tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post5064501909277480943..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Medjugorje MessagesBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-71820777208602438212019-03-06T22:55:56.285-05:002019-03-06T22:55:56.285-05:00Have just read your excellent and patient post on ...Have just read your excellent and patient post on Medjugorje against its promotion of false ecumenism. As we are now in 2019, things are hotting up ecumenically and interfaith with the recent signing of the document by Pope Francis and the Imam on Human Fraternity. It contains the statement that God positively out of His wisdom, wills a multiplicity of religions. One has to sympathise with the Second Person of the Trinity if this is really the case. All Jesus' talk about 'the way is wide that leads to destruction and many there are who walk in it' contrasted with the Narrow Way which few find, and which in fact dovetails nicely with Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". As to why Medjugorje could have been allowed to run on these many decades, well I think today we have answered that question. I have friends who are firm supporters of Med. and quote 'the fruits' but I dont believe they have approached this apparition theologically and therefore have not seen the road rising up before them of a mega church - indeed a work of human hands.Lounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-45517750066788858622013-10-01T08:10:30.397-04:002013-10-01T08:10:30.397-04:00Graf: The bishop has the duty to judge whether or ...Graf: The bishop has the duty to judge whether or not this is Our Lady.<br /><br />Vicka: He can judge as he wants, but I know it's Our Lady.<br /><br />Graf: The Church says of those who are confident in themselves, that this itself is a sign that Our Lady is not in question here.<br /><br />Vicka: Let those who are doubtful remain doubtful, I'm not.<br /><br />Graf: This is not a good thing . . . you once told the bishop that he should pay more attention to Our Lady than to the Pope.<br /><br />Vicka: Yes I did.<br /><br />Graf: This means that the bishop should listen to you more than to the Pope.<br /><br />Vicka: No, not me.<br /><br />Graf: But the bishop doesn't know what the phenomenon is and perhaps it is not Our Lady.<br /><br />Vicka: Yes it is Our Lady.<br /><br />Graf: You told the bishop that he is to blame and that those two (Vego and Prusina) are innocent and that they can perform their priestly duties.<br /><br />Vicka: Yes I did.<br /><br />Graf: Can they hear confessions? Did Our Lady mention this?<br /><br />Vicka: Yes.<br /><br />Graf: If Our Lady said this and the Pope says that they cannot . . .<br /><br />Vicka: The Pope can say what he wants. I'm telling it as it is!<br /><br />Graf: See, this is how one can come to the conclusion that this is not Our Lady . . .when the Pope says no, they cannot celebrate Mass, and they cannot hear confessions, and then on the other hand, Our Lady says they can do both. This cannot be!<br /><br />Vicka: I know what is right (What Our Lady said).<br /><br />Graf: This cannot be true. I would put my hand into fire to testify that this is not Our Lady speaking. When a person has a greater gift there also exists a greater danger that the devil could be at work upon this person.<br /><br /><br /><br />Alexander’s post from Michael Davies’ book should be enough for any catholic that is truthful with themselves that to be catholic is to be obedient to catholic tradition. There is little point in being catholic if you’re not obedient. What is described above is pure disobedience to the proper authorities of the church. Pilgrim’s constant treatment of hammering away at medj. first without approval by the competent authority, in this case the bishop, but also having a “personal” feeling that this apparition is truly from heaven simply by physically having to fly to medj. to say it is a certainty that it is Our Lady. The “seer” Vicka seems a carbon copy of Pilgrim in that they put aside any authoritative reasoning from the proper authority and simply rely on their own judgment. Pure folly at best, satanic at worst. Vicka “INSISTS” it is Mary appearing without due process has a familiar ring to most medj. followers I’ve heard about. This cultish behavior is indicative of satan . <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-74085972287286017722012-07-26T10:35:28.956-04:002012-07-26T10:35:28.956-04:00"I can not believe that any Medjugorje enthus..."I can not believe that any Medjugorje enthusiast has any authentic respect or reverence for the Mother of God." Overreach to make a point! Apparently, you don't know any of them. If you do, I don't know what to make of your statement... I've read parts of this long thread, and, in general, I'm with Pilgrim... Time will tell.VTAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17368326957470417233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-27279408043845302582009-02-28T13:06:00.000-05:002009-02-28T13:06:00.000-05:00Boniface - I'm listing you in my blogroll. Please...Boniface - I'm listing you in my blogroll. Please don't be scandalized, I'm a Novus Ordo Catholic with an appreciation of most things traditional.<BR/><BR/>I do not expect you to link to me however.<BR/><BR/>Great post - I want to highlight it on my blog, but in a day or two. Thanks again.Terry Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09819523933502820341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-22407025938203849262009-01-09T13:10:00.000-05:002009-01-09T13:10:00.000-05:00Benedict XVI to crack down on Alleged Apparitions ...Benedict XVI to crack down on Alleged Apparitions <BR/><BR/> http://www.papanews.it <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Exclusive:<BR/><BR/>In a “Vademecum” the crackdown by Benedict XVI on Marian apparitions, with a ‘pool’ of theologians, psychiatrists and exorcists at the service of the bishops for exposing false visionaries <BR/><BR/>VATICAN CITY [January 8, 2009] - Civitavecchia and Medjugorje represent the most recent and sensational cases: places where the alleged visionaries say they have had and continue to have apparitions of the Virgin, even if Our Lady would simply give them absolutely inconsistent messages from a theological and spiritual point of