FERNANDEZ FUDGES ON FAUX MEDJUGORGE

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).

Whatever an antipope says, it counts for exactly nothing

 In 2001 a reader of this blog tried hard to persuade her son - who was cooling his heels in Dubrovnik while a friend slowly recovered from a near-fatal fall from one of its spectacular cliffs - to take the bus to Medjugorge, half an hour away. She's glad now that he didn't.

Because his Eminence Cardinal Tucho Fernandez, Prefect (incredibly) of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, has ruled (sort of) that the alleged apparitions of Our Lady at Medjugorge are (sort of) okay. +Fernandez being the heretic he is, that's enough to put anyone right off. 

And now, verifying her intuition that +Fernandez is leading many good Catholics up the rosy garden path to hell via Medjugorge, our reader finds that Michael Davies, that giant among lay Catholics, pre-eminent defender of Tradition and critic of the Novus Ordo, exposed it as a fraud back in 2005.

Millions of Catholics are or have been devotees of Medjugorge. Everyone's either been there or knows someone who's been there. What they badly need is clarity but in the absence of a pope and an effective magisterium that's too much to ask. Traditional Catholic websites such as OnePeterFve and the Moynihan Letters are humming and harring and havering on +Fernandez' Note About the Spiritual Experience Connected with Medjugorje (here). So of course does Antipope Francis, whose approval "is based on the pastoral reality and not evaluations about its supernatural nature". In typical Francis fashion +Fernandez waffles on to the tune of over 10,000 words of ambiguity and obfuscation.

The thing is, good Catholic websites depend, like Medjugorge itself and like the world in general, on the money that makes it go round. On advertising. Cui bono? They can't afford to upset their thousands of good traditionally-minded Catholic readers. This humble blog labours under no such disadvantage. We earn zilch so have nothing to lose by telling the truth as we see it (and apologise when we get it wrong). 

self-explanatory

So before handing the floor over to T S Flanders of OnePeterFive, here's the nub of Michael Davies' revelations on Medjugorge:   

The "seers" and their Franciscan manipulators have consistently maintained that during their "ecstasies" they are immobile and without communication with the outside world. A French journalist wished to test this claim, and while Vicka purported to be in ecstasy he made a stabbing movement towards her eyes with his fingers. Vicka gave a start and threw her head backwards. The girl left the room and returned a few minutes later with one of her charismatic mentors, an expelled Franciscan. She claimed that at the moment the journalist made the movement she was witnessing an apparition of the Virgin Mary with the Child Jesus in her arms, and the Child slipped. "I made a movement to stop Him from falling. That's all."

There could hardly be a more evident case of outright lying. It is inconceivable that during an apparition of Our Lady with the Child Jesus, the Child could possibly slip. If, per impossible, this did happen, it is stretching coincidence beyond the bounds of credibility to be asked to believe that it happened at the precise moment the journalist made the movement towards Vicka' s eyes, and, finally, if she had been speaking the truth she would have moved forwards towards the apparition and not backwards!

A Franciscan priest, Father Ivica Vego, was dispensed from his vows and expelled from the Franciscan Order by John Paul II as a result of the seduction of a nun, Sister Leopolda. 

 

They both left the religious life and lived together near Medjugorje where their child was born. They now have two children. But he refused to accept his expulsion and continued to celebrate Mass, administer the Sacraments, and pass the time with his mistress.

 

The "seers" claimed Our Lady appeared to them on thirteen occasions stating that Father Vego was innocent, that he was as entitled to celebrate Mass as any other priest, and that the bishop was harsh! Any reader with a true sense of being a Catholic, a sensus catholicus, will need to read no further to realize the full extent of the mendacity of the self-styled "seers".

 

What credibility can be given to those who claim that the Mother of God told them repeatedly that an immoral priest, expelled from his order on the instructions of the Holy Father himself, is innocent, and that the Bishop who had taken the only course open to him, was the guilty party!

 

How did a so-called reputable theologian, Father Rene Laurentin, who has made a fortune from books on Medjugorje, react when confronted with such facts? He begged the Bishop not to publish details of the incident. This has been Laurentin's consistent position, to hide the truth and defend falsehood. Despite the fact that the truth about Ivica Vego can no longer be denied, his prayer book is still sold in Medjugorje and beyond in hundreds of thousands of copies!

