje
devotees do not make solid doctrinal arguments in favor of the 'apparitions,'
nor do they point to reasonable historical precedents.
"The
entire gist of their 'apologia pro Medjugorje' would appear to be: 'People who
go to Medjugorje confess, do penance, fast and convert. Therefore, there is
really no need to defend the apparitions ... if you are against Medjugorje,
then you are against penance, conversion and fasting...as well as spiritual and
emotional healing.'
"Such
arguments can certainly be challenged on the intellectual, dogmatic plane.
"Trying
to convince die- hard 'Medjugorjians' many of whom have considerable emotional
capital invested in the phenomena is another matter entirely. Many of these
people claim spiritual and emotional healing due to the 'Gospa' or because one
of the 'seers' prayed over them...many more insist that they owe their renewed
Catholic fervor is itself a fruit attributable to the 'Gospa' and/ or contact
with the seers themselves.
"It
is an historical fact, easily accessible to anyone interested enough to take
the time out for a little research, that many of the false apparitions in the
history of the Church have borne in their wake at least some true conversions
and renewed sacramental lives. Many of these conversions were undoubtedly
sincere and led to salvation. The question which should be posed is whether the
conversion or subsequent salvation of a soul is every directly attributable
causally to any extraordinary charismata. True charismata undoubtedly point the
way to salvation; but the answer in a strict theological sense, would have to
be no, since not even authentic charismata impart sanctifying grace:
Theologians distinguish the charismata from other graces which operate personal
sanctification: they call the former gratiae gratis datae in opposition to the
gratiae gratum faciens. (61)
"The
charismata are signs which serve for the edification of the Church, and which
certainly may dispose the soul for the reception of sanctifying grace, but they
are infinitely inferior to the ordinary means of sanctity, those which give
sanctifying grace, preeminently the Sacraments. In other words, true charismata
do not exist to draw attention to and perpetuate themselves; rather the Holy
Spirit is pleased to give these gifts to certain individuals, as extraordinary
signs either for the inner or outer growth of the Church, to lead souls to the
true fountain of sanctifying grace, the sacramental life of the Catholic
Church."
Brian
has a monumental work on "Medjugorje, The Facts and Logic" at
Part
"A"
Part
"B"
Part
"C"
Part
"D"
Part
"E"
Part
"F"
(Footnotes in "F")
First of all, I NEVER called you or your website evil. Please John,
this is why I said I wanted to avoid debating this issue with you in the first
place. Many who oppose Medjugorje have this "image" which all who
accept Medjugorje must fit into. Even if they clearly don't, this image is
unjustly imposed onto them. I have NEVER gotten mad or ill-tempered towards
anyone who doesn't believe as I do on this topic...but let me tell you, those
who oppose Medjugorje have treated me VERY poorly in the past. That is why I
find it so amusing when I hear how those who oppose Medjugorje claiming that
pro-Medjugorians get very upset if someone doesn't believe as they do. My
experience has been just the opposite.
My
point about all the Cardinals and Bishops who have visited Medjugorje was to
try and show that the status of Medjugorje isn't as clear cut as you wish to
make it. Are you saying that all these Bishops and Cardinals are being
disobedient to the Local Bishop or are they merely understanding the statement
by the Congregation of the Faith differently than you do?
As
far as Unity Publishing is concerned, I have found them to be an unreliable
source of truthful information.
One
last thing before I go. This isn't on the topic but figured you might know more
because of your past and your living in Austrailia. What is your take on Mel
Gibson?
You
wrote:
First of all, I NEVER called you
or your website evil.
I
reply:
Well, I'm gobsmacked!!! (= "flabbergasted").
As
far as I am concerned saying "many of them have called me and/or my website
'evil'", and "doing Satan's work," and "For my
anti-Integrilest stance, I have been actually cursed." - does not say or
imply that YOU said that; it merely said that "many" have said it.
Therefore, there was no need for you to get defensive!!!
Please John, this is why I said I wanted to avoid debating this
issue with you in the first place. Many who oppose Medjugorje have this
"image" which all who accept Medjugorje must fit into. Even if they
clearly don't, this image is unjustly imposed onto them.
I
reply:
Now, I am not going to take offence at your "many" there and think
that you believe that of me :- )
I have NEVER gotten mad or ill-tempered towards anyone who doesn't
believe as I do on this topic...but let me tell you, those who oppose Medjugorje
have treated me VERY poorly in the past.
I
reply:
And I am not going to be concerned with that "those" either :- ) -
for it is not my intention or desire to treat you badly at all. Of course, I
would "like" for you to understand the reasonableness and logic of
prudential resistence.