view . The result: the faithful are bewildered because of the display that the Church not only has not yet recognized them as truthful, but will hardly approve them in the future. <BR/><BR/>As we know, however, the caution of the Church is very great in the matter: there are hundreds of cases of apparitions rejected and branded as false in the past fifty years. Nevertheless, there are those who continue to swear to see Madonna, drawing to their places crowds of desperate faithful, many times in search of a miracle or a grace that, however, does not come. How then, to deal with this phenomenon? How to prevent the spreading of untruthful messages of the Mother of Christ to mankind? <BR/><BR/>The answers to these and other questions are contained in a ‘directory’ Benedict XVI has made to instruct the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and that will soon be made public and sent to the diocesan bishops of the whole world. With this document, which integrates the Instructions already issued in 1978 by the Vatican, the Pope calls for the greatest severity in the verifications related to the establishment of the truthfulness Marian apparitions. <BR/><BR/>The bishops, having set up a commission of psychiatrists, psychologists, theologians and educators, should impose silence on the pseudo-visionaries. This will be a first test: history teaches, from Lourdes to Fatima, from Guadalupe in La Salette, that those who really have the gift of being in direct contact with the Madonna, follow the directives of the local Church, even in the face of enormous sufferings. Therefore, one who will not remain silent but causes the news of these alleged apparitions to circulate freely, attracting around themselves the presence of the curious, journalists and the faithful in search of a particular grace will have already given a sign that shows the falseness of their mysticism. Mary herself, in fact, would never validate an act of disobedience against a bishop, even if they were in error. <BR/><BR/>The second point: the pseudo-visionaries will be visited by psychiatrists and psychologists, possibly either atheists or Catholics, to certify their mental health and to verify whether or not they are suffering from diseases of a hysterical or hallucinatory character or from delusions of leadership. <BR/><BR/>The third step to do: determine the level of education of the one being proclaimed a ‘mystic’ so as to avoid one who might mislead the church authorities and the faithful after having carefully studied writings on theology and Mariology. In that sense, one who is under investigation by church authorities will be called upon to deliver to the Commission established by the Diocese the informational equipment in his possession, including personal computer, to make it possible to verify whether he has ever done research in the field of apparitions on the Internet, a wealth of information for those wishing to copy or learn the theological meaning of heavenly messages from true visionaries. <BR/><BR/>In the directory, also, the bishops are asked to determine whether pseudo-visionaries have direct or indirect economic interests in connection with the pilgrimages and in the inevitable sale of religious souvenirs in the places where they say they see the Blessed Virgin Mary. <BR/><BR/>Then there is the question of respect for orthodoxy: all that is revealed by the apparitions should not result in being contrary either to the Gospel or doctrine of the Church but be in harmony with them. Needless to say, therefore, that if a visionary attributes to the Madonna phrases or concepts contrary to the Magisterium, he or she is to be considered false. <BR/><BR/>If directly from the analysis nothing abnormal should result, and then the visionary be considered credible, ultimately that visionary will have to be questioned by one or more demonologists and exorcists to exclude the possibility that Satan (as has happened already so many other times in the history of Christianity) is hiding behind the apparitions in order to deceive the faithful. <BR/><BR/>Under the new instructions ready to be issued by the Holy See on behalf of Benedict XVI, who already had to deal with the phenomenon of Marian apparitions during his more than twenty-year mandate as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one can therefore expect a real crackdown with longer, more meticulous and strict processes on the part of the Dioceses, also in order to provide correct information to the faithful, so that no more events will take place like those in Civitavecchia and Medjugorje, where thousands of people continue to come even though the Vatican has never recognized as true and supernatural the phenomena reported there. <BR/><BR/>Of course, according to the ‘Vademecum’ which the Pope had written for the competent Congregation, the same investigative practice will be used if someone should claim to see and talk to Jesus, the angels or the saints, or even (a recent case is in the province of Salerno) manifest the stigmata or say they have statues and sacred images that shed tears in the house. <BR/><BR/>To know the mind of Benedict XVI on the subject, it suffices to remember what he said, while still a Cardinal, to the journalist and author Vittorio Messori: <BR/><BR/>“In this field, more than ever before, patience is a fundamental element. No apparition is indispensable to the faith, Revelation ended with Jesus Christ.”