Amsterdam: Tucho Reaffirms Negative Verdict

@English Catholic Tell me about your 'personal commission of enquiry' into the Medjugorje Apparitions.
What official status does it have?? There have been thousands & thousands (maybe even millions) of conversions back to God & the Catholic Faith occur in Medjugorje. Tens of millions of people have been there. Many miracles have occurred there. How many conversions have you been responsible for @English Catholic. Hundreds of thousands??? You refer to apparition fanatics....whereas to me you look to be apparition phobic....when apparitions and locutions are an extraordinary, wonderful and real way God communicates to us from Heaven...to a world that very much now needs His help. He gives us signs in the form of miracles, prophecies come true and fruits. If I get to the point where the signs God is giving, bring me to understand that He is actually communicating....I am listening!!!!!!! Repeating....God's way of communicating to our world is through apparitions and locutions. The Bible is full of apparition and locution stories. And He did not stop communicating to us this way after the Bible had been written!!!
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
20 Despise not prophecies. 21 But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
@English Catholic can you please explain in natural terms all the miracles associated with Medjugorje & Akita (weeping statue) or do you simply choose to remain ignorant of them in conducting your own 'personal commission of enquiry'.

Re Gamaliel's Advice re How to Deal with the Apostles....also applies on how to deal with Potentially Authentic Apparitions from Heaven: Acts 5: 38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; 39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.

@Tony M I have conducted no personal commissions of inquiries on any alleged apparitions, I do not have the authority to, unlike some on GTV who think they have the authority to approve apparitions. I freely admit I have no authority to approve or condemn - all I can do is state what the Church has stated to date, which is all I have done. Up until this year, this was the instruction from the Church in such instances: "Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgement of the diocesan Bishop, and in particular cases, to the judgement of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” That was published in 1996 in L'Osservatore Romano. New rules have now been introduced. They can be found here: Norms for proceeding in the Discernment of alleged Supernatural Phenomena (17 May 2024) P.S. I can assure you I am not 'apparition phobic'. I have been many times to fully approved Marian shrines, where Our Lady has appeared, throughout my life. And found the pilgrimages most helpful.
As for Medjugorje, in 1997 Bishop Peric wrote this letter to a M. Thierry Boutet, Protocol No 1267/97. Library : Letter to Thierry Boutet It contained this passage: "my conviction and position is not only non constat de supernaturalitate [the supernaturality is not proven] but also the other formula constat de non supernaturalitate [the non-supernaturality is proven] of the apparitions or revelations of Medjugorje. 5) Nevertheless I am open to a study that the Holy See would undertake, as the supreme court of the Catholic Church, to speak the supreme and definitive judgment on the case, and that as soon as possible, for the good of souls and for the honor of the Church and of Our Lady." So Bishop Peric handed the case over to Rome and the Ruini Commission took place. The results of the Ruini Commission have never been formally published, nor has a formal declaration been made under either the old or new rules.

@P. O'B You have obviously conducted your own little 'personal commission of enquiry' into the Amsterdam Apparitions. The Church Commissions of Enquiry into Apparitions (pre Jorge & Tucho) look at everything...everything....everything that relates to the given apparition being assessed. The Church normally takes many years....even decades...to reach a final conclusion before declaring one way or the other, in order to ensure that it has missed nothing.
Nitpicking a given statement of Our Lady as being bizarre does not amount to a fully comprehensive assessment of these apparitions. This Apparition was approved by Bishop Punt in consideration of so many prophecies coming true. How do you explain that @P.O.B. The Miraculous weeping statue of Our Lady's Statue in Akita, and the approval of the Akita Apparitions, was a confirmation from God that the messages given to Ida Peerdeman were worthy of belief. How do you explain the miracle of the weeping statue in Akita??? I am a qualified scientist....and I would like a detailed scientific explanation if you have one.
PS When St. John's visions, as described in the 'Book of Revelation were first read by others...I am sure many would have thought that the visions seemed slightly (or very) bizarre.....that did not make them inauthentic. When St Bernadette ate the grass, I am sure those present thought of it as being bizarre......"It was very little at first, and muddy as it mixed with the earth. Bernadette drank of it, washed her face with it, and swallowed a bit of grass or herb growing near. The crowd, accustomed as they were to what was ecstatic and heavenly in Bernadette’s action, were at a loss how to interpret her present movements. Some thought her mad.' The Story of St. Bernadette and Lourdes—Pt 2: The Spring of Miracles is Discovered - Cor Jesu Sacratissimum

