Our Lady of America, real, not real?
#21
(02-12-2012, 03:28 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: I have my doubts about La Salette
Me too.
Reply
#22
(02-12-2012, 06:28 PM)SaintAndrew Wrote:
(02-12-2012, 03:28 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: I have my doubts about La Salette
Me too.

There have been things attributed to La Salette that are untrue. It is an approved cult and I know trad priests who approve of it. Knowing this I assume the fault is on the human side of things.
Reply
#23
(02-12-2012, 06:28 PM)SaintAndrew Wrote:
(02-12-2012, 03:28 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: I have my doubts about La Salette
Me too.

The apparition of Our Lady of La Salette is officially approved by the Church and a legitimate message from heaven.

The Abbe de Nantes and his traditional group did a study on the message of La Sallette:

http://www.crc-internet.org/salette.htm


THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SECRET OF LA SALETTE
Quote:Like the Third Secret of Fatima, the true Secret of La Salette has never been made public.
Many Catholics sadly continue to be misled by the false and unapproved "secret" drawn up by an
embittered Melanie Calvat in 1879, a gross distortion of the original version she wrote in 1851.
Others, despite their good will, have simply felt unable to give it their credence – providentially it would seem.

This article, taken from the July-August 1996 edition of the CRC, will inspire all those who love Our Lady
by helping them to glimpse something of Her real Secret beneath Melanie Calvat's distortions.






Reply
#24
(02-12-2012, 07:04 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(02-12-2012, 06:28 PM)SaintAndrew Wrote: [quote='Freudentaumel' pid='974062' dateline='1329074894']

I have my doubts about La Salette
Me too.

The apparition of Our Lady of La Salette is officially approved by the Church and a legitimate message from heaven.

The Abbe de Nantes and his traditional group did a study on the message of La Sallette:

http://www.crc-internet.org/salette.htm


THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SECRET OF LA SALETTE
Quote:Like the Third Secret of Fatima, the true Secret of La Salette has never been made public.
Many Catholics sadly continue to be misled by the false and unapproved "secret" drawn up by an
embittered Melanie Calvat in 1879, a gross distortion of the original version she wrote in 1851.
Others, despite their good will, have simply felt unable to give it their credence – providentially it would seem.

This article, taken from the July-August 1996 edition of the CRC, will inspire all those who love Our Lady
by helping them to glimpse something of Her real Secret beneath Melanie Calvat's distortions.







[/quot
The Church may like to wait until the seer/seers are dead, before approving these things - unless it's totally indisputable like Fatima/Lourdes.
The 8-year gap between the vision (LaSalette) and the approval was a VERY short period of time....................
Reply
#25
(02-12-2012, 10:44 AM)SaintAndrew Wrote:
(02-12-2012, 05:27 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: If even the modern hierarchy has problems with Medjugorje, thats not a good sign.

On a nit-pick level, if it were an obvious hoax, then perhaps many would not adhere to it. I know many people, non-traditionalists and much more pious than me, who love Medjugorje.
I just wonder why the Vatican hasn't ok'd it or denounced it in the last 31 years.


Cardinal Ratzinger approved Akita 15 years after it happened and Pope Pius IX approved LaSalette just nine years after it happened.

The Vatican usually won't rule on an alleged apparition until the apparitions have ceased.  It seems at Medjugorje the "seers" can conjure up the Blessed Mother any time they like so it is a continuing phenomenon.  And quite lucrative for the "seers" too. Meh, everyone has to make money somehow I reckon.
Reply
#26
My problems with the false, satanic 'apparitions' of Medjugorje go back to it's very early days. At Lourdes, the secular government did everything they could to discourage St Bernadette and her supporters. At Fatima, the Freemasonic government threatened the child seers with being boiled in  oil if they did not deny the apparition. In both cases the supporters took the attitude of Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles, 5:34-39.

In the case of Medjugorje, however, the atheistic red communist government of the time was the 'apparitions' largest supporter and when E. Michael Jones wrote an expose of the fraud, far from taking the attitude I reference, the supporters sent him death threats. I've had absolutely no doubt since those days that Medjugorje is at the very least a gigantic fraud inspired by Satan and at the worse a case of demonic possession by the so-called 'seers'.
Reply
#27
(02-12-2012, 10:40 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: My problems with the false, satanic 'apparitions' of Medjugorje go back to it's very early days. At Lourdes, the secular government did everything they could to discourage St Bernadette and her supporters. At Fatima, the Freemasonic government threatened the child seers with being boiled in  oil if they did not deny the apparition. In both cases the supporters took the attitude of Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles, 5:34-39.