<BR/><BR/>The well-known theologian Rene Laurentin, after years of research, has recorded over 2,450 Marian documented events in the history of the Church. But out of almost 300 requests for investigation initiated in the last century, church authorities have officially certified as true only a dozen appearances. The most recent recognition is that of Our Lady of Laus, in France, which took place May 8, 2008, but the faithful had to wait three centuries before obtaining it. The other approved apparitions are mainly concentrated in Europe (Fatima, La Salette, Tuy, Beauraing, Banneux, Syracuse), but also in Egypt (Zeitun), Syria (Damascus) and Rwanda (Kibeho). <BR/><BR/>At the beginning of this article we mentioned Civitavecchia and Medjugorje; in the first case it is a little girl that claims to have had apparitions of the Virgin. In that context, a statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje placed in the garden of her home would have wept blood; the same phenomenon was supposed to have been repeated in the presence of then Bishop Girolamo Grillo, who was initially skeptical. John Paul II himself, when made aware of what happened, wanted that statue in his private chapel for several hours, but the Vatican has never come out in favor of the apparitions and the tears as being supernatural. <BR/><BR/>More complex is the case of Medjugorje: for more than a quarter of a century, the Madonna would appear every day to the visionaries, and once a month would speak a message for mankind. .But Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Pope's right-hand man, has never hidden his skepticism? Since 1981, Mary would have appeared tens of thousands of times in Medjugorje. This is a phenomenon that cannot even be compared to other Marian apparitions”. For this reason, the Vatican has asked Opera Romana Pellegrinaggi (one of the most important agencies of religious tourism which belongs to the Vicariate of Rome) to delete from their catalogue visits to the most famous place in Bosnia-Hercegovina, where, nevertheless, more than two million faithful are visiting every year. <BR/><BR/>Where is the problem? Two factions have been created: one in favor of the apparitions, and therefore on the side of visionaries; the other one openly sided with the diocesan bishop, Msgr. Ratko Peric, who like his late predecessor, does not believe in the truthfulness of these phenomena, and after never having been listened to, already some time ago requested the alleged visionaries to live a hidden life and not disclose any message attributed to the Madonna. <BR/><BR/>This failure to obey the Bishop would already be enough, according to the ‘Vademecum’ devised by Benedict XVI, to declare the apparitions of Medjugorje to be false.<BR/><BR/>[Amateur translation from the Italian by Fr. Philip Pavich OFM]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-69723356767496988342008-11-28T15:56:00.000-05:002008-11-28T15:56:00.000-05:00I’ve read many of these posts and am reminded agai...I’ve read many of these posts and am reminded again of how defenders of Medjugorje consistently demonstrate virtually no understanding of the Catholic religion or even a elementary sense of logic. To cite one example of the latter, one of the earlier exchanges between Pilgrim and Boniface involved Pilgrim accusing Boniface of inconsistently picking and choosing between what Pilgrim assumes are concessions to the vision when Boniface quite properly explores the fact that the visionaries did not enter the religious life as they were ambiguously encouraged to do by the vision and said they would do in the early history of this charade. It is quite illogical for Pilgrim to accuse Boniface of illogic. Boniface did not concede anything to the vision but obviously explored the “picking and choosing” consistency of the seers themselves. <BR/><BR/>I can not believe that any Medjugorje enthusiast has any authentic respect or reverence for the Mother of God. At best the moral qualities the seers themselves attribute to their vision, whom they claim to be the mother of God, involve a being (or fantasy or hoax) who is emotionally insecure, capricious, ignorant of human history, subservient to the seers, obedient to the seers, snottily dismissive of church authority, snottily dismissive of church doctrine, and venomously uncharitable towards those exercising their Catholic and moral obligation to be skeptical of any claimed apparition. When our lives are over and we have to give an accounting, do we really think Jesus is going to be thrilled if we in any way gave support, actively or passively, to a phenomenon that depicted his mother as a shrew?Venerationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014260832773148510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-37947685116962934692008-09-08T14:59:00.000-04:002008-09-08T14:59:00.000-04:00Pietro says,This is a perfect example of the dange...Pietro says,<BR/><BR/>This is a perfect example of the dangers following so-called visionaries such as in Medjugorje and the like. From Wickipedia:<BR/>The Palmarian Catholic Church (One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Palmarian Church) is a schismatic Catholic church with its own, self-acclaimed pope, Peter II. He is held as an antipope (a false claimant to the papacy) by the Roman Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>The Palmarian Church as a group was established in 1975 by Clemente Domínguez y Gómez, an insurance broker from Seville, Spain, who claimed the Virgin Mary appeared to him at a shrine outside the small village of El Palmar de Troya in Andalucía with instructions to rid the Roman Catholic Church of "heresy and progressivism" as well as Communism.<BR/><BR/>Apparitions of Mary had been reported at the site since March 30, 1968, when four schoolgirls stated they saw her by a little tree on a piece of farmland called La Alcaparrosa. Many people had come to witness the supposed apparitions, and a number of "miracles" similar to those at Fatima, Garabandal and Medjugorje were said to occur. The seers had had many devotees and considerable support from diocesan and regular priests. Several other people had reported visions at the site, including Domínguez y Gomez, and he became the "principal seer". [1] The original seers were forgotten, their visions dismissed as illusions by the local Roman Catholic bishop. [2]<BR/><BR/>Initially the group around Domínguez y Gomez did not style itself as a separate church, but as a new Roman Catholic order of conservative Carmelites (Order of Carmelites of the Holy Face or Carmelite Order of the Holy Face), inspired by the supposed apparitions and which styled itself as "faithful to the holy Pope Paul VI." This canonically unapproved order has claimed that Paul VI (who is still honoured by them as a martyr-pope) was detained in the Vatican by cardinals. Furthermore, the order has been isolated from mainstream Catholicism by its use of hallucinogenic drugs. The order was initially run by laymen, but supported sacramentally by a range of Roman Catholic priests.