I don’t generally post much about Medjugorje, but this I must share.
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has directed that bishops be advised that
“clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.”
The combox moderation queue is ON.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.
WDTPRS
020 8133 4535
651-447-6265
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “Here (Scandinavia) it’s Novus Ordo only. We have Polish priests, and it is my belief they are so pious that…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “My mom, 87, said when asked about the transition circa 1962 et seq.: ‘We just accepted it.’ She added, I…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “sibnao says: In my mom’s case (the only person among us who remembers the Mass before 1969) she seems to…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “Honest question. I’ve seen this myself in Southern California, a place of liturgical diversity. You can drive 30 minutes in…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “Sheesh, I think a lot of people want the NO. I come from a very conservative, devout family with a…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “I agree with Fr. Hunwicke that nobody really likes the NO. Some people may be satisfied with it, but I…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “To answer Fr. Hunwike’s question: I strongly suspect that there are indeed priests who would prefer the NO over the…”
on Rome Shot 88: “Ss. Simon and Jude, apostles, are buried beneath the altar (which the sign in front of the iron grille mentions,…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: ““[W]e may ask ourselves why, if the principal objective of the liturgical reform was to make the Holy Mass intelligible,…” on ASK FATHER: “If a priest blesses something without following the ritual, is it really blessed? (BAD NEWS!): “I don’t think most people on here have anything to worry about, and have a few points I can add…” on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “Not unrelated to Fr. Hunwicke’s question is this one: was there in fact a need for the Novus Ordo? Personally,…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “Let the Novus Ordo be considered in three parts: 1.) The Theory of it. 2.) The Structure of it. 3.)…”
on Fr. Hunwicke asks a hard question. Fr. Z thinks he deserves an answer.: “Another excellent article from Fr Hunwicke. I fear that the answer to his question about the Ordinary Form is going…”
on Terrific podcast at Crisis with Scott Hahn. Don’t delay.: ““I am reminded, however, of the fact that Western Civilization was saved after the decline of Rome by withdrawing for…”
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful.
That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
My "challenge coin" for my 25th anniversary of ordination in 2016.
Want one? I do exchanges with military and LEOs, etc.
Loading ...If you travel internationally, this is a super useful gizmo for your mobile internet data. I use one. If you get one through my link, I get data rewards.
Loading ...
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
“That the Bishops of the United States be advised, ONCE AGAIN…”
Yes…. Once again they are being advised once again….
I see a pattern here, once again…
I don’t recall hearing of the referenced February 2013 letter. What did that one say? I guess it was basically the same message, based on what is said about it here.
It makes me happy to see the local Bishops publicly upheld, instead of the usual criticisms I have heard. There once were very critical attitudes after a certain Queens housewife and her followers refused the direction of the Bishop of the Brooklyn diocese on the excuse that he was obstructing God’s grace.
I think that they made the proper move. Medjugorje, no matter how many supporters and believers it has around the globe, is still not approved, so to ask those involved to refrain from scheduling any events promoting the apparitions is no surprise. While I myself do believe the apparitions to be authentic, I will obey and accept any ruling that the Vatican Commission declares as to its authenticity. As Catholics, we must obey our bishops, wether we agree with the decision or not.
This is a test of obedience to those who beleve in the apparitions. True apparitions do not incite behavior contrary to the teachings of the church. “By your fruits, you shall know them.” However, it will be interesting how a certain (unamed for privacy’s sake) organization here in the USA that is closely tied to the Medjugorje apparitions reacts. I’ll be keeping my eye on them as the days roll on, to see if they will obey this directive from the Apolistic Nuncio, as well as the individual visionaries themselves.
Interesting. I’m open to it if the church ever approves, but that being said, I’m not a supporter of it.
My gut just says it doesn’t seem right. Every other apparition I know of lasted a short period of time, and the visionaries stayed together. Obviously, it’s still happening, and from what I underatand, there’s been disputes between the various visionaries. Just doesn’t ring true to my ears.
“I don’t generally post much about Medjugorje, but this I must share.” Ditto. And did (on my Canon Law facebook page).
I think this all but closes the books on M: Non constat.
Thank you, Father, for posting this letter.
I think a lot of people are drawn to Medjugorje because they’re looking for something new and exciting. But… approved apparitions tend to reiterate Church teachings, because the Truth doesn’t change.