In the case of Medjugorje, however, the atheistic red communist government of the time was the 'apparitions' largest supporter and when E. Michael Jones wrote an expose of the fraud, far from taking the attitude I reference, the supporters sent him death threats. I've had absolutely no doubt since those days that Medjugorje is at the very least a gigantic fraud inspired by Satan and at the worse a case of demonic possession by the so-called 'seers'.

Fascinating. Do you recommend a book about this?
Reply
#28
(02-13-2012, 12:11 AM)verenaerin Wrote:
(02-12-2012, 10:40 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: My problems with the false, satanic 'apparitions' of Medjugorje go back to it's very early days. At Lourdes, the secular government did everything they could to discourage St Bernadette and her supporters. At Fatima, the Freemasonic government threatened the child seers with being boiled in  oil if they did not deny the apparition. In both cases the supporters took the attitude of Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles, 5:34-39.

In the case of Medjugorje, however, the atheistic red communist government of the time was the 'apparitions' largest supporter and when E. Michael Jones wrote an expose of the fraud, far from taking the attitude I reference, the supporters sent him death threats. I've had absolutely no doubt since those days that Medjugorje is at the very least a gigantic fraud inspired by Satan and at the worse a case of demonic possession by the so-called 'seers'.

Fascinating. Do you recommend a book about this?

I cannot. I had just become a Catholic when the whole fraud began. As a former Serb Orthodox, I followed news (especially religious) out of Yugoslavia very carefully and I was a subscriber to 'Fidelity' during that time. However, Jones has written a book, which I have not read, covering the whole thing, 'The Medjugorje Deception, Queen of Peace, Ethnic Cleansing, Ruined Lives', which might be helpful.
Reply
#29
(02-11-2012, 04:24 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: Also, Concerning Cardinal Burke, as of 2010, he had not personally studied the apparition at any great length, and it's possible that his "canonical approval letter" is a forgery or ghost written. 
Unity is incorrect.
I don´t believe so based on personal experience.  Cardinal Burke has many Mid Western friends and wealthy supporters who support this Apparition. It is typical of his character to have written the letter. Plus, the fact that it was never denounced as a forgery and being addressed to all American heirarchy adds credence and authenticity to this letter.
Reply
#30
(02-13-2012, 03:18 AM)Don Quixote Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 04:24 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: Also, Concerning Cardinal Burke, as of 2010, he had not personally studied the apparition at any great length, and it's possible that his "canonical approval letter" is a forgery or ghost written. 
Unity is incorrect.
I don´t believe so based on personal experience.  Cardinal Burke has many Mid Western friends and wealthy supporters who support this Apparition. It is typical of his character to have written the letter. Plus, the fact that it was never denounced as a forgery and being addressed to all American heirarchy adds credence and authenticity to this letter.

Perhaps.  Rechecking the blog that has been keeping up with the fiasco (http://ourladyofamerica.blogspot.com), I have not come across any new information about any possible Burke forgeries.  So, the letter very well may be legit, and it might be worth bringing up to that blog owner. 

However, as it stands, THE APPARITION IS NOT APPROVED nonetheless.  I'm sorry.  We, here in the States, really would like for the Holy Mother to come to us with a particular message.  But facts is facts.  The devotion has been approved.  The apparition has not. 

Here's a good article that sums it up for the OP.

- - - - - - -

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-aki...-was-what/


America's 1st Approved Apparition Was WHAT???

BY Jimmy Akin
| Posted 12/9/10 at 9:58 PM


Yesterday’s news reports that Our Lady of Good Help had just become America’s first approved apparition caused many folks to do a doubletake.

Some wondered whether Our Lady of Guadalupe should count as such since Mexico is part of North America. If one wants to say that Guadalupe was North America’s first approved apparition, fine. However, one can’t say Guadalupe was “America’s” first approved apparition since, when used in the singular, “America” refers to the United States of America. The continent Mexico is part of is “North America,” and the overall landmass that includes “South America” is known as “the Americas” (plural, with the definite article).

But enough linguistic hairsplitting!

Others had the question, “What about Our Lady of America? Wasn’t that already approved?”

The short but understandably surprising answer is “no.” It’s not approved.