That is why I find it so amusing when I hear how those who oppose
Medjugorje claiming that pro-Medjugorians get very upset if someone doesn't
believe as they do. My experience has been just the opposite.
I
reply:
Perhaps that HAS been your experience - but, "Robert", the odds
pro-Medjugorge vs contra-Medjugorje are probably 36 million to 100 (?) You can
afford to be amused - no? :- )
Let
me introduce you to my collection of "brickbats":
File #1
File #2
File #3
File #4
File #5
File #6
File #7
File #8
File #9
File #10
My point about all the Cardinals and Bishops who have visited Medjugorje
was to try and show that the status of Medjugorje isn't as clear cut as you
wish to make it. Are you saying that all these Bishops and Cardinals are being
disobedient to the Local Bishop or are they merely understanding the statement
by the Congregation of the Faith differently than you do?
Answer
1: YES - or more precisely, they are exhibiting an enormous lack of collegial
support to their brother in the Episcopacy in his attempt to exercise his
jurisdiction.
Answer
2: Frankly, I do not know what the circumstances are of their visits. I know
you say that you have read all that there is to read on the matter - but have
you READ with a discerning or clouded mind what has been written?
How
much cleared could the reply have written:
"Up to this day, only the Bishops of Mostar - Bishop Zanic,
then Bishop Peric - and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference (dissolved de facto
by the partition of the country after the war) have expressed a judgement on
the events of Medjugorje.
"The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the other hand, has never issued
an official judgment. It has only given directives of a pastoral order."
Public
Pilgrimages are banned by the Church. Full stop.
Private
pilgrimages are permitted - in precisely the same way they are permitted to go
to your own local parish church - or one in the next State, or Country. BUT,
they are ONLY "permitted ON THE CONDITION that they NOT be considered a
validation of events in progress and which still call for examination by the
Church."
Furthermore,
the FBConference response points out "How, in fact, to organize a private
pilgrimage without it being motivated by the conviction that the events of
Medjugorje are of a supernatural origin? Since this conviction is at the origin
of the pilgrimage, does not this latter not become de facto "an
authentication of events in course which still necessitate an examination by
the Church"? " In other words, the pro-Medjugorje sites and promoters
ARE disobeying when they DO organize pilgrimages saying that Our Lady is still
appearing there" - and anywhere else in the world wherever one of the
"seers" may happen to be. Talk about "visions on demand"!
It
is my belief that "bishops and cardinals" who make "private
visits" to Medjugorje in the expectation of an "apparition" (in
the same way as any other lay "pilgrim") is sinning. Yes, sinning. I
hasten to add that I am NOT anyone's spiritual adviser.
As far as Unity Publishing is concerned, I have found them to be an
unreliable source of truthful information.
I
reply:
I have heard other "Medjugorjians" say that and, like you - they have
proffered NO evidence for that (possible) calumny. If you have evidence for
your allegation, "Robert", then please spit it out. Please disabuse
me of Rick Salbato's errors that I may not repeat them. Charity demands it -
surely?
One last thing before I go. This isn't on the topic but figured you
might know more because of your past and your living in Austrailia. What is
your take on Mel Gibson?
I
reply:
At the time Mel Gibson's father, Hutton, was National Secretary of the Latin
Mass Society of Australia, I was National vice-President of that Society. I am
talking of circa. 1976+. Hutton was a Quiz King; a former Californian Railway
man, who - after an injury - immigrated to Australia. He was then a practical
sedevacantist. Mel is his father's son; and, I believe, he believes as his dad
does.
One
thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that I have an open pledge to my
Archbishop - Denis Hart of Melbourne - and to his predecessor, George Pell, now
of Sydney.
If
anyone is scandalized or offended by anything in my files or writings, I ask
them to please e-mail their grievance to my Archbishop, and I will remove any
file - indeed, I will delete my whole website immediately on his very
suggestion.
That
is an open and enduring pledge.
As I mentioned in a previous email, I have no intention of debating
this topic with anyone since I believe it has the tendency to bear bad fruit
for both parties. Unlike others who are "obsessed" with debunking
those "possessed" by Medjugorje, I merely wish to spend my time on
other more important matters. This is also why I haven't been compelled to save
and post all those emails from folks who have attacked me for my acceptance of
Medjugorje. The spirituality I have gained from the Church through Medjugorje
has increased my faith and bore much fruit in my life. Whether Medjugorje is
false and/or the work of an evil spirit is besides the point. I am more than
willing to accept this if proven true. My faith in God and the Church along
with my devotion to the Blessed Mother will not be effected. By the way, please
don't take any of this personally.
