The 1991 Zadar document is not 'history.' It remains the ruling document on Medjugorje. Even the Vatican admits to that and there has been nothing of late that has repealed or overturned Zadar 1991.
If it didn't have a role, the Medjugorje supporters would have nothing to stand on. That is, in their misinterpretation of the document.
-KJS
Kairos magazine (story on medj)....tsk tsk
-
KevinSymonds
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am
Ok, here's my take on things, though please be advised that it is colored by a slight disorientation of the head due to illness.
It seems to me that people are going back and forth on various issues. Let me address one of them.
1) Jurisdiction.
-There is a LOT of ignorance regarding Medjugorje. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me to learn that one Bishop says one thing while another does something opposite.
-Bishop Peric and the Yugoslavian Bishops have forbidden official pilgrimages (already defined as given by MarieT) to Medjugorje. Bishop Peric's official position on Medjugorje is known and available, just ignored (choosing 'apparitions' over the God-given authority of the Church).
-So what we have here is a question of jurisdiction. What right does Bishop Peric have to prohibit pilgrims from Melbourne, Boston, London, etc., when he is not the Bishop of those places?
-The answer is quite simple. It is the law of the Church that the local ordinary normally decides these affairs. NOT ROME. Rome can only become involved if it either
A: is asked by the local Bishop to help
B: the matter is especially dire and Rome reserves the case to itself.
C: someone in Peric's Diocese complains of foul dealings after a commission (or the Bishop) rules negatively and canonically appeals to Rome. Even then, Rome can refuse the case, especially if it finds no grounds for an appeal.
-Peric has already stated that he would not care if Rome took the case but it has not to this day. Simple matter is, Rome has not ruled on it and the ball is in Peric's corner, not the Bishops of Croatia (as Medj. supporters claim) or anyone else. What Peric decides, Rome will more than likely go with.
-Thus, if Peric says "constat de non supernaturalitater" (not of supernatural origin), then all Catholics of good will and faith are OBLIGED to adhere to his judgment and NOT go to Medjugorje. That is the spirit and letter of the law as stated and promulgated BY Rome.
-It seems to me that the real question we must ask ourselves is, why would I want to go to an alleged apparition site that has been condemned by the local Bishop? It's a question of faith, charity, prudence and obedience.
-People continuing to go to Medjugorje despite these warnings have placed themselves dangerously close to schism through disobedience. All Catholics should crouch in fear of such possibilities and reject them as satanic. That is what our holy and divine Catholic faith tells us to do in these matters.
That's all that needs to be said.
-KJS
It seems to me that people are going back and forth on various issues. Let me address one of them.
1) Jurisdiction.
-There is a LOT of ignorance regarding Medjugorje. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me to learn that one Bishop says one thing while another does something opposite.
-Bishop Peric and the Yugoslavian Bishops have forbidden official pilgrimages (already defined as given by MarieT) to Medjugorje. Bishop Peric's official position on Medjugorje is known and available, just ignored (choosing 'apparitions' over the God-given authority of the Church).
-So what we have here is a question of jurisdiction. What right does Bishop Peric have to prohibit pilgrims from Melbourne, Boston, London, etc., when he is not the Bishop of those places?
-The answer is quite simple. It is the law of the Church that the local ordinary normally decides these affairs. NOT ROME. Rome can only become involved if it either
A: is asked by the local Bishop to help
B: the matter is especially dire and Rome reserves the case to itself.
C: someone in Peric's Diocese complains of foul dealings after a commission (or the Bishop) rules negatively and canonically appeals to Rome. Even then, Rome can refuse the case, especially if it finds no grounds for an appeal.
-Peric has already stated that he would not care if Rome took the case but it has not to this day. Simple matter is, Rome has not ruled on it and the ball is in Peric's corner, not the Bishops of Croatia (as Medj. supporters claim) or anyone else. What Peric decides, Rome will more than likely go with.
