Bishop Hnilica's Family of Mary Placed Under Commissioner
Roman Auxiliary Bishop Daniele Libanori SJ has been appointed Commissioner of the Family of Mary, founded in 1968 by Slovakian Bishop Pavol Hnilica (+2006) and recognised by the Holy See in 2004. The …More
Roman Auxiliary Bishop Daniele Libanori SJ has been appointed Commissioner of the Family of Mary, founded in 1968 by Slovakian Bishop Pavol Hnilica (+2006) and recognised by the Holy See in 2004.
The reason for this is unknown. Adista.it (December 16) reports that the Austrian co-founder and long-time superior Father Paul Maria Sigl, 73, was suspended as superior.
The community consists of more than 60 priests, 30 seminarians and 200 sisters. It is promoting the false apparitions of Amsterdam.
The group is well connected. One member, Monsignor Ľubomír Welnitz, became Francis' master of ceremonies in 2020, another, Father Martin Barta, is spiritual assistant to Aid to the Church in Need.
Sigl's mentor in the 1970s was Father Joseph Seidnitzer (+1993) of Graz diocese, a serial abuser of teenage boys over 18 whom Austrian courts sent to prison twice in the 1960s. The anti-Catholic bishop of Graz, Johann Weber, removed Seidnitzer from priestly ministry in the 1980s for disobedience.
Libanori …More
The reason for this is unknown. Adista.it (December 16) reports that the Austrian co-founder and long-time superior Father Paul Maria Sigl, 73, was suspended as superior.
The community consists of more than 60 priests, 30 seminarians and 200 sisters. It is promoting the false apparitions of Amsterdam.
The group is well connected. One member, Monsignor Ľubomír Welnitz, became Francis' master of ceremonies in 2020, another, Father Martin Barta, is spiritual assistant to Aid to the Church in Need.
Sigl's mentor in the 1970s was Father Joseph Seidnitzer (+1993) of Graz diocese, a serial abuser of teenage boys over 18 whom Austrian courts sent to prison twice in the 1960s. The anti-Catholic bishop of Graz, Johann Weber, removed Seidnitzer from priestly ministry in the 1980s for disobedience.
Libanori …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Bishop Hnilica died in 2006. He seems to have been the episcopal guarantor for Paul Maria Sigl after the dissolution of the "Work of the Holy Spirit". This organization had been co-founded in 1972 by two friends - Paul Maria Sigl and Father Joseph Seidnitzer - after the latter had been tried and imprisoned several times for sexual abuse of adolescents over 18. Until 1990, Sigl remained Seidnitzer's …More
Bishop Hnilica died in 2006. He seems to have been the episcopal guarantor for Paul Maria Sigl after the dissolution of the "Work of the Holy Spirit". This organization had been co-founded in 1972 by two friends - Paul Maria Sigl and Father Joseph Seidnitzer - after the latter had been tried and imprisoned several times for sexual abuse of adolescents over 18. Until 1990, Sigl remained Seidnitzer's right-hand man, benefiting from his "revelations."
After its dissolution, "The Work of the Holy Spirit" rose from its ashes, with the support of Bishop Hnilica, to finally become in 2008 the "Work of Jesus the Sovereign Priest - Family of Mary", founded and, until recently, presided over by Father Paul Maria Sigl. Sigl was ordained a priest by Bishop Hnilica in 1992, without having attended seminary.
The suspension of Father Sigl would not be related to the theological disobedience of his community, but would concerned, at least, much more serious acts of mind control. He is not only suspended from his duties as superior, but he is also forbidden to have any contact with the members of the community. Bishop Daniele Libanori s.j. would have been appointed commissioner to manage the crisis and to try to bring the members back to their senses. The argument of persecution is brandished by some members of the community, as it is often the case in such situations, especially since Sigl had managed to make his followers believe that he was a spiritual son of the renowned Saint Padre Pio.
Sources:
Commissariata la "Famiglia di Maria": Derive settarie o teologia controversa?
Gebhard Paul Maria Sigl – Wikipedia
Pro Deo et fratribus – Familie Mariens – Wikipedia
Joseph Seidnitzer – Wikipedia
Mit Maria im Untergrund
Weihbischof Elegantis Mentor war ein Unzuchts-Priester
After its dissolution, "The Work of the Holy Spirit" rose from its ashes, with the support of Bishop Hnilica, to finally become in 2008 the "Work of Jesus the Sovereign Priest - Family of Mary", founded and, until recently, presided over by Father Paul Maria Sigl. Sigl was ordained a priest by Bishop Hnilica in 1992, without having attended seminary.
The suspension of Father Sigl would not be related to the theological disobedience of his community, but would concerned, at least, much more serious acts of mind control. He is not only suspended from his duties as superior, but he is also forbidden to have any contact with the members of the community. Bishop Daniele Libanori s.j. would have been appointed commissioner to manage the crisis and to try to bring the members back to their senses. The argument of persecution is brandished by some members of the community, as it is often the case in such situations, especially since Sigl had managed to make his followers believe that he was a spiritual son of the renowned Saint Padre Pio.