And if Our Lady had truly appeared at Medjugorje on about 26,000 occasions by the end of 1993, a claim which in itself defies credibility, why did she not bother to warn the Croatian people of the coming onslaught, which they would have to undergo from fanatically anti-Catholic Serbia? (Redacted.) https://archive.org/details/Medugorje-AWarning/page/n3/mode/2up

Cardinal Fernandez and Msgr Armando Matteo, DDF Prefect and Secretary: who could take them seriously? 

And now, over to T S Flanders of OnePeterFive: 

I don’t know much about Medjugorje.

What I do know is that Dr. E. Michael Jones and Mr. Michael Davies never agreed on much during the latter’s lifetime. Davies and Jones had a famous debate over the SSPX “back in the day” as we say in the States: https://youtu.be/wE_URMCvXHs?list=PLc1nFsC-jDoDCXLAud2vY_4ua8DAjzJ09

 

Davies was a longtime leader in the traditionalist movement, whereas Dr. Jones has been (and still is) a stalwart critic of the same movement.

But they agree on one thing: Medjugorje looks like a false apparition. What is worse, they both claim that the apparition and the visionaries manifested serious “red flags” in the spiritual and preternatural world. Take a look at their research for yourself here:

In any case, I have never delved deep into Medjugorje, but the research of these two opposing Catholics gave me pause. I know that some Catholics whom I respect believe in Medjugorje, like Mr. Robert Nugent, whose comments on the recent ruling can be found here:https://youtu.be/VRlfpivfkEA

 

I’m sure that promoters of Medjugorje have some answers and explanations to the critiques of Davies, Jones, and others. I have not studied this alleged apparition deep enough to have a strong opinion either way about it.

Michael Davies certainly had a strong opinion.  

But the least that I can say for sure is that I had unanswered questions after I saw what Davies and Jones had to say. I suspended any judgement further and simply disregarded the apparition since I was not particularly drawn to it anyhow.

 

The New Vatican Apparition Guidelines

Before we look at what the Vatican just did, let’s remember the context: the new Cardinal prefect of the “Office Formerly Known as Holy,” His Eminence Tucho Fernández, just published new guidelines for how the Vatican judges apparitions back in May.

The main difference with the new guidelines was that the Vatican was going to 1.) remove the right of local bishops to judge these matters and 2.) remove the procedure to judge an apparition to be “of supernatural origin.” At that time some commentators, including myself, wondered if these new norms were about Medjugorje because 1.) the local bishops, it is said, have judged Medjugorje negatively and 2.) the supernatural origin of the alleged apparition can be seriously questioned:

I thought this [new norms[ document was going to allow Medjugorje so that the Vatican Bank would get bailed out by all the Medjugorje money. Maybe the Chinese Communists already did this.

 

 

But it seems to be much worse than that. At least Medjugorje seems to have real conversions. Now the document seems to silence God Himself, so that no bishop or Pope can approve the supernatural origin of Our Lord or Our Lady or some saint coming to encourage us through this chastisement.

(Again, I’m not trying to make a judgement myself on the matter, merely stating one reasonable opinion among several pious and reasonable views here.)

 But why should TS Flanders not make a judgment himself? Why shouldn't any Catholic? After all, logic tells us this Note is written by an antipope and his henchman so to judge his Note is not to judge the Magisterium. TS Flanders would seem to hint at this by avoiding any reference to Francis as pope.  

So Catholic Sat, one reliable commentator who is critical of Medjugorje, said this back in May:

But it seems to be much worse than that. At least Medjugorje seems to have real conversions. Now the document seems to silence God Himself, so that no bishop or Pope can approve the supernatural origin of Our Lord or Our Lady or some saint coming to encourage us through this chastisement.

atholic Sat

@CatholicSat

The Medjugorje Fudge (or compromise whatever this will be called): "Church to act confidently and promptly to stand among the People of God in welcoming the Holy Spirit’s gifts that may emerge “in the midst of” these events. The phrase “in the midst of”—used in the new Norms—clarifies that even if the event itself is not declared to be of supernatural origin, there is still a recognition of the signs of the Holy Spirit’s supernatural action in the midst of what is occurring."

The issue is that God can always bring good out of evil. So a false apparition may have an evil intent, but God can certainly bring good out of it nonetheless. So even if we assume that Medjugorje is false, it can still be true that there are authentic conversions and graces which are occasioned but not caused by the alleged apparition. For that, we should thank the mercy of God.