-Thus, if Peric says "constat de non supernaturalitater" (not of supernatural origin), then all Catholics of good will and faith are OBLIGED to adhere to his judgment and NOT go to Medjugorje. That is the spirit and letter of the law as stated and promulgated BY Rome.
-It seems to me that the real question we must ask ourselves is, why would I want to go to an alleged apparition site that has been condemned by the local Bishop? It's a question of faith, charity, prudence and obedience.
-People continuing to go to Medjugorje despite these warnings have placed themselves dangerously close to schism through disobedience. All Catholics should crouch in fear of such possibilities and reject them as satanic. That is what our holy and divine Catholic faith tells us to do in these matters.
That's all that needs to be said.
-KJS
There are enough emphaticly approved and supported apparitions and their sites to visit. Why chose to go to one that has controversy? Kevin is right, it just isn't worth the risk.
Domine Non Sum Dignus!
Holiness is not for wimps and the cross is not negotiable, sweetheart, it's a requirement.
~ Mother Angelica
Holiness is not for wimps and the cross is not negotiable, sweetheart, it's a requirement.
~ Mother Angelica
Sean OL said:
Blessings
Denise
Rick is my dear friend and yes, when he knows he has made a mistake or done something he should not have, and probably innocently out of trust for someone, he quickly makes it right. Rick is someone I owe much respect and a whole lot of gratitude. He is a light in my life.Back around early 2000, Rick Salbato (for whom I have the greatest respect)
Blessings
Denise
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
Sean, evidence was presented....look in the first postSean O L wrote:
No evidence is provided that his "pilgrimage" satisfied the definition of an "official pilgrimage"
Going by your statements, you seem to believe that fr dowling wasn’t at fault because the pilgrimage he took (according to you) probably wasn’t an official group one, and that it was of private nature.
You then proceeded to post several quotes pertaining to ‘private ‘ trips
I have provided (in my first post) a definition by the Bishop’s conference of what constitutes an organized pilgrimage.
According to the Bishop's Conference definition, Fr Dowling DID fall into the group of organised pilgrimage.
Not only did he fall into that group by the Bishop's Conference definition....also he fell into it by his "if i'm cured i'll go to medj"
this statement to me implies he was challenging the medj miracle claims into effecting a miracle otherwise he wouldnt go.
when this miracle occurred, he undertook the group pilgrimage. Mind you...he had to go to London (by his own admission ) to join a group (not privately)
Therefore fr dowling has overstepped that mark. Not only did he overstep the fine line (lets face it, he could have gone privately or ‘on a holiday with my sister’ and not even mention it….yet on his return he went to great length, not only to advertise medj, but to publicly declare he’s taken a pilgrimage with a group there and went on about fruits and promoting it.
I have read those documents ad nauseum sorry to say many years ago when I tried to save the soul of a poor woman who was throwing this medj stuff at our group and confusing people.MarieT - time moves on and circumstances change - even if only minutely. Zadar is now history! It might be useful to you to view a file that I composed from official sources - a Chronology of events relative to Medjugorge. It may be viewed at http://jloughnan.tripod.com.meddates.htm
I produced every single document you could think of (thanks to denise and ricks help) ….she chose to ignore them sadly.
I have many lists of chronological events on medj which one day if I have time, hope to condense for easier access when I need something quickly.
You then use the quote :
"Regarding 'pilgrimages to Medjugorje of a private nature',
once again sean, i'm not talking about private pilgrimages.
The priest relented into accompanying his sister and joining an organised group from london to go to medj, to me and to the Yugoslav Catholic Bishops this constitutes an official pilgrimage.
Sean your quoted section once again talks about private trips whereas I have established that it was not a private trip……Here is a relevant section:
1998, July, 21: "Private" visits.
my post was to wrap kairos on the knuckles for advertising medj and 'organised groups'....i used examples such as ad's promoting 'official' 'group' pilgrimmages and an article by a priest.
I'm not discussing private ones.