Sources:
Commissariata la "Famiglia di Maria": Derive settarie o teologia controversa?
Gebhard Paul Maria Sigl – Wikipedia
Pro Deo et fratribus – Familie Mariens – Wikipedia
Joseph Seidnitzer – Wikipedia
Mit Maria im Untergrund
Weihbischof Elegantis Mentor war ein Unzuchts-Priester
Salvatore Bastatti
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Sounds like there's no difference between the Family of Mary folks and those running the Vatican.
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
It's fair if this group was promoting something which has been condemned by the Vatican (apparitions of Our Lady of All Nations). Also having pedophiles as past superiors isn't a great track record. But, except for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and a few other solid groups, mostly all "Orders" founded since Vatican II are corrupt in one way or another, either financial, or sexual abuses.
petrus100452
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Sorry, but you make a grave mistake. The apparitions of the Lady of All Nations have never been condemned by the Vatican (and even if they were, what does that say in our present church?). These apparitions are undoubtedly true and even the very reason why this Family of Mary is so persecuted. It is the battle of the Dragon against the Lady (and we know who will win).
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
This Gloria.tv post itself said "It is promoting the false apparitions of Amsterdam." If you click on the blue link, it brings up "Our Lady of All Nations". " Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reaffirmed the validity of Paul VI's 25 May 1974 negative judgment on the supernaturality of the alleged "apparitions and revelations" to Ms. Ida Peerdeman.
This judgment implies that everybody …More
This Gloria.tv post itself said "It is promoting the false apparitions of Amsterdam." If you click on the blue link, it brings up "Our Lady of All Nations". " Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reaffirmed the validity of Paul VI's 25 May 1974 negative judgment on the supernaturality of the alleged "apparitions and revelations" to Ms. Ida Peerdeman.
This judgment implies that everybody is urged to cease propagating alleged apparitions and revelations which regard to Our Lady of All Nations."
If the apparitions speak of traditional Catholicism, the True Mass, etc. and the punishments for heretics etc., like other apparations did, I would believe in the apparitions, not the VAtican. But since the condemnation goes back almost 50 years ago (1974), then I'd say there's something to the Vatican's reasoning. UNLESS, the apparitions speak of True Catholicism and true devotion to the Virgin Mary, etc, which even back in 1974 the VAtican downplayed. If the VAtican would condemn the apparitions only because it does not fit the "Vatican II" model, then I would believe the apparitions, and NOT the Vatican.
This judgment implies that everybody is urged to cease propagating alleged apparitions and revelations which regard to Our Lady of All Nations."
If the apparitions speak of traditional Catholicism, the True Mass, etc. and the punishments for heretics etc., like other apparations did, I would believe in the apparitions, not the VAtican. But since the condemnation goes back almost 50 years ago (1974), then I'd say there's something to the Vatican's reasoning. UNLESS, the apparitions speak of True Catholicism and true devotion to the Virgin Mary, etc, which even back in 1974 the VAtican downplayed. If the VAtican would condemn the apparitions only because it does not fit the "Vatican II" model, then I would believe the apparitions, and NOT the Vatican.
petrus100452
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
There is no apparition that speaks more of True Catholicism than The Lady of All Nations: the main message is that Mary is Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate. That is the full "catholic" truth about Mary, who is, on her turn, the perfect image of the Church.
When Gloria.tv post speaks about a false apparition, she is gravely mistaken.
When Gloria.tv post speaks about a false apparition, she is gravely mistaken.
petrus100452
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@justme You are right. I live in Amsterdam and know Father Paul Sigl and the Family of Mary very well. I regularly visit the chapel where many of the apparitions took place and for which the Family of Mary has care. There is nothing at all wrong with this community and certainly nothing wrong with the messages of Our Lady. I also knew Ida Peerdeman - the visionary - well and she was indeed a very …More
@justme You are right. I live in Amsterdam and know Father Paul Sigl and the Family of Mary very well. I regularly visit the chapel where many of the apparitions took place and for which the Family of Mary has care. There is nothing at all wrong with this community and certainly nothing wrong with the messages of Our Lady. I also knew Ida Peerdeman - the visionary - well and she was indeed a very ordinary woman who herself hardly understood the deep theological meaning of the dogma (Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate). This dogma is called for and announced by the Lady as the final part of the teaching on Mary. The Lady prophesied that her apocalyptic messages, given in the years 1946 - 1956, would come true "with the years." We can now witness daily all that the Lady foretold. The dogma will surely also come when the Holy Spirit will lead the Church to full Truth.
We may use our own common sense , given by God.
Although we have to be obedient to the magisterium with regard to the deposit of the faith, this doesnt mean a serviel obedience to everything.
An apparition doesnt belong to the deposit of the faith, unless... something is being said that goes against the faith.
That would be heretical, but in Amsterdam that wasnt the case . Neither the first bishop …More
We may use our own common sense , given by God.