@Tony M It seems you're being a bit selective by starting with Bishop Punt's decision. Way prior to that, Bishop Johannes Huibers, who was bishop of Haarlem while the alleged apparitions were taking place, gave his approval, but only to the title and the prayer associated with the alleged apparition. But then, "On 7 May 1956, Bishop Huibers, following on a careful examination of the case concerning the supposed apparitions and revelations of 'Our Lady of All Nations', declared that he 'found no evidence of the supernatural nature of the apparitions'. The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed his position on 13 March 1957 and again on 24 May 1972 and 25 May 1974. This news came out pre-Tucho: Local Bishop and Vatican Condemn Apparitions Of “O… Even despite Bishop Punt's decision - under Pope Benedict XVI - in a letter dated August 8, 2005, the secretary of the CDF acknowledged that "the said apparitions have received approval from His Excellency the Most Rev. Joseph Maria Punt,"but expressed the CDF's request that the prayer associated with the apparition be edited, replacing the words "who once was Mary" with "the Blessed Virgin Mary".

@English Catholic Dear English-Catholic, I am from the diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam and I know the whole story of the Lady of All Nations. I personally knew Ida Peerdeman very well and I know firsthand how the “investigations” went. Of course, I have no formal authority but I can tell you with certainty that that so-called “careful examination” was a farce. The committee of inquiry were convinced before the investigation even began that “this kind of devotion was no longer of our time.” The committee members were full proof modernists who believe that apparitions are something you cannot possibly take seriously. Their judgment was nothing but a confirmation of their own prejudice and disbelief. Any “proof” for their assertions they were never able to provide.
But we need not worry: Mary will triumph and everything will come to light. Also that She is Coredemptrix and that She really appeared in Amsterdam.

@petrus100452 Exactly. You have no authority - formal or informal. The hierarchy does. I think I've had dealings with you before - and it's always on alleged apparitions. I'd be very surprised if there were that many modernists in Amsterdam and in the CDF (Rome) in pre-Vatican II times - 1956/1957. What you are effectively saying is that the hierarchy at no time, and in no place, has the authority to judge on the credence of an alleged apparition, if you don't like the outcome. (Yes, I checked back and we did have disagreements about Luisa Piccaretta on one occasion and the Mission of Divine Mercy on another). Also, even though Bishop Punt approved Amsterdam for a while, before it was finally condemned, why did the CDF, under Pope Benedict XVI, find it necessary to change a prayer which Our Lady allegedly gave us at Amsterdam? Does Our Lady make mistakes when She gives us prayers?

@English Catholic No, Our Lady is not mistaken, but Rome is mistaken. In the Lady's messages, Mary returns once to a previous message and that concerned the prayer. The Lady said that this prayer should remain as She had given it. Rome would not listen, as she would not (and still does not) listen to so many appeals and warnings.
By the way, the phrase “who once was Mary” is not so difficult to understand. It is not a denial that the Lady is Mary, but rather an affirmation. It can be compared to “Christ, King of All Nations, who once was Jesus of Nazareth.” The same Person but in a new “capacity.” I even wrote a booklet about it that has been translated into English and is available from Queenship: ://www.queenship.org/product/the-lady-of-all-nations-3593.html
Incidentally, Rome herself now acknowledges, with the latest instructions on the assessment of apparitions, that she cannot make a judgment on authenticity. She now only wants to “approve (or disapprove) devotions based on ‘claimed’ apparitions.”
Good that they acknowledge their own impotence in this (unintentionally).

