First Time: Francis Intervenes at Medjugorie Festival

"Could you provide the date and the specific visionary that said that Our Lady stated that "all religions are equal"?"

Philosopher might take a bit to reply. Since this is bugging you, I'll oblige.

"In an account of the vision of October 1, 1981, the chronicler Vlasic reports the following words of Vicka and Jakov..."

If there was only one vision on Oct 1, 1981, take your pick. Corroborated and further explained here:

The same chronicler (Vlasic) writes: "Jakov and Vicka had the ‘regular’ vision. Characteristic of the apparition, the answers were given by the Gospa to the questions by the seers, which someone wrote down."

The analysis of the answers received from these visions, are NOT encouraging. ...especially when it came to discussing this particular vision

--The “seer” Vicka, entirely unsure of her memory, does not dare “by herself” to repeat the answer from five years before. If Fr. Laurentin had asked in 1982, “I could have been clearer.” Now, it is not clear to her. And it seems she doesn’t dare to ask more from the Gospa, with whom she converses and spends time every day, to remind them of what she had said a few years earlier.

Anyway Vicka gives a completely absurd answer, which she attributes to the “apparition” (now or earlier, is not clear): the fact that the Gospa had said “all the religions are equal before God” means precisely that “all men are equal before God”. An equality between religions and people!--

Provenance for the messages is as follows.

--The 1981-1983 messages found here were obtained from the works of Fr. René Laurentin, and Professor René LeJeune. They were originally recorded in French, and translated into English by Juan Gonzales Jr., Ph.D. --

Out of curiosity, does it matter which visionary made the claim, and if so, why? Presumably all of these visions are true, yes? ;-)

Even the "pro" sites record some very troubling content.

"Those who are not Catholics, are no less creatures made in the image of God, and destined to rejoin someday, the House of the Father. Salvation is available to everyone, without exception."

All dogs go to Heaven... :P Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

"All religions are similar before God. God rules over them just like a sovereign over his kingdom."

That just reeks of indifferentism.

I'm beginning to understand why the longer these visions continue (non stop) the less popular they are among clerics with a strong theological background.

--But the second phase - which include the 35 years from 1982 to the present day - received a strongly mixed reaction, including a final tally with zero votes in favor of the supernatural nature of the apparitions.--

These visions sound superficially religious and mystical and "Marian". But when they start getting examined by theologians and historians, they become increasingly unsupportable.

It's easy to see why devout yet essentially ignorant people are so easily taken in. They are devout and they want to believe. But they are ignorant and that is their undoing.

I want to make it clear, that isn't a shot at you or any other believers.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, it only reflects a lack of knowledge. The problem is belief once it takes hold through ignorance, resists all knowledge contradicting it when presented afterwards..

No matter how many times the Quran is debunked for its historical errors, Muslims believe it is still the word of Allah. They "know" it is, even when presented with endless evidence of errors that contradict such a possibility.

They have knowledge of the evidence, but their beliefs supercede that knowledge.

Instead, all they try to do is reconcile the two, explain the knowlege away. What Allah meant was... etc. etc. When they can't do so, they simply ignore it.

The Medjugorie believers, unsurprsingly, are prone to behaving the same way. What Gospa meant was... etc. etc.

It's impossible to reason with people like that. . All one can do is prevent others from making the same mistakes.

@Ultraviolet Well said!

I didn't think that most people who followed Catholic news in the past few years on Medjugoria would not know of the heretical statements that are now common knowledge. It's like commenting about Bill Clinton's infamous line that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and then being asked, what are your sources and have you ever been to the White House and had dinner with the Clintons? Well I have and I never heard him say anything like that. Believe me he's a good and decent man.

But, as you say, those who believe in this inauthentic apparition throw reason, evidence and logic to the wind.

The Oct 1, 1981 message

Are all religions the same? "Members of all faiths are equal before God. God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, all religions are not the same because all people have not complied with the commandments of God. They reject and disparage them."
Are all churches the same? "In some, the strength of prayer to God is greater, in others, smaller. That depends on the priests who motivate others to pray. It depends also on the power which they have."
Why do You appear to us so often and to others who do not follow God's path?* "I appear to you often and in every place. To others, I appear from time to time briefly. They do not yet follow the way of God completely. They are not aware of the gift which He has made them. That, no one deserves. with time, they also will come to follow the right way."

Notice the question mark. Our Lady is responding to questions and does not say that all religions are the same. Amazing how much damage a misreporting of a message can be. As far as historians and clerics with a "strong theological backgound" is concerned, I can find one of those to support almost any position possible.

"As far as historians and clerics with a "strong theological backgound" is concerned, I can find one of those to support almost any position possible." @frawley

Maybe you can, but when scholars question a visionary and catch them being evasive, ducking a question, and contradictng themself that discredits the authenticity of their visions. In His own lifetime, Christ's critics tried the same and He walked over them every time.

