Friday, August 24, 2007

Mary says we must believe Medjugorje to be "accepted."

We know as Catholics that private revelation does indeed happen. It happened to St. Francis when he received the stigmata, to St. Bernadette, to St. Juan Diego and to Sr. Lucia of Fatima. However, such revelations are very rare and are not the norm for the Catholic believer. As Msgr. Peric of Mostar points out, "One must also recall that apparitions are always something "extraordinary", rare, and this is an important element for their discernment. If apparitions were to occur on a daily basis in the life of a believer, or if they were to continue for years, this would obviously create serious problems for the theology of faith."

Besides their rarity, we know that private revelations command no obedience on the part of the faithful. Neither does the fact that the Church has approved an apparition mean that we must believe it; it only means that the revelation contains nothing harmful to faith or morals. Catholics are perfectly free to reject the messages of Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe and others and still be good Catholics. A sure sign of a true private revelation is that it does not insist that others believe it and a true visionary never gets impatient when others do not believe their message. Rather, they wait for God to decide all things and offer up their trials as penance.

Now, let's look at this message from Mirjana on March 18, 1996 (at this point she was only receiving one "message" per year on her birthday). In this message, Mary tells us:

Do not reject from yourself the name of God, that you may not be rejected.
Accept my messages that you may be accepted. Decide, my children, it is the time
of decision. Be of just and innocent heart that I may lead you to your Father,
for this that I am here, is his great love. Thank you for being here!

"Accept my messages that you may be accepted?" I don't know, but this sounds an awful lot like Mary is insinuating that one must believe in the Medjugorje messages in order to be "accepted", whatever that means. It seems to imply accepted by God (ie, saved) because in the previous sentence she supposedly says "Do not reject from yourself the name of God, that you may not be rejected." Rejection by God certainly means damnation; what else can it mean? Here Mary is saying that we must accept her messages if we want to be accepted. This is a pretty bold demand! Especially since on September 4th, 1982 Mary said, "Jesus prefers that you address yourselves directly to Him rather than through an intermediary." So if we need no intermediary, how can Mary say we need to accept her messages in order to be "accepted"?

Furthermore, a true visionary does not get impatient when they are faced with trials and tribulations; they see these as the working out of God's will in their lives and trust in Him to plan all things according to His purpose. Yet on October 20th, 1981, Vicka asks Gospa: "Dear Gospa, have mercy on Fr. Jozo tomorrow during the trial. Paralyze someone; strike someone on the head. I know it is a sin to speak so, but what can we do?" Here we have Vicka asking Mary something that she admits is sinful. Does she repent? No! She pretty much says, "But what can we do?" Did any of the saints ever ask God for anything about which they said "I know it is a sin to speak so"? Did Bernadette ask Mary to "paralyze" the prosecutor of Lourdes? Of course not! These should be signs to anyone who cares to judge the evidence that these apparitions cannot be true.

It is not my intent to be "uncharitable" in pointing this out; I am merely stating what should be a red flag to any lover of authentic Catholic Tradition. There is nothing uncharitable about testing all things and holding to what it good (1 Thess. 5:21).

I remind you all that you can read all of the messages for yourself at this website, run by the pro-Medjugorje Fr. Laurentin.

10 comments:

Pilgrim said...

Boniface, I am sure you will agree when you dissect anyone’s mesage or conversation a different meaning can be implied. So I feel it is only right to present the full message so that others can read it in context.

“Dear children! On this message, which I give you today through my servant, I desire for you to reflect a long time. My children, great is the love of God. Do not close your eyes, do not close your ears, while I repeat to you: Great is his love! Hear my call and my supplication, which I direct to you. Consecrate your heart and make in it the home of the Lord. May he dwell in it forever. My eyes and my heart will be here, even when I will no longer appear. Act in everything as I ask you and lead you to the Lord. Do not reject from yourself the name of God, that you may not be rejected. Accept my messages that you may be accepted. Decide, my children, it is the time of decision. Be of just and innocent heart that I may lead you to your Father, for this that I am here, is his great love. Thank you for being here! ”

So what is the message that Our Lady gives that she does not want to be rejected? Surely it can only be the same message that Jesus gives to all of us – the Gospel message, when he says: “The kingdom of God is close at hand. Repent and believe the Good News.”