P.S.: Sorry, but I do have some informal authority: the authority of someone baptized with the Holy Spirit and ordained priest by the Holy Spirit. This authority, of course, depends on the faith and acceptance of others, but every Christian has God-given authority.

@petrus100452 But Rome, by its own new criteria, can still make a judgement of an alleged apparition being non-supernatural. Not that that would hold any sway with the apparition fanatics. It makes no difference that you knew Ida Peerdeman.
I also knew an internationally known alleged seer who lived locally to me, it means nothing. I would rather not name them, as I don't want to give them any publicity. A well attended and long standing rosary group was split up because some people wanted to introduce prayers allegedly given by Our Lady to this alleged seer. I sent some of these 'messages' to a reliable priest and he told me to have nothing to do with it.
I kept coming across this alleged seer (being local) - friends of mine got involved with them and gave them thousands of pounds. This seer now has a very healthy property portfolio. People kept leaving the movement, including my friends, and I asked to interview them if possible, with a view to giving the interviews to the local Ordinary. Some of the interviews were very harrowing and it was then that I realised that this person was possibly a sociopath of some kind. I submitted the verbatim interviews and left it at that. Much later, a commission was held and two separate Congregations in Rome were involved (one of them being the CDF). The whole thing was condemned by the local Ordinary and The Holy See (under Benedict XVI at the time). I was even taken aback myself at the strength of the condemnation and its finality. But, of course, this person still has their (international) brigade of followers who don't accept the condemnation of the local Ordinary or the Holy See. Ho hum. As I said before, there's little or no point in debating with apparition addicts - the only reason for doing so is that it might save others from being led astray.

@English Catholic Already in the Bible there were false prophets, and believe me, I also have experience with false prophets. But that is no reason not to take the prophets seriously. And to rely solely on the judgment of the church is a denial of your own responsibility and conscience. The church has been wrong so many times regarding supernatural phenomena and how could you trust the judgment of a man (Fernandes) who already has several blasphemous, pornographic books to his name?
It has nothing to do with “apparitions addiction” but simply with gratefully accepting what God wants to give us as light and hope through His prophets and His Mother in these dark times

@petrus100452 If you actually read my above comments, nearly all the information about Our Lady of All Nations pre-dates Vatican II, and even Francis and Tucho. I have good reason to distrust this current crop of alleged 'seers'. One says, 'do this', the other says 'do the opposite'. They make loads of money from their alleged visions. And why do you give near infallible status to such people, and yet denigrate the hierarchy? I am not a Tucho fan by any means, but please read the comments above and you will find that the majority of the statements are pre-Vatican II or at least pre-Francis and Tucho. As I said - there's little or no point in arguing with an apparition addict. And in your case, you have quite a bit of form - even on GTV - for supporting other dubious things.

@DrMaria Akita has had a chequered past where approval has been concerned - see below: but it has only ever received local approval, not that of the Holy See.

It appears we're getting conflicting statements about Akita from the hierarchy . . .

It was initially approved by the local Ordinary, Bishop John Ito in 1984: Akita. Ito, John Shojiro. Pastoral letter (1984-04-22) A concern that some have had is that the Akita statue is an exact carving of the ‘Our Lady of All Nations’ image, which alleged apparitions have now been definitively condemned by the Vatican, Local Bishop and Vatican Condemn Apparitions Of “O… after the local Ordinary gave the devotion some kind of quasi-approval.

Another case concerns Fr Teiji Yasuda’s book, Akita: The Tears and Message of Mary. When it was originally translated into English, and published in 1989, the apostolic nuncio in Japan, Bishop William Aquin Carew, asked that sales be suspended, because of the text on the back cover. This was taken from an article in the October 1988 edition of the Catholic magazine, 30 DAYS, which ultimately came from a story reported by an Asian news agency. This detailed a meeting between Cardinal Ratzinger and Bishop Ito in June 1988, at which the latter handed over a dossier on Akita.