<BR/><BR/>A key figure in obtaining Holy Orders for the Carmelites of Palmar de Troya was the former Roman Catholic priest (Bernardine canon) Rev. Maurice Revaz. Revaz convinced the elderly Vietnamese Roman Catholic Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc Pierre Martin of the authenticity of the apparitions in Palmar de Troya. Accepting the mystical message of the seer-mystics in Palmar de Troya, the Archbishop believed he was called to raise two of the order's lay members (Dominguez and Corral) and three of the priests associated with the group, to the rank of bishop without seeking permission of the Vatican in 1976. He also ordained some of its lay members to the priesthood to secure the survival of these 'Carmelites.' Thuc and the five men he had consecrated as bishops were subsequently excommunicated by Pope Paul VI because the episcopal consecrations had been conducted without Vatican approval. Thuc cut off association with the Palmar de Troya group and asked Paul VI to be forgiven and absolved of canonical penalties, a request met by the Holy See.<BR/><BR/>In 1978 Clemente Domínguez y Gomez set up his own holy see in Seville claiming he had been mystically crowned pope by Jesus Christ in a vision, and that only he was the legitimate successor to Pope Paul VI. He took the name Pope Gregory XVII and named his own cardinals. By these actions the group formerly known as 'Carmelites of the Holy Face' transformed into the Palmarian Catholic Church. Some of Catholics previously associated with the Carmelites left the group because of this formation of a separate Palmarian Church, which they considered schismatic.<BR/><BR/>Uniquely, the popes of the Palmarian Church do not claim to be the titular Bishop of Rome. Rather, they claim that Christ transferred the position of Patriarch of the West and Supreme Pontiff to the new episcopal see of Palmar de Troya. This is a departure from traditional Roman Catholic doctrine, which identifies the papacy with the Bishop of Rome and holds that personal revelations are not binding on the whole Church.<BR/><BR/>The Palmarian Church claims to have 60 members of clergy (all of whom are bishops), 70 nuns and 2,000 followers. It has chapels in Britain and Latin America as well as Australia and New Zealand.<BR/><BR/>Palmarian Pope Gregory XVII called the Roman Catholic Church a false church, and declared Pope John Paul II excommunicated. He also canonized Francisco Franco, Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer and Christopher Columbus and declared Paul VI a martyr saint (according to the group's claim he had been kept a hostage and drugged in the Vatican while Masonic cardinals usurped his authority).<BR/><BR/>Since 1983 the Palmarian Church has drastically reformed its rites and its liturgy, which previously had been styled in the Tridentine form. The Palmarian liturgy was reduced to almost solely the Eucharistic words of consecration. The See of Palmar de Troya has also declared the real presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogma. By 2004 they had their own version of the Bible, as revised by Dominguez who claimed to have received prophetic authority to do so. This breach with traditional Catholic teaching on the authority of the Bible led to the secession of a dissident group of Palmarian bishops based in Archidona, Spain; they maintain that Dominguez was indeed appointed as Pope by Christ but forfeited his office when he fell into heresy through his claim to rewrite the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Controversial behaviors and practices which are not part of traditional Roman Catholic devotion have been reported of the Palmarian Church since its inception. In the early 1990s, several priests from the faith were treated in local hospitals after apparently undergoing amateur body piercing. Clemente admitted to having sexual congress with nuns, and had previously been active in Seville's homosexual community. [3]<BR/><BR/>Between 1978 and 1983 many adherents left the Palmarian Church, among them key figure Rev. Maurice Revaz who had been consecrated a Palmarian bishop in mid-1976. He was reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II in 1983 (and subsequently laicised) and cut all ties with the Palmar community.<BR/><BR/>A similar case was Alfred Seiwert-Fleige who was ordained a priest for the Carmelites of the Holy Face in early 1976 by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, and consecrated a bishop around 1980. He left the Palmarian Church in 1981 and was finally reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church in 2001 by Pope John Paul II, and concelebrated at a Papal Mass at St. Peter's Square, Rome, after which he was publicly embraced by John Paul II.<BR/><BR/>Domínguez died in March 2005 whilst administering Palmarian Easter Liturgy and supposedly during a vision. His church later declared him to be Pope Saint Gregory, XVII, the Very Great. Manuel Alonso Corral succeeded him as the Palmarian Pope Peter II.<BR/><BR/>Despite the name 'Peter II' the Corrall does not claim to be 'Petrus Romanus', the last Pope, according to the Prophecy of the Popes (controversially accredited to St. Malachy of Ireland and generally disputed among many Catholics and secular scholars alike), as he does not claim to be the Bishop (titular or otherwise) of Rome and has no personal ties to that see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-24169348775320021412008-09-03T18:34:00.000-04:002008-09-03T18:34:00.000-04:00Greg-First, Christ's admonition to judge by fruits...Greg-<BR/><BR/>First, Christ's admonition to judge by fruits presupposes that the doctrine is correct. If doctrine is incorrect, then fruits do not matter, as St. Paul said, "If I or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel than the one you have received, let him be accursed."<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I'm not saying you can't privately believe in these messages, just that you may be foolish to do so.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-61498822994392419172008-09-03T18:23:00.000-04:002008-09-03T18:23:00.000-04:00Boniface says:The end thing of importance is nothi...Boniface says:<BR/><I>The end thing of importance is nothing to do with what supposed good fruits there are from Medjugorje, how many people go there and feel something or not. All that matters is whether or not the seers and the messages are trustworthy, and I hold that they are not. And if they are not, then </I>nothing else matters, not fruits<I>, not how much people love going there, none of it. Only whether or not the messages are true. The Holy Father has NOT approved it (and in the catholic church, </I>an apparition is not true until it is approved, NOT the other way around<I>. The silence of the vatican ought to be interpretd as a condemnation, not as a declaration of validity).