Although we have to be obedient to the magisterium with regard to the deposit of the faith, this doesnt mean a serviel obedience to everything.
An apparition doesnt belong to the deposit of the faith, unless... something is being said that goes against the faith.
That would be heretical, but in Amsterdam that wasnt the case . Neither the first bishop (Huibers) who investigated the apparition, and came to a "non constat", nor, later the CDF (DDF now) made such an allegations.
The fifth dogma which is being asked but is not an heresy ( although not everybody think it is right) , but JP II talked about it and other popes implicitly and explicitly ( Pius XI) .
Also in the supplementary documents of VAT II it is mentioned (not in the official documents promulgated ) but you can find it in the "acts of the council" ; they say: "coredemptrix is verissima" ( absolutely true), and give a lot of reverences .
So in 1974 the CDF comfirmed the position of bishop of Haarlem-Amsterdam. But they didnt investigate it themselves , they just read the file.
Paul VI approved of the publication of that decision , he didnt investigate it himself , he didnt issue a papel decree , nor a moto proprio. He just signed o.k. for official publication (in osservatore romana). Somehow the CDF of today construes it as some papel decree , but it wasnt that, ( then that decree would have been published and signed by the pope) but it was a very short publication of the CDF ( the notification ) .
Since the devotion kept spreading nevertheless, the CDF in 1980 decided to refer the matter back to the bishop of Amsterdam to look in to the matter again.
Finally in 1996 the bishop of Amsterdam was in Rome . spoke with Cardinal Ratziger , (em.-pope Benedikt † )and the conclusion was: lets approve the devotion . ( Always first the devotion is approved , then after some years, possibly, the total approval, this according the the : norms for apparitions).
In 2002 the bishop of Amsterdam approved the apparition fully, for which he thought he had the right , according to the "norms" .
Rome didnt object and they certainly knew.
Now, in 2021, the CDF decided that the "notification" of 1974 is stil valid.
(it has to be noted that is was probably only one or 2 persons within the CDF who decided this , not the whole of Rome)
But... the did somehow still allow the devotion !? as long as it is not alleged that Rome approved the apparition ( the only approve the devotion).
...But the notification - by which they abide- does in fact NOT allow the devotion ....
So it is one ambigious , unclear "decision" they made , a sort of bureaucratic act, which leaves everything open , decides nothing , explaines nothing. and doesnt take into account what Card. Ratziger , former prefect of the CDF has said ,unfortunately that seems not to be in their dossiers.
Although we have to be obedient to the magisterium with regard to the deposit of the faith, this doesnt mean a serviel obedience to everything.
An apparition doesnt belong to the deposit of the faith, unless... something is being said that goes against the faith.
That would be heretical, but in Amsterdam that wasnt the case . Neither the first bishop (Huibers) who investigated the apparition, and came to a "non constat", nor, later the CDF (DDF now) made such an allegations.
The fifth dogma which is being asked but is not an heresy ( although not everybody think it is right) , but JP II talked about it and other popes implicitly and explicitly ( Pius XI) .
Also in the supplementary documents of VAT II it is mentioned (not in the official documents promulgated ) but you can find it in the "acts of the council" ; they say: "coredemptrix is verissima" ( absolutely true), and give a lot of reverences .
So in 1974 the CDF comfirmed the position of bishop of Haarlem-Amsterdam. But they didnt investigate it themselves , they just read the file.
Paul VI approved of the publication of that decision , he didnt investigate it himself , he didnt issue a papel decree , nor a moto proprio. He just signed o.k. for official publication (in osservatore romana). Somehow the CDF of today construes it as some papel decree , but it wasnt that, ( then that decree would have been published and signed by the pope) but it was a very short publication of the CDF ( the notification ) .
Since the devotion kept spreading nevertheless, the CDF in 1980 decided to refer the matter back to the bishop of Amsterdam to look in to the matter again.
Finally in 1996 the bishop of Amsterdam was in Rome . spoke with Cardinal Ratziger , (em.-pope Benedikt † )and the conclusion was: lets approve the devotion . ( Always first the devotion is approved , then after some years, possibly, the total approval, this according the the : norms for apparitions).
In 2002 the bishop of Amsterdam approved the apparition fully, for which he thought he had the right , according to the "norms" .
Rome didnt object and they certainly knew.
Now, in 2021, the CDF decided that the "notification" of 1974 is stil valid.
(it has to be noted that is was probably only one or 2 persons within the CDF who decided this , not the whole of Rome)
But... the did somehow still allow the devotion !? as long as it is not alleged that Rome approved the apparition ( the only approve the devotion).
...But the notification - by which they abide- does in fact NOT allow the devotion ....
So it is one ambigious , unclear "decision" they made , a sort of bureaucratic act, which leaves everything open , decides nothing , explaines nothing. and doesnt take into account what Card. Ratziger , former prefect of the CDF has said ,unfortunately that seems not to be in their dossiers.