We do need to judge a tree by its fruit, as the Lord said (as this writer just said - ed), there is also a more stringent requirement given in the Law of Moses:

 

But the prophet, who being corrupted with pride, shall speak in my name things that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain. And if in silent thought thou answer: How shall I know the word that the Lord hath not spoken? Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him (Dt. xviii. 20-22).

 

So the law of Moses also gives a very reasonable criteria for judgment: there are certain things that can indeed be judged “of supernatural origin.” This is one of the reasons why people followed Christ – He worked miracles! This is one of the reasons Muhammad is a false prophet – he worked no miracles!

 

Obviously Fatima checks out on this – the Miracle of the Sun is the big one, and also the prediction of World War II (with the 1938 geomagnetic storm). Certainly not every apparition need have such astounding miracles, but it does not seem unreasonable (or contrary to revelation, quite the opposite) to demand some miraculous evidence.

Moreover, the spiritual writers warn us to be critical of visions and apparitions for the danger they pose:

CONCERNING THE VARIOUS ILLUSIONS EMPLOYED BY THE DEVIL AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH

IF OUR PERSISTENT FOE, who never ceases to persecute us, should assail us disguised as an angel of light, stand firm and steadfast even though cognizant of your own nothingness, and say to him boldly: “Return, miserable one into your realms of darkness; for I am unworthy of visions, nor do I need anything but the mercy of my Saviour, and the prayers of Mary, Joseph and all the Saints.”

 And though these visions seem to bear many evidences of having been born in Heaven, still reject them as far as it is within your power to do so. And have no fear that this resistance, founded as it is on your own worthiness, will be displeasing to God. For if the vision be from Him, He has the power to make the same known to you, and you will suffer no detriment; for He Who gives grace to the humble does not withdraw it because of acts which spring from humility.

These, then, are the weapons which the enemy most commonly employs against us at the hour of our death. Each individual is tempted according to the particular inclination to which he is most subject. Therefore, before the zero hour of the great conflict, we should arm ourselves securely, and struggle manfully against our most violent passions, that the victory may be easier in that hour which leaves no futuretime for preparation or resistance.[1]

These are some of the concerns which arise for me with an alleged apparition like Medjugorje.

What do you mean by “Sort Of”?

So now let’s take a brief look at the main point of the new Medjugorje ruling from the Vatican. We’re not going to go in depth into the document, which goes to great lengths to come to this basic conclusion:

Diane Montagna

 

@dianemontagna

 

·

Follow

#Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith today grants approval (Nihil obstat) for devotion linked to Medjugorje, specifying this “does not imply that the alleged supernatural events are declared authentic” nor that its messages “have a direct supernatural origin.” (1/2)

 Quoting now from the document:

Through the Nihil obstat about a spiritual event, the faithful “are authorized to give it their adherence in a prudent manner” (Norms, art. 22, §1; cf. Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, par. 14). While this does not imply a declaration of the supernatural character of the phenomenon in question (cf. Norms, art. 22, §2)—and recalling that the faithful are not obliged to believe in it—the Nihil obstat indicates that the faithful can receive a positive encouragement for their Christian life through this spiritual proposal, and it authorizes public acts of devotion. Such a determination is possible insofar as many positive fruits have been noted in the midst of a spiritual experience, while negative and dangerous effects have not spread among the People of God.

As if Tucho Fernandez were qualified to judge any effects as "negative and dangerous". He himself is a negative and dangerous effect - of the conciliar, synodal church. 

 

Evaluating the abundant and widespread fruits, which are so beautiful and positive, does not imply that the alleged supernatural events are declared authentic. Instead, it only highlights that the Holy Spirit is acting fruitfully for the good of the faithful “in the midst” of this spiritual phenomenon of Medjugorje. For this reason, all are invited to appreciate and share the pastoral value of this spiritual proposal (cf. Norms, par. 17).

Moreover, the positive assessment that most of the messages of Medjugorje are edifying (doesn't that imply that the others are unedifying? - ed) does not imply a declaration that they have a direct supernatural origin. Consequently, when referring to “messages” from Our Lady, one should always bear in mind that they are “alleged messages.” (38).

 

It is interesting to note how the document takes a very nuanced approach to the message and the fruits, calling the latter “beautiful and positive,” but for the former, there is a more critical attitude":

Beyond the frequent exhortations to the faithful of the parish, in general, Our Lady seems to promote listening to her messages so insistently that sometimes this call stands out more than the content of the messages themselves: “Dear children, you are not aware of the messages that God is sending you through me. He is giving you graces, but you do not understand” (8 November 1984). “You are not aware of all the messages I am giving you” (15 November 1984). This risks creating a dependence and an excessive expectation on the part of the faithful, which could ultimately obscure the central importance of the Revealed Word.