God Bless you John.
Your brother in Christ,
O.K.
- no debate! Henceforth, only statements will be made - without expectations of
responses. Information purposes only. (And, I am beyond taking things
personally - as you may see in Statement 2 below :- ) )
STATEMENT
1.
My
interest is in the honor and reputation of the Blessed Virgin Mary - the Mother
of God. I first became interested in these matters subsequent to routinely
hearing "Integrists" parrot an alleged quotation from Our Lady, that
"Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of Antichrist." My
studies led to the production of the file "'Rome Will Lose The Faith And
Become The Seat of Antichrist' - they say!!!" - viewable HERE
In
brief, the alleged quote is (secondarily) from Melanié Calvat's so-called
"Secret of La Salette," but primarily from Luther. Yes, the
Apparition at La Salette (1846) was approved by the local bishop (1851) - but
the so-called "Secret of La Salette" (printed in 1879) and writings
by her associates on the "Secret" - including those of her Spiritual
Director, the Abbé Combe - were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books: and
never withdrawn from the Index.
It
became obvious to me that lies were being put into the mouth of Our Lady by
unscrupulous people intent with their own agenda. I felt obliged to act in Our
Lady's defense.
Other
oddities came to light - such as the much parroted alleged quote from Pope
Urban VIII, that "It is better to believe..." Not one of the sites
quoting that allegation sourced the original document. In fact, while it is far
easier to source a similar (but in the negative) Urban allegation - to
Gallileo, that it would be better if he (Gallileo) did NOT believe in
heliocentrism - there IS an extant Urban VIII document which denies the
parroted alleged claim:
Item
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for Pope Urban VIII:
"He reserved the beatification of saints to the Holy See and in a Bull,
dated 30 October, 1625, forbade the representation with the halo of sanctity of
persons not beatified or canonized, the placing of lamps, tablets, etc., before
their sepulchres, and the printing of their alleged miracles or revelations.
"
Item 2. Page 594 "Acts of the Apostolic See -
Official Brief
THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE GIVES A DECREE CONCERNING
THE COMMONLY CALLED "SECRET OF LA SALETTE."
"2.
Moreover, let people be subject to the sanctions given both by Pope Leo XIII
through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities against those who
publish books dealing with religious things without legitimate permission of
superiors and by Urban VIII through the decree 'Sanctissimus Dominus Noster'
given on 13th March 1625 against those who publish asserted revelations without
the permission of ordinaries. However, this decree does not forbid devotion
towards the Blessed Virgin under the title of Reconciliatrix commonly of La
Salette."
It
is a fact that:
1.
The
"Integrists" make copious use of words attributed to Our Lady at La
Salette.
2.
The
"apparitionists" make copious use of the unsourced (and
contradictory) words of Pope Urban VIII.
"Robert",
I hate lies (and errors)!
I
am a "facts" man - to the best of my ability. On my website - is "Oh What A Web They
Weave..." - a file on the Brindles of Bardstown. What I have written
in this file about these people would be actionable for libel - if it was not
true. Prior to writing the file, I was threatened with legal action by one of
Robert Brindle sons. What I wrote was true and minutely accurate. There has
been neither complaint nor suit.
It
would be difficult, I think, to be totally and absolutely free of all error in
one's writings - despite the desire to remain error free. I am most happy to be
corrected and to make corrections to any errors of fact in my files. So much so
that, as mentioned, I am pledged to remove any file or the whole website at the
mere wish of my Archbishop.
That
is why, I believe that an obligation exists in justice and charity to either
point out the errors of Rick Salbato (so that I may not repear them or remove
them if I have repeated them - or to retract the statement made that "As far as Unity Publishing is
concerned, I have found them to be an unreliable source of truthful
information." The more so because you
used this to dismiss the writings of Brian Hughes on Medjugorje simply because
they were published by Rick Salbato's Unity Publishing.
You
sign off very nicely as "Your brother in Christ", which I freely
acknowledge. But, your "brothers in Christ" also include Rick Salbato
and Brian Hughes, do they not?
STATEMENT
3 (Information)
COMPLAINTS AND INSULTS
On:
THIS FILE
From: SSPXers:
"Bull
shit and wild honey!!!"