The article in 30 DAYS contained the sentence: “Ratzinger, after studying the dossier, is reported to have judged the Virgin’s messages as creditable.” But in April 1990, Bishop Carew noted of Cardinal Ratzinger that: “His Eminence did not give any judgment on the reliability or credibility of the ‘messages of the Virgin.’ According to the transcription of the meeting, he simply affirmed that ‘there are no objections to the conclusions of the pastoral letter.’ ” The back cover of the book was thus changed following the nuncio’s statement. (30 DAYS Magazine, July-August 1990, “The Tears of Akita,” by Stefano M. Paci, pp. 42-43.)

Later on, the situation was further clarified. It appears that the Vatican has not approved of Akita, as the following statement from the Apostolic Nuncio in Tokyo, Ambrose de Paoli, issued in 1999, makes clear. In response to a query from the editor of a British Catholic magazine, the Apostolic Nuncio stated: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has asked me to respond to your query re: Akita. … The Holy See has never given any kind of approval to either the events or messages of Akita.” (Christian Order, December 1999, p. 610.)

As regards the wider Church, following the first commission, the Japanese bishops’ conference decided against Akita, and ordered that group pilgrimages to the shrine should cease, although they were prepared to allow individuals to visit the convent. Indeed, in 1990, the president of the conference, Peter Seiichi Shirayanagi, told 30 DAYS, in what were described as terms of “unusual harshness,” that, “The events of Akita are no longer to be taken seriously. We think they do not now have a great significance for the Church and Japanese society.” (30 DAYS Magazine, July -August 1990, “The Tears of Akita,” by Stefano M. Paci, p. 45).

So under the circumstances, given the conflicting information, it's very difficult to know what to make of Akita.

UPDATE

Just to add to the confusion, I've just found this from the current bishop of Niigata, which appears to be a continuation of Bishop Ito's approval, and a rebuttal of the decision of the Japanese Bishops' Conference:

Message from Bishop Paul Daisuke Narui

The “Seitai Hoshikai” (Institute of the Handmaids of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist) is located on a hill in the outskirts of Akita, where you find beautiful nature surrounding the convent. The beauty of nature created by God. The shrine designed in traditional Japanese style. The presence of the praying hospitable sisters. It is a space of prayer where we can leave our busy daily life and open our heart to the silent and holy surroundings. For us Christians, prayer is the foundation of our daily life, and it is the same for Christian communities. The sisters are always praying there. We can join in their prayer. It is a precious gift to have the Seitai Hoshikai, which is a community of prayer that offers a space for prayer, in the Niigata Diocese.
Since the statue of Mary miraculously shed tears, many people from both within and outside Japan have visited the Seitai Hoshikai as pilgrims. Those who saw the tears as well as those who come to visit the shrine and pray, follow the example of Holy Mary. They reflect on their lives in accordance with the example of Mary, deepen their faith, and are sent back to their daily life with renewed dedication. I hope many people will visit the Seitai Hoshikai to pray together. I also pray that there will be people who offer their life as sisters of the Seitai Hoshikai to continue this important mission for the Gospel.

Most. Rev. Paul Daisuke Narui
Bishop of the Diocese of Niigata

@English Catholic Thanks for this latest info on Akita! Also, not sure if you are familiar with the Franciscans of the Immaculate. I think there are still some Friars located in the UK? Fr. Elias Mary, FI, is in the USA. He has visited recently with Sr. Agnes. There are several videos on line where he discusses this. I don't have all those links. However, here is a link to the latest one that pops us. I have not had a chance to listen to this one. It looks to be good. Fr. Elias is a very sound and credible priest. youtube.com/watch?si=WeV8D1wEbRJCk3mC&v=_HtfQ63Hk3k&feature=yo