Extracting snippets from Our Lady’s messages to present an arguement against the validity of the apparitions is like trying to supress the evidence. Of course, a prosecutor will attempt to do this. It is not in his interest to present the full truth or reveal the full extent of Our Lady’s meaning, whether he understands or not

Only the blind will fail to see or recognise that Our Lady’s words in the above message point the way to God and not to herself. You know, I know, all Catholics know, that Our Lady mediates on our behalf and leads us to Jesus, not to herself. Her words are simply the Gospel message. She is Queen of Prophets.

Our Lady’s messages are better understood as a whole and in context with all of the messages she is giving from Medjugorje.Our Lady is the Mother of the Church and with the power of the Holy Spirit guides her children and the Church on earth.

Only this week Pope Benedict XVI said these words in concluding an address he made yesterday.

“May the Virgin Mary, who watches over us from Heaven, help us not to forget that here on earth we are only passing through, and may she teach us to prepare ourselves to encounter Jesus, who is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”

Read this in the light of the message I have posted and there isn’t any conflict.

Alexander said...

It says accept my "messages" not "accept this message” meaning you have to accept all of them.

Further the message you posted is too vague to be considered the Gospel Message.

But anyway, I don't accept the Medjugorje messages but I accept the Gospel. Where does that put me? In rejection or acception?

Pilgrim said...

“But anyway, I don't accept the Medjugorje messages but I accept the Gospel. Where does that put me? In rejection or acception?

Alexander... Why ask me this question? We both know the answer. It’s useless to try and draw me into responding to a question based on an untruth. Try and understand the message as a whole and not isolate a sentence and infer a meaning that is not intended. That‘s why I posted the complete message.

Alexander said...

Just what are these messages then? I thought they were about peace.

Your interpretation makes no sense to me. I reject the Medjugorje, so therefore I must be rejecting the Gospel. But I do not reject the Gospel.. so I must be accepting Medjugorje? No of course not. I do not believe that the Gospel message is being fully conveyed at Medjugorje since I have not read any messages about the necessity to convert non-Catholics to the Catholic faith.
The quote you provided explicitly states I must accept her messages in order to be accepted. It further clarifies this form the previous sentences by talking about her communications in Medjugorje. The context is very clear; I must accept her Medjugorje messages in order to be accepted by God. I am reading this from your quote by the way, just as I did in my first response so don’t claim I am reading anything in isolation.

Unless you want to claim this is more ambiguity instead of merely an error. Which in this case you must do so because there is nothing in the message that explicitly states that she means the Gospel message and not a private revelation. But in this case I don’t buy the ambiguity excuse, I think its just a flat out error.

Pilgrim said...

Alexander... your wasting your time, I said I will not be drawn by you to respond to a question based on your false interpetation of a line in the message taken out of context. Your latest attempt to prove the validity of the point you are trying to make does not change the truth. So it’s a pointless exercise that leads down another blind alley.

Pilgrim said...

Alexander... today, by chance(?), I came across this Medjugorje message of Our Lady. It may help you understand a bit better why I say Our Lady brings only the Gospel message.

10th Anniversary message, June 25, 1991

“Dear children! Today on this great day which you have given to me, I desire to bless all of you and to say: these days while I am with you are days of grace. I desire to teach you and help you to walk the way of holiness. There are many people who do not desire to understand my messages and to accept with seriousness what I am saying. But you I therefore call and ask that by your lives and by your daily living you witness my presence. If you pray, God will help you to discover the true reason for my coming. Therefore, little children, pray and read the Sacred Scriptures so that through my coming you discover the message in Sacred Scripture for you. Thank you for having responded to my call.”

Alexander said...

Alexander... your wasting your time, I said I will not be drawn by you to respond to a question based on your false interpetation of a line in the message taken out of context. Your latest attempt to prove the validity of the point you are trying to make does not change the truth. So it’s a pointless exercise that leads down another blind alley.

My original question was based on your interpretation and your context.

But instead of just repeating yourself, how about engaging my post and demonstrating where the false interpretation is? I honestly do not see what you are talking about in regards to my analysis.

It is very simple:

“Hear my call and my supplication, which I direct to you. Consecrate your heart and make in it the home of the Lord. May he dwell in it forever. My eyes and my heart will be here, even when I will no longer appear. Act in everything as I ask you and lead you to the Lord. Do not reject from yourself the name of God, that you may not be rejected. Accept my messages that you may be accepted.”