</I><BR/><BR/>I will pray for you. In your zeal, you are saying the Holy Scriptures where Jesus says to use the fruits as a test, you Boniface will not listen to -- you will not listen to Jesus on this, you say to all of us.<BR/><BR/>And the Church has not said it is false so it can still be visited and studied by people -- it is incorrect to say until the Church says it is true -- Fatima devotions - the 1st Saturdays etc - were practiced BEFORE Fatima was approved. St. Faustina's painting of "Jesus I Trust in You' was the Divine Mercy chaplet etc were practiced BEFORE Church approval. The Church did not say it was false, or harmful, so it allowed these, and it allows us to visit Medjugorje, too. Religious (priest, nuns etc) cannot say in a Church setting such as a Mass that it is real -- that is not allowed since it implies the Church has approved it and might confuse the faithful. Priests and nuns and all of us can PERSONALLY believe it is real.<BR/>And God's words have been met with confusion - hence we have Protestantism which claims their own Scriptural interpretations, so to say St. Mary's messages must be clear and unable to be distorted by human beings is both a fallacious and specious argument. Think, and more importantly, pray.bobbyfrankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17355677345614398027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-44989581088695366862008-04-14T17:33:00.000-04:002008-04-14T17:33:00.000-04:00It's simple: If something True implies something F...It's simple: If something True implies something False, then it's false. If these apparitios are True, and it's teaching that Catholcism is just one amongst many religions it HAS to be false. Mary would NEVER contradict her son's Church or the rules within the Church. The same goes with anything. It's either all or nothing, it's very black and white.Joe of St. Thérèsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06506671882770822003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-54735409076171466322007-08-25T02:32:00.000-04:002007-08-25T02:32:00.000-04:00You enjoy knocking my character in your last two p...You enjoy knocking my character in your last two posts huh? Looks like your composure is shaken and your lack of a defense still speaks volumes.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-5492496946160684372007-08-23T19:38:00.000-04:002007-08-23T19:38:00.000-04:00I should have responded to one thing Aleander said...I should have responded to one thing Aleander said in his last post: He said he didn’t know why I keep talking to him. Quite simple, really, he keeps asking questions. Here are three more he asked in his last post:<BR/>1. “So why keep responding?”<BR/>2. ...how about saying “I’m done now guys, I’m leaving.”<BR/>3. Also, what do you mean by it speaks volumes? <BR/><BR/>It takes two to converse, but on this occasion, respecting the sensible advice given by Boniface, I shan’t answer any of them. Perhaps silence will now reign from Alexander’s direction, but I doubt it.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-56249399744181165302007-08-23T19:27:00.000-04:002007-08-23T19:27:00.000-04:00I’m cool, Boniface. I’m happy to leave Alexander w...I’m cool, Boniface. I’m happy to leave Alexander with the last word. Thank you for your comment facility. Peace.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-27768427468812974812007-08-23T17:57:00.000-04:002007-08-23T17:57:00.000-04:00As much as I have enjoyed following this extremely...As much as I have enjoyed following this extremely long thread, I think I'm going to have to insist that you guys either cool it or stop posting on this subject; it is obviously going nowhere. If you can regain your composure without constantly questioning why each of you is here, then please feel free to continue, but otherwise knock it off.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-67250346987281082932007-08-23T17:05:00.000-04:002007-08-23T17:05:00.000-04:00“If you don’t want to discuss this and are posting...<I>“If you don’t want to discuss this and are posting no substance whatsoever pertaining to the post topic or my criticisms then there is no reason for you to be here any longer.”??<BR/><BR/>Alexander... on one hand you say I AM mounting a defense, and on the other hand say I am not posting any substance, and there is no reason for me to be here any longer. Such is ambiguity!??What isn’t ambiguous to me is that you just haven’t picked up on what I have repeatedly said: THE REASON I made a comment on this blog was to correct an error in one of the messages posted and to point out the less-than-charitible comments made by Boniface about the visionaries.</I><BR/><BR/>I know perfectly well why you are here. What I don’t know is why you keep talking to me, Notice I said “there is no longer a reason” meaning that you made you point before and talking to me is useless because you are not defending anything I am saying. So why keep responding?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It is yourself, Boniface, and now Anne that has attempted to draw me in to defend Medjugojre when I have clearly stated, many times that I was not here to do that.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Here is what you do then.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You simply say that you are done and you will now be leaving. I was posting here assuming that you would further correct misinterpretation of the seers..<BR/><BR/>You seem to quickly correct Boniface about his information on the seers but when I present something about the seers you ignore it. That is why I am confused.<BR/><BR/>Your initial attempt was to defend the seers; I then started to present more information about the seers to see if you can defend it. You then turn around and say you won’t do it.