As stated b4…by his own admission, this priest said they flew to London to join a “group” going to medj…..group is the key word….now refer back to the bishops conference on what defines an ‘official pilgrimage”…ie a Group
we've agreed kairos was wrong in posting that article and other ads on medj...we've agreed medj is not authentic....
blessings
Marie
Last edited by MarieT on Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"He who followeth Me, walketh not in darkness." sayeth the Lord
hiya again sean,Sean O L wrote:Sorry - I didn't have time last night to address this question:MarieT wrote: Sean, i dont know who this Fr. Tim Deeter that you keep referring to is.
Back around early 2000, Rick Salbato (for whom I have the greatest respect) unwisely published some material from Philip Kronzer. That material was subsequently withdrawn from his web-site - but is still accessable via the Wayback Archive Machine. The material included some comment regarding Fr. Tim Deeter.
so who is fr deeter?
i have an inbox of 1, 689 prayer requests from our international prayer group awaiting several hours of time and i dont have time to go researching priests unknown to me as you can appreciate.
My specific question to you earlier was why you brought him up in reference to cardinal pell?
I'm curious because you didnt elaborate after you stated that there were double standards because i had rebuked kairos and fr dowling for the medj promo 's yet didnt bring the sydney weekly or cardinal pell into light for similar? circumstances.
I responded with that i dont have access to or read another states publication, nor do i know who this fr deeter is and asked if you could tell us why you referred to him.
Your post now brings in two other persons.... rick? and some philip kronze. You didnt say how thats relevant to "who is fr tim deeter"....I'm just curious.
i dont read kairos as mentioned in my first post...i prefer semperfi here lol...much more interesting reading, ne'st pas? As for the Catholic Weekly, i have not seen it sold anywhere i've been.As mentioned, Fr. Deeter had an excellent article recently in the Sydney Archdiocesan publication "Catholic Weekly" - is far more worth viewing than "Kairos".
so who is fr deeter? (in a paragraph lol if you can) what is he notorious for that Cardinal Pell should not have let his article appear in his states catholic publication?
blessings
marie (who needs a 72 hour day lol)
"He who followeth Me, walketh not in darkness." sayeth the Lord
-
KevinSymonds
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am
Rick can defend himself, so I will not do the job for him.
I will say that the nature of "pilgrimages" as stated in Zadar 1991 was further clarified by Bishop Peric c.a. 1995. To anyone's knowledge and availability of information on the Internet, no one, has ever contradicted Peric in that interpretation.
I know of no Vatican document, no Croatian Bishops Conference document, no personal letter from even John Paul II that has contradicted Peric's interpretation.
What is Peric's interpretation? "Official pilgrimages" meant anyone who goes to Medjugorje with the intent of proving it supernatural in origin. I believe he also included with this, those who go to Medjugorje believing it to be true.
Peric's interpretation stands and we are obliged to obey. C.f. my above comment on what our holy and divine Catholic faith obliges us to do.
-KJS
I will say that the nature of "pilgrimages" as stated in Zadar 1991 was further clarified by Bishop Peric c.a. 1995. To anyone's knowledge and availability of information on the Internet, no one, has ever contradicted Peric in that interpretation.
I know of no Vatican document, no Croatian Bishops Conference document, no personal letter from even John Paul II that has contradicted Peric's interpretation.
What is Peric's interpretation? "Official pilgrimages" meant anyone who goes to Medjugorje with the intent of proving it supernatural in origin. I believe he also included with this, those who go to Medjugorje believing it to be true.
Peric's interpretation stands and we are obliged to obey. C.f. my above comment on what our holy and divine Catholic faith obliges us to do.