“But didn’t then-Archbishop/now-Cardinal Raymond Burke issue a letter in 2007 that said it was approved?”

Again, the short but understandably surprising answer is “no.” He didn’t.

The reason that the answer is understandably surprising is that he did in 2007 send a letter to the U.S. bishops explaining Our Lady of America, speaking highly of it, and noting that the devotion connected with it has been approved, but this is not the same as saying that apparition itself is approved.

Am I just linguistic hairsplitting again?

Not according to the Holy See—or, more specifically, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I’m actually articulating a point that the CDF wants people to understand.

Lemme ‘splain.

Back in 1978 the CDF issued an instruction on apparitions which was privately (sub secreto) circulated to the bishops of the world. Because it was so widely circulated, it was leaked, which means that now you can read a copy of it in English here. These represent the norms currently in force to guide bishops in dealing with apparitions.

So what do the norms say?

A key passage describes a three-stage process that apparition approval is to follow (assuming the approval happens at all; the process can be aborted at any stage):

So that the ecclesiastical authority is able to acquire more certainty on such or such an apparition or revelation, it will proceed in the following way:

a) Initially, to judge the facts according to positive and negative criteria (cf. below, n.1).

b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

c) Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgement on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.

Stage 1 is thus for the bishop to do an initial investigation. If that checks out then in Stage 2 he may provisionally authorize public demonstrations of cult and devotion in connection with the apparition while continuing a diligent examination. Then, after more time and investigation, should the circumstances warrant, he may in Stage 3 approve the apparition itself.

The final Stage 3 approval of the apparition is distinct from the provisionary Stage 2 authorization of public devotion. That is why the CDF norms gloss this authorization by saying it is equivalent to “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it.”

“For the moment, nothing is opposed to it” is not the same as what Bishop Ricken said yesterday concerning Our Lady of Good Help, which was:

It remains to me now, the Twelfth Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay and the lowliest of the servants of Mary, to declare with moral certainty and in accord with the norms of the Church:

that the events, apparitions and locutions given to Adele Brise in October, 1859 do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful.

That’s a Stage 3 approval: The apparition itself, not just devotion connected with it, has been recommended to the faithful as worthy of (non-obligatory) belief.

So what is the status of Our Lady of America?

Basically, it’s at Stage 2—the same stage that Our Lady of Good Help was at until December 8th. Some years ago the local bishop (who was himself the seer’s former spiritual director) authorized devotion connected with Our Lady of America, and granted an imprimatur to a book connected with it (which is a totally separate issue, canonically), but neither previous local bishops nor the current local bishop has given Stage 3 authorization to the apparition itself.

If you read now-Cardinal Burke’s letter carefully (you can read it here), he is careful always to speak of the devotion having been approved. He never says that the apparition itself has been approved.

That’s because of its Stage 2 status. The local bishop (who was not Burke; this was when Burke was Archbishop of St. Louis, but the Our Lady of America phenomena were reported in the dioceses of Fort Wayne and Toledo) had not proceeded to Stage 3. Burke is thus giving an interesting and supportive treatment of the apparition and the devotion connected with it, but he only claims formal approval for the devotion.

This distinction is one that the CDF wants the public to understand because a little later on in the norms it has more to say about Stage 2 situations. Section II, 2 of the document states:

At the legitimate request of the faithful (when they are in communion with their pastors and are not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion if, assuming the criteria given above having been applied, nothing is opposed to it. But there must be vigilance nevertheless, to ensure that the faithful do not regard this way of acting as an approval by the Church of the supernatural character of the event in question. . . .

So the distinction between Stage 2 approval (of devotion related to the apparition) and Stage 3 approval (of the supernatural character of the apparition) is something that the CDF itself wants the public to understand.

Presumably, the CDF expects bishops granting Stage 2 approval to stress the difference between the two, so that the public understands.

It is evident from the confusion in this case, though, that more work needs to be done in alerting the public to this difference.

BTW, in his letter on Our Lady of America Cardinal Burke alludes to some question of the canonical status of a “community” (actually, it appears to be just one person) promoting Our Lady of America. He rightly notes that the status of this community is a separate canonical question from whether the devotion has been approved. But this passage in his letter is bound to raise curiosity about what the issues are connected with this community and what the current local bishops’ stand is. Therefore . . .

HERE’S A STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF TOLEDO ON THE SITUATION

What are your thoughts?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)