<BR/><BR/>That’s fine, but how about saying “I’m done now guys, I’m leaving.” But you remain here and try to give me an indirect defense by explaining your experiences with Medjugorje; you were giving a witness.<BR/><BR/>So it’s a bag of confusion; you’re only here to correct Boniface.. but yet stay to witness Medjugorje, but state you aren’t defending it… when you really are.. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I have made responses to your posts out of courtesy, perhaps not answered questions you wanted me to, but wasn’t it made clear at the outset that I would not do this???And yes, it can be frustrating when someone does not respond in a way you would like them to, but had you remained open in the first place then perhaps you may have understood THE REASON. Thank you for your dismissal. It speaks volumes.</I><BR/><BR/>I have remained opened. You are acting in a confusing manner. I have demonstrated this. Maybe you will now try to defend yourself and call it a non-defense?<BR/><BR/>Also, what do you mean by it speaks volumes? <BR/><BR/>I will tell you what speaks volumes: the confusing way you act and your refusal to defend Medjugorje in light of the information I posted. Now that speaks volumes in my opinion.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-51050999206741988492007-08-22T15:56:00.000-04:002007-08-22T15:56:00.000-04:00“If you don’t want to discuss this and are posting...“If you don’t want to discuss this and are posting no substance whatsoever pertaining to the post topic or my criticisms then there is no reason for you to be here any longer.” Alexander... on one hand you say I AM mounting a defense, and on the other hand say I am not posting any substance, and there is no reason for me to be here any longer. Such is ambiguity! What isn’t ambiguous to me is that you just haven’t picked up on what I have repeatedly said: THE REASON I made a comment on this blog was to correct an error in one of the messages posted and to point out the less-than-charitible comments made by Boniface about the visionaries. It is yourself, Boniface, and now Anne that has attempted to draw me in to defend Medjugojre when I have clearly stated, many times that I was not here to do that. I have made responses to your posts out of courtesy, perhaps not answered questions you wanted me to, but wasn’t it made clear at the outset that I would not do this? And yes, it can be frustrating when someone does not respond in a way you would like them to, but had you remained open in the first place then perhaps you may have understood THE REASON. Thank you for your dismissal. It speaks volumes.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-22821442669449553502007-08-22T15:50:00.000-04:002007-08-22T15:50:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-30279468926581455952007-08-21T20:20:00.000-04:002007-08-21T20:20:00.000-04:00Pilgrim wrote:There is no defence neccessary for M...Pilgrim wrote:<BR/><I>There is no defence neccessary for Medjugorje. If people choose to attack or find fault or cannot accept what is going on there, that is their choice.</I><BR/><BR/>Why does Medjugorje not need a defense? The Church Herself always needs a defense against attackers even with all of our good fruit, etc.<BR/><BR/>St. Peter himself stated that we must always be ready to give a defense for the faith. But Medjugorje does not need a defense?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>All I can say is that of the millions of pilgrims who go to Medjugorje, very few return and attack what is going on there.</I><BR/><BR/>Millions of people can be wrong. Shall I go through the list of the world’s largest false religions?<BR/><BR/><I>However the attacks usually stem from those who have never been there. Again, that is their choice.</I><BR/><BR/>I must spend thousands of dollars to go to Medjugorje in order to believe it?<BR/><BR/>You are again mounting a defense whether you will admit to it or not.<BR/><BR/>Your defense here is that most people who attack it have never been.<BR/><BR/>I’ll just do the same thing and say most people who support it cannot answer the damning proof that is before our eyes from many sources especially Davies.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So, Anne, it’s not about a debate not getting anywhere because there isn’t a debate. <BR/><BR/>I’m happy to share my experiences and even those of others, but that proabably isn’t of any real interest to Boniface or Alexander, and I can accept that. I don’t think anything I may say will bring them to accepting the events of Medjugorje and believing that Our Lady is appearing there.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure you can. If you can rebut all the bad things I have read about it, justify all its ambiguity, its very strange 26 year long run and also the scandalous actions of the seers… I’ll believe it.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-72514646589149030622007-08-21T20:11:00.000-04:002007-08-21T20:11:00.000-04:00Anne wrote:They are not the only ones with closed ...Anne wrote:<BR/><I>They are not the only ones with closed minds in this discussion.</I><BR/><BR/>I approached Medjugorje with an open mind. Read the messages and the history behind it from pro-Medjugorje sources and in fact followed the messages for a while. I was even invited to go to Medjugorje, I wanted to but could not. My friend came back, showed me all his pictures and shared his experiences there as well as other’s experiences.<BR/><BR/>I was rather neutral of Medjugorje at this time but always heard the same defenses for it about good fruits, promotion of the Rosary, etc. etc. <BR/><BR/>Then I read Davies’ material and have found no rebut for it. My opinion then changed to rejection.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If this is how closed minded people work then who is opened minded?Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-732193113438552962007-08-21T20:05:00.000-04:002007-08-21T20:05:00.000-04:00“This does not properly defend my claims against a...<I>“This does not properly defend my claims against ambiguity in the messages...”<BR/><BR/>Alexander... I repeat, I am not here to defend Medjugorje or the messages, other than attempt to correct misquotes of the messages and point out any personal attacks on the visonaries.