@DrMaria @English Catholic The English Catholic uses almost exclusively authority arguments to support his view. Except that authority arguments are the weakest arguments there are, I would like to point out how inadequate authority arguments are in the case of the Lady of All Nations. Suppose the DDF is right and the Lady's apparitions are false. That means that the messages are made up by Ida Peerdeman (it cannot be from the devil because the DDF says there is no supernatural origin). I knew Ida Peerdeman very well. She was a very simple woman without much education, as was common for most women in her time. If she made up the messages, it would be a greater miracle than if Mary had really appeared to her. The messages about the fifth Marian dogma (Ida herself did not even understand the full meaning of a dogma; “that is something for the Church” she always said when asked about it) are of such theological beauty and correctness that it is impossible that a simple woman like Ida could have made them up. Added to this are the apocalyptic visions that the Lady showed to Ida and which came true over the years. How could Ida have made that up?
In short, in my conviction - and the conviction of many believers who know the Lady - these apparitions and messages cannot but be of supernatural origin. Nor does the DDF provide any substantive argument as to why this should not be the case.
But again: everything will come to light so this “condemnation” of Rome does nothing for me. It just shows what ideology the DDF adheres to.

P.S.: I agree that fr. Elias is a very sound and credible priest with a wise judgment.

A little bit more information about @petrus100452 a.k.a. Fr Peter Klos: unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/AmsterdamEngels.htm Please read to the end of the article in the above link. "Despite this affirmation of Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Peter Klos sss, who is extremely interested in mystical things, starts to publish a bulletin in the Dutch language, 'Queen of the Prophets', in which he deals, besides 'Amsterdam', with countless so-called mystical phenomena, taking their authenticity for granted, also in cases where the Church reserved judgement or where the Church issued a warning. Even Ida Peerdeman disapproved this, especially when he tried to propagate 'Medjugorje' in the chapel in Amsterdam . . . . In 1998 Father Klos unexpectedly ceased his actions and prayer groups (a.o. Vassula) and moved to the USA to join a community, which started a new religious movement. He would have been asked to be the first superior of the order's community. However, already a year later he was back again in the Netherlands. (Because of other obstinate behaviour, Cardinal Simonis, Archbishop of Utrecht, suspended Father Klos in August 2001 a divinis, because of incorrigible and longstanding disobedience. This heavy punishment only the Cardinal can lift. Father Klos, ignoring the warning, threatened to carry on his work as usual, risking excommunication." (NB Cardinal Simonis retired in 2007 and died in 2020). And you're all applauding disobedient priests like this on GTV? Get a grip. If you want the truth about Fr Peter Klos, write to Cardinal Simonis' successor: Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk,
Official Web Site: Home - Aartsbisdom
Mailing Address: Aartsbisdom, Maliebaan 38-40, 3581 EA Utrecht; P.B. 14019, 3508 SB Utrech, Nederland
Telephone: (030)236.15.70
Fax: 231.19.62

@English Catholic, there are 3 pronouncements of the church, 1 consistent with supernatural 2 not proven to be of supernatural origin 3 proven to be not of supernatural origin. It would seem like no proof of having supernatural origin declaration that you posted falls into cat 2 and so not condemned. Unless you have translated the latin declaration wring. My second observation is that you see Anita only received local bishop authority, local Bishop has full authority to decide as he has the gift of the Holy sprirt guiding him. It does not require holy see approval.

@StGMaj red You're a bit out of date. Since 2024, those three pronouncements have been superceded. There are now six. The Vatican document is here: Norms for proceeding in the Discernment of alleged Supernatural Phenomena (17 May 2024) Also, I didn't say that an apparition needed Holy See approval (before these new norms). If you read my comment to DrMaria above, about Akita, I stated: "But in April 1990, Bishop Carew noted of Cardinal Ratzinger that: “His Eminence did not give any judgment on the reliability or credibility of the ‘messages of the Virgin.’ According to the transcription of the meeting, he simply affirmed that ‘there are no objections to the conclusions of the pastoral letter." (meaning Bishop John Ito's 1984 pastoral letter).

English Catholic - I apologize for not reading all of the sources you refer to, but I must reiterate my earlier comment, that blind adherence (not your words, I know) to pronouncements from the Vatican seems out of place these days. Even in better times Rome has made mistakes. Didn't I read not long ago that the Vatican authorities said only some of the Medjugorje (hoax) messages were not supernatural, but other Medjugorje (hoax) messages might be authentic? By the way, I do recommend prudence in these matters.