I’ve been hoping the Green Bay apparition will draw off some of the support for the…less normal…ones. After all, it’s bishop-approved, and it’s close by! No luck so far, though. Apparently the message of catechizing the children in this wild land only appeals to DREs. Even though, frankly, the Wisconsin apparition, old as it is, is more relevant to current problems in the US Catholic Church than Medjugorje is. But “Mary wants kids to learn their prayers and receive the sacraments” is apparently just… not cool enough.
I find the wording of the last line interesting. It doesn’t forbid gatherings or celebrations outright; it forbids them when the credibility of the apparitions is taken for granted. Which makes me ask: isn’t this exactly what the Church says about ANY private revelation that has not yet received formal approval? I am pretty sure we would never be permitted to “take for granted” the authenticity of an apparition (locution, revelation, etc, etc, etc.) that has not yet received formal approval. So unless I am wrong on this, the letter really isn’t saying anything new, nor is it saying anything about Medjugorje that it wouldn’t say about other, similar apparitions (whether other contemporary ones, or even ones that occurred centuries ago upon which the Church has never rendered a formal judgment.) At least that’s how I read it. It just strikes me as odd that if the intention was to say, “any gatherings related to Medjugorje are from this moment onwards completely and totally banned without exception” it could have easily said that. In fact, it SHOULD have said that. But it didn’t. It said no participation where the authenticity is “taken for granted.” So is that because the nuncio is just poor at wording his letters, and intended to ban all gatherings and just worded his letter in a particularly indirect and overly-wordy fashion? Or is it because a total and complete ban on any gatherings related to Medjugorje is not what the letter was intending to do?
Dans0622 said he doesn’t recall seeing the February 27 letter.
That is probably because that one was not leaked and this one, I’m presuming has been, since it is not found on the USCCB website. If it was leaked, I’m glad it was because it will be a little more difficult to avoid the message now that it is public.
Also, note that the first letter was sent on February 27, just one day before Pope Benedict XVI ended his pontificate, which he announced on February 11. Anyone who thought that Medjugorje was going to get a free ride under Pope Francis is mistaken.
It certainly doesn’t answer the question of Medjugorje, but does not bode well that the Holy See decided specifically not to turn a blind eye to promotion of this poster child for unapproved “apparitions”.
Among the many takea aways from Medjugorje, once the question has been formally answered (and I believe it will soon enough), is that damage is done to the unity of the Church when other bishops allow visionaries of the unapproved to have manifestations of “apparitions” in their dioceses (and Cathedrals!!!) It is like mother and father disagreeing before children.
One of the things that has offended me most in this case is that the Bishop of Mostar has been castigated, and even treated with disrespect from his brother bishops. No bishop of the former Yugoslavia has permitted any of these visionaries a promotional stage as they have been given in the US, in Italy, and in a few other countries.
That is why this one, in my humble opinion, got away from the Church in the first place. There is an unwritten protocol to not allow visionaries from another diocese a platform when their own bishop doesn’t grant it.
Clarification – when I said the Bishop of Mostar has been castigated, I did not mean by other bishops. I did mean that he has been treated with disrespect by other bishops who permitted the pilgrims to bring the forbidden pilgrimage to their dioceses and Cathedrals.
I’ve seen a few different spellings for Medjugorje but not this one.
How long before the letter is dismissed for that reason?
Appearences have been cancelled
http://www.medjugorjetoday.tv/10112/rome-bans-apparitions-in-u-s-churches/
I do wish that the Church authorities would hurry up and pronounce on these so called apparitions one way or another.
Over the last few months I have come across several people who became all starry eyed when they mentioned that they were regular pilgrims to Medjugorje. Only last weekend a lady told me about her visits there and how every day over a loudspeaker the daily message supposedly from Our Lady is relayed to the faithful. If and when this is finally pronounced a hoax there are going to be many disappointed people whose Faith will be sorely tested.
I am closing the combox. Discussion isn’t really needed.
Thanks for this post, I appreciate it.
Pingback: Newspaper Clippings | Family in Feast and Feria
Pingback: Arranger: Restrictions only seemingly bad | Our Lady Prays
Pingback: CU Weekly 247: Call Me Captain Justice | The Catholic UndergroundThe Catholic Underground