Hilary
L
In
another place, on March 10, 2000, this same Hilary uttered the following imprecation
against [myself] Sean Ó Lachtnáin:
"WE
ARE THE ROMAN CATHOLICS PRESERVING THE TRUE FAITH FOR THE NOW AND FOR THE
TOMORROW UNDER THE GREAT ORDER OF THE CATHOLIC SSPX...true, Sean, you may be
Catholic but are you a good Catholic?....I know I am...and may the curse of
Mary Malone and her nine blind illegitimate children chase you so far over the
hills of damnation that the Lord himself can't find you with a
telescope!!"
The
following on March 10, 2000 from the lovely lady: "Since its almost St Patrick's
day a little Irish ditty to Sean...... HERE'S TO WINE, MEN AND SONG. HERE'S TO
WORKDAYS, THAT AREN'T TOO LONG. HERE'S TO SHOES THAT ALWAYS FIT... AND HERE'S
TO SEAN, THE SILLY SH**T!!!"
From
another SSPXer:
"You
are a crackpot and need true mental care. Go check yourself into the local
happy farm."
Another
SSPXer/anti-semite:
Subject:
Novus Ordo Heretics Will Burn in Hell
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
All
followers of Antipope John-Paul II, and those who attend the satanic Novus Ordo
"Mass" will not escape the fires of Hell. The schismatic Novus Ordo
sect, lead by antipope John-Paul II is not the Roman Catholic Church, but the
whore of Babylon!
Homo
deterrime! Sublesta fide. Corruptor iuventutis!
I've
read the slanderous lies you've told about me on your satanic website. Br.
Michael Dimond has nothing to do with my refusal to practice the counterfeit
religion that was concocted at Vatican II. I obey Tradition and infallible
Papal Bulls like Quo Primum Tempore that states that ANYONE who would ever
attempt to make a "New Mass" would incur the wrath of Almighty God
and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. I also notice that like a good
Communist, you think we should marry off our daughters to Negroes and bow down
to Christ-killing Jews. If you do not renounce your heresy, I pray God that I
live to see the day when the likes of you will be put to death as a heretic
according to due process of law.
From:
A New York Priest (Ph.D.)
"Thank
you for your 'open letter' to 'confused traditionalists.' Your writing
illustrates an already established observation, namely that liberals like
yourself, are very good at Naziism.
"If
you bother to subject the writings, and speeches and practices of JP2 to the
same nazi style analysis as you applied to Archbishop Lefebvre, you could
conceivably discover an anti Christ. The one consoling fact that keeps me on
the right side of the de facto schism is that there is simply NO ONE to take
the place of the Nazi liberal pigs, like yourself who have destroyed our
Churches, perverted our Catholic Faith, poisened our children with the vilest
of heresies, and removed the Holy Sacrament from our midst. You have no one to
take your place, and your filthy deeds will die with you.
From:
An OSJite
Viewable HERE
"I
read what you posted about John Brindle.
"I
don't know him, but (based on what I get from you) I like him.
"Attached
is a photo of the current pope. I can tell that you are a great admirer of this
man so I am sure that you will like the photo of him kissing the Koran. After
all, what can a grand apostate like JPII find to argue against a grand heretic
like Mohammed?
"I
do not claim that John Paul II is not the pope. I claim that he is an apostate,
a heretic, a bad pope, and a bad man.
"However,
I do believe in and practice the religion of the popes -- all of the popes up
to John XXIII. As far as I know, they all TAUGHT the religion of Jesus of
Nazareth. That is not to say that they all made a good practice of it, but (at
least) they TAUGHT it.
"Furthermore,
they did not replace the Holy Mass with a damnable sacrilegious insult to Our
Lord and pretend that it is a real Mass.
"This
New Conciliar Religion is not Catholicism. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to
hear knows that. If YOU had a Catholic education in your youth, YOU know it.
From:
Maria Valtorta/Medjugorje adherent:
Viewable HERE
"What
dreadful lies.
What blasphemy to CLAIM that Valtorta's Jesus was homosexual. I have read all 5
volumes. My conversion is testimony to that as well as many other of current
day revelations including Medjugore (sic). To claim that you have read the
volumes and still make this claim is utterly blasphemous.
Please stop carrying on the work of the devil.
Another
Medjugorian:
Please
remove me from your mailing list as I will not read your evil words.
If you continue to send me email, I will notify the proper authorities.
And
another:
Where
do you come off as being judge and jury....Why don't you pray for more humility
[...] I think I'm beginning to understand your problem...you probably wish you
were in the position that God has placed his chosen souls in...well, I'm sorry
to inform you.....there has to be humility and obedience.....and as far as I'm
concerned, you possess neither.