-KJS
Sean OL wrote:
Blesings
Denise
What is quoted here is true and still on Rick's web but all references to Kronzer have been removed because Rick wanted no connection to him. It was only Kronzer who claimed he and Rick worked together but Rick never did. He worked with Kronzer on non-religious things but they never agreed on religious things.These were the words contained in a file (which no longer exists at Unity Publishing - to the best of my knowledge), but which IS still viewable at the Wayback Archive Machine; they were, I believe, written by Phillip Kronzer who was THEN an associate of Rick's:
Blesings
Denise
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
-
KevinSymonds
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am
As I said, Rick can take care of himself. This is not the forum to defend Rick's personal associations. I would greatly appreciate it if my texts regarding Rick and said associations be not quoted again as it would serve no purpose.
Sean O L, who wrote the below?
The nature of the private visits has been addressed. Catholics are not allowed to go on "private visits" with the intent of proving these alleged events authentic.
As I once asked Michael Brown in another form..............
..........can you honestly keep a clear conscience if you were to state that the vast majority of the people who go to Medjugorje don't already believe in its claims to visions and miracles?
For the record, Michael Brown actually did argue the spirit of the question and I have that in writing.
Such people daily violate a clear order to not go to Medjugorje to authenticate it. All questions of their culpability aside (and I willingly cede room for discussion on this), fact is, there is disobedience happening somewhere along the line and worse yet, I fear, cover-up(s).
This is scandalous and doesn't bode well for Medjugorje's case.
-KJS
p.s. As to what pertains to 'Anne,' that sordid affair is not over yet. I have been working on something and have decided to let it simmer for a while. My reasons for this are my own. -kjs
Sean O L, who wrote the below?
"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!" 58
The nature of the private visits has been addressed. Catholics are not allowed to go on "private visits" with the intent of proving these alleged events authentic.
As I once asked Michael Brown in another form..............
..........can you honestly keep a clear conscience if you were to state that the vast majority of the people who go to Medjugorje don't already believe in its claims to visions and miracles?
For the record, Michael Brown actually did argue the spirit of the question and I have that in writing.
Such people daily violate a clear order to not go to Medjugorje to authenticate it. All questions of their culpability aside (and I willingly cede room for discussion on this), fact is, there is disobedience happening somewhere along the line and worse yet, I fear, cover-up(s).
This is scandalous and doesn't bode well for Medjugorje's case.
-KJS
p.s. As to what pertains to 'Anne,' that sordid affair is not over yet. I have been working on something and have decided to let it simmer for a while. My reasons for this are my own. -kjs
-
KevinSymonds
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am
I am not addressing any particulars that MarieT mentioned regarding one Fr. Dowling or whatever his name is. My point was only about the nature of "official pilgrimages," which has been explained numerous times by the Vatican and it still stands today.
We can not go to Medjugorje with the intent of proving it true.
I.e., we can not go to Medjugorje because there are claims of Our Lady appearing there. This is not difficult.
The problem is that people have been brainwashed by the Medjugorje propaganda machine to think about the documents one way instead of critically thinking them through..........if even the people are told about the documents in the first place.
Rome has only made Sacramental provisions for the many people who are going there, so that their needs are met. Personally, I question this but pastorally, I understand the point. It does, however, confuse the issue further.
There are many different trails of thought here and the documents are written in them. The average Catholic doesn't know about these various subtleties and so what we have is confusion, plain and simple.
It's time we take back the culture
-KJS
About Anne:
-Good thoughts, Sean, but not quite what I was looking at. Can you find anything else?
We can not go to Medjugorje with the intent of proving it true.
I.e., we can not go to Medjugorje because there are claims of Our Lady appearing there. This is not difficult.
The problem is that people have been brainwashed by the Medjugorje propaganda machine to think about the documents one way instead of critically thinking them through..........if even the people are told about the documents in the first place.
Rome has only made Sacramental provisions for the many people who are going there, so that their needs are met. Personally, I question this but pastorally, I understand the point. It does, however, confuse the issue further.
There are many different trails of thought here and the documents are written in them. The average Catholic doesn't know about these various subtleties and so what we have is confusion, plain and simple.
It's time we take back the culture
-KJS
About Anne:
-Good thoughts, Sean, but not quite what I was looking at. Can you find anything else?