That isn't theology, it's detective work exposing the errors in the testimony of a witness.

Here's a funny example, the kind of thing that destroys a witness before a jury.

,,,an impartial jury, that is. ;-)
.
--"After elementary school, he (Ivan) attended the first year of secondary school at Citluk, but did not pass. In a conversation with his prefect at Visoko, he cited as one reason for his lack of success the well-known "case" of Medjugorje. A bit strange, considering that the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje began after the end of the 1981 school year!"--

Now that isn't a theological error where the fanboys can build a counter-argument around a question mark, if they're desperate enough. It's a direct contradiction in the chronology of events.

The kid's blaming his lousy grades on visions that didn't even happen yet. He told a self-serving falsehood, using the Blessed Mother as an excuse no less, and he got caught.

Oh yeah, we're totally looking at another Fatima here. :P

How in the heck did you get a transcript of a conversation that Ivan had with his prefect at Visoko? Was this in the 1980's? Is it an audio recording?

In your detective work did you consider motive? Can you give me a plausible motive for the children to invent the story of a visit by Our Lady and then stick with it knowing full well the wrath of the communist government that would and in fact did descend upon them and their families?

Since we're cross posting, I'll double-post this. @frawley

"How in the heck did you get a transcript of a conversation that Ivan had with his prefect at Visoko?"

Easy. I found it on the site I linked in the big blue "funny example". You probably mean is how did the site get a transcript? ;-)

They helpfully provided that explanation at the start of the article -with a link to the original.
---
The Spiritual Vocations of the "Seers of Medjugorje"
Diocese of Mostar-Duvno
Chancery Office
March 5, 2010

(The present article was published in the official Bulletin of the Dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan, 1/2010, pp. 114-122, March 5, 2010. This English translation was prepared on the basis of the original text in Croatian and the Italian edition published on the diocesan website.)
---

"In your detective work did you consider motive?"

Sarcasm noted, particularly in light of my taking your original request for information as an honest one. But it wasn't, was it? ;-)

Philosopher wasn't supposed to deliver the goods and you'd be able to feel better because of that. Then, lucky you, I took an interest and delivered. Now you fall back on another info request and I'm happy to say that's been delivered as well.

Ironically, Philosopher tried the same tactic when we were discussing Christopher Columbus. We were down to arguing verbs in the original primary source documents (the ones I wasn't supposed to be able to find, either).

To answer your question, it's not my job to show motive and I'm only too well aware of the perils of trying to do so.

In law, all that is required is to show that someone either did or did not do something. I can show, via the site, at least one "visionary" tried a religiously-themed version of "the dog ate my homework." He was fobbing off his poor grades on his supposed chats with the Blessed Mother, ones that didn't happen yet.

In an example like that, the motive is fairly obvious.

I can show, via those same transcripts, a "visionary" contradicting themself on their ability to converse almost daily with "Gospa" yet being unable to double-check what was orginally said -with- "Gospa". There's a contradiction right there. A "visionary" talks with "Gospa" everyday yet they can't ask their source for clarification? Sure.

I don't need to show a motive -why- that is the case, all I need show IS.

This is how liers get caught, regardless of their motive. C'mon, you were if I recall correctly, in law-enforcement. You've probably heard the term "running down an alibi".

The more a suspect tries to invent an alibi, the more opportunities they give investigators to fact-check. ...and these suspects have been going non-stop for decades with reams of theologically spurious claims.

Motive is a notoriously difficult thing to prove. I'm forced to routinely point this out to people on GTV when replying to nonsense such as... "You think that..." or "Benedict XVI thought he could..." etc. Unless someone is quoting me where I'm conveying my thoughts on a subject or Benedict XVI where he's explaining his, nobody knows -for certain- what people -think- and, by extension, why they do what they do. Assumptions can be made, even likely ones, but not always proven.

"Can you give me a plausible motive for the children to invent the story of a visit by Our Lady and then stick with it knowing full well the wrath of the communist government..."

Perfect example of my last point. You don't know what the children knew or didn't know "full well". Children are, by virtue of their immaturity, not prone to taking into account the wider political context of their actions.

Children respond to attention and they've been getting saturated with that ever since. There's a historical parallel in the Salem witch trials. The only thing that finally put an end to that farce was the little "visionaries" finally started accusing people who had the political agency to say, "Enough is enough. This ends now." If I recall correctly, the last straw was an accusation of witchcraft made against the governor's wife.

Even negative attention holds this attraction for children. The proverbial "class clown" gets punished, punished again, but punishment itself is still attention.