The context is very clear. It is talking about the messages in Medjugorje based on the bolded parts above. Notice how the previous sentences talk about her communications at Medjugorje and also about what she asks them to do. It is painfully clear that the context is not merely about a potential Gospel message but also about her dealings in Medjugorje; messages and all.

So that means you must accept the Medjugorje messages in order to be accepted. Now show me how I am wrong in this analysis instead of repeating yourself about “anger” or “false interpretations” or whatever accusations you would like to throw at me.





Alexander... today, by chance(?), I came across this Medjugorje message of Our Lady. It may help you understand a bit better why I say Our Lady brings only the Gospel message.

10th Anniversary message, June 25, 1991

“Dear children! Today on this great day which you have given to me, I desire to bless all of you and to say: these days while I am with you are days of grace. I desire to teach you and help you to walk the way of holiness. There are many people who do not desire to understand my messages and to accept with seriousness what I am saying. But you I therefore call and ask that by your lives and by your daily living you witness my presence. If you pray, God will help you to discover the true reason for my coming. Therefore, little children, pray and read the Sacred Scriptures so that through my coming you discover the message in Sacred Scripture for you. Thank you for having responded to my call.”


I understand this but it is really not clear enough. A protestant can tell me to read Scripture and pray about it. I can read Scripture in the Catholic context and therefore it would be the true Gospel. Many can read this and turn to Scripture and become lost or lead into error because their experience and understanding of Scripture may be low.

This message reads very generic to me anyway and even though there is nothing malicious in this message I am well aware that people can mask their lies and/or true intentions with seemingly good propositions, advice, or orthodox message; it is done all the time. That is why I posted the information about the seers in the other discussion to see if there was a rebut for it.

Pilgrim said...

“...how about engaging my post and demonstrating where the false interpretation is?”

Alexander, it’s the same question, rephrased, with the same intention to engage me on a part of the message you have misconstrued. So the same answer applies. I posted the full message. So I have made my point and that’s enough for me.

No point discussing when you are not prepared to listen. I only repeat myself when you keep coming back to me on the same point.

Alexander said...

“...how about engaging my post and demonstrating where the false interpretation is?”

Alexander, it’s the same question, rephrased, with the same intention to engage me on a part of the message you have misconstrued. So the same answer applies. I posted the full message. So I have made my point and that’s enough for me.

No point discussing when you are not prepared to listen. I only repeat myself when you keep coming back to me on the same point.


Show me where my exegesis is flawed, please. I already read your analysis twice and I have countered it. This is an honest question.

I have already stated that I have read your context. I carefully went over the message and showed you my rebut and interpretation. I have listened full and well and I am sick of these accusations that make me look like I am not listening to you. All here can see that I have fully engaged what you have said and ironically you are the one who is not listening nor seem to have the ability to fully engage me.

Alexander said...

I’ll make this simple.
First read the context of the post which I have provided a few posts ago (I bold some words in the message in that post).

The context is about the Medjugorje messages.

Even if there is a full Gospel message in the Medjugorje messages (which there is not) the context is still about the Medjugorje messages. So it’s about both. Does this make sense?

You cannot get around the fact that the context of the message you provided is talking about “Our Lady’s” messages to the seers in Medjugorje. Even if the full Gospel message is contained in them it is still talking about the Medjugorje messages.

Therefore, it is saying you must accept the Medjugorje messages not merely the Gospel in ordered to be accepted.



The second part of my argument is this:

No where in the text is it explained that to accept the Medjugorje messages is to accept the Gospel. Therefore it is ambiguous in this regard (regarding whether or not it is talking about accepting merely the Gospel message).
With ambiguity comes a warning sign. Like we discussed before Our Lady in no way would make things ambiguous or unclear. This is not possible for someone in the Beatific Vision to leave out key terms, phrases that reveal the context. This issue also raises red flags.

This is my analysis. Now demonstrate where I am wrong. You did not engage my analysis of the text, you engaged Boniface’s analysis of the sentence within the text, that is entirely different.


So now I hope you see that my explanation has cleared up some confusion. You cannot say your response to Boniface is the same to me. I have already went over the message in detail and brought up many points which you have not countered and which Boniface has not went over.

So it is not the same as you are claiming.