 

The insistence appears constantly. For example, “Live my messages” (18 June 2010). “Spread my messages” (25 June 2010). “Live the messages I am giving you so that I can give you new messages” (27 May 2011). “Follow my messages […] renew my messages” (17 June 2011). “Embrace my messages and live my messages” (24 June 2011).ke the Blessed Virgin Mary, perfectly humble and so self-effacing.  

 … This often-repeated appeal probably comes from the love and generous fervor of the alleged visionaries who, with goodwill, feared that the Blessed Mother’s calls for conversion and peace would be ignored. This insistence becomes even more problematic when the messages refer to requests that are unlikely to be of supernatural origin, such as when Our Lady gives orders about specific dates, places, and practicalities and when she makes decisions about ordinary matters. Although messages of this type are infrequent in Medjugorje, we can find some of them that are explained solely from the personal desires of the alleged visionaries. The following is a clear example of these misleading messages:

“This August 5th will mark the celebration of the second millennium of my birth […]. I ask you to prepare yourselves intensively over three days […]. Do not work on these days” (1 August 1984).

Really? The Blessed Virgin Mary, issuing a blanket ban on work for three days to all the faithful in order to celebrate her birthday? How can anyone with the sensus fidelium believe this is Our Lady speaking? 

It is reasonable for the faithful, using prudence and common sense, not to take these details seriously nor heed them.

It is precisely the task of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to use prudence and common sense in judging Medjugorge, and to instruct the faithful accordingly. But in the absence of a pope we must manage for ourselves. Thank God we have the likes of Michael Davies to inform us. 

One must always recall that in this spiritual experience (as in other spiritual experiences and alleged supernatural phenomena), positive and edifying elements are mixed with other elements that are to be ignored.

In Church-approved apparitions, like Fatima and Lourdes, what elements are to be ignored, please?  

But this fact should not lead one to spurn the richness and the good of the Medjugorje proposal as a whole (30).

Seems Medjugorge is like the curate's egg. Good in parts.

 

These criticisms seem to cast doubt on the supernatural origin of the apparition, even while there is an official Nihil Obstat. We’ve got “positive and edifying elements …mixed with other elements that are to be ignored.” This seems like a strange judgement, since it does not seem like a judgement at all.

 

As I discussed briefly last week, the Qur’an also includes “positive and edifying elements” (for example, the natural beauty of the chanted Qur’an) but it also has “elements that are to be ignored” – obvious heretical poison and blasphemy against Christ. Obviously the message of Medjugorje is Christian, not Arian (like the Qur’an), but I’m concerned there might be more subtle things going on, which are more difficult to judge, like what Msgr. Ronald Knox called Enthusiasm.

Given all the other strange things going in the Vatican, the fact that the new norms and this new ruling came out in the same year suggests that the two things were indeed connected. If that is the case, is there more to the story of this new ruling than merely pious sentiments? Is Vatican corruption involved? What about the money? Cui bono?

I simply don’t know, and we don’t want to judge anything without evidence, but I have to ask the question.

In any event, the net result of this “sort of approval” seems to create the impression that, whatever the technical details, the Vatican has indeed “approved” the apparition, and the faithful will think the apparition is to be followed as if it has been confirmed to be supernatural.

Having said that, even though I’m generally critical of this alleged apparition based on my limited research, of course I could be wrong. And I’m not trying to harshly judge any faithful Catholic who has experienced some positive spiritual fruit through Medjugorje.

No indeed. This writer judges no one, harshly or otherwise, on anything let alone on private revelations which in the past led her into True Life in God and Luisa Piccarreta and the Divine Will - and, thank God, out the other side and back into the light. 

Private revelation is a perfect example of applying the adage: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas [“in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity”].[2]

So here I’d like to yield the floor to submissions from authors with a traditionalist perspective who would have greater expertise on Medjugorje. I would welcome any scholarly submissions on this matter for or against the new ruling. Are there any Trad voices out there which defend the apparition in writing?

T. S. Flanders
Editor
St. Januarius 

 

Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast by Frans Francken.

 

 For many are called, but few are chosen. 

  - Gospel, Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost