Vatican decision due on Medjugorje
#11
Quote:  If you look at the picture above,  how could they get that little boy to do that?
A few possibilities.  It looks like the boy is looking at a different angle (check out the eyes), but hard to tell.  He is also smiling, while the others are serious.  Like he is happy to be doing what the other bigger kids are doing.  The other possibility is scary.  He is actually seeing something.
Reply
#12
The commission has said they don't expect to finish their work before the end of 2012 when they plan to present a report to the Pope. Not imminent.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asca.it%2Fnews-Vaticano__card__Puljic__rapporto_su_Medjugorje_pronto_entro_fine_2012-1124318.html&sl=it&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

C.
Reply
#13
(06-01-2012, 12:30 AM)richness of tradition Wrote: The only thing is wonder is if it was fake how could they make those kids look so much like they are actually seeing something.   If you look at the picture above,  how could they get that little boy to do that?
Who said they were fake...the question is are they from heaven or hell
Reply
#14
I can't say I know much about Medjugorje -- only that trusted people and priests disapprove.  So I've stayed far away.

The trouble is, some of my friends are getting involved.

What's a good source against it?
Reply
#15
(06-01-2012, 01:37 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: I can't say I know much about Medjugorje -- only that trusted people and priests disapprove.  So I've stayed far away.

The trouble is, some of my friends are getting involved.

What's a good source against it?

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/cath...djugo.html
http://www.roman-catholic.com/Roman/Arti...erview.htm
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7452
Reply
#16
(06-01-2012, 01:37 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: I can't say I know much about Medjugorje -- only that trusted people and priests disapprove.  So I've stayed far away.

The trouble is, some of my friends are getting involved.

What's a good source against it?

http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/medjugorje.htm
Reply
#17
The moment I heard "Mary" say something akin to "All religions are pleasing to my son" - I knew it couldn't be from God.

I do believe they are seeing something -- I just don't think it's from God.....
Reply
#18
As far as I know, the Vatican doesn't make an official decision on any apparitions until they have ceased. The three "visionaries" who have only received 9 secrets claim that the Virgin Mary appears to them each day. Maybe that's why the Vatican has yet to make an official ruling.
Reply
#19
MEDJUGORJE = MEGA-FORGERY 
Reply
#20
(06-01-2012, 01:37 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: What's a good source against it?

Christian Order Magazine (my fav ) has written many articles exposing the fraud:

Quote:A recent email re-awakened me to the continuing spectre of 'Our Lady of Medjugorje' (aka 'Mary Queen of Peace' or 'The Gospa'). It seems that the Croatian 'Madonna' is still out there, and still talking! Twenty years on, this loquacious phantom - the invention of dissolute and rebellious Franciscans and their pseudo-seers - has just dictated her umpteenth instruction to the world; the latest of literally thousands of such 'messages,' each one as bland and instantly forgettable as the very first back in 1981.

To our knowledge, Christian Order remains the only magazine in Britain to have withstood the powerful Medjugorje industry, losing many readers and donors in the process of exposing this monumental hoax - which is no more than a blasphemous parody of an official Marian shrine at Hrasno, forty kilometres south-east of Medjugorje. Recognised by Pope John Paul II as the "true centre of Marian devotion" in the Mostar diocese,(1) Hrasno opened in 1977, four years before Herzegovina Franciscans and the infamous 'visionaries' concocted Medjugorje and set off in pursuit of money, power and sex. The shocking facts, now detailed in no less than 42 books and booklets in 8 languages, are well summarised in Jim Gallagher's book review of The Medjugorje Deception: Queen of Peace, Ethnic Cleansing, Ruined Lives (CO, November 1998).

That so few people are aware of these disturbing facts is, as usual, down to episcopal negligence. British prelates have received the negative statements on Medjugorje issued over the years by both the local ordinary, Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar, and the ex-Yugoslavian bishops' conference. And yet, like bishops everywhere, they have chosen to ignore Bishop Peric's urgent requests to publicise those official statements within their dioceses, preferring to leave their brother in Mostar to endure persistent defamation, disinformation and disobedience at the hands of Medjugorje propagandists. So much for collegiality.

Furthermore, not content to simply bury these negative conclusions, our Shepherds have effectively encouraged belief in the so-called 'Madonna' of Medjugorje through weekly advertising of pilgrimages and tours in their 'Catholic' weeklies, for whom the Medj fraud has been, and continues to be a lucrative 'earner.' It would be fascinating to know the total amount pocketed by undermining approved Marian apparitions and the authority of Bishop Peric (and thus all episcopal authority) in this way.

The ensuing report on Medjugorje by the French bishops - an objective summary of the official investigations and conclusions - is therefore a rarity: a welcome departure from the shameful episcopal pattern above. Published a few years ago, we have undertaken to translate it as an excellent, if belated corrective to two decades of disinformation, especially relating to the role and standing of Bishop Peric and his predecessor Bishop Zanic. The statement also displays refreshing commonsense and balance: whether in assessing the subversive nature of "private pilgrimages" to Medjugorje or in pointing out that the examination of "events" must always "precede" the examination of "fruits."

This notion that "roots," as it were, are more important than "fruits," is blithely ignored by your typical Medjugorje advocate, whose faith is more pietistic (i.e. over-credulous) than pious. It is a principle, however, that should be applied by the wise and prudent to any organisation, however reputable, that is founded upon an alleged 'vision' or 'apparition.' One thinks immediately of Britain's long-established yet deeply-flawed FAITH Movement, which is based on an alleged revelation about the nature of the universe made to Mrs Agnes Holloway, whose inner "voices" told her that God is an evolutionist (theistic, of course).(2) Then there is The Divine Innocence Trust, which attracts supporters sympathetic to its view that aborted babies should be regarded as martyrs for the Faith, but is rooted in the 'visions' of a deluded London 'seer' condemned by the local bishop.




  http://www.christianorder.com/editorials...may02.html
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)