So there. Even though I'm not required to provide a motive, you have one that's universally recognized in psychology and one with historical support involving another group of child-visionaries.

More importantly, "plausible: as determined by whom? Someone who is clearly biased in favor of these "visionaries"? Defense counsel doesn't get to put on the black robes of a judge as well and decide what is or isn't "plausible".

"that would and in fact did descend upon them and their families?"

Seems they're all alive, well, no firing squads, no gulags, doing handsomely from their seer racket. Yeah, no.

@frawley There are still good reasons why Holy Mother Church has officially declared after careful and considerate study of the Medjugorie phenomenon to be Non constat de supernaturalitate.

The text is still problematic in that membership denotes an adherence to doctrines. Thus does those members who have membership in the church of Satan have equality before God? How does God rule of sovereignty ordain and reign in the membership in the Satanic churches?

Moreover, "critics have noted, the messages include questionable doctrinal content, including the fact that 'OL' regularly prays the 'Our Father' with the seers - something OL refused to do at Fatima, because it includes the line 'forgive us our tresspasses'. As the Church teaches Mary is without sin and so she could not ask for forgiveness of sins." And, the so called seers have said that OL, "offered the Protestant remark: "I do not dispose of graces...Jesus prefers that you address your petitions directly to him, rather than through an intermediary." -ChurchMilitant.com May 16, 2017

Even more troubling was the so called visionaries spiritual director Fr. Tomislav Vlasic who was later defrocked, was admittedly during the time of the so called apparition involved in the New Age movement. His bishop suspended him for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of conscience, suspicious mysticism i.e spurious incantations, disobedience to legitimately issued orders, and sexual immorality.

I would advise all orthodox Catholics not to go anywhere near Medjugorie or waste their devotional time on it.

Non constat de supernaturalitate means not certain that it is supernatural. Constat de nonsupernaturalite means that is certain that it is not supernatural. Non constat de supernaturalitate is not by any means a condemnation. The Commission established by Pope Benedict in 2010 (17 members and chaired by Cardinal Camillo Ruini) Declared overwhelmingly that the apparitions in Medjugorje from June 24 until July 3 of 1981 to be Constat de Supernaturalite (certain to be supernatural) and the subsequent apparitions to be Non Constat de Supernaturalitate (not certain to be supernatural). Our Ladys message from day one has been prayer, penance, confession and Euchristic adoration. This message has not changed. The fruits cannot be denied. Millions have found the faith, returned to the faith, or been strengthened in their faith. Thousands of new vocations have been found. Per scripture can a bad tree bear good fruit? If satan is leading all of these people to conversion and love of the Euchrist then he needs to do more of it.
I find that most people who seem to be very critical of Medjugorje have never been there, never read Our Ladys messages and seem to focus on the human faults of the visionaries. They seem to have their own idea of how, where and to whom Our Lady should appear.

@frawley The Church for pastoral reasons have not denounced it but neither has the Vatican officially approved it as worthy of universal veneration for liturgy by the Holy See.

It does not have the status of Lourdes or Fatima. The Vatican investigations has been a mixed bag. They have recognized both positive but also negative effects or fruits. There are no bad fruits associated with any of the approved official apparitions worthy of veneration.

I have no interest in traveling there or making it part of my devotions. I would much, rather, focus on Fatima or OL of Guadalupe.

No bad fruits at Lourdes or Fatima? Clearly you have not visited either. I am a regular visitor to both Fatima and Lourdes and while I love the spirituality, the commercialism and the scammers outside the gates of the shrines are appalling. Of course the same can be said of the the area outside the Vatican. Not wanting to travel to Medjugorje or make it part of your devotion is clearly your right and your choice. Private revelations are not required belief for faithful Catholics. Denouncing an apparition especially with incorrect or incomplete information prior to the final decision of the Church on a worldwide forum is another matter. As I know you are aware, final church approval has often in the past has taken a very long time. The recently approved apparition in Champion WI took 140 years! Would you have publicly denounced Lourdes or Fatima prior to their final approval based on second hand information? Lots of spiritual responsibility for leading others astray.

"Would you have publicly denounced Lourdes or Fatima prior to their final approval based on second hand information?"

False comparison. Those at Lourdes or Fatima aren't tripping over their theological shoe-laces. The Fatima Kids also have something like this backing 'em.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Now if any of the three shepherd kids were named Spielberg or Lucas, you might be able to make a claim it was faked. :D

"The commercialism and the scammers outside the gates of the shrines are appalling. Of course the same can be said of the the area outside the Vatican."

...and even in this, you're seeing only what you want to see at Lourdes and Fatima and ignoring what you don't at Medjugorje.

Proving once again, the dangers of relying solely on the impressions of those who were THERE vs. mere "second hand information" from da internets. :P