<BR/><BR/>If you see ambiguity in the messages then perhaps this is a reflection of your own heart rather than the messages themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>But trying to explain away ambiguity and then saying it’s all my fault <I>is</I> defending it.<BR/><BR/>We have clearly seen here the ambiguity. That is, a message that can be easily interpreted to mean several things. Just because someone can explain it doesn’t mean others can.<BR/><BR/>The fact that we see some vague and questionable things is enough for us to back off. <BR/><BR/>As I have said, there is no need for this ambiguity with Our Lady or any other genuine apparition, but there seems to be in this case.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If your understanding is that the apparitions are false then all that follows, including the messages, is false. Dismiss the apparitions, then you dismiss the messages.<BR/><BR/>But if your mind is made up that the apparitions are false and your mission is to convince others that the apparitions are false then you will use every means at your disposable to do this, including the messages. I understand this.<BR/><BR/>This is not a problem to me because I have accepted that Our Lady is appearing in Medjugorje. I will not be able to convince others of this, but only bear witness to my own experience and point to the experiences of others. Each must decide for themselves, should they want to. That is why I do not try and defend Medjugorje.</I><BR/><BR/>Well you in fact are defending it. By trying to reconcile the messages you are in fact defending it. Does this make sense?<BR/><BR/>And if that is all you have to say then you seem to be done here since you will not try to defend the information that I have posted which includes bad fruits as well as strange actions from the seers.<BR/><BR/>If you don’t want to discuss this and are posting no substance whatsoever pertaining to the post topic or my criticisms then there is no reason for you to be here any longer.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-14556460483660780112007-08-21T19:30:00.000-04:002007-08-21T19:30:00.000-04:00Anne... perhaps you are assuming that I am here to...Anne... perhaps you are assuming that I am here to debate Medjugorje – is it true or is it false? But that isn’t the case. Boniface has given people a facility to comment on his blog. This is what I have done.<BR/><BR/>I think it is three times now that I have said the reason I made initial comments was to correct one of Our Lady’s messages posted originally by Boniface, and also to point out that criticising the visionaries the way he did was in my opinion, not charitable.<BR/><BR/>Boniface and Alexander have tried to engage me in debate about Medjugorje and I have attempted to present some thoughts of mine from a personal experience of Medjugorje. But that’s as far as I can go. There is no defence neccessary for Medjugorje. If people choose to attack or find fault or cannot accept what is going on there, that is their choice.<BR/><BR/>All I can say is that of the millions of pilgrims who go to Medjugorje, very few return and attack what is going on there. However the attacks usually stem from those who have never been there. Again, that is their choice.<BR/><BR/>So, Anne, it’s not about a debate not getting anywhere because there isn’t a debate. <BR/><BR/>I’m happy to share my experiences and even those of others, but that proabably isn’t of any real interest to Boniface or Alexander, and I can accept that. I don’t think anything I may say will bring them to accepting the events of Medjugorje and believing that Our Lady is appearing there.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-48132243717139816402007-08-21T16:03:00.000-04:002007-08-21T16:03:00.000-04:00Pilgrim, Alexander and Boniface have asked repeate...Pilgrim,<BR/> Alexander and Boniface have asked repeatedly if you could explain your interpretations of certain things regarding Medjugorje, and you simply respond that you are "not here to defend Medjugorje." Then what are you here to do? Everything you have said has been in defense of it, but it seems to me you fall back on this "I'm not here to defend" whenever you cannot come up with a logical explanation of their concerns. Maybe I'm wrong, but if so, please explain to me how I am.<BR/> It seems to me that this debate will go nowhere until you actually take a look at the evidence they are presenting. They are not the only ones with closed minds in this discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-74707847305705699372007-08-21T08:40:00.000-04:002007-08-21T08:40:00.000-04:00“This does not properly defend my claims against a...“This does not properly defend my claims against ambiguity in the messages...”<BR/><BR/>Alexander... I repeat, I am not here to defend Medjugorje or the messages, other than attempt to correct misquotes of the messages and point out any personal attacks on the visonaries. <BR/><BR/>If you see ambiguity in the messages then perhaps this is a reflection of your own heart rather than the messages themselves. <BR/><BR/>If your understanding is that the apparitions are false then all that follows, including the messages, is false. Dismiss the apparitions, then you dismiss the messages.<BR/><BR/>But if your mind is made up that the apparitions are false and your mission is to convince others that the apparitions are false then you will use every means at your disposable to do this, including the messages. I understand this.<BR/><BR/>This is not a problem to me because I have accepted that Our Lady is appearing in Medjugorje. I will not be able to convince others of this, but only bear witness to my own experience and point to the experiences of others. Each must decide for themselves, should they want to. That is why I do not try and defend Medjugorje.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-49167865873528372722007-08-21T00:40:00.000-04:002007-08-21T00:40:00.000-04:00Alexander... “So then the Medjugorje message’s sho...<I>Alexander... “So then the Medjugorje message’s should have their prime focus on faith and conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic faith. Is this the case?”<BR/><BR/>I do know that Our Lady asks that we should pray for those who have yet to know the love of God in their hearts. Some refer to these as “unbelievers”. But Our Lady never refers to these people as “unbelievers”. </I><BR/><BR/>Another case of ambiguity.