What
gives you the right to judge Medjugorje? I've been there five times. I'd like
to see you or anyone else, cause a 33 foot cross on top of a mountain where
there is no electricity, completely illuminate. And don't tell me it's of the
devil; that jerk would never be responsible for 100 priests celebrating Holy
Mass on the altar. I thought you were intelligent........".......by their
fruits you shall know them." NOW WHAT ARE THE FRUITS OF MEDJUGORJE?
From:
a sort of sede-vacantist:
"...
There is however, a big difference between INCULTURATION, and SPIRITUAL
FORNICATION. This latter is what Sri Abominationeshwara Karol Wojtyla does,
thus meriting for himself the title of the Chief Disciple and Preceptor of the
"Saints Oolla & Ooliba" (Eze. 23) and of their father Balaam
(Num.31: 16). And not the least, the LYING POLE!"
"...Ought
you not to take a break, and rehabilitate your intelligence? (Only an idiot
will argue that a man can be called antipope only in opposition to another
claimant. If a man's claim to a position is false, he is a pretender, whether
or not there is a true claimant.)"
"...Loughnan,
it seems, is either an outright lunatic, or is desperately trying to get there.
It pains me to say so. But consider the extraordinary charges he lays against
me for the use of the name Balaam to describe the antipopes Roncalli through
Wojtyla."
I have the URL to your website so I can browse it in the future. Please
though, I don't wish to receive any more emails of this nature. I applaud you
for your efforts against the SSPX but just don't have the time to spend
discussing this further. As far as Rick Salbato is concerned, I made that
statement because of these:
http://www.mgr.org/Salbato.html
http://www.sdnewsnotes.com/ed/letters/0597lett.htm
On
the basis of two (2) possible errors of fact - you condemn Unity Publishing and
ALL its contributors (including Brian Harris) into the bin of iniquity?
Do
you know whether those two items were true or false? Did you attempt to find
out? If false, did he make a retraction and hence re-habilitate his reputation?
You do not know, do you?
What
I can say categorically, is that the M+G+R site is run by a Miguel de Portugal
- whose real name is Miguel A. Salabarria - the very person mentioned in the
file you reference from M+G+R.
This
person is NOT a Catholic. In fact, you place your trust in a lapsed Catholic
who converted to Orthodoxy. (I am not sure whether or not it is Nestorian.)
In
any event this person has recently written - apropos the so-called "Secret
of La Salette" that "ROME HAS LOST THE FAITH AND VERY SOON WILL
BECOME THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST."
Here
follows my file on Miguel de Portugal. All I can say, "Robert" is -
"good luck"!
Before
providing the file - which I know that otherwise you would not look at, I
remark on your second last post - your statement:
You
wrote:
"Whether Medjugorje is false and/or the work of an evil spirit
is besides the point."
Were
you really thinking about what you were writing? Once more, you have
"gobsmacked" me. I urge you to think on the ramifications of what you
have written. More - I urge you to consult a good Spiritual Advisor on what you
have written! Please view the file on "Miguel de Portugal a.k.a. Miguel A.
Salabarria HERE
May
the good Lord protect you - for it is certain that the false "Gospa"
of Medjugorge is not!
Oct. 16, 2002,
This is my last warning John. I don't wish to debate this. If you have all the
"facts" then I suggest you follow your own conscious. The truth about
Mr. Sabato is that without verifying the facts, he scandalized many innocent
people. That is poor journalism if you ask me and even if he apologized later,
it makes him an unworthy and unreliable source of truth now. I know several
orthodox Catholics who disagree with you on the obedience of those who travel
to Medjugorje. I haven't read anything yet which has changed my mind to agree
with you on this issue.
Thus
- and forthwith, here endeth the "dialogue."
Had
"Robert" the desire to establish the truth of his allegations against
Mr Rick Salbato, he only needed to write to Rick to obtain some enlightenment -
and receive the reply that I did:
Great dialogue. You have a lot of patience to deal with these
people. My experience is that you can convert them if you stay calm and loving
to their slanders.
Regarding their attacks on me, there is one that held water for a
year, but now that same Newsletter is back up on my web site because it was
always a true story, but was removed to save Evaristo's job with John Haffert.
The MGR web site knows that this is not true. They know that I have
put up the same Newsletter again and it is now up just as before because it was
always true. The reason it was taken down is on the attached statement given to
the Court here in Portugal and makes interesting reading.
Rick
Rick's
"Statement for Court by Rick Salbato" may be viewed HERE!!!
An Attempted Dialogue
With A Medjugorje Supporter
Private Revelation,
and
"Illusions," "Apparitions,""Visions" & "Messages"
Sean Ó Ó Lachtnáin's
Home Page