<BR/><BR/><I>She also addresses her messages with ‘Dear Children’ not ‘Dear Catholics’. It seems that her call is to all of God’s children. The absence of faith, hope and love is not exclusive to any group.</I><BR/><BR/>But is there no explicit call to covert non-Catholics to the Catholic faith? If not what you tried to reconcile above is just shifting through more ambiguity.<BR/><BR/>Mary is the Mother of the Church by virtue of her Son. That is all who are apart of the Body of Christ can call Mary their mother. And to be a son of God you must go through Christ and be made one as Scripture indicates in John 1. Since non-Catholics are not apart of the Church they cannot be properly called children of Mary since they are separated from the body of Christ.<BR/><BR/>But since no explicit indicate of who ore what children are in the messages it is just another case of ambiguity.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It is good to pray for the conversion of sinners, because this is recognition that we are sinners ourselves and all in need of daily conversion of the heart to attain the peace that God wishes us to have, rather than the false peace the world has on offer.<BR/><BR/>This is what I understand to be the meaning in today’s Gospel when Jesus says, “Do you suppose that I am here to bring peace on the earth? No, I tell, you but rather division.”<BR/><BR/>It is a peace not as the world knows but the peace that comes from heaven. There is a difference.<BR/><BR/>This why peace can only come through faith, hope and love, three gifts that last and that we take to Paradise. This is the peace Our Lady talks about in her messages.</I><BR/><BR/>The true virtue of faith, the only faith that can please God, is the Catholic faith. Hope is the virtue tied to this faith and love is a good work that can only yield justification if done in Christ. All this things point towards conversion to the Catholic faith.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Yes, the desire for peace is written in everyone’s heart by God. We seek it in all sorts of places and all sorts of ways but until we receive and understand the peace that Jesus and his Mother speak about and wish to bestow, then we will continue to be restless in our ways and searching in the wrong places. <BR/><BR/>And you must know Alexander that not all Catholics are at peace with themselves or with God. Being a Catholic does not guarantee peace in any person’s heart. If it did, why is there the crisis you talk about in the Catholic Church?</I><BR/><BR/>Because people have abandoned the true virtues of faith, hope and/or love. They remain in the Church but may only be Catholic in name. For example, they may do very well in the area of good works but are perverted in the area of doctrine or anything that can harm true doctrine like invocating scandalous events or watering down eternal signs and prayers in worship.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Finally, how can any of us evangelize the love and peace of God to anyone if we do not possess the gift ourselves. We cannot give if we do not possess. Peace and love can only be demonstrated and given to others if we possess peace and love in our own hearts.<BR/><BR/>As I said in another post, war begins in the heart. So does peace and love.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your patience and responses to my posts, Alex.</I><BR/><BR/>This does not properly defend my claims against ambiguity in the messages which has no explicit call to convert non-Catholic as the primary goal, excess spending of money from the seers and of course the information I quoted above that you have ignored. Have you a defense for the information I quoted above?Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-73000739671825297922007-08-19T13:45:00.000-04:002007-08-19T13:45:00.000-04:00Alexander... “So then the Medjugorje message’s sho...Alexander... “So then the Medjugorje message’s should have their prime focus on faith and conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic faith. Is this the case?”<BR/><BR/>I do know that Our Lady asks that we should pray for those who have yet to know the love of God in their hearts. Some refer to these as “unbelievers”. But Our Lady never refers to these people as “unbelievers”. <BR/><BR/>She also addresses her messages with ‘Dear Children’ not ‘Dear Catholics’. It seems that her call is to all of God’s children. The absence of faith, hope and love is not exclusive to any group.<BR/><BR/>It is good to pray for the conversion of sinners, because this is recognition that we are sinners ourselves and all in need of daily conversion of the heart to attain the peace that God wishes us to have, rather than the false peace the world has on offer.<BR/><BR/>This is what I understand to be the meaning in today’s Gospel when Jesus says, “Do you suppose that I am here to bring peace on the earth? No, I tell, you but rather division.”<BR/><BR/>It is a peace not as the world knows but the peace that comes from heaven. There is a difference.<BR/><BR/>This why peace can only come through faith, hope and love, three gifts that last and that we take to Paradise. This is the peace Our Lady talks about in her messages. <BR/><BR/>Yes, the desire for peace is written in everyone’s heart by God. We seek it in all sorts of places and all sorts of ways but until we receive and understand the peace that Jesus and his Mother speak about and wish to bestow, then we will continue to be restless in our ways and searching in the wrong places. <BR/><BR/>And you must know Alexander that not all Catholics are at peace with themselves or with God. Being a Catholic does not guarantee peace in any person’s heart. If it did, why is there the crisis you talk about in the Catholic Church?<BR/><BR/>Finally, how can any of us evangelize the love and peace of God to anyone if we do not possess the gift ourselves. We cannot give if we do not possess. Peace and love can only be demonstrated and given to others if we possess peace and love in our own hearts.<BR/><BR/>As I said in another post, war begins in the heart. So does peace and love.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your patience and responses to my posts, Alex.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035noreply@blogger.com